Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

per Missing Information template

I came here trying to find an overview (and maybe a mainarticle link) for the flora and fauna of the U.K., which seems to be completely missing. I don't think that's GA-class work, and it should be included. The plants and animals of the nation are at least as important as climate and geography. VanTucky talk 03:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been a week now, and no one has responded to this, so I will.
I don't agree with the claim that the lack of flora and fauna coverage makes this less than GA work. I base that on the fact that of articles in Category:Geography and places good articles relating to countries, states, or provinces, more do not have much or any discussion of flora and fauna.
It may be this information should be included. Scotland has this information, but, as far as I can see, England and Wales do not. If flora and fauna are going to be included, perhaps they should be added to the constituent countries' articles and summarized here with "see also" or "main article" links to the relevant sections.
The other option is to ignore the suggestion and remove the template from the article. Does anyone have an opinion. -Rrius (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any harm in a F&F article for the UK, or even a breif (emphasis) section here (or on Geography of the United Kingdom. Of course it would have to be verifiable and MOS compliant, but I for one have no knowledge on the topic in hand. Is there a flora and fauna related Wikiproject we could approach for advice perhaps? -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
As I state above Rrius, it's my thought that not even once mentioning the plants and animals that inhabit the UK is a grave mistake. I'm very surprised their isn't an article on this topic already. GA doesn't have to be as long as FA, but it still has to cover all the basic topics in some fashion. As this article stands, kids might think it's palm trees and polar bears. Even if you make individual England and Wales articles, you still need a paragraph with main article links to summarize. VanTucky talk 03:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure you read what I wrote. I never took a position on whether the lack of flora and fauna info is a mistake. I challenged your assertion that GA needs flora and fauna after I checked other Category:Geography and places good articles and found that many, if not most, roughly similar articles either barely mentioned the topic or do not mention it at all. You did not say "it was a grave mistake" or "surprising"; you said it made the article less than GA. That may be your opinion, but it does not seem to be the opinion of people assessing these articles. As I said, I took no position on whether it was a mistake ("grave" or otherwise) not to have a section on flora and fauna. I did propose alternatives for how to deal with the issue. If you had more carefully read what I wrote, you would have seen that coupled with my suggestion of handling flora and fauna in the England and Wales articles was a suggestion that those sections be summarized here and links provided back to those sections. Please take the time to read the suggestion next time before criticizing it. -Rrius (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I've reviewed dozens of GA candidates and I know the criteria backwards and forwards. Articles listed as GA aren't the barometer of what is GA, the criteria is. Articles often deteriorate with time, or may not have been reviewed properly to begin with. Besides, it is relative. For a city, state or province flora and fauna isn't a vital subject. For a country like the UK it most definitely is. I wouldn't pass the Russia or Canada article without some mention of their flora and fauna, so I don't think this article should be called GA if it doesn't mention it substantially. All talk aside, if no one adds a section then I'll be filing a reassessment for the article. VanTucky talk 05:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I only included state/constituent-country/province level because there were flora-fauna references there, and I did not include cities or regions or the like. Down to business:
(1) This is a serious question and not a dig: is the flora-fauna thing specifically included in the criteria, or is just your opinion that flora and fauna are as among the basic topics that any country article should address?
(2) Is it your position that all the country articles without flora-fauna that are currently listed as GA must have previously had flora-fauna included even if they do not now (including this one)?
(3) Will you be placing the flora-fauna template on the other GA country articles that do not currently have flora-fauna sections and request reassessment for those that do not comply?
(4) If the issue is, as seems clear from your previous comments, so important to you, why don't you add a brief guide to the flora and fauna of the UK?
-Rrius (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) (1) No, the criteria does not get that specific. It is my interpretation. (2) There are no absolutes, what I care about right now is this article. I came here looking for some very basic info, and it was missing. But to answer the question: I don't know. Most reviewers focus on improving what is in articles rather than thinking about what's missing, so it's a distinct possibility that it could be either way. My best guess would be that most GA country articles had or have some mention (if not a section) on flora and fauna. (3) Again, I care about this article. This isn't part of a sweep of all GAs, and doing so after or while I deal with article seems a little pointy to me. (4) Because I don't have source material, I'm working on other things, and I don't know anything about it. It's a problem for me because I came here to learn about it, and it wasn't available. I don't have the time or inclination to add a section right now, but preserving the sanctity of GA is always important to me, thus the mention of delisting. VanTucky talk 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

don't think it's very relevant to include as the uk is a political entity, not a geographical one. the fauna of northern ireland is different to that of great britain (no snakes in NI for example). the right place would be the Great Britain and Ireland articles. currently the ireland article covers f and f, the great britain one doesn't--Mongreilf (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I now understand that this flora and fauna thing arises solely from your individual belief that a discussion of flora and fauna is so basic as to be necessary for a country article to have a GA rating. Based upon the state of other GA country articles, I am confident that this is not a widely held view. I am also confident that if this article were to fail a reassessment, it would not be the result of a consensus that it lacks flora and fauna treatment.
If a significant amount of time passes with no consensus to the contrary or meaningful action taken, I will remove the missing info template from the article. It is not clear that the information requested is necessary or even relevant.
Having said all that, it is not my intention to discuss this further (aside from defending or explaining myself) until more people have spoken up because the discussion is only useful if more people get involved. -Rrius (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Resolved.

Propose "Countries within a country" from the Official Website of the British Prime Minister. Correct-o-pedia (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend taking a look at Wikipedia's guide on External links. I'm concerned that that page doesn't quite meet the guide on what should be included. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Financial Treatment of UK Senior Citizens

My wife and I are deeply concerned with regards to the treatment we are getting with the current government pension allowances. Over the last four or five years our annual increases have not covered for the annual increases in our everyday living costs and we are suprised that as a group nothing has been said. We are in our early seventies and have three daughters now in their middle forties. We were brought up from very poor back grounds and have worked hard through our life my wife finished work to bring up the children and I enjoyed a very hard working life both in the UK and abroad. Our three daughters have grown up and become very professional in their jobs for which we are very proud. We have all worked very hard in life and not sponged the authorities for dole or any other allowances. I feel that because we have done everything right and unfortunately was unable to save for a very large personal pension we do struggle to make ends meet and it is gradually getting worse. We see the television and read the daily papers where all these criminals , elegal imigrants and the unemployed who are getting much more money than we will ever get , please tell us if this is fair and why can there be nothing done about it to improve our lives? We are very suprised that Senior Citizens party can not have a greater say in improving life for people like ourselves. We would be interested in your thoughts and look forward to a response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.37.99 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok....To the unsigned comment on pensions: Wikipedia is not some kind of Q&A site, nor do we actually have those answers. We're not some political entity that can be relied on as a source for political information. Signed by Scryer_360, who doesn't sign in out of spite for the sign in loading times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.162.191 (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Your question about pensions could be posted at Wikipedia:Reference desk but the above poster is correct that this might not be best place to get information along these lines. Benjiboi 11:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I completely sympathise with your situation, and that of all those like you. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is probably not the best medium to use to get answers, support or help, as the website is an encyclopaedia whose main purpose is to provide information. Perhaps I can suggest that you visit another website, such as http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ for petitions or http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/discuss/index.cfm for similar discussions. 86.146.142.35 (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page clean-up please

The talk page is way too long and any old or non-needed discussions should be archived. This benefits editors who want to find out what the current open discussions are as well as users who may have slower internet connections. Please consider tagging items with {{resolved}} for closed discussions and {{stale}} for topics which are no longer of interest to the current editors. All items tagged can then be added into the archives; please start a new archive page if needed as those too should not be terribly lengthy. Benjiboi 09:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Benjiboi 11:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


Flora and fauna

With its mild climate and varied soils, the United Kingdom has a diverse pattern of natural vegetation. Originally, oak forests probably covered the lowland, except for the fens and marsh areas, while pine forests and patches of moorland covered the higher or sandy ground. Over the centuries, much of the forest area, especially on the lowlands, was cleared for cultivation. Today only about 9% of the total surface is wooded. Fairly extensive forests remain in east and north Scotland and in southeast England. Oak, elm, ash, and beech are the most common trees in England. Pine and birch are most common in Scotland. Almost all the lowland outside the industrial centers is farmland, with a varied seminatural vegetation of grasses and flowering plants. Wild vegetation consists of the natural flora of woods, fens and marshes, cliffs, chalk downs, and mountain slopes, the most widespread being the heather, grasses, gorse, and bracken of the moorlands.

The fauna is similar to that of northwestern continental Europe, although there are fewer species. Some of the larger mammals—wolf, bear, boar, and reindeer—are extinct, but red and roe deer are protected for sport. Common smaller mammals are foxes, hares, hedgehogs, rabbits, weasels, stoats, shrews, rats, and mice; otters are found in many rivers, and seals frequently appear along the coast. There are few reptiles and amphibians. Roughly 230 species of birds reside in the United Kingdom, and another 200 are migratory. Most numerous are the chaffinch, blackbird, sparrow, and starling. The number of large birds is declining, however, except for game birds—pheasant, partridge, and red grouse—which are protected. With the reclamation of the marshlands, waterfowl are moving to the many bird sanctuaries. The rivers and lakes abound in salmon, trout, perch, pike, roach, dace, and grayling. There are more than 21,000 species of insects.

As an outside observer I'd like to interject that this is a great start to its own article and since the rest of the United Kingdom article is well developed you might best be served by developing Flora and fauna of United Kingdom or similar complete with references. Then other editors can assist in developing that article as well as coming up with a concise summary for this article. Benjiboi 01:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I am mostly interested in knowing new things. I think that a sub-topic about the flora and fauna of the United Kingdom should be included in the topic, and if the topic is very diverse, then it should be listed as a separate article. However, the main article should still contain a brief description about the flora and fauna. Thanks. (Raheil 18:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mullahraheil (talk • contribs)

France has outranked the UK as world's 5TH economy

According to the FINANCIAL TIME, the size of the British economy has slipped below that of France for the first time since 1999 thanks to the slide in the value of the pound.

The US, Japan, Germany, China and France all had larger economies than the UK in the third quarter of 2007 – and in 2006.

The figures represented a “political economic cataclysm” for Britain, said Martin Weale, the director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, who noted that the UK government often boasted of Britain’s being the fourth largest economy, and then the fifth largest when China overtook the UK in 2005.

The UK’s demotion to sixth place will put pressure on the government’s reputation for economic competence, particularly as it is Britain’s ancient rival, France, that is moving ahead.

Mr Weale said that, although the change in rank had no immediate effect on British living standards and the UK still had slightly higher gross domestic product per head, the falling exchange rate would crimp income growth compared with overall growth in economic output.

In 2006, the GDP of France was €1,792bn (£1,353bn) compared with £1,304bn for the UK. With sterling worth €1.47 on average in 2006, this put the UK economy comfortably 6.7 per cent ahead of the French economy.

But with sterling’s more than 10 per cent fall against the euro in the past six months to €1.32 to the pound, the UK’s economy in 2008 is now 4 per cent smaller than France.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/abe2ffc4-c08b-11dc-b0b7-0000779fd2ac.html

THANKS TO WIKIPEDIA TO UPDATE ITS DATA !!!

Frederick CARLES-FONT (carlesfjf@yahoo.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.66.9.250 (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2008

I've restored this section as I believe it was added in good faith, though I could be wrong. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The relative standing of the UK and French economies have interchanged quite a bit in recent years. Probably will continue to do so. All to do with exchange rates doesn't mean a great deal. nethertheless it is factually correct so merci Mr "CARLES-FONT". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.38.64.125 (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

the UK rank's slip to #6 is available in French in the reliable French newspaper Figaro here. it quotes the Financial Times. Cliché Online (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use capital letters, we're all capable of reading normal text. That the UK has slipped to sixth place is documented in a very credible source, so I've changed the article to reflect that. As the change took place already in novembre, it's about time to do so. JdeJ (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

novembre eh? Sarah777 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Commenting on every typo and language mistake on Wikipedia? Nice hobby. JdeJ (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Face-grin.svg Sarah777 (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I have to remember how to make that :) Well, you know how it is. The world would be a much happier place if everybody would keep to speaking French and Irish ;) JdeJ (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why in Gods name did you have to make it seem like an insult to people of UK? (80.42.133.29 (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Economy of the United Kingdom

