Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 6

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

It's just not Cricket!

Under the sport section, cricket is mentioned by name but not elaborated on like all the other sports - it surely ranks as more nationally important than motor racing, for example. A few lines should be inserted about cricket. Saccerzd 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps; though bear in mind that it is highly popular in England but maybe less so elsewhere. --Robdurbar 20:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's just as popular in Wales, as England, that's nearly 90% of the population. There is a paragraph on Gaelic football and hurling, only popular in N. Ireland. Cricket is also the national summer sport, is it not? Marky-Son 20:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Motto of the United Kingdom

Doesn't the UK's motto "Dieu et mon droit" translate from French as "God is my right" and not "God and my right" as currently stated? Considering the motto is technically the Monarch's, this would make more sense as it underlines the traditional Royalist belief that the Monarch is appointed by God. --RingoStarr 11:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No. It is 'God and my right'. 'et' is 'and' est is 'is'. Badgerpatrol 12:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
My bad, but here's another query for you. According to Dr. Trueman Dicken, the motto is constructed from medieval French (which makes sense considering the time-frame we're working with). In medieval French "Droit" means "duty". "Dieu et mon Droit" he said means "God and my Duty."[1]
Well, he's certainly in the minority. I'm not a native French speaker, but I have a feeling that the word for 'duty' (as in customs duty, 'duty free' etc.) is also 'droit', as a homonym. The meaning is separate from 'duty' as in a moral obligation, but a more expert linguist may be able to enlighten us. Badgerpatrol 14:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What should the UK be referred to as?

There is an active discussion here on whether or not the United Kingdom should be referred to as a country, state, etc. in the introduction.

The United Kingdom is a nation state. Enzedbrit 04:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion has now been archived. To contribute to this debate further, please read the archives and contribute on this talk page. --Robdurbar 20:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think one word is really of any huge importance, but since I didn't know about the discussion and nobody opposed the use of the word "country" for the UK there, here's my take on it. "Country" has a lot of different meanings (the OED lists about 14 I think, some obsolete). Country in the context of this article could be (a) synonomus with "state", in which case it is redundant as the UK is described as a state anyway, or (b) used to suggest that the UK is something more than a state, indicating a common culture or suchlike. Usage (b) is POV. It's true that the unionist POV is much the majority one, but that doesn't make it NPOV. If you want to include "country" you could make it NPOV by saying something like "widely considered to be a country", which is a verifiable fact.Rhion 17:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Excellently put. It needs to be made explicit that the application of the word "country" to the United Kingdom is a political statement, and although that political sentiment (probably) has wide support, it remains just that: a sentiment, ie. a Point Of View, among other points of view. The way the article is currently worded the opinion that the UK is "a country" is being presented as The Truth, when in fact it is only A Truth. The same goes for calling the UK a "unitary state": de jure that is correct, but de facto it is merely an aspiration of (probably) a majority of the citizens: eg could Westminster actually unilaterally abolish the Scottish Parliament? - the weight of consensus on that one would appear to be No. In summary: just being the biggest boy in the class does not make you always right: minority views must also be impartially presented in an encyclopaedia, then the reader can make their own mind up. --Mais oui! 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Almost everything is a political statement. And the 'being in the majority doesn't make it right' argument is used by flat-earth supporters everywhere. DJ Clayworth 19:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:POV states the following
Wikipedia should describe all major points of view
where a key word is major. The majority both on and off Wikipedia is that the UK is a country. There was a clear consensus on the debate (link at the top of this section) and the list of references here shows it is the view of most UK and non-UK sources; most importantly it is the view of the ones that matter most - it self-defines as a country.
If it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, the majority POV is that it is a duck. If the duck then proceeds to self-define as a duck, and most other reference material agrees with this, to all intents and purposes it is a fact that it is a duck.
It is a question of due weight - the pure statist viewpoint should be mentioned in articles on nationalism within the United Kingdom, in an impartial manner - but as far as the introduction to a main article goes it is a country. Introductions are not the place for discussions of minority viewpoints, articles/subsections on the viewpoints are. Aquilina 18:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of the Scottish Parliament, here's another one for User:Robdurbar's list - [2] Aquilina 18:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
That it self-defines as a "country" doesn't prove it is one. North Korea self-defines as a democracy. Rhion 19:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
...which is precisely why I added the qualifier and most other reference material agrees with this. Self-definition is a necessary condition, and I added the sufficient condition afterwards as well. This shows why both conditions are needed: you haven't got a welter of reliable sources saying that North Korea is a democracy. But as regards the UK, the majority is both inside and outside the country, which is why there is little to no question of validity. Aquilina 20:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Please go and have a look at the references mentioned above. Not only does the UK describe itself as a country, but a huge number of other countries, international organisations, major news and reference works describe the UK as a country. Plus exactly who is it that says the UK is not a country? I've seen no references to back that up. DJ Clayworth 19:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
As for above, we should delete the Latin term from the definition. --Doktor Who 22:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Is the UK a country??? Are you seriously doubting that? This section wasn't started on 1 April was it? DJ Clayworth has got it right. And User:Mais oui!, to answer your question, "eg could Westminster actually unilaterally abolish the Scottish Parliament?", yes, it could!! Unbelievable. Mark83 22:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Name Change

The article states that the UK 'changed to the current name in 1929 in recognition' of Ireland's secession; the template says 1927 - which is it? --Robdurbar 09:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

1927, with the passing of the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. Fixed.
James F. (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The UK is a constitutional monarchy simple as that 81.107.193.131 11:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

National sport

"The national sport of the UK is association football". Is it really? Yes it's the most popular sport, but that doesn't make it the national sport. Every reference I've found to back it up has turned out to be a Wikipedia clone. DJ Clayworth 17:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Moaning is the national sport/wangi 17:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Like most things in the UK, nothing is officially anything - the national sport is not stated anywhere of any official importance. Therefore, the de facto national sports have been simply chosen in terms of their relevance to the country - football, cricket, rugby, tennis etc. DJR (Talk) 18:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this has come up before and it was thought that as football is described almost solely as the national sport it was worth while; could be cut out as an assertion, however. --Robdurbar 23:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Check the last archive, this was discussed there. It was agreed football was the de facto national sport, as with many things in the UK. For example English is the de facto national language.

Well Football is now the defacto national sport but i remember hearing years ago that snooker was but this may of been based on how many people where watching the matches.Corustar 20:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

References

Made a start. Someone help fill in the others. Skinnyweed 14:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I've done the first few paragraphs... the sooner we can do this, the sooner we can maybe start to head towards fa status. --Robdurbar 09:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Templates

I consider that the fantastic UK ties template removes the need for others at the bottom of the page. If EU were to be added, it would leave the gate open for all the rest to be reinserted too. Rednaxela 11:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do we have a UK ties template? It's never going to be used anywhere else, is it? If it was coded directly into the UK article then this confusion and duplication wouldn't arise because the reference would be there for all to see. Mucky Duck 13:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in it either... --Robdurbar 12:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why I said it was fantastic. It just gets silly if the page has multiple templates at the bottom. An anonymous user keeps adding the EU template and I keep removing it. That's all. Rednaxela 21:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So what your saying is we should remove the ties and add the EU one? --Robdurbar 21:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No, stop getting me backwards. I'm the one defending the UK ties template, which I think is a fantastic idea. I am saying that it would be to the article's detriment if we had seven different templates at the bottom of the page instead of one! Rednaxela 23:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. I don't think its a big thing, keep the ties template then. --Robdurbar 07:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

About that comment in the front of the article telling people not to change. Please stop this. Skinnyweed 22:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The music part listing prominent bands has also started getting bigger and bigger. And we have people trying to insert their favourite football teams. Skinnyweed 22:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there was an edit war - it got removed once and re-added didnt it? I'm reverting the current intro back to the version as agreed upon in the months of extensive discussion. As for the note - that's why its there and it has been for months. --Robdurbar 07:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to keep getting added and removed. The person removing it says something like 'remove statement unilaterally introduced without consensus)'. Skinnyweed 16:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That statement was unilaterally introduced a couple of months ago, by User:Robdurbar I seem to recall, with zero discussion, let alone consensus. It is totally useless anyway, because the Introduction now bears very little resemblance to the Introduction that existed then.

Additionally, why is "constituent countries" being piped to the odd, unprecedented term "constituent entities" which is totally unsourced and breaches WP:OR - you cannot just invent new terms just because you do not like the proper one. This piping of standard terminology is POV.