I don't believe that the United Kingdom's economy has slipped behind France's for any more than while the Pound is currently at a low, which will probably last all of weeks or a month or so. The UK has consistently had a higher GDP growth rate than France over the past several years so it's rather foolish to jump on one particular article published which says the UK's economy fell slightly behind that of France while the Pound is at a current low and take it as the UK's economy is now permanently behind that of France, especially considering the UK's economic growth rate remains higher than France's. Also I couldn't help but notice the sheer numbers who seem to have taken this as fantastic news if you read just above this. Weird, mind you one is French and the other is Irish, enough said. Signsolid (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be right or you may be wrong, but speculations are of little interest. If the UK economy outgrows the French, of course the article should be changed to reflec that. May I also ask you to leave people's nationalities out, it is completely irrelevant. JdeJ (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Implying that French or Irish nationality is a negative attribute is neither helpful or courteous. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually it's not irrelevant to include editors nationalities as many editors are influenced by their nationality. Are your edits not influenced by being French? I noticed from your contributions history that they appear to be so. I don't refute that mine aren't. Besides finding one particular article on the whole of the internet which says the UK's economy has fallen slightly compared to the French economy while the Pound is at a current low seems more speculative to me than using the traditional lists of countries by GDP published by such likes as the World Bank, CIA, International Monetary Fund. Signsolid (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could cite some sources that assert the claims you make? This would help. The other document is verifiable at this moment in time. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
To begin with, I don't know who this French user you are referring to is. I'm certainly not a French citizen and my nationality is, once again, completely irrelevant. As for your attempt to downplay the source, well, not much to say. It's your own invention that it's "one particular article". I managed to find others in 20 seconds, I merely added the most authorative one. Or are you denying that the Financial Times is a good source for things related to the UK economy? JdeJ (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not deny that the Financial Times is a reliable source but I do dispute that the UK's economy has fallen behind that of France's for any longer than while the Pound has fallen against the Euro. Also this edit reactionary to market forces and since November when the article was published there's no telling where the UK's economy currently stands compared to the French economy considering how much currencies fall and rise against each other every day, and it's likely the week that article was published the Pound was at an unusual low and has since recovered. Signsolid (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:CBALL. So you didn't even bother to read the article? Then you would have known that it was published last Friday, not in november. France overtook the UK in november and I very much doubt the FT would have failed to notice this if it had not still been the case when the article was published five days ago. I must admit that I don't really get your point. All you've done so far is to claim that the edits has been done because of my nationality, that it's not factual despite being sourced in the UK's (and the world's) leading business paper, that it's outdated despite being less than a week old and to offer your own speculations. JdeJ (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC
May I also point out List of countries by future GDP estimates (nominal), and this source[1]. All of which seems to undo your claim of the UK's economy being smaller than France's? Signsolid (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the last contribution. I've tried to assume good faith this far, but now we can be rather sure that you're just trolling to disrupt Wikipedia. Or are you actually suggesting that we use the home page of an unknown Greek guy, who himself says that his home page is outdated, instead of the Financial Times?!? Please excuse me for not taking this seriously. JdeJ (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
According to the International Monetery Fund the UK's economy for 2007 is 2,660.658 US$ Billions and France's is $US 2,401.443 Billions[2] Signsolid (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As you didn't provide any working link, that's rather hard to prove or disprove.JdeJ (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I will not be told I am trolling to disrupt Wikipedia. I have just given the International Monetery Fund's 2007 GDP report which proves the UK's economy is larger than that of France instead of some news article about the UK's economy in November last year reacting to ever changing currency values. I'm changing the article now according to this more reliable source. Signsolid (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So you still didn't read the article. See what I wrote above. The only working link you've provided is to the home page of an unknown Greek individual. Please provide a more recent and more authoratice source than Financial Times last Friday if you intend to change the article. Thanks JdeJ (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now edited the United Kingdom and France articles and given them working links to the IMF 2007 GDP report. Signsolid (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, please be mindful that WP:3RR applys. Please discuss content before adding it. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have given a link to the IMF 2007 GDP report next to my edit and a report by the IMF on countries GDP is more reliable than a news paper. Signsolid (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can find other sources to add weight to claims? Remember, statistics (especially fiscal statistics) can be "spun" in different ways. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should go with the IMF's 2007 GDP report as the IMF will always hold much more weight on GDP matters than a news paper. Signsolid (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was asking for additional third party sources to back claims and counter claims. It is fairly clear you are alleged to the IMF report, but if you have others, this would help with verification. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Simillarly, this isn't vandalism as such, but, however, removing citation outright mid-discussion isn't helpful either. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think as the IMF report carries more weight than news papers the IMF report should be continued to be used as it was before a few days ago when the Financial Times article came up. More verification needs to be given to the Financial Times article before IMF figures are abandoned. Signsolid (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Definitely, as soon as the IMF publishes a report over 2007 it will make an excellent source. But what you have reverted to over and over again is not an IMF report. It's an estimate for 2007 and 2008 made in April last years. As I've pointed out to you many times already, estimates may turn out to be right or wrong. This one turned out to be a bit wrong. Once we have the facts of what really happened, the estimate certainly doesn't take priority. But once more, as soon as we have an IMF report over 2007, I'll be the first to insert it as a source. In the meantime, an article in world's leading business paper is the best source we have. The same info has been reported on BBC, MSNBC, Le Figaro and Financial News to name but a few other reliable sources. JdeJ (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that these are good sources, but we're now left with the problem that the infobox says that the UK has the world's 6th largest economy, but when you click on the link it takes you to a page that has the UK listed as 5th. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it's a bit of a problem. I'm not sure what the best solution is. It's a fact that the French economy is larger than the UK's as by the end of 2007, but we still don't have the data for all countries at the end of 2007. Changing the rank of just the UK and France in the list of countries by GDP is not a very good solution (better to change all countries at the same time). Keep on saying that the UK is the fifth largest economy in this article when we that it's not the case is no good solution either. I'm very interested in hearing your and other users' comments! JdeJ (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Changing the ranking for the UK and France without updating the GDP ranking lists to 2007 only throws out the whole ranking system for GDP. Countries' GDP rankings change all the time and to change only the UK's and France's GDP ranking for 2007 while leaving all other countries's GDP rankings for 2006 has thrown out the ranking order. The ranking for the UK and France should have been left until the IMF updated the whole world GDP ranking list. Signsolid (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Precisely, that's why I suggest not changing the article on GDP ranking lists until the IMF report for 2007. When doing a comparative lists, the same source should be used for all entries. In the individual articles on France and the UK, it's a different matter. As we don't explicitly compare them with other countries and we known that France is the fifth and the UK the sixth, it's natural to update the articles with new and reliable information once we've got it. JdeJ (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You don't even know what the 2007 GDP figures are for the UK and France are and going on just what's been in the news lately with the pound falling to a low. It seems a bit like a desperation jump on this news as quickly as possible maybe for political POV reasons. Signsolid (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree that the GDP lists need to use a single source, even if individual articles use more up-to-date data, but this means that they will almost certainly disagree at times. Perhaps the GDP list articles could be renamed to make it more explicit that they're for 2006? Doesn't exactly solve the problem but it might reduce the scope for confusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a good idea, I'm all for it. JdeJ (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Theres a serious problem with the report. It uses the economies' own currencies as opposed to the international dollar that are used by the Wikipedia lists. Short term fluxuations in the currency doesn't affect GDP PPP. josh (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As already stated, the Financial Times is as good a source as one could possibly get on the UK economy. And in this case, there are lots of secondary sources to back it up. I will allow time for a further discussion, but it should probably be inserted again. Please allow time at the talk page in the future before removing sourced content. JdeJ (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter how good the source is. It refers to a different GDP measure to the ones used in the infobox so cannot be used to change it. The report is based purely on the fact the pound has dropped so dramaticly in the last 6 months. Since the report the pound has recovered to €1.35. If this trend continues then the positions will be reversed again within a month. josh (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Josh the UK's nominal GDP, which is tied to the strength of the Pound, only fell to an unusual low for a brief period because the Pound fell to an usual low against the Euro for a brief period and so caused the UK's nominal GDP to fall slightly behind France's nominal GDP for a brief period due to a fleeting combination of an unusually low Pound and usually high Euro. As the Pound has since recovered some what since the time the article was written the UK's nominal GDP is probably higher than that of France's nominal GDP once more. I would also like to point out that British news papers are renowned for jumping on bad news but casting aside good news and most more than likely the UK's nominal GDP slipped behind France's nominal GDP for all of a week while the Pound on that week fell to an extremely unusual low and won't report on when the UK's nominal GDP again surpasses France's nominal GDP. Now that week is over and the Pound has again risen against the Euro the UK's nominal GDP is most more than likely once again higher than France's nominal GDP. I would like to point out as well that the UK's GDP growth has remained consistently higher than France's GDP growth and so is more or less impossible for France's GDP to remain higher than the UK's GDP. It is irresponsible for an encyclopedia to base all its sources on ever changing and conflicting news articles than on reliable expert sources such as the IMF, World Bank, and CIA. Signsolid (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The Pound is now worth €1.34 up from €1.32 when that article was published and up from when the UK's economy had only just slightly fallen below France's and so at £1 to €1.34 the UK's is now probably once again higher than France's. Signsolid (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That is entirely possible, but still speculation. Please source it to avoid WP:OR and WP:BALL.JdeJ (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The article seems to be a filler piece for a quiet news day. Its not backed up by a report from any financial organisation or give any details of the current GDPs. Neither is it picked up by any major news agencies. We shouldn't be overturning IMF or World Bank research on the basis of a piece of jounalism. The point Singsolid and I are trying to make is that the article cannot be relied upon for creating an encyclopidia that should be based on long term data not short shifts in the market. josh (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that when writing about the UK economy, the UK's leading business paper is not a good source? Not even when backed up by leading business news agencies in other countries? You're of course entirely entitled to your view, but I dare to claim that 95% of all references on Wikipedia are less reliable. JdeJ (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Not when it contridicts the IMF and World Bank. I'm not doubting the reliablity of the source but the data that backs it up. What you are suggesting is replacing data from two major financial organisations that have used a published methodology that is applied worldwide with an article that doesn't give any new figures or information other than "the UK is now 6th". If we had no idea where the UK economy ranked the article could be used but because this is replacing another source it you can't justify it by saying its reliable. It has to be as good and give at least as much information as the original source(s). josh (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, you've misunderstood this. There is nothing conflicting about the report. The IMF data is the best we have, but it is almost a year old. Updating all articles related to economy only once a year, even when we know that the content of the article may no longer be correct, is not an ideal option. JdeJ (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not a news site. Using reliable and complete data that's a year old is preferable to using a news report that gives no new figures. There is no way of the IMF data sitting alongside this report. If we state in the article that the UK is now 6th it contradicts the infobox. If we change that then it contradicts the figures and due to the vague nature of the article we have no new ones to put in.
We don't know that the IMF figures are no longer correct. There has simply be a article that has contradicted them. If you changed the position of every country's economy based of news reports there would be chaos. Apparently brazil became the sixth largest economy last month[1] and Britain now has higher GDP per head than the US[2]. Next month another boffin will do another bunch of sums and find that X now beats Y who beats Z while another one will realise that Z beats X. The IMF figures are known to be reliable and can be used by anyone to get an idea of which economy is where. This ability will be wrecked if editors insist of changing articles on the basis of A found out that B is now C last week. josh (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The report which Josh mentions claiming that Brazil has become the 6th largest economy in the world is wrong. It's based on a World Bank study of PPP GDPs which was published last month, but the study says Brazil is the 10th largest economy, not the 6th. If, however, it had indeed become the 6th largest economy in the world, it would be legitimate to write it in the Brazil article, and consequently to write in this UK article that the UK economy has slipped to 7th rank (chuckle). Wikipedia is not a news agency, but we regularly update information, otherwise it defeats the purpose of Wikipedia which is to be more reactive and up-to-date than paper encyclopedias. When New Orleans' population was decimated by Katrina, it was reflected in the New Orleans article. We're not waiting for the US Census 2010 to write that New Orleans population has halved. It's the same here with this GDP figure. Keizuko (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The UK's GDP is not below Brazil's GDP and in seventh place Keizuko. You might want to read the article more closely. And by the way what's with the (chuckle)? It's nonsense these editors who are desperately trying to vandalise the UK's economic ranking are not motivated by a hate for the United Kingdom. Just take a look at how this was started with FRANCE HAS OVERANKED THE UK AS WORLD'S 5TH ECONOMY !!! Need I say anymore? Don't get me wrong I'm all for having correct figures over wrong ones and it's not that I don't accept the UK's GDP may or may not have fallen behind that of France's or may have since overtaken again with a recovering Pound but the way certain editors here have tried absolutely everything they can in an outright blitz on this article and on the France article smashing all other opinions. It's nonsense that some here are not motivated by hate for the United Kingdom and frankly some disgust me. Signsolid (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got no interest in continuing this, everything of any value has been said.I'd like to point out, though, that unlike Signsolid I don't accuse a single other person becuse his nationality. I believe that most English editors on Wikipedia are just as fair and responsible as editors of any other nationality. Signsolid's attacks about "hate" and "disgust", just as all his vandalism edits and his repeated personal attacks on other users and their nationalities, don't reflect badly on any other editor, just on himself. As we're no longer discussing the UK, I hope this discussion comes to an end. JdeJ (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

UK economy slips behind France, additional sources

As some users refuse to accept this, I add some additional sources to the Financial Times article, msnbc [3], Financial News [4], Le Figaro [5]. As I've pointed out again and again, the source that Signsolid is replacing Financial Times with is not an IMF-report. It's an old IMF-estimate and we now know it did not predict the growth in France and the UK correctly. I find it slightly baffling that I repeatedly have to repeat that facts based on what really happened are more reliable than predictions made almost a year before they happen. JdeJ (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This material looks strong and reliable. I don't think the material found by Signsolid stands up to these sources. I'd be inclined to use this in the article, but worded with care. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree 100%. In my version, I haven't even mentioned anything about the UK "falling behind France" or even mentioned France at all. That could be seen as provocative. All I've done is to change the sentence that said that the UK has the fifth largest economy to say that it has the sixth largest, in accordance with the source. JdeJ (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The FT articles is wrong in that it extrapolates on the back of 2006 numbers. I think for discussing economics, official statistics should be used instead of journalistic opinions. The most recent comparison of European GDPs in a common currency (euro)has been provided by Eurostat on the 9th of January 2008 and portrays the situation as of the end of Q3 2007. It appears that at that moment of time the UK economy was about 9.5% larger than that of France in nominal terms (in PPP terms the depreciation of the GBP has had no direct impact in any case). http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2008/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2008_MONTH_01/2-09012008-EN-AP1.PDF
Forward-looking, it is indeed the case the GBP may continue to weaken versus the EUR and the French economy effectively overtakes the UK economy in nominal size. We cannot be sure about this though because the GBP/EUR depreciation from 30/09/07 until 31/12/07 more or less matches the GDP nominal size differential. We'll have to wait until Q4 2007 GDP figures have been released to know which economy is larger. Hence it would be more appropriate to wait to make the adjustment, if any is required, until the preliminary Q4 2007 statistics come out in early February.
This is just an economist's view; I have not changed anything in the article and leave that to you to agree on. I notice most of the debate above is driven by nationalistic feelings rather than by an attempt to represent facts. Don't assume everything you read in newspapers to be true, even if it is the FT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.204.179 (talk • contribs)

You're right that most of the debate above appears driven by nationalistic feelings. That's my impression too. Apparently some people's chauvinistic feelings have been hurt by the fact that the UK economy has slipped behind, God forbid!, "the France", so they're using all sorts of dilatory arguments to have the information removed from Wikipedia. In particular User:Signsolid seems to have an obsession with UK vs. France. I discovered this priceless edit he made a few months ago for instance: [6]. Anyway, one way to try and find common ground between reasonable people would be to say something like "in recent years the UK economy has been the 5th largest in the world according to the World Bank and IMF, but some economists now think that the recent depreciation of the sterling pound vs. the euro has shrunk its size to sixth largest behind France". Keizuko (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That wording sounds sensible to me. It doesn't help with the infobox, but as for the main text it sounds sensible. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea, it may not satisfy some rabid nationalists but most sensible editors could hopefully agree on that. JdeJ (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Keizuko, note it is not economists but journalists who claim that UK nominal GDP has slipped behind that of France. As economists we tend to look mainly at PPP GDP. In that respect both France and the UK have slipped two places the last few years as China and India moved up on the list. That has been an important event and was not some discussion about a few basis points difference between France and the UK. Personally I think that your approach to referring to the most up-to-date IMF data is the best approach though. This does mean that Wikipedia does run behind on the effective events, but trying to report events by means of guesswork opens up to a lot of subjectivity. Is the US in recession or not? We don't know. We will only be able to tell as we get the data. Yet if you open up Wikipedia for this kind of debate, then the whole anti-american population will find hundreds of newspaper articles it is and the pro-american popultion will find hundreds of newspaper articles its is not. The result is a "Battlegound Ecyclopedia" between nationalistic camps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.204.179 (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there's some misunderstanding here. It's not a journalist at the Financial Times who woke up some morning and decided that the UK economy had slipped behind France. It's actually a study by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research that found that out, and the Financial Times merely reported the findings of that study. Also, it is a mischaracterisation to say that economists tend to look mainly at PPP GDP. In fact economists use PPP GDP for some purposes, such as comparing standards of living, and they use nominal GDP for other purposes, such as comparing the sheer size of economies. Keizuko (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah. The clever tricks of a journalism. The journalist created the story then got quote off the director of NIESR saying how its a "political economic cataclysm" to give it a nice edge of credablity. At no point does it reference any research by them. josh (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you perhaps come out and say plain English whether you think that the UK's leading business paper is unreliable as a source on the UK economy? JdeJ (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I have read the discussion and here is a solution that I think will satisfy all of you. Instead of relying on one source (which is a media one) and make it the only and sole reference, the Wikipedia reader should be just informed about it in respect of one policy. To make the encyclopaedia consistent and coherent, I suggest relying only on the IMF source for official results (which is used with all countries; why France and the UK are exceptions), BUT nevertheless we should tell the reader that some reports (which are media-based reports, I have not find any research source; tell me please where you found it) indicate that the UK's economy is weakening lately and is slipping behind France. We should tell him the cause too as indicated in the FT. This way, we are making all the articles coherent (List by GDP) and at the same time, it is informing the user of latest possible changes (may be in the form of a notice in the economy section). One final note, please do not try to exaggerate in discussions using special styles or forms which make your comments non-credible (the use the caps letters above). Bestofmed (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
There are fundamental differences between the British and French economies which make them difficult to compare. Any numeric comparison must be measured in a specific currency, and the value of pound fell significantly relative to the euro in 2007. Viewfinder (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Rather odd that the issues around the ranking only arise when the UK economy is tanking and the French soaring. I suspect POV is rearing its ugly head here. Sarah777 (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
If, for whatever reason, a Frenchman prefers to buy from an expensive domestic supplier, he will contribute more to his national economy as measured by GDP, but he may not be better off. Still, whether we British like it or not, the claim that the UK has slipped to sixth is attributed to a reliable UK source. Perhaps if the £ recovers, a more up to date source will be found that will overturn this claim. Meanwhile we might like to ask if we have too many line managers and money/asset shufflers and too few producers. We might also like to remember that the likes of Wikipedia contribute considerably to a better informed world but contribute zilch to GDP. There is more to quality of life than GDP! Viewfinder (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Addressing the specific proposal put by Bestofmed, I agree. Using the IMF ranking to be consistent with other articles has obvious virtues. It also seem sound to me to say that the UK economy is 5th in terms of X and 6th in terms of Y, having recently fallen behind France due to the pound's weakening against the euro. -Rrius (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

user:Sarah777 are you sure it's not actually yours and user:JdeJ's POV rearing its ugly head considering you've both been the main ones behind making sure everyone accepts what many have here have come to see as an anti-British pro-French POV on GDP rankings being forced upon the article. Whether the fact you're Irish and he's French has anything to do with it I don't know but I suspect it's not British nationalism here that's the problem but French and Irish nationalism which has always been anti-British. Signsolid (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I would add this to the discussion. An article in the very serious French newspaper Le Monde today about France and the Indian economy started with this sentence: "La France, cinquième puissance économique mondiale, ne se place qu'au huitième rang des investisseurs en Inde." ("France, the fifth largest economy in the world, is only the eigth largest investor in India."). Source: [7]. So it seems the fact that France has overtaken the UK and become the fifth largest economy in the world is now widely accepted, Le Monde being rather conservative with new data in general. Keizuko (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This debate cannot be used as an excuse to change the infobox. That data is based on and linked to the IMF figures and changing it would make it inconsistent with that page. We also have no new figures with this alleged change so we can only make a half cocked update with the figures not matching up with the position.

Referring back to the article itself. It contains the following paragraph -

In 2006, the GDP of France was €1,792bn (£1,353bn) compared with £1,304bn for the UK. With sterling worth €1.47 on average in 2006, this put the UK economy comfortably 6.7 per cent ahead of the French economy.