Could someone point to a discussion where consensus was reached on calling the UK a "country", because last time I read this Talk page (a couple of months ago) no such consensus had been reached. The UK is a state; but whether or not it is a "country" is a matter of opinion. --Mais oui! 17:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus to leave the word out. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Which word? --Mais oui! 17:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You need to go Talk:United Kingdom/Country, Kingdom or State for the updated discussion. In that discussion there was certainly not a consensus that the UK is not a country. DJ Clayworth 17:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorting through your double negative, what you are really saying is that there is no consensus to call the UK a "country". Therefore that word should not be used to describe the state. --Mais oui! 17:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There is barely a consensus at all. And certainly not one not to call the UK a country. Read the discussion. DJ Clayworth 17:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha! That "discussion" is merely the tip of the iceberg! This discussion has been going on on this article for a very long time, and that very new subpage is most certainly not representative of the many preceding discussions. In fact I have a very good mind to nominate that subpage for deletion, as it is clearly an attempt to "ghettoise" this debate and remove it from general view. All discussion should take place here on the Talk page. "Country" has been opposed as a definition by many Users not present at that subpage.--Mais oui! 17:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A consensus existed to avoid any definition. That was applied here, all edit warring until the country-pushers reignited it trying to force the word in again. As in the past, as it is factually correct all those users who disagree with it will simply keep deleting it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And so they should. There have been some shenanigans going on here. We should merge that subpage back into the main Talk space, here. Certain people are trying desperately to conceal the clear opposition to the use of the word "country". --Mais oui! 17:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that some people are opposed to something does not mean we shouldn't do it. Some people are opposed to many things in Wikipedia. Some people are opposed to Wikipedia itself. I'm not going to insist on referring to it as a country simply as a concession to those who cannot accept that both usage and definition make it so. DJ Clayworth 18:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The introduction should be reworked- it is a complete mess, and is poorly structured. Astrotrain 18:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
World record: for once I wholeheartedly agree with you! In fact I would go further and say that this whole article is sub-standard, but so much work needs to be done, one hardly knows where to begin. But I definitely think that it is thoroughly unhelpful to put authoritarian instructions at the very top of any article saying, in effect "HANDS OFF". It is redundany anyway: nothing should be introduced anyway if it is unsourced and lacking consensus. --Mais oui! 18:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Instead of wrangling over it like children, why not state one and then write a note explaining the conflict. Skinnyweed 19:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Then please go to the talk page and discuss the intro. No one's saying that it can't be improved and, indeed, I felt that it could be (I actually still prefer the version from about a month ago). The talk has not been hidden, is embolded at the top of this page and is clear to all - comments such as 'ongoing' and country/state/nation. I know its on a subpage; I don't know who started that convetion but since it was the current discussion has followed it. A number of editors have contributed to the current version; that's not to say its perfect and agian, if you're unhappy, go there and maybe we'll have a new consensus.

As for the comment before the intro... I don't recall who added it. It has indeed been there for months - this version chosen at random from Februrary includes it. I would have thought that something that has been in the article for months without complaint would be regarded as consensus.

Further research (which Mais Oui! was apparently apparently unwilling to do reveals that it first appeared here on 20 February 2006, by User:Djr xi. So apolgies for defending an item that had been on the article and accepted without complaint for well over two months.

User:Skinnyweed - whilst I couldn't agree more than this is a petty debate, and I couldn't give a toss what term is used, I and other users had hoped that by attempting to build a consensus version that was considred 'gold', we could avoid the cosntant reversions that had plagued the page for months. The last version (proposed by myself) lasted about 1 1/2 months till it was reject. The current version can be seen on the subpage and was proposed by User:E Plubirus Anthony about a week ago. I'd rather spend a week discussing this so it can be sorted once and for all --Robdurbar 19:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's take this back to the subpage where we can all look at the past discussions. DJ Clayworth 19:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Oh and about your accusations of 'shenanigans' and recently created subpages - here is a copy of this talk page from August 2005 With a country/kingdom/state subpage. I do not know when exactly it was introduced. I agree that this might as well go back to that subpage (unless we were to make that an archive and have future debates here?) --Robdurbar 19:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to make sure that nobody is accused of anything behind anyone's back, the debate about calling the UK a country is re-opened here. Feel free to come and express your opinion. DJ Clayworth 13:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

And now it's closed again. In the total absence of anyone who could come up with any convincing argument against it, the consensus is that it is perfectly OK to call the United Kingdom a country. Of course you can also refer to it as a 'sovereign state', 'political union', 'constitutional monarchy' or any of the other things that it also is, but country is certainly allowed. DJ Clayworth 20:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cite

I was woundering if I should use Template:Cite web or the format used in the article?Rex the first talk | contribs 21:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Any, but just make sure it's consistent. Skinnyweed 21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth changing back the refs I did using Template:Cite web as changing the refs to that format would take some time Rex the first talk | contribs 23:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wales

I do not believe that Wales is a constituent country unlike Scotland and England. I believe that Wales is in this category a principality and should be listed as such on here, as Northern Ireland should be a province. Enzedbrit 04:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Being a principality doesn't stop it being a country. All that says is that the governor is a prince in the same way that the governor of a kingdom is a king or of a duchy a duke. Naomhain 13:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Though constituent parts is sometimes used [3] - due to the fact that calling those two a country is problematic - constituent countries does remain a little more prevelant. It's a 'you say pOtato, I say potARto' type thing. If it stops arguments, whack in constituent parts; but I'm not gonna argue for it either. --Robdurbar 07:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Naomhains reasoning but agree that it is NOT a constituent country. What is now the UK is made up from what was once many tribal kingdoms. Many of these kingdoms were set loosely by what are now the county borders. If we are going to name every single part of the UK which was once self governing it is going to make this article very very messy because we'll basically be naming each county as a constituent country. Are we to start refering to London as the Country of the Icenee/ Kingdom of Mercia? - of course not, it hasn't been for 2000 years. To refer to Wales as a country of the Gaelic is pointless to. Scotland is a little different because for the most part of history it has been sepratist to England, however I do not feel with Wales that has been the case. Although Wales has for some periods of history been sepratist - it has never been during the UK (which lets not forget is what this article is about - not a history of the british isles but a history of the United Kingdom). Not calling it a country is NOT a derogatorry term to make the welsh or wales seem like less of place or inferior to Scotland or the rest of England. However it is done to keep this article neat and tidy and to avoid causing unessessary confussion and for encylopedic correctness. I support the removal of wales being reffered to as a constituent country.

We could just say 'is comprised of England, Wales and Scotland' and remove the constituent countries bit? --Robdurbar 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the above is a collection of fallacious arguments. Saying Scotland is different because Wales was never separate durig the "UK" is a non starter as Scotland in 1801 had been part of the kingdom of Great Britain since 1707. They are both consituent nations with defined political borders which makes them countries (unlike nations merely in the sense of a group of people such as the various Aborigine nations). Smaller kingdoms such as Mercia, Wessex, Dyfed etc. have cease to be countries, but Wales has been and still is today recognised as a country. There may be some polticital truth in that, for years, Wales was defined as being integral to the "Kingdom of England" but even then, the distinction between the two countries was maintained. Dainamo 12:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Would someone like to champion this as a good article? Apart from the many unsourced statements, I think it might make it Skinnyweed 21:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know - at current rate (if we all keep it up) this may be fully cited within a few weeks - how about going for it then? --Robdurbar 22:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Cities

This section needs a bit of work. A list of significant cities is a good inclusion, but the 1 million population marker is not a good metric. There are very few (3 or 4?) cities in the UK with > 1 million inhabitants anyway, but the exact definition of what is a 'metropolitan area' is also troublesome. I'm not too sure what would be a good objective criterion though, to be fair. Badgerpatrol 14:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal with this "city" list? There's a sub-article mentioned - just leave that and cut the crap. This article needs to be shortened, not lengthened. DJR (Talk) 21:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any harm in it. I have trimmed a couple of other lists due to length though; other bits that could be trimmed include sport and miscellaneous data (the latter of which could be scrapped altogehter, perhaps?) --Robdurbar 06:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

i think this is pretty ambiguous in the UK's case as there are many towns bigger than cities. Its a status symbol, the great majority of the UK's populus resides in metropolitan areas so its going to be hard to differentiate. The concept of the 'city' and the 'countryside' is an ever diminishing one in the UK where density is second in Europe only to Holland.

Country

Since the discussion here has resulted in no opinions against, I am going to make the change and call the UK a country. If you are here because you object to that, please add your comments to the this page. DJ Clayworth 17:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

II'd avoid changing it, read the archive and read the old talk pages for it. This is an extensive argument/near revert battle thats been happening since this article was made. Generally its been accepted that its a State but I couldn't care less either way. I only suggest leaving it as changing it is likely to generate some serious flak.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.151.178 (talk • contribs).

The point is that nobody who thought the UK should not be called a country showed up to debate the matter, despite my leaving several personal messages for people. Nobody gave any reason why country was wrong. We can't make arbitrary restrictions because 'somebody might object for some reason we don't know about'. Plus several people indicated that country was preferable to state, which in UK English has authoritatarian overtones. DJ Clayworth 20:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Symbols

From the article "The Union Flag is rarely flown in the UK itself, and is officially flown from public buildings only on specified flag days."

I don't think this is entirely true/accurate. Although I live in Scotland so generally I've only seen the Saltire flown on public buildings (at least within living memory). As far as I remember the Scottish Parliament permanently flies the Union Flag along with the Saltire. Is the situation different in England and Wales? And this is without even mentioning Northern Ireland. :P GiollaUidir 22:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's very rarely flown compared to other countries, as in it would be very unusual to see a flag flown from a home or garden or business - however this is not uncommon in other countries (e.g. USA). /wangi 16:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it is rarely flown compared to the USA. This is because the USA is unusual in this regard (possibly Canada comes close). Flag use in the UK is at least as frequent as other European countries and the Middle East. DJ Clayworth 17:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If you are thinking about flags in general, just look at the St. George's Cross' around England at the moment... DJR (Talk) 20:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Djr_xi, and besides - this is really a matter of opinion. Unless your going to go out and market research how many flags you see in both nations in stratafied locations with enough data to be reliable i'd recommend ceasing this pointless line of debate.

Best in the world

Just by chance (following a 'new' user's edits) I came across with this statements from this article: " Many other nations regard the British Armed Forces as being the best in the world.".