Its a while since I did maths but when I did we were taught that 1,353bn was more than 1,304bn. Also 1792 divided by 1.47 is 1219. 1304 is 6.9% more than 1219. How can we use article about economics as a reliable source when the person who wrote it can't even do basic maths? How do we know hes got the new figures right? josh (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This debate is now mute. The 2007 CIA figures are are in [8]. The UK is still ahead of France and unlike the above article they give the figures. josh (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The 2007 CIA figures were compiled before the fall of the sterling pound in recent weeks, so they are outdated. As for the Financial Times article, it seems you didn't understand it properly. What they wrote is that in 2006 the GDP of France was €1,792 bn, which was indeed £1,219 bn with sterling worth €1.47, but which is £1,353 bn with sterling worth €1.32, i.e. higher than the UK GDP which was £1,304 bn. Not that complicated to understand. Keizuko (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The FT article states 'The US, Japan, Germany, China and France all had larger economies than the UK in the third quarter of 2007' The CIA figures (updated on 24 January) are for the whole of 2007. As for the FT figures it clearly states that the figures are in 2006. If he is using 2006 economy figures and simply adjusting to account for a change in the exchange rate then it is yet another reason not to use the FT as a source. Economy sizes have changed since then (the UK faster than France) making his figures out of date. The CIA figures account for the increase in economy size. BTW An exchange rate of €1.32 to the pound would make it £1,357 so it still doesn't add up. josh (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Try and make an effort to understand data instead of dismissing things so lightly, otherwise it's hard to have a serious discussion. The exchange rate the FT referred to was €1.3244, but obviously they didn't write the four digits in their article, they just wrote €1.32. Again, the CIA figures were compiled BEFORE the recent fall in the sterling pound, so their real GDP figures are outdated (their PPP GDP figures are not outdated, of course). The FT, on the other hand, used the current exchange rate after the fall in the sterling, so their figures are the most up-to-date. Since 2006 of course economy sizes have changed, but even though the UK economy is growing slighly faster than the French economy (3% vs 2% in 2007), this is not enough to compensate for the sharp depreciation of the sterling, so the FT's assertion that the UK economy has slipped behind France is still valid. Keizuko (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The CIA figures were updated on 24 January 2008 so they could have used any exchange rate up to that date. You insisted on the inclusion of the FT article on the basis that it is the most recent source. Now the CIA is therefore the FT article is "out of date". josh (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
"I" did not insist on anything. It is several users who think the information from the FT article should appear in the UK article, and you are removing it despite consensus to have this information. As for the CIA World Factbook, what they do is they use the average exchange rate in a given year, so their 2007 figures use the average 2007 exchange rate which doesn't reflect the sharp depreciation of the sterling pound given that the bulk of this depreciation occured after December 15. Keizuko (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Whereas the FT article delibratly uses the point at which the pound was weakest[9]. The reason an average exchange rate is used is to eliminate such anomalies. The FT article is a piece of opportunistic sensationalist journalism that has no place in encyclopedia. Do you think that when they next compile Encarta or Britannica they will think well the IMF, World Bank and CIA all say the UK is fifth but I think i'll go with this London hack who obviously has his finger on the pulse.
We also have the problem that the article as it stands contradicts itself. The article says that the UK is sixth by GDP while the infobox says its fifth. The article gives no figures to update the infobox with so we're stuck with a article that contradicts itself. Just so someones POV can be pushed on to it. josh (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It’s pathetic the way people make all this economy business sound so personal... (80.42.209.111 (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

There are several different sources that all appear to be reliable and quote different rankings, and there is clearly no concensus on this talk page, so I believe that we should revert to the status quo before this statement was added. Also Josh makes a good point that the FT article is based on figures from when the pound was at its weakest - it has since recovered significantly. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 22:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I love the way Dan1980 tries to eat the cake and have it. There's no consensus so we have to select and version, his version. POV-pushing at its best. The statement in question has been in this article for at least a year, so the status quo would be to keep it. The only thing that has changed is the size of the UK economy. I also love the accusation of sensationalism here, it's the first time I've heard the Financial Times being accused of that. What is more, Financial Times is just one of the many sources that reported this. Lastly, all speculation about how the situation is with the pound being recovered is WP:OR and of no significance whatsoever. It can be pointed out that France overtook the UK already in November and still was ahead when the article was published in the middle in January. What has happened during the last weeks is pure speculation in the absence of any source.
I can't help thinking that the English users who are all too eager to ridicule the Financial Times, MSNBC, Financial News and other leading news agencies would be singing a very different tune had it been the other way around. JdeJ (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, your comments are bordering on personal attacks - why can't you be civil? The version that I reverted to was not my version, I only recently became involved in this to try to put an end to the continuous edit wars, and have found myself harassed for my efforts. I also do not appreciate the insinuation that I and other edits that have reverted your edits are racist.
Just because an article appears in the Financial Times, does this automatically exclude it from being sensationalism? Also, correct me if I am wrong, but don't all of the other sources that you quote cite the same FT article?
The statement in question was changed a matter of weeks ago - the article that it cites was only published on 11 January 2008, so your argument that it has been in place for at least a year and is the status quo is also invalid.
Finally, regarding the "speculation" about the recovery of the UK economy in recent weeks, Joshurtree posted a link to evidence of this in the discussion above if you would care to have a look.
I have added a RfC to the talk page in an attempt to resolve the current situation. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Currency

on the weblink it say 57% not 55% Against the euro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.231.38 (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked that out - if you carry on reading it will say that, if the Government recommended that the UK join the euro, how would you vote? There it clearly shows 30% for, 55% against. The 57% one is if the UK voted now (2005), who would support/not support. 86.142.110.249 17:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading about a current analysis on UK GDP which should see the current Nominal updated Analyst Oxford Economics said the UK's GDP per head of population will reach £23,500 this year that is $46,331 the weblink for this is here : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7174372.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.57.0 (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the Financial Times, the UK has slipped behind France at 6th biggest economy in the world instead of 5th previously, because of the weakness of the GBP against the Euro: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/abe2ffc4-c08b-11dc-b0b7-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1. This should be edited here and on the France article. Michros (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, a single editor has deleted this information from the article despite consensus to keep it. I'm restoring it. Keizuko (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the fact that the euro is widely accepted in Northern Ireland be mentioned in this article?

As the euro is also widely accepted in London, Zurich and Geneva and the pound is widely accepted in Calais? Not sure about the relevance... 160.83.32.14 (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Dispute regarding UK economy

Is the UK currently the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world?

The answer? Probably 5th with the occasional slip to 6th due to exchange rates. But, well, why not just say it is rated as the 5th or 6th, depending upon exchange rates? Really, is there any need for all this pollava? Narson (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hm... a bit of misunderstanding here. It's not like the exchange rate is widely changing every other day. Bottom line is, until September last year the sterling pound was in the upper 1.40s euros (and it was so for many years), and the UK had the 5th largest economy ahead of France, but since the sharp depreciation of the sterling that started last September the sterling is now in the lower 1.30s euros (it has been in the lower 1.30s since the beginning of January; 1.32938 euros as I'm speaking now), and so the UK economy has slipped behind France (the UK's real GDP has shrunk relative to France, Germany, and all other Eurozone economies). Experts predict the sterling could fall even further (due to the UK current account deficit), so it's not as if this depreciation was just temporary and the UK's GDP was going to overtake France's again anytime soon. As for GDP growth, in 2007 the UK had a 3.1% growth of its GDP vs. an expected 2.0% in France (4th quarter figures should be released in the coming days), so the growth difference between the two countries wasn't enough to offset the depreciation of the sterling pound. Keizuko (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, so the exchange rate does not fluctuate widely from one day to the next, but the point is that the FT article was based on figures from a 52-week low point. Most reliable reports on GDP take an average over a year to avoid such anomolies. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 20:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's likely that the UK's high 3.1% GDP growth rate compared to France's mediocre 2% GDP growth rate means the UK's high economic growth rate has offset the slight fall in the value of the Pound considering that the UK's GDP has grown 1.1% more than France's GDP almost certainly offsets the effects of a mere 8 cent fall in the value of the Pound against the Euro from £1 = €1.40 to £1 = €1.32. It's also irresponsible for an encyclopedia to source its rankings from different press articles as different press sources will give differing results and it's likely press articles reporting the UK's economy had slipped behind France's economy due to a fall in the Pound hadn't taken into account GDP growth rates for both countries. Press articles are also problematic for use as sources as their many goal is to sell news not inform like the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, CIA do. However, the real problem here is many editors have pro-French sentiment and have seized on an opportunity to rank the French economy as higher than the UK's, which conflicts with all International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and CIA factbook predictions. Signsolid (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
For some reasons, some editors keep referring to this as something very recent and just depending on exchange rates. That's not the case, the fact is that France overtook the UK in November and has kept the lead since then. Of course that's a recent change, but it's not just about changing exchange rates. I would also like to add that any speculation by any of us regarding how the exchange rate and the economy has developed during the past weeks is original research. I'm the first to welcome new and fresh articles, but please let's keep our own speculations out of this as it's not relevant. On the other hand, I agree with Dan1980 that this is not the best possible report on GDP. It is, however, the best one we have at the moment. Once the IMF-figures for 2007 are known, we should of course use them, no matter what they state. The problem is that we now have to decide between very old figures or new figures. I hope that everybody can agree that, as sources go, the Financial Times is the most reliable economic newspaper and that a UK paper is highly unlikely to have an anti-UK agenda. JdeJ (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
As for Singsolid's usual whining about the pro-French sentiments of editors, I'm not French (well, I'm a mix of many nationalities and French isn't the most prominent) and some of the other editors who have made the same edits as I are, as far as I know, not French at all. Making all this talk about pro-French sentiments rather weak. As Signsolid decided to bring up that nationality issue, to the best of my knowledge every editor refusing to have the UK as being behind France is English in sharp contrast to the so-called "pro-French" camp. To his credit, though, Signsolid has chosen a very wise and neutral current wording and I thank him for that JdeJ (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I would say that until more reliable data is available, the solution suggested by Narson and currently used in the article should remain. We shouldn't use data that is likely to be inaccurate just because it is more recent than the known reliable data used previously. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 22:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I support Dan's suggestion above. Perhaps we could add a sentence making it clear that the report from IMF says this and the Financial Times wrote that. In any case, we should all be able to agree on not agreeing and making that clear in the article. This is a temporary solution untill we have the IMF figures. JdeJ (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been watching this since the matter was first brought up but intentionally staying away. It sounds to me like a lot of nationalist feathers have been ruffled. In my opinion, the UK is currently the 6th largest economy by GDP. (Saying that this is "only" because of currency rates is irrevelent - 1) both currencies are converted into a third, US dollars, before their compared, 2) the relative prices of their respective currencies was responsible for the previous rankings as well, you know? 3) the change in currency rates reflect the change in the size/importance of economies, anyway).
However ... the figures infoboxes link to the page showing the 2006 data and we don't have "official" figures for 2008 to update that page. Until that happens, the infobox should stay to reflect that article, otherwise we will end up with different "results" across all pages as everyone picks something to suit themselves.
Worse, we don't *know* what rank internationally France and the UK occupy - it's unlikely but while we do know that France has overtaken the UK, we don't know that both countries haven't been overtaken by Italy. If we are to "update" the 5th place in the infobox, we would need to re-compile a new rankings table of world economies. That would be original research, or at best a synthesis - which in WP terms is the same thing.
Consensus across WP appears to be to go with the 2006 IMF table until something better comes along. In fact, consensus even appears to be to go with the 2006 IMF table over the 2006 World Bank where a conflict occurs (e.g. Sweden and Switzerland).
The recent change regarding the French/UK economies can be commented on in the article itself. For the infobox, stick with the agreed rankings table until that is updated. --sony-youthpléigh 22:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually no, "the change in currency rates reflect the change in the size/importance of economies" is not an accurate statement. Size and importance of economies is one factor that influences exchange rates but by no means the only one. Interest rates, politics, safe currencies, central bank manipulation, the price of commodities... all these and more also affect exchange rates. Exchange rates are not the most reliable indicator of economic strength. AJKGORDON«» 14:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe all the country articles use nominal GDP rather than PPP. It is something that should be taken up with the relevent wikiproject (wikiproject on countries) I imagine, they will likely know if it has been discussed. Or are you saying that is the standard? If that is the standard now, then it avoids the whole debate. Narson (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That the individual country articles use nominal GDP is irrelevant. The standard for comparison in academia and policy analysis is PPP, and has been for some time. Relata refero (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevent as we are discussing GDP in an article..strikes me that when discussing what GDP should be used, then what GDP is used could not be more relevent.. I'm not arguing in favour of either system, I'm not an economist and I don't care whether the UK is ranked 5th, 6th or 101st (Providing that we have refs). I am merely stating what the standard seems to be, from a quick check on wikipedia, for use in infoboxes etc. The infoboxes are, generally, maintained by the wikiprojects as while wiki pages arn't sources or precedents for each other, we do try for some degree of consistancy. There seems to be some disagreement as to the UK's ranking in the various system so, why not list them both in the prose part of the article? Considering the articles length already, the extra sentence won't kill us. Narson (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)::::::::::No, we're discussing how the comparison should be made. If you want to keep the figures in GBP, that's fine; but any comparison should be in purchasing power-adjusted figures. Relata refero (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't say it should be put in GBP, as I believe the standard for GDP nominal is still to convert everything to dollars for comparison? My understanding is that PPP is simply adjusted for buying power using an index based off the prices of certain key goods? Narson (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The question is one of ranking. Ranking of economies is complicated and not all authorities apply the same criterion. Are there sources that apply a ranking on way or another, or both? If so, what are those sources and what precisely do they say? My concern would be converting raw data into a conclusion, which would be original research. On the other hand, if reliable sources assign a ranking (or rankings) then the current dispute is resolved as simply as having the article state whatever these sources say. It would not be unusual for different sources to arrive at different rankings of economy. In this case the article should express this rather than declaring one rather than the other. If sources and statements from these sources can be supplied I am willing to take a look and offer my observations. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I have read this article from the Financial Times, but since current estimates of GDP are being continously revised, I would say this is an unreliable source. I am inclined to use OECD statistics for 2006 as the most consistent basis for comparison, as the 2007 numbers will not be "firm" yet. The PPP USD number for 2006 is $1,996,983m for the UK (France $1,962,072m), while the nominal number is $2,395,483m (France $2,247,975m). I also prefer OECD numbers over those of the World Bank because you can drill down into the numbers.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Any straightforward calculation shows the UK economy should still be larger than the French economy (nominal terms) in Q4 of 2007. This is the most recent period for which it can be calculated because Q1 2008 has not yet finished. Eurostat Q3 2007 GDP: UK Q3 2007 GDP = EUR 514,110.1 mio; France Q3 2007 GDP = EUR 469,988.9. GBP-EUR FX rates 30/09/07 = 1.43590; 31/12/07 = 1.35710. Assuming 0% inflation and 0% growth in Q4 for both UK and France (whereas the sum of both is expected to be slightly in favour of UK in reality), then at the 31/12/07 FX rates, UK GDP = EUR 485,896.52 mio; French GDP = EUR 469,988.9. This means that without other mitigating effects (i.e nominal GDP growth to be higher for the UK than for France in Q4 as is expected per economists' consensus), the UK economy remains 3.4% larger than the French economy as per 31st of December 2007. Also with todays FX rate the UK economy is still larger than the French economy. Source: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2008/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2008_MONTH_01/2-09012008-EN-AP1.PDF 217.42.88.237 (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It seems to me if economic ranking is used in the article it should 1) have a year attached and 2) it should be specific about the economic measurement factor. For example,“As for 2006 the UK’s had the fifth largest GDP in the world according to the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development.” If there are secondary sources offering remarks about the historical economic position of the UK in relation to other national economies this might be useful information, too. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If the UK's 2006 production was higher than France's, a fair comparison has to convert those figures to a common currency using the exchange rates prevalent at the time. The ordering will be the same whatever currency is used. (If X has more dollars than Y then he also has more yen, whatever the exchange rate, so long as they convert to a common currency before that spot rate moves.) The important thing is to convert at the right time, which I believe is the time the goods and services are produced. I don't think it makes sense to reverse the order on the assumption that the UK invested the money raised from selling that output in GBP whereas France kept its proceeds in the stronger EUR. If you are going to apply that logic then you also need to take into account the UK's higher interest rates, and possibly forward exchange rates for hedging purposes too. Certes (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the currency for GDP ect be in £ ??

Look here all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Which_one_to_use

Why is our page using USD? Last time I checked my wallet I had GBP in there ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by UberBicep (talk • contribs) 22:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Because USD is the standard currency used for international comparisons. No point in using everyone's local currency for their local economy. It would make it much more difficult to compare economies. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately it also introduces significant distortions to quote a figure in dollars, presumably based on calculations made in pounds, when the exchange rate fluctuates so markedly. What exchange rate is assumed in the calculations? shouldn't the pound equivalent be included also? A dollar value is frankly useless to anyone in the UK who might want to use this figure for some purpose, or even understand it. It needs to be in pounds to be usefull to anyone other than Americans. Even to americans it must be misleading unless the assumed exchange rate is also stated. Isn't there a wiki policy of using national conventions according to the appropriate nationality of an article? Sandpiper (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. No one's denying there are problems, whichever currency you choose. But the fact is that, hardy son of Britain though I be, I would find estimates of China's GDP in dollars more meaningful to me than estimates in yuan. Likewise I am sure that an interested Chinese would find estimates of the UK's GDP more meaningful if quoted in dollars than in pounds sterling. That is the basic reason why all articles on countries should be quoting GDP in dollars as a minimum. Of course there's nothing wrong with stating the GDP using the local currency too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Literacy

I just noticed the article claims an official literacy rate of 99%. Recent news items and indeed gvernment campaigns would suggest that a significant proportion of children manage to leave school without learning to read effectively. I don't know what that figure is, and indeed 1% in this situation is frankly shocking, but I got the distinct impression it is bigger than that. Sandpiper (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Some sort of citaion would be needed. This seems to be one of the tabloids' favourite shock stories, but if you can find a reliable citation feel free to change the figure. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 01:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added a recent citation for the 99% figure from a source independent of the UK. Certes (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead

OK, there's been a few changes to the lead in the last week or so, some I'm quite keen on, but I would just like to get some input on some issues that I think need discussion (all pertain to the first paragraph):

  1. The UK has a land border, so is it strictly, technically or otherwise verifiably an island country?
  2. Is the UK commonly known as Great Britain? Is "commonly known" best practice here?
  3. Surely Europe (or rather Mainland Europe) ought to be linked?
  4. Are the Scottish Gaelic and Welsh translations necessary? Why just these, and not Cornish, Irish Gaelic, Scots... or even Urdu, Bangla etc (which are also commonly spoken languages in the UK)? (I'm implying that these should go!).
  5. We've lost mentions of sovereignty (sovereign state) and the cited "countryhood" in the lead, ought these go back in?
  6. Does the land-border with the Republic really need three citations?
  7. Great Britain is linked twice in the first paragraph.

Input welcome here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

2. If my memory of GCSE Geography serves me correctly, Great Britain refers to mainland Britain (Great as in the largest island of the British Isles), whereas the UK also includes many of the smaller islands and Northern Ireland. (i.e. the statement is incorrect)
3. I agree, either stick to English which is the official language, or include all minority languages, which would be very messy indeed.
6. No, it's common knowledge, so one should be more than enough.
7. The second link should be removed as per WP policy. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 01:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
1. In that it is not on a mainland or continent, yes it is as per the definition in the article island country.
2. Speaking as an Australian, reference would commonly be made to "Britain" and the "British", but not Great Britain. Not sure how you would cite it though. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts
- 2. the UK is an island nation as all its territory in on islands. Other examples of island nations with land borders include Indonesia and Haiti.
- 3. Welsh and Scottish Gaelic have a different legal status to other minority languages. Indeed, for naturalization purposes, a knowledge of English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic is required.
Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. The UK is an island country (as is the Republic of Ireland).
  2. According the the Oxford English Dictionary, either Great Britain or simply Britain can refer to the UK (although contrary to WP consensus, the OED takes Britain as referring to the island and Great Britain as referring to the "political unit" formed by England, # Scotland and Wales, so no doubt WP will take it's own unique spin on how Britain, great or otherwise, might refer to the UK as a whole).
  3. Forgetting to mention the Continent strikes me as a little bit of Fog in Channel-ism.
  4. Welsh and Scottish Gaelic are official languages of the UK. Irish, Cornish and Scots are not. Per norm they should be included.
  5. Consensus appears to be for "country" [*grumble* *grumble*] over (the far more accurate) "sovereign state*.
  6. There doesn't need to be any refs for the land border with the Republic. Who challenged that assertion that they were required in the first place!?
  7. Per the manual of style, only the first reference to Great Britian should be linked.
Some other things, I would change:
  • Change "Commonwealth realms" to "16 other countries" as it is easy for a reader to gloss of Commonwealth of Nation and Commonwealth realms thinking that they are the same or at least very similar in make-up.
  • Saying that the "UK was the world's foremost power during the 19th and early 20th century" is a little liberal with the truth. Only in the late 19th century did the UK emerge as the foremost power, and even then it's not as if it's was streets ahead of everyone else. More accurate is to say that the "UK was one of the world's foremost power during the 19th and early 20th century".
  • We could also do with dates for the British Empire. As it is, we don't know when it existed. Although, this is also a matter for the main body of the article, which give abysmal treatment to the topic, only referring to it obliquely.
--sony-youthpléigh 17:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to action some of the changes suggested here. Let me know if there are any objections or tweaks needed please, -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
There isn't that big of a consensus to remove Great Britain from the 'commonly known as' part in the lead; however, it's not a big deal to me so unless other people feel it should be there as well I'll leave it be. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The comment from User:Sony-youth about Britain emerging in the late 19th century as the foremost power is wrong. The defeat of Napoleon in 1815 left Britain without any serious international rival (apart from Russia in central Asia). See Pax Britannica. If anything by the late 19th century the gap between Britain and its rivals was closing, with the rise of Germany and the United States. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Are the Scottish Gaelic and Welsh translations necessary? (I'm implying that these should go!)" - British Nationalists upset about their economy declining to only 6th largest can be reassured that the UK is still No. 1 for xenophobia at least. Perhaps the lead should read "The United Kingdom is made up of England and a few unimportant bits which we need not discuss here as this is the English Wikipedia"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.22.97 (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree 100% with the tone in the message above and will point out civility policies to the user, I understand the response. Suggesting to have versions in official minority languages in country removed is what we sometimes might see in tense regions such as the Balkans by extreme nationalists. And while I disagree with the way the user expressed himself and consider his/her conduct wrong, the conduct of Jza84 could also be questioned. If you make such an extreme suggestion, coming very close to the views of those who want to deny/oppress national minorities, I don't think it's very honest to remove replies from hurt users. Like it or not, the suggestion you made here does smell of extreme nationalism. I don't believe it was intended that way and assume that you're only unaware of which language are spoken and official in different parts of the UK. JdeJ (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed that comment because he/she misappropriates my comments. "Are the Scottish Gaelic and Welsh translations necessary? (I'm implying that these should go!)" is not what I said, I was actually questioning why Scots, Cornish, Irish etc are not also used? Not only that, I was merely querying it (discussion - quite politely too). It is not an "extreme suggestion" and does not oppress national minorities (whatever they are?); on the contrary I was (without realising these two languages had a specific legal distiction - which hasn't really been elaborated on as of yet) asking for a little more social equality for other minority languages, or they should've all gone. You may care to note that I was asking for some consensus on the issues I raised and once feedback was given, I used an edit summary explaining the change and noted it on the talk page! Also, I did not remove this from the article either. On these grounds I'm a little stunned by the use of language here JdeJ - I did everything by the book and had the article's best interests very much at heart. Oh and for the record, I'm not even English! -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
And... nationalism is against the UK, I'm a unionist!... and using language that asserts I'm a xenophobe and oppressor (despite my userpage stating I'm for ethnic-equality and that I speak a minority language myself) is neither helpful, engaging or civil, and strictly against WP:CIVIL. I certainly standby removing it. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh, I've never believed for a second that you would a nationalist in any way, I've seen far too many edits from you and know you to be a very responsible editor. I was merely trying to explain that to someone not familiar with your edit history, such a suggestion might easily be interpreted in that way. As I already said, I'm sure it's only because you're not familiar with the national minorities of the UK. Once again, sorry if I gave the wrong impression above. JdeJ (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I accept your apology. I still fail to see however why you thought that contribution should be reverted back in, what useful commentary it includes and how mentions of the economy dispute should be linked with my username when I merely aided with mediation. Leave it in for all I care; I thought I was doing the page a favour by removing it. Clearly re-adding it has taken the focus off how to improve the article, and onto a timewasting issue of unsigned, anonymous factually incorrect personal slander. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Incase anybody else has any doubts:
  • This was my edit to the lead section.
  • This edit removed the Welsh and Scottish Gaelic translations.
  • I've since done some copyeditting, which I declared in the edit summaries and on this talk page below.
If anyone finds any of my far-right British nationalism, please let me know. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Population figures

I would like to point out that the population figures for the UK are from mid-2006 and are in desperate need of updating as they are the oldest population figures for a country on Wikipedia and the UK's population has been growing quite quickly since 2006. Signsolid (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Mid-2006 is the last official estimate by the UK statistical office, so any more recent estimate is original research (see WP:OR) The new official estimate (mid-2007) will be published in the end of August this year. Keizuko (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional monarchy?

I would like to politely argue the fact that the UK is stated to be a constitutional monarchy, when actually it does not have a constitution and is therefore a parliamentary monarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riidster (talk • contribs) 18:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The UK does have a constitution though – it is merely uncodified (i.e. not in a single document). See Constitution of the United Kingdom. Rossenglish (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the UK is described as a 'Constitutional Monarchy' as opposed to an 'Absolute Monarchy'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
In truth, the terms constitutional monarchy and parliamentary monarchy are both applicable to the UK – they are even on the same wikipedia page. Rossenglish (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Would a country the constitution of which gave absolute power to the monarch still be a constitutional monarchy? TharkunColl (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I suspect not on the basis that, by definition, a monarch with absolute power would be 'over' the constitution rather than 'under' it. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Red-herring discussion. We know it is a constitutional monarchy - no need to discuss it further. Given the huge amount of work that is needed on this page a little focus might be good - e.g. start formatting those citations and add new ones where required. John Smith's (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Red herring. --sony-youthpléigh 21:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Article size

Does anyone else think this article needs some serious hacking. Its now up to 125k with 30+ sections. We need to reduce it down to a summary prose. As all of it will be backed up by sub articles anyway. I don't think we need a separate section for different religions or sports. We also have 4 sections about cities. We should look at the article with the philosophy of "would someone wanting general info about the country be looking for X". josh (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Lots of copyeditting is needed really now in my few, the prose being "mature" if nothing else. Wikipedia:Article size is probably a good start to look at, whilst Wikipedia:COUNTRIES#Sections might also have some pointers too. Finally, as part of this, WP:PR might give us some clues where we can reduce our article size via the culling of grammatical redundancy and other un-needed formatting. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just checked the size of the USA article - it is much bigger! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Quite right, and well spotted! I had a quick scan through the prose earlier today too (removing some redundancy!), and the text isn't too bad at all. There are some listy sections post Culture that need addressing but other than that, it's not too bad. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Subdivisions and local government - proposal to remove irrelevancy/duplication

Why are the following two paragraphs in the "Subdivisions and local government" subsection? (bolding added by me)

"The Crown has sovereignty over the Isle of Man and the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey. Collectively, these three territories are known as the Crown dependencies, lands owned by the British monarch but not part of the United Kingdom. They are not part of the European Union. However, the Parliament of the United Kingdom has the authority to legislate for the dependencies, and the British government manages their foreign affairs and defence.

The UK has fourteen overseas territories around the world, the last remaining territories of the British Empire. The overseas territories are not considered part of the UK, but in most cases, the local populations have British citizenship and the right to abode in the UK. This has been the case since 2002."

The Subdivisions and local government section at this article is clearly for the subdivisions and local government of the United Kingdom, and not of anywhere else.

In addition to the illogicality, I object to these two paragraphs also on the grounds that it is just duplicatation of the same information featured more concisely in the introduction:

"The Crown Dependencies of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, formally possessions of the Crown, are not part of the UK but form a federacy with it.[11] The UK has fourteen overseas territories,[12] all remnants of... "

And a third objection: neither of these two paragraphs even mentions the subdivisions of, or the local government systems of, any crown dependency or overseas territory. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What in particular is the issue? Seems legitimately encyclopaedic to me, to avoid confusion if for no other reason- compare and contrast with the situation of France, where overseas departements are to all intents and purposes considered parts of mainland France (correct me if I'm wrong on this). Mentioning that these are not local sub-divisions of the UK, where there could legitimately be confusion, is surely still encyclopaedic. It doesn't immediately seem illogical to me. Badgerpatrol (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is called "United Kingdom". It is therefore about precisely that: the United Kingdom. Its subsections: Geography, Politics, Transport etc are for the geography (etc) of the United Kingdom, not for the geography (etc) of anywhere else. The crown dependencies and overseas territories are not part of the United Kingdom, therefore they are not mentioned in any other subsection (religion, transport, law etc), but suddenly they make an appearance under the "Subdivisions and local government" section. Why? The crown dependencies and overseas territories are not subdivisions of the United Kingdom. They are not even part of the United Kingdom. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. They get a mention in the introduction that points out they are not included in the UK - they shouldn't be mentioned again. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this material could just be trimmed down and/or moved within the article rather than removed outright? Remember the lead also serves as a summary of the rest of the article. I don't think it does any harm as such, but agree its depth and position is a little objectionable. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've moved it to the start of the 'Government and Politics' section - I think it fits better there. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. I do think the information should be included somewhere, for the sake of clarity. The introduction (as it reads to me) does not state explicitly that the overseas territories are not part of the UK- in fact it almost seems to imply the opposite to my eyes (although it is wikilinked to the separate article that does make the distinction explicit). Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Loughborough University

is Loughborough university really the world's best sports university? or is that just some student from there trying to raise its notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.96.114 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's generally considered to be a very good university for sports. I doubt it compares to some North American universities with college sports teams though. How you'd go about establishing the best, I have no idea. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's sports science department is known world wide, sports wise, I believe. And it is certainly well known in the UK for it. Go with what the sources say, I guess. Narson (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That said, I'm not sure it's important enough to mention alongside Oxford and Cambridge. If it is, there are a lot of other UK universities that we could mention here, so I've removed it. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Armed forces images

There are three pictures illustrating the UK armed forces, and all are naval. Could we put at least one Air Force or Army picture in? Replacing the shipbuilding hall would be my suggestion, fascinating though it is. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Economy (again)

What do users think about this? User:WikiWitch and somewhat comparable User:Antero8 have been making these changes. I was under the impression a consensus against this was formed?... I have no personal view on the content, but I am an advocate of the consensus process. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Now User:Stymphal has made this edit. -- Jza84 · (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. I strongly support the consensus. We all remember the long discussions and the rather disruptive edit wars a few weeks ago. These users haven't even bothered to take part in the discussion. In order to avoid a new edit war, I strongly support we stick to the consensus phrasing that we agreed upon. JdeJ (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Burqa

"The 2006 controversy over the burqa, brought up in comments by politician Jack Straw, reflects a split between some Britons questioning the extent to which traditionalist forms of Islam are compatible with British society, and others who believe that wearing the veil is compatible with Muslim integration in Britain." His comments are about wearing the burqa not just a viel. There is a difference. There are many types of veils in Islam. The burqu is one of the most extreme. Supposed (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? According to [10], his initial comments were explicitly about the niqab, but then these terms get confused all the time anyway. Agree that the section should be consistent, though. -- Jao (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Map

I think we should update the map of the United Kingdom to reflect the independence of Kosovo. Also, can we not have for the UK entry the same caramel and blue maps used for almost all of the other European Union Member States' entries (e.g. France, Poland)? These a far bolder, clearer and look generally better than the faint green and grey thing being displayed now. Imperium Europeum (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the format at present, imho. Others may disagree. If you want to add Kosovo (or correct any other mistakes- see the above, identically themed, thread) then do so. If it's not well received, it'll be reverted, that's how a Wiki works. Please add new items to the bottom of a page on future. Badgerpatrol (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Oops! I didn't notice the big discussion above on Kosovo. Can someone who knows how to just change the map?! Kosovo is now an independent country and our government (UK) has formally recognised it. I don't know how to, otherwise I would.
On the issue of standardisation, should not all the maps used for at least the European Union Member States all be identical? I know they seem to get frequently swapped on all of the 27 articles, but there does now seem to be a preference for the nice, bold caramel and blue version...It's just clearer and looks better! Imperium Europeum (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of Kosovo