Where should I start. First, "best" is a really wide concenpt, it shouldn't be used in such way. Second, there are no sources or references to it. And finally, it looks like a childish biased phrase. Perhaps it only needs to be rephrased (and sourced), but the article would probably better of wihtout it. Mariano(t/c) 07:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Even as a strong believer in the high quality of the British armed forces, there is no way this phrase belongs in a neutral encyclopedia. We can probably source it if we really try, but it's best to just get rid of it. DJ Clayworth 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to kindly ask you to do it yourself. Given the fact that I'm Argentine, some people might take the edit as an offence (don't laugh, I've seen it happen). Mariano(t/c) 13:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I totally understand. There's usually someone who will take offence on most Wikipedia edits. Actually the phrase has already been removed, so it isn't a problem. DJ Clayworth 13:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I support a rephrasing to the following. "The British Army has an extensive history and is widely condsidered to be one of the most highly trained professional armies in the modern world". That is the same statement without bias. An army isn't good in the sameway as food cannot be good. It is a matter of opinion, equally where one army performs very well it may not do so on other levels. For example the US army is very effective at gaining ground but less experienced at policing it. In the same way the British army is slower in gaining ground but has a fairly good record of extensive peacekeeping and policing roles.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.151.178 (talk • contribs).

Thanks everyone. Mariano(t/c) 08:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

American Forces "kick arses and take names" while British forces offer there oppenents cups of tea and a biscuit after they defeat them.Corustar 20:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

British soldiers probably know how to spell 'their'. DJ Clayworth 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

ive never been able to spell "their,there" plus it doesnt really matter, when what i had put was more of a laugh then anything informative.Corustar 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Establishment

1801 seems a rather random date to me, i dont think its is possible to put and establishment date on the UK, the whole subject is far too debatable. obvioulsy for nations like the USA there is a clear date but even just on a political basis it is far too hard in the UK? any thoughts? Oh and i just read the bit about the "union jack" being incorrect, its offical name may be the union flag but saying that the word commonly accepted throughout the world is a little strong 81.107.193.131 11:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a random date, it's the year in which the 1800 Act of Union took effect, creating the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Prior to that date there was no United Kingdom, so it's fairly unambiguous as the date of establishment of the UK. --Ryano 11:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
There's a valid debate about whether the UK was established in 1707 or 1801 (and there are a few people that argue that it's 1921 or 1927), but none is 'random'. Bastin 12:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it was the Kingdom of Great Britain that was established in 1707, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was established in 1801. -- Arwel (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not quite as clear cut as that. Bastin is quite right, there is a valid debate. Mucky Duck 08:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry i was a bit ambigious with the random comment. I did not mean the the 1801 act was not legaly significant but if we accept the the UK is a consistutional monarchy then we could trace it back to the magna carta. My point is that, taking the UK as a politcal entity is a mistake a singular date of establishment is an inappropriate tool in this case. The UK has evolved in a political contex and as a state in itself. We could also go back to Kings who defined it as having parts of France and more recent changes such as the exact status of Ireland. 82.14.67.7 12:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should simply have both the 1707 and 1801 dates. Dmn € Դմն 11:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is simple.

  • The term united kingdom (lowercased), in an almost "wishful thinking" sense, was first used AFAIK by James VI/I in 1607. (Though come to think of it, it may be October 1604 that the very first usage occurred.) There is simply was a description of the hopes for the kingdom, not a name.
  • In 1707 it also was used in a similar manner as the united kingdom of Great Britain (note the capitals). the uk isn't a title, just a description, namely that it was a united kingdom. Or maybe, to write it a different way, the "united Kingdom of Great Britain". "Kingdom of Great Britain" was the name, with "united" merely describing the political ideals behind it, i.e., it was a permanent uniting of the kingdoms of England and Scotland.
  • In 1801 the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland merged. Its new name was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (Note the capitals). The words ceased to be putting a spin on the ideals and became the name of a new state. So while one can talk of a united kingdom being mentioned as far back as the seventeenth century, the United Kingdom was actually created on 1 January 1801 when the Act of Union came into force and the two former kingdoms, the Kingdoms of Great Britain and of Ireland were replaced by the new state. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

'Comprehensive' (minor point)

An editor added (quite validily) that the UK is one of five countries with a 'comprehensive nuclear weapons aresenal'. I changed it to 7 to include India/Pakistan; another user reverted on the grounds that their aresenal is not 'comprehensive'. I am not an expert in this area but the List of countries with nuclear weapons states that India has 75-115, and China 130. It seems a bit odd to me that 130 might be considered 'comprehensive' and 115 not. I propose changing 'one of 5 to have a comprehensive' to 'one of 7 to have a confirmed'; this removes the potentially loaded word of 'comprehensive'. --Robdurbar 22:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent change. DJ Clayworth 14:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Better map of the British Empire?