UK has accepted Kosovo independence. Could you please change the map of UK, including the independent Kosovo? Bardhylius (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone would need to create it first. Of course it should be changed whether the UK recognised independence or not. Astrotrain (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I presume you mean the location map of the UK in Europe- as I think everyone is aware, Kosovo is not a part of the United Kingdom! (Or is that the subtext of this whole situation? Leave Serbia and join up with Shropshire and Surrey in blighty...conspiracy theories abound). In specific reference to AT above- a more acceptable measure would be whether the independence motion was accepted by e.g. the UN - declaring independence does not make a country independent ipso facto; the map doesn't include the Principality of Sealand as a separate entity (of course, in this case Kosovo's declaration will be recognised by the UN and the majority of the global community). Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be too sure of UN recognition in the immediate future - Russia has a veto on the Security Council and seems inclined to use it. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Please look more into the issue if you are not informed enough about the major international recognition that Kosovo independence has received. UK has been one of the key countries to start and accomplish this process that culminated with the official establishment of diplomatic affairs between the two countries. I think Wikipedia (in this case the UK article) should look up to the governmental stance of each country rather than collective UN decisions. Actually, UN has urged every state to decide for themselves, separately on the matter so it clearly lies to national level rather than UN. I can provide the map if needed to, I just thought it was more appropriate for more active users in this article to change it. Bardhylius (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I welcome Kosovo declaring independence - but that is not the point! I think Wikipedia should follow the UN lead on whether 'we' recognise it as an independent country. (By the way, the EU urged every state to decide for themselves - not the UN.) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Russia and China would most likely veto any Security Council resolution- but admitting nations to the UN (= as near as can be defined, accepting their sovereignty) is I believe left to the General Assembly anyway, where no-one has a veto. I also doubt if the UN really has stated that it is abdicating responsibility for the recognition issue (but if you can point to a reliable news story asserting this then I'll believe it!) The EU I think has done this, largely to avoid trouble with e.g. Spain and because EU (as a composite) recognition is not at present a very pressing issue.
Anyway, this is all a very long way away from the scope of this article, and in the context of this piece a very minor issue, so I'll shut up. Badgerpatrol (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The current Wikipedia policies do not say that official recognition of the states from Wikipedia shall be based on what UN recognizes. The UK government has taken a stance on recognizing Kosovo and as a result, Kosovo should be printed on their maps. Otherwise the article wouldn't stay loyal to its authentic essence, which involves representing UK's foreign diplomatic relations. And Fishiehelper2, Ban Ki-moon DID say on behalf of UN that it is an individual matter of each state: “Independence is recognized by states but not by UN Secretariat,”Ban Ki-moon: Independence is recognized by states but not by UN Secretariat Bardhylius (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardhylius (talk • contribs) 22:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you point to the link? From that quote he seems to be stating that the states decide on behalf of the UN- i.e. the mechanisms of the GA make the decision - rather than the secretary general imposing a decision upon the states. Exactly as it should be, and as described above. I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but a) the map on this page is not an official Ordnance Survey, FCO, or other governmental agency map; b) the essence of the article is not about the foreign relations of the UK (see Foreign relations of the United Kingdom for what you may be looking for); c) the map is a simple location map (unless I have the wrong map?) and does not purport to have any other purpose. I would say that the independence of Kosovo is a fait accompli, so if you want to update the map, please go ahead and do it (I think that seems to be consensus?). Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the understanding. I understand the quote similar to the statement that EU made. Accepting Kosovo independence is a matter of states deciding separately, not on behalf of the organisation. We have the opposite case of OIC that decided to accept it in "package", meaning as whole. As for the questions. a) What is the map supposed to show according to you? According to me it's supposed to show where UK stands in the world that THEY recognize, including other countries and their borders. b) You misunderstood me. I said ONE OF the elements of the article is to project UK's foreign diplomatic relations. c) See a). Thanks again for the consensus. Bardhylius (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you're reading a bit too much into it. It's just a location map of Britain in Europe- I don't think any political or diplomatic subtext is implied. For example, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (not part of the UK, except in a more or less de facto sense) are (wrongly) coloured light green as if they were a part of the EU - they aren't. Does this mean that the UK considers them a part of the European Union, but other countries do not? No, it means that someone made a small mistake when drafting the map. Gibraltar (unless my eyes deceive me? It's very tiny...) does not seem to have been differentiated from Spain. It is very clear that the UK government does not consider Gibraltar to be politically or diplomatically a part of Spain. Again, it's just not on the map. If you want to update and improve the map to correct these errors- go ahead and do it. The "foreign relations" comment was obviously a misunderstanding- I thought you were suggesting that the essence of the article involved UK foreign affairs- if you weren't, fair enough, although your language was a bit misleading (I accept that English may not be your first language). The issue of Sovereignty is an interesting one with no definitive answer- in fact, I was wrong above- admission to the GA proper does require the assent of both the SC and the GA; Kosovo may perhaps be admitted as an observer, or perhaps not at all, depending on the position of Russia and China. Ordinarily, full membership the UN (= UN recognition of sovereignty) is by SC recommendation and then a 2/3 majority in the GA (cf. Taiwan (the ROC) which is not recognised by the UN or any major country). However, the situation is complex- bottom line, if you want to change the map to include Kosovo, then do it, if people don't like it, it can be discussed and reverted (sensibly) if necessary. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we ought to wait a few more days, allowing the relevant supranational decisions to be made, so we can make a more informed decision ourselves here on the right way forwards? There is no rush. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Badgerpatrol, you said it yourself, those are mistakes. My point still stands. Because someone didn't appropriately divide regions and countries in the map does not in any way defy the essence of the map - which is as I said, to represent UK's location and its recognition of other countries. Serbia will probably keep Kosovo undivided, and that is normal considering their government will not recognise the independence. But UK has formally recognised it and it's just a matter of "uncertainty" that the uninvolved (in the Kosovo discussion) parties (users) are showing (i.e. Jza87). Kosovo will eventually be there, when these parties are "convinced" and sort of dragged in a more serious discussion. However, then you will have to change tons of maps at once when you could have already done that little by little like I suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardhylius (talk • contribs) 14:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Bardhylius, why don't you change the map yourself? Image:Location UK EU Europe.png is not on the English Wikipedia but at WikiCommons. None of us here made this. User:Quizimodo created the original map, but I see that you have not even contacted this user. My logic would've thought to approach him/her first. Also, my username is Jza84. -> -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for confusing your name, a matter of vision. I'm going to change the map myself, I just wanted a sort of consensus firstly with the users that contribute more to this article. Thanks for your suggestion, I will contact him immediately. Bardhylius (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Without taking sides for one side or the other, I'd just want to add that this really is a non-problem. There are many articles where a decision over Kosovo is of some importance, but definitely not in this article nor in articles of the same kind (France, Germany, Monaco etc.) I can guarantee you that not one person comes to the article on the UK with the intention of finding Kosovo on the map. I can understand those who feel it is important to have it included and those who object to its inclusion, but it's really irrelevant to this article and many similar articles where there's currently a big argument over Kosovo. These disputes should be settled at the discussion over Kosovo, not exported to every second Wikipedia articles as they are at the moment. JdeJ (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't update the UK article every time it's government makes some announcement. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but wouldn't you like the users to be served with the most up-to-date information possible? Bardhylius (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Bardhylius, I'm going to do you the favour of assuming that this is an elaborate joke, but frankly it's gone on long enough. Could we get on with writing an encyclopedia? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes- bottom line; Bardhylius, if you want to change the map, then change it yourself. Kosovo is not even remotely within the scope of this article (apologies to all for going off at a tangent somewhat above). As stated, nobody comes here to find out where Kosovo is, they come here to find out where the UK is, and in that regard they are adequately served by this map. Badgerpatrol (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
And if you do change the map I'll revert it. Sarah777 (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion -- new data

Article 'Over half of Britons claim no religion' from The Times, based on the report by the Human Rights Council.--Svetovid (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to raise this issue myself, and this is an interesting new source to be considered. First, that report does not introduce any new figures, and there are certain parts of that Times article that make a very cheap interpretation of its findings. What the report does do is note the findings of other surveys which 'measure “belief” or “practice”, rather than “religious affiliation”'. This is considered a little better in the Religion in the United Kingdom sub-article.
My problem with the section in this article is the statement that "Christianity is in decline". What the article lacks is a source from a repeated study using the same methodology, so regardless of what can be said about the current demographic, it is not justifiable to talk about a decline. I had a look at the British Social Attitudes Survey which does do this, and found that from 1997 to 2004, the proportion of "no religion" answers went up by a whopping 0.8%, with an increase in "don't know" and no-answers of 0.4%, and an increase in Church of England respondents by 1.3%. I hope you'll agree that these are pretty statistically insignificant results.
I wonder what people think should be done about this. It's not an easy issue to tackle; on the one hand there are lots of these reports which describe or imply a decline but also a lot of media frenzy which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia which is supposed to be neutral. BigBlueFish (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Scotland straw poll

A straw poll has opened at this section of the Scotland talk page regarding the use of the term "nation" to describe Scotland in the introduction of that article. To capture a representative result as possible, you are invited to pass your opinion there. If joining the poll, please keep a cool head, and remain civil. -MichiganCharms (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How widely have you posted this comment inviting people to join the poll? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Just here, England, Wales and Northern Ireland... those were all the articles I felt necessary for a good sample size. -MichiganCharms (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note: If nation (or country) is adopted by the Scotland article (or any of four consitituent country articles)? We'll have to make changes to this article's lead. Rough example - United Kingdom is made up of three constituent countries, England, Northern Ireland and Wales; and a nation (or country), Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You may find this entry in Wiktionary interesting;

"constituent country (plural constituent countries)

An administrative division of the United Kingdom, of which there are only three: the Kingdoms of England and Scotland, and the Principality of Wales (Northern Ireland is a province." Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the entry you refer to was created by one user and has not been modified in any way since. It also cites no sources, so it is hardly reliable. The matter of Northern Ireland being a constituent country or a province is open to debate as detailed in the Wikipedia article, however, all of this does not change the fact that Scotland is a constituent country. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 22:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
GoodDay, we would have to do no such thing. --sony-youthpléigh 21:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I hope you guys are correct, about all of this. My major concern isn't politics, it's article stability. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, my major concern isn't politics either - I hope you weren't insinuating that it was. --sony-youthpléigh 22:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Certainly not, Sony. Actually, I'm sorta having a change of heart at Scotland (take a peek). GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why there is thought to be a sharp choice between 'nation', 'country' and 'constituent country' as GoodDay suggests. Scotland, like England and Wales, is fairly obviously all three (Northern Ireland being more difficult to categorise); just as is France, or Italy, or any other constituent country of the EU. In the context of an article about the UK, the obvious label is the label that relates them to the UK; constituent country. In the context of an article about Scotland, the obvious label is either 'nation' or country, as the article is about Scotland itself.ariwara (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. If Scotland is a nation, that doesn't stop it being a country.Hobson (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If Scotland adopts the description nation in its article lead & Northern Ireland, England and Wales adopt their own unique discriptions in their leads. Those 'new' description must be reflected in this article's lead. Ya can't say it's one thing in one article & another thing in another article. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem also relates to the meaning of the word "nation" - which is a social community, or group of people, not a territory or division of land. The Scottish people are a nation (have a look), not Scotland itself. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree: It's the Scottish who are a nation (not Scotland). But, the nation pushers at Scotland won't accept that. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I too agree. And the non-nation pushers at Scotland do accept that. Derek Ross | Talk 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the response at this article is to ignore it. Even if the consensus is to describe Scotland as a nation at Scotland, there is no doubt that it is also a country, and we can keep describing it as such. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of formation of the United Kingdom?

After much debate, the editors of the United Kingdom article seem to have settled on 1707 as being the foundation of the state (I note with concern though that this date lacks any external referencing, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY).

But this article - List of countries by formation dates - claims that the UK was actually founded in 1603 (again, completely unreferenced). Both articles cannot be correct, so which is it? Please come to the party armed with some proper external refs, because I am not sure if we can stomach yet another verbally diarrhetic Talk page splurge with largely consists of ad hominem attacks and statements of totally unsourced opinion. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Though the first time the name 'United Kingdom' was used was in 1801, (after Ireland joined), the 1707 union between Scotland and England created a 'united kingdom'. 1603 is called the 'Union of the Crowns' though all that means is that both crowns were united in one person - Scotland and England remained separate countries. Haven't managed to reference this yet however! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
According to this (which is certainly official enough) the 1707 Act of Union created the "United Kingdom of Great Britain". One Night In Hackney303 00:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, not that I can't - the citation is pretty clear on this issue. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A UK Govt. website on Acts of Union 1707 ( http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/lib/visuals/pdf/articlesofunion.pdf )show a lower-case 'u' in "united Kingdom of Great Britain", as a descriptive rather than official term. De facto use of upper-case 'U' followed this but was not officially included as part of the title until 1801, with the Act of Union 1800 creating the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". (Current name only in used since 1927!). 1801 gets my vote for De Jure creation of the "United Kingdom", 1707 saw creation of the unified "Kingdom of Great Britain" and 1603 saw only a personal Union of the Crowns, nothing more. (Even the Parliament of England poured cold water on initial attempts by James to style himself King of Britain, or Jacobus primus britanniæ franciæ et hyberniæ rex, as he would have it. He even sought to create a greater and more formal union at the time, questioning how he, "a Christian King under the Gospel, should be a Polygamist and Husband to two Wives"). Rab-k (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This would tend to lend more weight to 1707 as well. One Night In Hackney303 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Logically, I'd argue in favour of 1801, although the issue is clearly not black and white. It rather worries me that so much of Wikipedia seems to be directed towards finding conclusions, rather than presenting facts from which people can independently draw their own. Do we really need to state an unambiguous 'date of foundation' for the UK? Does it actually serve any purpose?--Breadandcheese (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
... so much of Wikipedia seems to be directed towards finding conclusions, rather than presenting facts from which people can independently draw their own. Very well said. You'll make wikipedia a better place if you say that often in more places! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well-said. It doesn't really matter. These "Lists of ..." remind me of indiscriminate collections of information. I would be of the opposite opinion to Breadandcheese above (i.e. I'd say 1707 is the start date) but it's not a cut and dry issue. In 1605, the 1801 union was standing securely in personal union, take that as a start date. Or 1923 when the UK as it currently stands was formed. Or 1801, which today (from a British perspective) looks like the "natural" form of the UK - a state of completeness marking the end of a long process and the start of the end of history. Heck, go all the way back to Laudabiliter, or better still 1066, that's really where it all began!
There is nothing to be gained by putting arbitrary dates on these things. Even from an Irish perspective it's hard to lay a finger on the formation of the Republic (1916, the ideological start? 1919, the provisional government? 1923, the Free State? 1937, the constitution? 1949, the de jure declaration of the republic?). Forget about it, just tell the facts, and stay away form the "List of ..." pages. They're good for no-one. --sony-youthpléigh 02:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


My List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford is surely OK still? I'm being mischievous sorry. How do we go about "presenting the facts/dates as themselves" here and elsewhere though? Infoboxes and tables are notoriously rigid for such things. My point above was that the UK wasn't formed in of its guises in 1603. I've never seen a source aligned to that point of view. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Why can't we list 4 dates? 1603, 1707, 1801 and 1922 with the explanations 'union of the Crowns' 'Act of Union 1707' 'Act of Union 1800' and 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' next to them? -MichiganCharms (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I would go with that except that I don't think the union of the crown is significant in constutional terms. The English king/queen held parts of Ireland back to 11/12th centuries and still holds several parts of the world where the British have no control. The British situation is far to complicated to be able to claim a single formation date. josh (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, I think while it may be of no constitutional impotence it certainly set the ball in motion. I have no preference either way, as long as the three other dates are included (whihc they are) then the article is accurate. -MichiganCharms (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, if you are going to include the Union of the Crowns (personal union of the separate kingdoms of England, Ireland and Scotland), then you must also list the Crown of Ireland Act 1542 - An Act that the King of England, his Heirs and Successors, be Kings of Ireland (ie. the personal union of the separate kingdoms of England and Ireland). And then that would raise even further questions about even earlier events linking England with Ireland or Wales. Where exactly does one stop?
This article is called "United Kingdom", which is a distinct entity in law, formed by parliamentary statutes. We should only be listing the formation events of that state, not events which predate the state's legal formation.--Mais oui! (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no preference, again. I only care that the two Acts of Union and the Anglo-Irish Treaty are included. -MichiganCharms (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh) The United Kingdom was created in 1801 by the Act of Union 1800, which united the Kingdom of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland. The only ref needed is Article One of the Act of Union: "That it be the first article of the union of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January which shall be in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever after, be united into one kingdom, by the name of “the united Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”; and that the royal stile and titles appertaining to the imperial crown of the said united kingdom and its dependencies, and also the ensigns, armorial flags and banners thereof, shall be such as his Majesty, by his royal proclamation under the great seal of the united kingdom, shall be pleased to appoint."(see also Act as currently in force) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Documents from 1707 showing use of lower-case 'u' in "united" and, (In the case of the 1707 Act), standard scrypt, again indicating a descriptive term rather than any formal title.
Acts of Union 1707 Articles 1 & 2
1707 Proclamation concerning English coin
Bound copy of of intoduction and Article 1
Also, from George III's speech to the close of session of the Parliament of Great Britain, 31st December 1800: "The time fixed for the commencement of the Union of Great Britain and Ireland necessarily terminates your proceedings on this important subject; but I am persuaded that the consideration of it will be resumed with the same zeal and temper on the first meeting of the parliament of the united kingdom." George III The King's Speech at the Close of the Session
Furthermore, the 1800 Act of Union clearly states that Great Britain and Ireland shall "be united into one kingdom, by the name of "the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", and that the royal stile and titles appertaining to the imperial crown of the said united kingdom and its dependencies, and also the ensigns, armourial flags and banners thereof, shall be such..." Act of Union 1800, First - Third Articles, whereas the 1707 Acts of Union clearly state that England and Scotland shall "be united into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain. And that the ensigns armorial of the said united kingdom be such...".
The parliaments were also dealt with, the 1707 Acts referring to the "same Parliament to be styled the Parliament of Great Britain", whereas the 1800 Act refers to the "same parliament, to be syled "The parliament of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" ". The Government of Ireland Act (1920) also refers to the "supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom". Goverment of Ireland Act 1920
The documents would therefore appear to support 1801 as the De Jure establishment of the title "United Kingdom", prior to this the use of the term 'united' appears to be merely descriptive. Rab-k (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Why the fascination with names? Does it mean that a new state dates from 1927? No. --sony-youthpléigh 12:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
sony-youthpléigh writes "Why the fascination with names?". Do you really mean "names", or should we substitute the word "facts"? The analysis and presentation of facts is what this site is about, is it not? If the 'old' state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ceased in 1927 then tell me, what followed it? Rab-k (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Going by his argument, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland followed it. --G2bambino (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe the Irish Free State seceded from the UK, rather than the UK create a new state. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I was merely playing along with Sony-youth's rebuttal to Rab-k. --G2bambino (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually the site is about referenced facts and you will be hard pressed to find a source that says the UK was formed in year xxxx. The history section of the Encarta goes back to the 17th century and the intro of the section goes out of its way to use the various names that came with each evolution. The CIA Factboook has a paragraph explaining the various acts rather than a single formation date used the majority of its articles.
The reason for this vagueness is not laziness or sitting on the fence but that the UKs formation is vague. Giving a single formation date for the UK is like giving a year that football was invented or a date when apes became human. It happened in stages so the best we can do document the key dates. josh (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

josh writes "you will be hard pressed to find a source that says the UK was formed in year xxxx". Does this reference not qualify as such? Act of Union 1800, First - Third Articles For "xxxx" read "1 Jan. 1801" Rab-k (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No. I mean a source that specificly states that the United Kingdom was formeed in 1801. Even that document is amazingly vague (something our government specialises in). It says that the two kingdoms will be "united into one". Is this a whole new state or is Ireland being merged into Great Britain ala BSB and Sky a few years back. Saying that the UK simply popped into existance in 1801 is a gross simplfication of what happened and would serve no purpose. josh (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
IMHO there is nothing "vague" about that document. In answer to your question, the two kingdoms merging into one did indeed create a "whole new state", as you put it. The document clearly specifies the names of both the new state and new parliament, and indeed the terms under which certain aspects of the previous union between the two kingdoms of Scotland and England, who were also "united into one", would continue. What is there that is so difficult to comprehend that could possibly be regarded as "amazingly vague", or are you just being amazingly obtuse? Rab-k (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
My question above, which was unanswered mind, was how do we go about presenting these facts/dates as themselves here and elsewhere? Infoboxes and tables are notoriously rigid for such things. Do we know where all the "offending" articles and sections are? -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The text clearly supports 1801 as the date of union, 1922 as the formation of the current boundaries. Seeing as we already have an article on the Kingdom of Great Britain is it really necessary to use 1707 here? On the other hand, 1707 is traditionally held. Note the celebrations last year. I don't know, either way could be seen as correct. -MichiganCharms (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Last year's celebrations were marking the 1707 parliamentary Union between the kingdoms of Scotland and England. (Much as the 2003 celebrations marked the regal Union of two the kingdoms). The 2007 celebrations did not celebrate the birth of the "UK". Rab-k (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Last year marked the 300th birthday of the 'united kingdom' that was created when the two kingdoms united! That was certainly the start of the united kingdom, whether that was the official title or not, and the flag created for the new political entity looks very similar to the present United Kingdom's flag! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It strikes me as strange that an editor is claiming the 1707 sources aren't valid because of a lower case "u", when the sources also repeatedly use an upper case one in addition. Also, the 1801 sources also use a lower case "u", yet somehow that is being ignored. Regardless of what the 1801 sources say, the 1707 sources are clear and indisputable. One Night In Hackney303 23:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
ONIH, look again, and tell us which Act of Union (1707 or 1800) created the "Parliament of the United Kingdom". It wasn't 1707, was it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't hear of any celebrations in 2001. What's your point? Again, your still fascinated with names. The 1800 acts (plural, remember) use a small "u" for the Irish version and a large "U" for the British version. For the 1705/6 acts use capitals 'u's for the Scottish version and mixed capital and small 'u' for the English version. So what? The name doesn't make the definitive start date of the state (as if there was such a thing). If it did then a new state would have had to have started in 1927 when the UK changed it's name again.
It's suggested that we move away from name and into dealing with facts. I welcome that. The facts are that the UK is organic in nature. There's no point to which you can point and say, "That's it, that's the beginning." So just describe the facts and allow the reader to come to his or her own conclusion. --sony-youthpléigh 23:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The UK is not "organic", whatever that is supposed to mean in this context. It is a legal entity formed at a precise date (1801) by the union of two pre-existing states, one of which was itself created at a previous date by the union of two other pre-existing states, England and Scotland.
Now, as to the issue of celebrations, that ought to be rather obvious. The 1707 union was commemorated because it is still has a de facto existence, but its end is openly sought as the major political goal of the governing party in Scotland. Other hand, most of the 1801 union was dismantled in 1922 (and in subsequent steps in the next few decades), and the remaining part of that union has only a conditional existence. Celebrating the 1801 union would have been politically explosive in Northern Ireland (I can't quite see Martin McGuinness hosting the street parties), but that doesn't alter the fact that the union happened. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 08:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
A legal entity that incorporated the previous entities. It is not like the birth of a child or the establishment of a new company. It is also clear that it was understood that the union with Ireland was a continuation of a process began in 1707. By "organic", I meant the UKs unwritten constitution. In other cases, we might be fortunate enough to have a nice new document that would encompasses everything about this "new" entity. Instead, in the case of the UK we have documents spanning centuries which only together "constitute" the state in law (a pun).
For 2001, I don't expect to see street parties. There were no street parties in 2007. What there was a BBC news report about the 1707 union. I saw a similar, albeit smaller, report in 2001. What I didn't see was any report at any time saying, "This is the 200th/300th anniversary of the foundation of the UK." No need for any big hoo-haw, just a little reference would be all that I would expect. --sony-youthpléigh 11:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, final try (my bold)...

Acts and Articles of Union, 1707: "be united into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain. And that the ensigns armorial of the said united kingdom be such"..."same Parliament to be styled the Parliament of Great Britain".

Act of Union (Ireland), 1800: "be united into one kingdom, by the name of "the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", and that the royal stile and titles appertaining to the imperial crown of the said united kingdom and its dependencies, and also the ensigns, armourial flags and banners thereof, shall be such"..."same parliament, to be syled "The parliament of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" ".

1707 Acts created unified Kingdom of Great Britain from the Kingdom of England uniting with the Kingdom of Scotland. 1800 Act created The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from the Kingdom of Great Britain uniting with the Kingdom of Ireland.

I can't see why such facts are so difficult to comprehend. Please don't take my word for it - read the documents. Rab-k (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

With due respect to Mais Oui!, this discussion is best described as "from the ridiculous to the ridiculous". The question originally posed is "when was the UK was formed". Instead of looking at when that actually happened, editors are arguing about when it became called "the United Kingdom". Answering the real question, the Acts of Union, 1707 appears be the right answer to me because it is when the current polity came together. Yes, Ireland was not officially absorbed until 1801. But was it not the case that Ireland was controlled from across the Irish Sea before that? I believe the fact that the UK government numbers parliaments from 1707 supports my view. -Rrius (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

See Parliamentary Acts - categories A distinction you may be interested in. sony-youthpléigh The links I posted previously are where I'm reading these from. Rab-k (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
<edit conflict> They are very easy to comprehed. That is why we should present them to a reader and allow them to interpret them as they will, but might a suggest a little less selective quoting:
  • e.g. from 1707, "... the United Kingdom of Great Britain be Represented by one and the same Parliament to be stiled the Parliament of Great Britain ... Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union have full Freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom ... all parts of the United Kingdom for ever from and after the Union shall have the same Allowances Encouragements and Drawbacks and be under the same prohibitions restrictions and regulations of Trade ... all parts of the United Kingdom be for ever from and after the Union liable to the same Excise upon all exciseable Liquors ... from and after the Union the Coin shall be of the same standard and value throughout the United Kingdom as now in England ... rom and after the Union there be One Great Seal for the United Kingdom of Great Britain ... etc. etc. etc.".
They do seem to like saying "United Kingdom" and "United Kingdom of Great Britain", don't they? But please, careful with those capital (or not capital 'u') since they are thought to be so important. I'm reading of the statute database (here and here). Where are you reading those small 'u's from? (Yes, indeed, it does say that the name of the kingdom shall be "Great Britian" - but note, not "Kingdom of Great Britain".)
In any event, the fascination with the name still misses the point. (Well said, Rrius.) --sony-youthpléigh 11:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The "fascination with the name" signifies to me that the original period documents for the 1707 Act distinguish between the words "united kingdom" and the words "Great Britain" in the style of script. Why would this distinction be so if it were not to emphasise the "Great Britain" element from the "united kingdom" element? (I appreiciate your more recent references run contrary to this, but the originals are quite clear - Acts of Union 1707 Articles 1 & 2 ). Regarding the lower-case 'u' in the 1800 Act, I distinguish those from the other cases in point as they are clearly contained within the quotes that surround the full name, therefore, as with the standard script on the 1707 Act, it is clearly a device used to distinguishing that text from the remainder. (See - Act of Union 1800, First - Third Articles ). The distinctions are there for all to see. You see? Rab-k (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Rab-k, like the others, you are hung up on when the thing was named as though that defines when the thing was created. If the United States renamed itself "Freedonia" tomorrow, it would still date its founding as 4 July 1776. One plausible explanation of how "United Kingdom" came to be used that there was no simple equivalent to "Great Britain" that encompasses Great Britain and Ireland. Scotland and England (and Wales) encompassed the whole of the island of Great Britain, making "Great Britain" the obvious name for the new country formed in 1707. Referring to the post-1801 entity as "Great Britain and Ireland" would have been bulky and would have emphasized division over unity. Making "United Kingdom" a part of the official name so that it will be called that makes a good deal of sense. I say this to illustrate that the naming may have nothing to do with the substance of the founding.
I suggest that making arguments about when the basis of the current country came together would be more useful than talking about lowercase and capital letters. I suggest being open to all of the dates mentioned above, from the subjugation of Wales to the creation of the Irish Free State. An argument of the sort I propose is this: In 1707, two sovereign states freely joined together, each ceding its sovereignty to a new state consisting of the constituent countries, but with each retaining individual features such as Scottish criminal law and separate established churches. Arguments such as that one are far more helpful than quibbling over whether "united" is merely descriptive or is part of the name. -Rrius (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The reason for being "hung up" on the name, as you put it, is because the "name" distinguishes what it is we are supposedly talking about. You mentioned the USA, lets take that one step further. Imagine that in the year 2015 the USA and Canada adopt a similar Union to that of Scotland and England, being "unified into one state by the name of Great Noramica". Great Noramica consists of a single Legislature, to be styled "the Legislature of Great Noramica", with a single Head of State. (Some elements of the founding nation states, e.g. Canadian Law, are retained). In 2065 Mexico joins with Great Noramica to "be unified into one state, by the name of "the unified state of Great Noramica and Mexico"". (The name "The Unified State" is also widely used and is an accepted abbreviated form). Somebody asks you to provide the "date of formation of the Unified State?", (which equates to the question which kicked off this entire show). Which date do you give? 2015, or 2065? Simple question. (Please justify your answer). Rab-k (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
PS. Exchange united for "unified", kingdom for "state", Britain for "Noramica", parliament for "legislature" and Ireland for "Mexico" and you have the precise wording and form of the relevant Acts to be found here Acts of Union 1707 Articles 1 & 2 and here Act of Union 1800, First - Third Articles
I would say that it is misleading to pick either date as definitive. The Unified State in it current form would date from 2065 - or actually 2084, when the majority of Mexico ceded to form the Mexican Free State and Northern Mexico was forcibly given effectively complete self-determination, though this wasn't reflected in the name until 2088 - but attempting to divorce it from the union of 2015 would be artificial. We don't need hypothetical example though, would the EU not suffice for a similar example? We don't say that 1992 was it, and before then there was nothing, we won't say that 2008 will be it, when the EU gets legal corporation. We don't separate the EU from the EC from the EEC - indeed the Treaty of Rome is commonly taken as it's start date with 1992 as a major event making it as we see it now, yet 1985/86 was profound. It's a blurry thing, and picking any date as definitive is misleading.
(Incidentally, maybe there's something wrong with my eyes but I still see capital 'u's in the original documents - as probably the civil servants that transcribed it onto the parliament.co.uk site did too.)
(Rruis: "... there was no simple equivalent to "Great Britain" that encompasses Great Britain and Ireland ..." Quite right) --sony-youthpléigh 00:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The question ignores the point I am making. If it is possible to decide about the founding, one must go beyond the formalities of union and look to the substance of what happened at each union. I have already given a substantive argument. If you will not engage on substance, that is fine, but I refuse to engage on formalities. -Rrius (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here's the substance:
1535-1542: Wales is annexed by the Kingdom of England (see the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542). No new state is created, and all that happens is that Wales becomes part of England, in a process of annexation and integration.
1603: The King of Scotland accedes to the English Crown, becoming also the King of England. No new state is created, and the James VI wears the crown of two separate countries, with a third one (the Kingdom of Ireland) tucked away in a cupboard for whenever he has the energy to muster an army to go and trash the place). At this point there are three separate states, with separate monarchies, but a personal union whereby the same dude controls all three entities. (A bit like the same man being Executive Chairman of several separate businesses)
1707: The Act of Union 1707 abolishes the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland to make a new state called the Kingdom of Great Britain. Again, the Kingdom of Ireland remains in personal union with the new Kingdom, but remains a separate state, albeit a subjugated and militarily occupied client state of a form revived in Europe from the 1940s to the 1980s
1801: The Act of Union 1800 abolishes the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland to make a new state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
1922: Under the Anglo-Irish Treaty, part of Ireland begins a process of secession from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with further landmarks in 1926, 1936, 1937 and 1948.
1927: the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 changed the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but did not alter the territorial extent of the Kingdom or of its structures of governance (the structural changes involved the Dominions)
So we have two points (1707 and 1801) at which new states were created, and several earlier dates at which predecessor states were created (such as the consolidation of the Kingdom of England in the 10th century). So the United Kingdom, created in 1801, has a tree of predecessor states ... but the existence of several predecessor doesn't alter the fact that a new state was created in 1801. The article should of course discuss the parentage, but the fact the state has many ancestors doesn't alter the fact that it also has a birthday. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks BrownHairedGirl for a clear, concise and unambiguous summary of key events. Rab-k (talk) 13:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Il second Rab's compliment. An excellent and very clearly written contribution from BrownHairedGirl. siarach (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thirded. That, I believe, is what was wanted in the first place, and will do nicely as a detailed timeline. For anyone wanting a short one, might I suggest

There may be some who find fault in the detail of the above, particulary 1922-1948. I would urge restraint to add more detail to what is clearly a summary; the excellent details version provided by BrownHairedGirl furnishes the full facts. Bazza (talk) 15:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

From the sublime to the ridiculous

Errr.... now we have the following date at the List of countries by formation dates article:

  • July 12, 927!!

You really could not make this stuff up :D (Well, actually, you could, cos someone just has... ) --Mais oui! (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Does it say whether that was before, or after lunch ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It was pretty obviously a typo, someone trying to use the act which created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Narson (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
No, they chose a date in the 10th century. If you read the article you'll discover Vietnam was formed in 3,000 BC! -MichiganCharms (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I should just make mention of an entirely wikipedia point; the titles on wikipedia of monarchs based at London go from "of England" (reigns finished before 1707), "of Great Britain" (reigns ending before 1801), and then "of the United Kingdom" (rulers ruling after 1801), e.g. William III of England, Anne of Great Britain, George III of the United Kingdom. Just thought I'd point this out, may be of some importance standardisation and consistency wise. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus christ. I mean even by the often ridiculous standards of wikipedia that was taking the piss. Ive changed the entry for the UK to something somewhat based upon factual historical reality. siarach (talk) 10:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a look at all the other countries on that list, you will see that a date has been chosen that represents the earliest occasion on which that territory (within approximate boundaries) was unified under a single ruler, regardless of any continuity of statehood from then until now. Egypt, for example, has 3100 BC, yet no one claims it's the same state. It is a fact that Athelstan, on the date given, received the submission of all the kings in Britain - including Constantine of Scotland. Personally, I think a good case could have been made for Carausius in 286 (since he also ruled at least half of Scotland and certainly the most populous parts), but Athelstan certainly fits the bill. TharkunColl (talk) 10:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And neither the Island of Britain nor the British Isles as a whole were united under one ruler until 1603 at the very earliest. Nominating Athelstan (and you will presumably be consistent and claim any ruler who might have claimed anywhere - be it various emperors who claimed dominance over the world or of the English monarchs who claimed France regardless of the existince of the French monarchy - after all what you are saying is that a claim, no matter how ridiculous, takes precedence over reality and fact) is simply wishful thinking on your part and absolutely indefensible. siarach (talk) 10:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be unaware of what happened at Eamont Bridge in 927. Go and do a bit of research. There are numerous references listed - did you bother reading them? Athelstan's assertion of rulership was no mere empty claim. TharkunColl (talk) 10:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I know very well what happened at the Battle of Brunanburh and it is ENTIRELY irrelevant. siarach (talk) 10:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are unaware of the ceremony at Eamont Bridge in 927 then? When Athelstan received the formal submission of the other British kings? Why are these events "irrelevant"? TharkunColl (talk) 11:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Truly fantastical thinking, as is the 1055 date for Ireland based on Laudabiliter. (How could - even why would? - Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair sign the Treaty of Windsor if he was not a ruler of a unified Ireland?) The whole list is bunk, fantasy and wishful thinking. --sony-youthpléigh 11:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the Ireland date is untenable. Who was the first person to rule a united, independent Ireland? Has there ever been such an entity? TharkunColl (talk) 11:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The pre-1169 order was a single entity - unified language, custom and law ran throughout with a defined "head" - but not of the same nature as in England, more akin to medieval Germany or Italy, which has always led to much confusion about the nature of what existed. Compounding this is that it was an elective monarchy (again in some ways like Germany, but in Ireland to the nth degree). Since about the 8th century, the title of High King was becoming exchanged between an ever-smaller number of increasingly inter-related dynasties. Ard rí (High King) and Rí (King of provincial King) are often translated as Emperor and Prince as in the German example.
Something that Ireland has never had is a singular flag (as distinct from coat of arms). --sony-youthpléigh 12:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why isnt london mentioned in the intro?