Would it be possible to move the map of the British Empire to a more significant situation? It seems that it should be displayed more prominently. After all, this is the greatest empire in world history. (That's not POV. It's fact. So, I don't want to hear any silliness about the statement I just made, okay?)--Sir Edgar 06:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

'Greatest' is usually considered a value judgement. Do you mean largest? DJ Clayworth 13:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree the word "greatest" does contain a value judgement, but it is undeniable that the British Empire was the greatest empire in human history. It was the largest and most influential, spanning the globe and affecting virtually everyone on the face of this planet (even today). Normally, I would say greatest is POV, but there can be exceptions made when it is so widely accepted a fact.--Sir Edgar 00:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
'The sky is blue' is an undeniable fact. 'The British Empire was the greatest in history'- is not. I presume you mean 'greatest' as in 'largest'- not everyone is going to see this immediately and the use of this kind of language can only lead to problems. I have altered the wording to a less ambiguous version. Badgerpatrol 02:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The sky is blue? I thought it was grey... -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Not today! Badgerpatrol 13:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sir Edgar, sweeping assertions like that take a lot of nerve from someone who added a POV tag to Italian national football team. DJ Clayworth 14:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That article is POV and is definitely a polish job by Panairjjde. Italian football is not so good lately. English football is better. Fact.--Sir Edgar 00:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Using largest as in big, is fine, but most people today could take it to mean "best", which is totally POV. And the sky is a light blue today, with hints of white.  theKeith  Talk to me  14:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the you are both forgetting that the word is one of those which has multiple meanings. Often greatest (particularly in the past) does simply mean "biggest", "largest", "most important" etc. but it also (particularly more recently) has started to be applied to mean "best", (or the even more recent) "coolest", etc.
e.g.: World War I is often called the "Great War", I don't think many people consider it to be the "best" or "coolest" war, but at the time it was the "biggest" and "most important" war ever. In the context of the Great War, the British empire could be called the "greatest in history" as it was definatly the biggest and internationally/intercontinentally, probably the most important in history but obviously calling it (or any other empire) the "best" would be pure POV. Canderra 14:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
It is precisely because of that semantic ambiguity that the use of such terms should be avoided where possible. But I do note from the above that Sir Ed (who made that particular edit) and perhaps also yourself, have an idea of the meaning of the term 'greatest' as encompassing other characteristics (i.e. influence etc.) that transcend simple geographic size. That is POV, many would argue that it isn't true, and one ought to tryto avoid these kind of value judgements to maintain NPOV. Badgerpatrol 15:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You go to India and tell the people there that the British Empire which massacared thousands of their citizens was the 'greatest' ever. I appreciate you don't mean 'best' but its far too easy to confuse the meanings. As for influence etc.... does the modern American Empire not have far more than the British Empire ever did? --Robdurbar 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying "best", but instead most "powerful, expansive, and influential". It is similar to saying "largest", which the British Empire was, but a little more.--Sir Edgar 00:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Largest I will grant. Most powerful and influential- extremely debatable, in relative terms. If one counts 20th-century systems like the Third Reich, and obviously the present-day US and Cold War Soviet Union (all of which could legitimately be called 'empires' in my book) then that argument flies completely out the window. In terms of influence- I would strongly suggest that Rome at least had a greater influence on the world than the British Empire, and one might make a good argument for others also. If you mean 'greatest' as a geographical descriptor, then I can agree but recommend substituting a less ambiguous word. If you mean 'greatest' as encompassing anything more than that, then you are making an obvious value judgement and it is blatantly not NPOV. Badgerpatrol 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine.--Sir Edgar 04:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So, does anyone have a better map then? /wangi 21:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that 'better' as in 'larger'? ;-) DJ Clayworth 16:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
What's the "American Empire"? Skinnyweed 16:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
For the map; I think the answer appears to be no. For the American Empire; see the wikilnk! --Robdurbar 23:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The American Empire is the inheritor and caretaker of the British Empire.--Sir Edgar 00:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
lol. Houston, We have a problem...Please Please Please tell me you're kidding... Badgerpatrol 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I was only half-kidding. :) If you look at it from the viewpoint of civilizations, Britain is simply passin gthe torch to America. US-UK foreign policy, international goals and objectives, and value systems are virtually identical. :P--Sir Edgar 04:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I think many might argue that is because we are now part of their empire and have lost the ability to construct our own foreign policy. Historically speaking however, I'm not sure that I really see a flawless continuum between the FP of the BE at its height and current American foreign policy objectives, but I agree that there are some general similarities. I'm glad you were joking btw! Badgerpatrol 06:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
How about Image:British Empire Anachronous 4a.PNG which has a lot of detail --Astrokey44 00:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
That one's very nice, but I don't think it should include French Indochina and places that were temporarily occupied. What we're really looking for is a map of the Empire at its height.--Sir Edgar 00:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Norman French

Do we have a citation for Norman French being used for official business? DJ Clayworth 13:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Norman-French is not used. Anglo-Norman is. Google any one of dozens of phrases used in Parliament, and you'll find many sources (for a few such phrases, see the article on the Anglo-Norman language). However, Black Rod saying, "La reine, il veult" does not constituent enough 'official business' to justify reference in the infobox. Bastin 23:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
That's what I thought. DJ Clayworth 13:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bulldog

"The bulldog is sometimes used as a symbol of the UK, although it is more commonly a symbol of England alone"

Really? I don't think I've ever heard or seen it used for England alone. It's a somewhat out of date symbol but for the whole of the UK (the British Bulldog), surely, and certainly more common in that usage than for England? Mucky Duck 08:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. One could argue that it normally applies to Britain rather than the whole of the UK, but not just England. I will change the article. -- Chris Q 10:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Rugby Union