Why on earth isnt London mentioned in the intro? A quick search of USA, Germany, and France revealed that all of their capitals are mentioned in their intos! It would be nice to have london in the intro of the UK too, wouldnt it? --Camaeron (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it's totally absurd. I'll fix it. -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Country?

I agree that Great Britain is a singular country. However, as is clear from the title of the entity, The United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland, the UK is two entities that are "united" but not signular. British citizens born in Great Britain cannot be refused entry to Great Britain, a singular entity. Although rare, UK citizens born in Northern Ireland can, and have been refused entry to Great Britain. During World War II for example, there was not free movement of people between Northern Ireland (one of the two entities in the UK) and Great Britain. The status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom is not equal to the 3 territories in Great Britain, England, Scotland and Wales. It is rare that the different status of Northern Ireland becomes apparent within the United Kingdom, but it does happen and proves a different constitutional status of Northern Ireland, which proves the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a pural, not singular, country.

Sorry but for how long has the UK been a singular country? I swear last time I checked it was a collection of countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.56.188 (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're simply trolling or not, but this is a space to discuss edits, not to ask questions about the subject at hand. Needless to say, it should be fairly obvious to anybody that the UK is a country. --Breadandcheese (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This is an old and tiresome debate now. I suggest users new and old coming to this issue (whether again or for the first time) ought to be pointed to the old debates in the archives -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair object of discussion on this page. Sure, we've discussed it before, but it someone wants to revive it, why not?--Gazzster (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, and they have the right to do so per WP:CCC, but I do think it more than sensible that they at least be aware that this has been discussed, and discussed, and discussed again with each occation leading back to the same consensus. Certainly it would negate need to have to re-argue old points as well as avoid edit wars and the like between two or more users who may not be aware that this issue has been tackled several times before. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we have this 'worn out' discussion at the bottom of the talk-page? GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually a refractured version pointing to a full discussion would be better. Benjiboi 01:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've never actually seen this discussion take place, only the discussion be dismissed on the basis that the discussion has already taken place. Was there ever a discussion? How long ago was it? Can we have a link to it from those fortunate enough to have lived at and seen that great and wise time? --sony-youthpléigh 03:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been involved with a lengthy one once (it may have been at England though, I forget) which agreed with country, but I was specifically pointing to the discussion in the archives (top right) specially prepared under "Country/State debate archives". -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I live in the UK and it is indeed a collection of conturies: England, Scotland, Wales & Northen Irland.Daleks Rule (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I live in the US, it's a collection of "states" so to speak, but none of them are states in the national sense. Likewise, the "countries" of the UK are NOT independent nations in their own right. Is this so hard to figure out? Or are these questions asked by separatists? -24.149.203.34 (talk) 17:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiple nations in a single country. This has been debated to death in the past. -82.26.179.54 (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The United KIngdom is one SINGLE countryas it has one head of state and one head of Government the four different electoral REGIONAL governments of Scotland, Northern ireland, wales and London can be removed or abolished if the governmant of the (singular) United Kingdom wishes to do so. Also the name states that it is a UNITED Kingdom which is also a singular noun. Moreso refering to the country uses is not are and was not were. Signed Citizen and Resident of The United Kingdom of Grat Britain ans Norhern Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.191.123 (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not EU

The UK is NOT part of European Union although it getting very close. Daleks Rule (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken, the United Kingdom is most definitely a member state of the European Union; it has been since 1 January 1973. See any related article on Wikipedia and their references for confirmation. Rossenglish (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, yes it is. Has been since the EU was founded [11]. Gwernol 16:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the UK wasn't a founder member of the then EEC but, yes, it clearly is a member. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Right, I was saying it was a founding member of the EU, not the EEC. Britain joined the EC in 1973 and has been a member ever since, including the time when the EEC became the EU. Sorry for the confusion, Gwernol 17:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I wondered if that was what you meant. Anyway, it's all irrelevant apart from the fact that the UK is an EU member state. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This might be a case of mistaking membership of the Euro for membership of the EU. Although it was created by the EU, adopting the Euro is not a prerequesite for being a member. josh (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Or just a wind-up! Cordless Larry (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So a country can be a part of the EU without using the Euro? Daleks Rule (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

NO you don't say! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.191.123 (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. The Euro is the currency of about 15 of the 27 EU member states. AecisBrievenbus 18:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I love the use of the word 'about'. (No offence!) "Nobody knows; its around 15, give or take ten. Or I may be wrong. And that's not counting microstates." Just like anything that involves the UK - " hmmm... I never really checked. It probably is, nobody can be certain, and no one can be bothered to clarify anything officially. That's the British way!" 86.144.60.87 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The British way? ;) AecisBrievenbus 22:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The British way: what I mean was not staying out of the euro, but not making anything official (i.e. constitution, anthem, flag, language etc etc.) Its just the way we do things, eh? 86.144.60.87 (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

origin of the term "united kingdom"

Is the term "United Kingdom" derived to the union of England and Scotland, or is it a traditional label for the British Isles as a whole? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.108.24.235 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Have your pick. It was used in the 1707 union (Scotland and England) but arguably wasn't the "official name" until the 1801 union (Ireland and Great Britain). See the discussion above about when date of formation of the United Kingdom. --sony-youthpléigh 20:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This is what the parliament website says - "The term 'United Kingdom' was originally just a shortened form for 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain', the name by which the united kingdoms of England and Scotland were officially known after 1707. Ireland was always separately named in Britain's formal title--'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'--and this continued after the Anglo-Irish Union of 1801, with 'Ireland' changing to 'Northern Ireland' in 1921."
That seems quite clear - 'the name by which the united kingdoms of England and Scotland were officially known after 1707.' Here is the link Act of Union - glossary Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why does it say Ireland was gradually brought under English rule?

The island of Ireland was origially invaded by the then English Kingdom but by the time it was unificated into the United Kingdom Scotland had played a massive part in the "colonialisation" of Ireland. (e.g. Many Scotish people settled in Ulster fron the 18th centuary onwards henseforth the dialect of Ulster Scots.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.191.123 (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Title of the Article

I'm not sure if this has been brought up, but shouldn't the title be The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with United Kingdom redirecting here? Although it may simply be called the United Kingdom, I thought the articles were supposed to have full, proper titles. -24.149.203.34 (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The articles are supposed to have full proper titles. However it's important not to become confused between the full proper title of an article and the full proper title of the subject of the article. For instance the full, proper title of this article is "United Kingdom" whereas the full, proper title of the subject of this article is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". As you can see they are not always the same. The title of the article is generally chosen to make it easy to find, particularly in cases where the full, proper title of the subject of the article is less well known, such as aspirin, or "acetylsalicylic acid", to give it its full, proper title. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a guideline about this somewhere, even using the UK as an example, but, I can't find it sorry! I think it's along the lines of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally I think the full name should be used with UK as a redirect.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
"United Kingdom" is norm for the good reasons cited above, as per France (not French Republic), United States (not United States of America), Russia (not Russian Federation), Pakistan (not Islamic Republic of Pakistan), Egypt (not Arab Republic of Egypt), Australia (not Commonwealth of Australia), Brazil (not Federative Republic of Brazil) etc. etc. etc. ... (even Republic of Ireland, not Ireland!) --sony-youthpléigh 16:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Sony. Besides United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would make 'too long' an article title (it would be cluttered). GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. 'United Kingdom' seems ideal to me, both in terms of length and popular use.--Breadandcheese (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 states that the expression “United Kingdom” shall, unless the context otherwise requires, mean Great Britain and Northern Ireland.[12] --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean that we should actually say the United Kingdom of United Kingdom?  :-) Bluap (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Metric Unit innacurracy at bottom

At the bottom of the page it says only the roads are imperial measurements but last time i checked it was illeagal to sell beer in litres and it must be sold in pints. could someone change this for me as i cannot edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.57.11 (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll find a reference and add this to the article. I presume it's only in pubs that this is the case because shops sell 500ml cans and bottles, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure it is true at all acctually. There was a huge cafuffle over market traders being forced to use metric measurements, I suspect the law is that pubs /can/ sell in pints (rather than having to use metric as well) not have to. Narson (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Current Issues & common misconceptions

Should the current political issues concerning the United Kingdom such and immigration, terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, taxes, national identity, eu referendum etc be represented on this page and should misconceptions about the British people and culture also be put straight such as stereotypes of British people, classes, importance of the monarchy etc. Note that if this is put forward then it should represent view points from all British people, left wing, right wing, centerist, green, nationalist, loyalist, separatist alike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordchris915 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation and lists

There are lots of "listy", reference-less sections in the article. Is there anybody willing to help improve some of the sections in the article? The lead seems to get all the attention whilst Infrastructure, Sport, Culture and Symbols barely have a source between them. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

William Shakespeare

There's a picture of William Shakespeare in the article. However, can we look at finding an alternative? My reason being that Shakespeare was born prior to the Acts of Union and so was an Englishman rather than a Briton. Of course Shakespeare is part of Britain's "heritage" but it is slightly anachronistic to claim him as part of British culture. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually see the problem here. A great deal of so-called British culture is actually English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish culture anyway. If William Shakespeare's works are significant to cultural life today, then it is valid to include it in the culture section. The article correctly identifies him as English so I really don't see a problem. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Like the user above, I don't see the problem. Dante is considered Italian, Mozart is considered Austrian and Beethoven is considered German. None of them was born in a country that was known as Italy, Austria or Germany at that time. JdeJ (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem then. I suppose I was comparing this to say, an image of Talorc III of the Picts being in the Kingdom of Scotland article. However, you've made a convincing retort between you! I conceed. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Something amiss in Scotland

A conversation about the current maps used to represent the constituent countries has been started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Something_amiss_in_Scotland. This discussion is hopefully to resolve issues that have been raised and to try to set a standard within the UK. For all those that wish to comment on this, your input is requested. Thank-you :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Article's introduction

I missed it. When was it decided not to call UK's 4 components constituent countries? I'm not complaining, just curious. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right - I've added the phrase. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Constituent Nations rather than Constituent Countries is a more appropriate term. It aids in the distinction between the recognized country (at a UN level) and the semi-autonomous nations that comprise it, similar to the way in which Catalonia declares itself a nation in its Estatuto. Jonnyboy5 (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Jonnyboy5

No, a nation is a group of people, not a division of land (see [13]). The Home nations, might be an alternative, but I think constituent countries is the term that has won preference, not just here, but in hundreds of articles and templates. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Maps for the constituent countries

I have created the above maps. I hope you all don't mind that I was WP:BOLD and added them to the relative articles myself. I really don't want to create any edit wars I just want to see what others think and hopefully bring this to a nice consensus on what to use. I hate the idea that other countries seam to be more organized then us with these things, so I hope you think the new one looks professional... I'm actually kinda pleased :-) Please voice your opinion over at Talk:Scotland#Straw_Poll I know I'd personally love to hear your opinions! Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice enough maps, but I don't see why you have added the comment on this talk page when we don't at present have any map that shows the constituent countries of the UK in the UK article. If you are thinking of adding these maps to the UK article, I'm not sure where would be most appropriate. Perhaps under the Geography section? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. No I wasn't thinking about that, but if you want go for it! I was just sneaking comments from others on pages that would have an active interest on the constituent countries pages. Anyway an edited version of Image:Celtic Nations1.svg or the informative Image:Nations of the UK.png would probably be better if you wanted to do that. If you could comment on the Poll that would be appreciated. Thanks again. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Map

The map of the UK shows europe as well. However Britain has recognised Kosovo, so i think its only fair to have a map of Britain and europe which include Kosovo ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Go ahead and add one. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I cant do it on my laptop. Its rather crappy haha ;) Could somebody else do it please. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Divided sections

Who came up with the nonsense, dividing every section along the constituent countries ? Whats next, dividing James Bond movies in Scottish actor/British production ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.19.199 (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What nonsense? Not every section is divided as you describe: Demography, Religion, Language and Economics aren't, for example. Those which are have been divided because the subjects covered (including government, health services, law, education, etc.) are different across one or more of the constituent countries. Bazza (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, not every section was divided, they were correctly divided. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Open University

Found some interesting Reading on Open University that might have some golden nuggets of information helpful to this article & the disputes in it.

The politics of devolution
1 introduction
2 The making of the UK
2.1 England
2.2 Scotland
2.3 Wales
2.4 Northern Ireland
2.5 Summary of Section 1
3 Nation, state and nation-state
3.1 What makes a nation, a state or a nation-state?
3.2 Sub-state forms of nationalism
4 Defining centre and periphery
4.1 National identities and UK politics
5 Governance beyond Westminster: the politics of devolution
5.1 The UK model of devolution
5.2 Devolution in Scotland
5.3 How devolution in Scotland differs from devolution in Wales
5.4 Devolution in Northern Ireland: a particular case
5.5 Devolution in outline
5.6 Summary of Section 5
6 Elected regional assemblies in England
6.1 London
6.2 English regions
6.3 What is the main requirement for regional government? Is it a shared identity?
6.4 Summary of Section 6
7 When was Britain?
7.1 History
7.2 On Britishness
7.3 Summary of Section 7
8 Governance beyond the UK: The EU
References
Acknowledgements

I think this type of reference might be good for this page and all that dwell in it :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Scottish legal system

The comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom that the Sheriff Court "...is the Scottish equivalent of the county court..." is very wide of the mark, but as a new user I cannot edit it. It would be more correct to say that the Sheriff Court "...undertakes almost all the functions of the English County Court but also conducts criminal trials with (Sheriff solemn Court) or without (Sheriff summary Court) a jury." GraceCourt (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

UK's economy is firmly in fifth place according to the IMF's 2007 Nominal GDP figures.