Whilst historically Rugby Union was considered only really played in the north of Ireland this assessment must, in todays context, be considered wide of the mark. The main bulk of the current Irish national rugby union side is comprised of players from the Munster and Leinster provinces i.e southern Ireland. (Anonymous, 21:22, June 9, 2006)

And? This article is the United Kingdom - where does Irish Rugby fit into that?!? /wangi 17:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The Irish rugby team draws its players from the whole island of Ireland. Would seem relevant to mention that it crosses national borders or whatever... *shrug*GiollaUidir 17:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Voted best country

I removed: "The UK and the Former U.S.S.R have recently been voted best 2 countries on the globe, with the U.K coming 1st and U.S.S.R 2nd.". Without a source this doesn't belong in the article. We would need to know who did the voting before we could even consider it's significance. DJ Clayworth 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done

Congratulations to all the editors so far for producing a concise, interesting summary of an enormously broad topic. --P3d0 15:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Random Question

Why do Britian and the United States have roads that work opposite each other?Cameron Nedland 18:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried asking this at Wikipedia:Reference desk? DJ Clayworth 18:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Random Answer: forty minutes later. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, sorry.Cameron Nedland 14:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll save you the time. In very little detail, back in the day people would walk past each other on roads on the right hand side of each other. It was because their right arm was their sword arm and should the other try to rob them they could respond quickly. This meant they were 'driving on the left' effectivley by having their stronger sword arm (the right) facing into the roaf) However when Napolean came about he was left handed and so all of france walked on the left hand side of the road. It appears the United States adopted it due to its distaste for all things British and (at that time) its abundant francophilia. It stuck and now I believe some 75% of the world drives on the right whilst the remaining 25% (mostly former British empire nations) drive on the left. Hope that helps. --WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much.Cameron Nedland 02:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Music

The music section mention to much credible music. It's all rock and indie. Although people might not like it music has other sides and the likes of Take That, Spice Girls, Girls Aload, Robbie William, etc have had major success in recent years. Jimmmmmmmmm 00:06 30 June 2006

Oh yes, and the 1980s? Everybody forgot that wonderful decade?--Doktor Who 22:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done

Well done on the article. =) Does anyone think of adding something new? (IIIV 14:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC))

Any ideas? I think at the moment its quite a healthy sized article, nice and colourful as well as concise. I suppose a section could be added under transport to explain the driving on the left but I rather feel thats not that important as to warrant being on the nations main page. --WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sport

People really need to learn that sport is a culture activity, and doesn't deserve it's own section. It is always the structure of a Wikipedia article when your talking about cities or countries. Jackp 11:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

People really need to learn that "People really need to learn" could be interpreted as an incivil phrase in a community. The JPStalk to me 11:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
We could also mention "when you're talking about cities". I don't think we need to make this a hard and fast rule. Whatever gets us good sized sections. DJ Clayworth 16:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Constituent Countries

Someone seems to think that the UK has only three constituent countries and change the article. In fact it has four, and here are some references where official bodies state this clearly. Feel free to add more references if you find them. (there are a lot of clones of old Wikipedia versions that make reference to three constituent countries though)

DJ Clayworth 17:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, it has two countries, a Principality, and a Province, each four of which are nations. But that would be my being accurate, and we can't have that. :-)
James F. (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any references to back up this 'accurate' assertion, or are you just going to go with the sarcasm? DJ Clayworth 19:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


"Northern Ireland" is simply part of Ireland, regardless of what convenient revisionist drivel is emitted by British jingoists. If the British partitioned Ireland into twenty pieces in 1920 it wouldn't mean there were twenty countries thereafter. There are two states in the country of Ireland, regardless of how hard this is for the aforementioned British to accept. Ironically, the British were quite happy to treat Ireland as one country for many, many centuries while they were ruling the entire country. It was only when the Irish were allowed to vote and decided to end the imperialist régime that the British came out with this "two nations" nonsense. How very colonial of them. Your quest for legitimacy is rejected, Britannia. Also, Northern Ireland is not a province but merely part of the province of Ulster, a fact which manages to escape almost the entire population of Britain who are convinced that the British are lovely democrats who would never overthrow democracy in Ireland and Ulster as they did by partitioning both on 23rd December 1920 against the wishes of the majority populations of both. But continue deluding yourselves with your fantasies about civilising natives and being upstanding democrats helping everybody from Crossmaglen to Kuala Lumpur. 193.1.172.138 01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is undoubtedly part of the Island of Ireland, but is part of the UK and not the Republic. Could the Island of Ireland be called a country in spite of the two states? I would say not, interesting concept though. When partition was first conceived, the entire province of Ulster was orignally to remain under the crown, however the high Catholic presence in three counties meant that these remained under Dublin's control. However you may describe Northern Ireland; country, province or "colonial two nations nonsense," it is the major part of the traditional province of Ulster. Rednaxela 23:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sport

There was no mention in the football section of its origins. While football is often claimed as being invented in China I focussed on the origins of Association Football rules, which started in the UK, in Cambridge. The UK has a rich sporting history, discussion of which would certainly not be complete without (albeit brief) mention given to rowing and the continuous international success the UK enjoys. I entered a small paragraph for this purpose. Although the media are woefully guilty of under-reporting our successes on the water it would be fitting to see more contributed on this sport. Adam. London. 15/7/06

Sorry but I removed this section. It belongs in the article on football, where there is already a history section - Football_(soccer)#History_and_development. Gsd2000 11:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Good point. You were quick off the mark - I only put that section in an hour or so ago! Adam. London. 15/07/06


ETHNIC MINORITIES - Need Information.

O.K., so the last census (2001) stated that Britain was 92.1% `White' and in 2004 it seems to have a 12.8 % ethnic minority (approximation)(now 87.2% white). Bare in mind that these statistics are based on people's own self-perception in identity. In Britain, most British I have met consider `White' to mean native British or Northern European origin or appearance and may consider a darker Southern European as a `Mediterranean' or `Latin'. Chinese are a separate category from `Asian' and there is no category for Middle Easterners, some of whom may tick that they are `White' if they are fair skinned. What would the approximate `White' Native British population be and are other Europeans generally included in that category? Can anyone give information?

Does it matter? People are people.--Shtove 01:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Europeans are normally included in the 'Other White' category, many middle-eastern people often put themselves in the 'Other Other' category. In England, approx 95.68% of White people (86.99% of the total population) are White British (90.92% of the total population are White). In Wales, approx 98.07% of White people (95.99% of the total population) are White British (97.88% of the total population are White). I don't have the tables for the other parts of the UK to hand, source: census table ks06. The 92.1% figure you quote includes non-British. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Britain in Ireland

I received this message on my talk page. It's somewhat more appropriate that it should be here, I think. I assume it refers to my removal of the assertion that the word Britain is an "incorrect" shortening of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Mucky Duck 10:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How did you come to the conclusion that Britain extends into Ireland when the British state itself invented a new state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/Northern Ireland specifically to acknowledge this difference? El Gringo 16:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Something of a wild extrapolation of what I said. The word Britain when referring to the country is simply an abbreviation of the full name (much like America for the USA, for example) and says nothing about the geography at all. It is certainly no more incorrect than "United Kingom" which could, for example refer to the Netherlands in the 19th Century or ancient Israel. What's more, the island to which you refer is Great Britain, not just Britain.
Some citations for you:
  • Mirriam Webster See the second defintion
  • OED: "Britain: More fully (esp. as a political term) Great Britain. As a geographical and political term: (the main island and smaller offshore islands making up) England, Scotland, and Wales, sometimes with the Isle of Man. Also (as a political term) the United Kingdom, Britain and its dependencies, (formerly) the British Empire."
Mucky Duck 10:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
If the user suggests that 'Britain' is an incorrect short form of the United Kingdom oGB&NI then it is also an incorrect short form of Great Britain, and should be indicated as such? I think generally the term Britain is used to define a Political, rather than geographic, entity.   theKeith  Talk!  10:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC


Good Article

It is well-written, informative, appropriately illustrated with licensed images, well-referenced and interesting. I'm saying this is a Good Article. Well done to all the contributors :) EuroSong talk 08:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Foundation date etc.

Someone has, over the last week, changed the article to claim foundation at the original act of union between Scotland and England/Wales in 1707. It now says that it was founded in 1707, becomign the UK of GB and Ireland in 1801. I'm not an expert in this area so I'm not sure what's correct. Indeed, this was discussed briefly furhter up the page However, I suggest we:

  • a) sort this out once and for all, as it gets habitually edited every few months or so
  • b) leave some note or footnote explaining the foundation date

--Robdurbar 20:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The foundation date is 1801 and no other date. The Kingdom of Great Britain, a different kingdom, was formed in 1707. The words united kingdom (lowercased, meaning descriptive, a united kingdom, not perspective, i.e., a name) first were used in 1607 by James VI/I and reused in 1707 in the Act of Union. But both uses were descriptive in talking about a united kingdom, not the United Kingdom. This name only came into being on 1 January 1801 when the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland merged following the 1800 Act of Union.

The distinction today is reflected in the use of lower casing for descriptive and upper casing for perspective references (even in upper case-phobic Wikipedia. Modern casing is different to that in the eighteenth century. The distinction that we now reflect in casing was then not done so that way, as most words were uppercased (or rather, as it would have been written then, Most Words were UpperCased). Instead textual context indicated meaning. The person making the mistake however is not alone. Buckingham Palace themselves had the wrong date listed. (The got it even worse, claiming the launch date was 1603. (Even in its descriptive format, that term did not exist then.) BP admits its website is wrong and keep promising to fix it. Some day they will. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUnited_Kingdom_Archive_6_0576.html"