I've updated the disputed GDP sentence to stae that the UK's nominal GDP is the fifth largest not the sixth, which some French editors had tried to assert after The Times last November ran an article stating the UK's economy had slipped behind France's. The new 2007 IMF figures now show this to be wrong and that the UK's economy is actually considerably larger than France's. Signsolid (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I don't think the IMF figures show the FT story to be wrong, exactly, it was just the case the France overtook the UK temporarily due to exchange rate fluctuations. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
If that is the case, the article should of course reflect it. But would you care to provide the source for it as well? The link I found from Wikipedia is to an estimate made in October 2007, before France was reported to have overtaken the UK. That is not to say that I don't believe you, far from it, just that a source would be good to have to make the whole thing more verifiable. JdeJ (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I read the report myself and it's clear that the UK economy is larger than the French. However, the UK is still ranked both fifth (nominal GDP) and sixth (PPP) by the IMF. As the IMF takes care to mention both and doesn't state a preference for one over the other, it's best to keep both in the article. For us to decide which one to use would be original research. JdeJ (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really surprised that Signsolid, with his usual British jingoism, wrote what he wrote above, but I'm a bit surprised that JdeJ jumped to conclusions concerning that IMF report. Nothing has changed at all since the Finantial Times article, in fact the British pound fell further and is now worth less than 1.25 euros, which means the UK GDP is now 100 billion euros behind the French GDP. JdeJ, if you check the IMF report carefully, you'll notice that they used the exchange rate of 1 pound = 1.46 euros for their 2007 GDP estimates, which is last year's exchange rate before the pound started to fall. We should still reflect in the article that the UK economy is either 5th or 6th largest in the world in nominal term depending on whether we use last year's or this year's exchange rate. The IMF pretty well know that because for their 2008 estimates they placed the nominal French GDP in 5th position ahead of the UK GDP (you can see it here: [It's a bit strange that this information is completely mising in the article now. Keizuko (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah I think we're going to stay with the IMF's figures thanks, considering all country articles use them. Finally this malicous anti-UK rumour spread by a few French nationalists all because of a reactionary British newspaper article can finally be done with. The IMF's figures will always take priority over newspaper articles who were reacting to a sharp drop in the London Stock Exchange one day when France's economy may have slightly over taken the UK's for maybe all of one day. Any further attempts to basically deface the UK article by discrediting IMF official figures and using random newspapers articles instead to run an anti-UK bias on this article and I won't hesitate to submit this article to the administrators' notice board and suggest the article be submitted to arbitration commitee for them to take action against relevent editors. In particularly make a note of Keizuko's anti-UK editing trend according to their history and talk pages for administrators to come to their own conclusions. Frankly I'm sick and tired of having to spend so much of my time having to keep an eye on UK related articles to try to stop the anti-UK bias edits being made by a handful of editors. I make no anti-French edits to France related articles as I don't even edit France related articles apart from changing back the IMF's GDP ranking on the France article once. This is just another example of even when the IMF releases its new GDP figures a scurry of the small handful of UK hating editors pounce on this article to try to maintain their anti-UK edits and even go to lengths of denying official IMF figures, which are the mainstay used by every country article on Wikipedia. I hope others can see my frustration at this situation, a situation which should never have even started if the GDP figures had been left to the official IMF figures like every other country article on here until a couple of editors took a newspaper article as more reliable than even the IMF, a situation which other editors should never have allowed to happen and has only ended with the IMF releasing new figures, with them still resisting it. This is not only confind to the UK article but to many UK realted articles like the War in Afghanistan article as one example, with Keizuko maliciously removing all mention of the UK from the article until administrators stepped in and restored the article. Signsolid (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

JdeJ appears not to be trying to spreading any anti-UK bias but Keizuko appears to regularly attempt to spread anti-UK bias if you look at their history and talk pages and have been contacting other editors talk pages who they think may be sympathetic towards them. Signsolid (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to Keizuko's comment, I would say that it might very well be correct and true, but Wikipedia is mainly about verifiability. It's a verifiable fact that IMF in the report places the UK economy above the French for 2007. We, as editors, should not start to recalculate the reports by IMF, only report them. If the French economy indeed is larger than the UK's, it will eventually show in a future report and the affected articles should of course be changed at that time to reflect such a change. At present, the latest and most reliable report places the UK economy ahead of the French, and then the article should reflect that. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It is also a verifiable fact that the IMF places the French economy above the UK economy in 2008 ([14]), and that the Financial Times has reported that the UK economy has slipped behind the French economy due to the depreciation of the sterling pound ([15]). That's the whole point I made. These two pieces of information are now missing from this and France's article. Keizuko (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The 2008 IMF data are estimates (obviously, since it's only April). It would seem sensible to keep the 2007 data in the article, but note that IMF estimates for 2008 predict that the UK's GDP will behind that of France, although with a note on the exchange rate's contribution to this. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't it before some saying that IMF estimates can't be used when that Times article came up and I stated the IMF's 2007 prediction was for the UK's economy to be larger than France's. Signsolid (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that changes things a little. Yes, the article should of course also include the estimates. Obviously, it should be made clear that they are estimates. I would suggest keeping UK as the 5th economy in the rankings / tables, using the latest fact, but have both the report on 2007 and the estimates for 2008 mentioned in the text. As the IMF estimates and the Financial Times are in agreement, that should hardly be any problem.JdeJ (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Cordless Larry and JdeJ. So can someone propose a proper wording (and the reciprocal wording for France's article)? PS: I think we should drop the reference to PPP GDP because a- it will make the sentence very long and complicated, and b- it is seldom used to compare the overall size of economies (it is used for GDP per capita comparisons). Keizuko (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Any footnote for that the IMF predicts that by the end of 2008 France's economy will be larger than the UK's should be made either on the economy of the UK article or further down in the economy section as it would make the introduction full of weasling words which other articles don't have relating to GDP size and projected GDP size. I remind editors as well that Wikipedia has a policy that it's not a crystal ball and current figures should be used for current times as all other articles do. It's obvious to me that some editors are just too obsessed with making the French GDP seem higher than the UK's even when they know it's not because the IMF states it's not but nonetheless they'll do their utmost to make sure it's worded in a way which is false. Signsolid (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also what is with the apparent hate and stalking of me by chasing up all my edits and reverting them all and keep reverting them all until an administrator steps in? Signsolid (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyways I'm done with talk because the question above is answered by that you just have a wierd obsessive thing going so I'm not going to waste my time on any interaction attempts with it and I'll just keep doing what I'm doing no matter how much of a tantrum it might cause. Simple as from now on. Signsolid (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The IMF GDP and GDP PPP figures have been changed. Will anyone update the article with the new figures or should I? Why has the UK's GDP PPP per capita decreased from 36,000 to 35,000? It's notable that both Cyprus' and Malta's GDP PPP per capita shot up bringing them both in the top 10. Did the adoption of the Euro have such an immense impact? Whitemagick 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference 135

A more suitable article could be: http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/bglitem1.cgi?file=BADV058-1011.txt&msg=mt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.49.171 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

David Liuzzo map

I would like to change the current map (left) in the infobox to a David Liuzzo map (right). Reasons for this change being better style, plus valuable extra information like country borders, rivers etc. Still the provided information on the proposed map is not exaggerated and the map serves its purpose to locate the UK as good as the left one. Anyone against this enterprise? Please voice your opinions. Tomeasy (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of changing, better map. JdeJ (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The current map has a better projection, and includes the various Spanish Islands. The proposed map has a better colour scheme, and includes rivers (the current map does include country borders, but they're not easily visible). If we could get the colour scheme of the right-hand map on the data of the left-hand map, that would be ideal. Bluap (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Go for it!! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree partly with Bluap. The ideal map includes the Spanish and Portuguese islands, definitely. But it's the proposed map on the right that includes them in the right way. In other words, the islands are included on both maps (although the Canaries are missing from the right map), but are in their correct places in the map on the right while they are way off in the map on the left. Looks like they have just been added at random to that map. So the Spanish and Portuguese islans would be yet another reason to go for the map on the right, not the other way around. JdeJ (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If we were going to include all the various islands controlled by the EU powers on a map, it would encompass most of the globe and be a /tad/ unworkable. Narson (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Go for it. Bazza (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your encouraging words. Actually, I was bold in the first place, but got immediately reverted with the comment to put it on the talk page, by someone who later did not even care stating his objection or perhaps did not even object. Anyway, i am happy with the result. Tomeasy (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeh I agree, but we should use a map, which shows Kosovo on it as the UK has recognised it and has an embassy there. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That seems a bit like controversy for controversy's sake. It invites trouble for no benefit to the subject at hand. Narson (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Subsections by consitutent country

I've tried to remove some subheadings but had it reverted. I'm here therefore to discuss my rationale.

I realise some systems are different in each of the four parts/countries, but it is against the Manual of style to use subheadings for single paragraphs. Also, I didn't change the content, just the subheadings that are extending the contents in a way which is excessive. Simillarly, we have the "Main article" dab links under the main heading, then the subheading, then (in some cases) in the prose. I'd recommend these go. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining - I think I'll revert my revert! cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Under "Cinema

Under the "Cinema" section, it says that Ian Fleming's James Bond series is now made by an American studio, which is not true. James Bond is made by EON Studios. Can someone remove James Bond? 71.106.183.124 (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

London Ethnic Minorities

It says in this article that, according to the 2001 census, 40.1% of London's population are from ethnic minorities. This is incorrect. The correct figure is 28.8%. The figures for Leicester and Birmingham may also be incorrect in relation to the 2001 census. The figures may have been taken from a more recent study however. Please can whoever is in charge of this page make the necessary corrections since I cannot do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.75.106 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just provide a source that that is really the case first. Thanks JdeJ (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed this using 2001 census data and 2005 ONS estimates. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't Ireland by refered to as its official and common name rather than some description? It is pretty clear from the context that when taking about borders and states that it is not the island it is talking about. To suggest otherwise is a bit over the top.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 16:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Couldn't disagree more. Using the legal description avoids confusion and ambiguity in the lead. But, seeing as you've used a sockpuppet in polls and to roll this out wherever you see however, I suspect you will disagree. There's no way you will convince me this works here though. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Why with the personal taunts rather than the facts? Names_of_the_Irish_state#Republic_of_Ireland_v_Ireland As of this Ireland shoud always be used unless specifically talking about Northern Ireland. The use of the term ROI can be sensitive so there's no way you can convince me Ireland doesn't work. I will add the borders the state of Ireland as clarity.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
No thanks. The facts are that you've used bad-faith tactics to further your preferences. If you find that infringes upon your dignity, then, frankly, tough. You've not apologised for that and I have no repect for any such user.
That said, ROI isn't a sensitive term (perhaps to yourself as a tiny minority). "Ireland" has a dual meaning, and so, given we've just said Ireland is an island, we shouldn't say the UK boarders Ireland, we should use ROI - that is, the legal description of the state. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
No thanks. Your opinion isn't better than mine because you think yuo're the better editor. borders the state of Ireland continues with the consensus of WikiProject Ireland and the Irish government who disapprove of the term ROI. I think their opinion counts more than yours.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 16:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Ireland or the Irish Government don't own this article! Simillarly, the consensus isn't codified because you've voted in it with your multiple accounts! Anyway, it looks to me like you're here for another one of your endless arguments that you frequent on British pages. I've said my piece - you haven't convinced me and so you'll have to obtain consensus off other editors before making the change you want. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Wikipéire. The "state of Ireland" removes any possible ambiguity, as the "island of Ireland" does earlier in the sentence. In any case, if it were referring to the island of Ireland, how could the UK have a land border with it? I mean, people aren't actually that hopeless. --Schcamboaon scéal? 16:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
--I would've had more respect if you'd discussed your opinions first before making the change. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Finally an Editor who isn't bigoted by previous editor's edits! That was my exact reasoning. It makes perfect sense. Sorry JAZ84 but it looks like you're the only one with your opinion.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to say the "state of Ireland" why not just use the "Republic of Ireland"? It's more accurate and nullyfies the need for piping. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said it can be a sensitive issue [[16]] especially regarding the United Kingdom. The official name of the state should be used at all time unless talking about NI. It is backed up by this too and the consensus reached by Irish editors. The name ROI is misleading as it is not the name of the state.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 16:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
They're Wikipedia discussions, not third-party sources. They also appear to be discussions you've used your account(s) in. ROI is the legal description of the state used to avoid ambiguity. Also, "The official name of the state should be used at all time unless talking about NI" - the sentence itself talks about NI!! --Jza84 |  Talk  16:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I also agree that the most important thing is to distinguish Ireland the Republic from Ireland the island, and Republic of Ireland seems to do this succinctly. We even have an article of that name for the same reason. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland is set out in the constitution as an official description for use when the name is ambiguous. Its absurd to claim that sensitivity as a reason not to use the term. It is no more offensive than referring to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as the UK. josh (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The context of the sentence is - the UK a state not NI. Those link to a Wikipedia article and the Wikipedia Manual of Style Ireland page. Hardly discussions. Both backup the current setup. As per above it doesn not say in the Irish constitution 'ROI is the official description for use when the name is ambiguous.' Its rubbish. Its the official name of the country it should be used. An ambiguity is solved by including the state of. The current ROI has that title but many editors (and not just me JZA) want it changed, however a full consensus has never been reached.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 17:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The "state of Ireland" wording sounds clunky, and Republic of Ireland would be more conventional and avoid confusion with the island. The word "Ireland" links to Republic of Ireland in any case, so I don't see what the problem is. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, even without "state of", there quite simply isn't any ambiguity. As it would be: "Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK with a land border, sharing it with Ireland", if it were to be mean Ireland the island, then there couldn't be a land border, could there? It would be like insisting on the United States of America because it could be confused with the United Mexican States. There's not really any point, is there? --Schcamboaon scéal? 17:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Schcambo. Ireland, when used here, is pretty unambiguous when in context...failing that Republic of Ireland is preferable (avoids having to pipe the wikilink and is less clunky...imagine if we had to have 'state' before any place that was also a geographical location? Ick.) Narson (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that its unambiguous where it is, without the need for state of. Even with 'state of' it is still much better than ROI as that is not the name of the country in any shape or form.WikipÉire ♣ 13:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Still disagree, and quite strongly. I think ROI is best practice here, and don't understand why we need to "hide" Republic of, it is verifiable and I think it adds more value and clarification for our readers (which is what we should be doing is it not??)... --Jza84 |  Talk  13:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Except the name that is commonly used to refer to it, Peire, even by news services and international organisations. Personally I'd have no problem just having 'Ireland' but accepting that people who don't want to recognise the existance of the RoI will yell how using the name 'Ireland' plays up to some POV (for a similar reason the Irish government avoids RoI, as it acknowledges the partition...using Ireland ignores it in some peoples mind, I guess)..I'd rather go for the established common name for the country that some clunky ass 'state of Ireland' thing. Narson (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict)
It doesn't add clarity as it misleadingly suggests that the Republic Of Ireland is the name of the country. The WP:IMOS says that the term Republic of Ireland should be piped with Ireland when talking about the place. It is very very clear from the context of the sentence that it is not the island it is talking about. How exactly does an island have a border with a state exactly? All my other examples above also explain why it should be used.WikipÉire ♣ 13:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
In a UK-related article, which mentioned Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland in the same sentence, I think commonsense tells us to use ROI for clarity. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Funnily enough those terms already have disamb terms in front of them. Northern, island of etc to stop confusion from the state called Ireland! With the use of border there its pretty damn obvious is the state. I mean border and island? Commonsense is what is telling me to use the official and common name instead of a political description of the state that has been in dispute before and now has been agreed to use the official name of Ireland.WikipÉire ♣ 13:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That guideline is for Ireland related articles (An article on annother state should clearly not come under style guidelines for articles about the Irish state). It talks about how we pipe the links like that for Irish towns etc which often refer to themselves as being in Ireland. Narson (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict again...damn I'm unlucky today)
Narson is correct about the MoS entry. The other supposed support for the "don't use 'Republic of'" argument is also not applicable. It says nothing about this situation and acknowledges that "Republic of Ireland" is used inside the republic and that "ROI" is sometimes used as an official abbreviation. Moreover, if "Republic of Ireland" is a POV rendering of the country's name, it should be taken up at Republic of Ireland. So long as that is the article of the title, editors should be able to wikilink to it without piping. -Rrius (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've no problem with Ireland (state) (kinda like France is easier then The Fifth French Republic), but the international usage (i.e. commonn usage) seems to be Republic of Ireland. Oh well, I'll go along with the consensus (whatever it is). GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well actually International usage is Ireland UN,EU, everyone really. ROI is British in use it goes back to the dispute that the two states had. The famous 'countries within a country' source from the propoganda website from 10 downing street actually calls Ireland the 'Irish Republic'. Shocking. Anyway tomorrow I'm going to prepare a set of well made points/sources etc on why the Ireland name should be used. I might even start this Ireland name article thing again to stop all this piping madness. So no one make up their mind until they see the points tomorrow!WikipÉire ♣ 22:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked at CIA fact book, which says "Ireland" is the short form and there is no long form. I have no problem in the abstract with using just Ireland, but that should be sorted out at Republic of Ireland first. It does not make sense to me to do it piecemeal across the project. -Rrius (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Like I've said, I'll go along with whatever the consensus is. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
More than once you have called the 10 downing st website propoganda. Now, I'm no fan of 10 downing st, but can you tell me of one government website including your own that does not have elements of propoganda? I actually agree with your argument here, but it seems a little naive to think it's only one website that uses propoganda! --Jack forbes (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen propoganda in any others but I can't say I've bothered to look either! I see now that I've been a bit unfair to this article and its talkpage. I need to bring it up at the article itself and once and for all sort it out. There are some websites and other things which are definitely not propoganda.ie The EU and the UN's website, the CIA hand book, the Irish consitution (we have a written one! ;D ) and other passed acts on this issue. Check into the ROI's talk page tomorrow to check it out and give your two cents.WikipÉire ♣ 23:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
In agreement (above) with Rrius. The name thingy, should be discussed at the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually there is just under 2000 pages on the UN site and over 6000 on the EU site that refer to the Republic of Ireland despite their official position. ROI is not just a British thing. josh (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we move this discussion to Republic of Ireland, as another page movement request? Wouldn't that be better? GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah and look what the google search turned up on the first page: http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-370100.htm It says
NB:Do not use ‘Republic of Ireland’ nor ‘Irish Republic’. Again I'll go into more detail about this tomorrow on the 'Roi' talk page.WikipÉire ♣ 23:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Or what? The fact is that using just "Ireland" is very offensive to people in Northern Ireland as it implies that the southern Irish state somehow represents the whole island - which, being an artificial gerrymandered entity, it most assuredly does not. TharkunColl (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Lot's of things offend a lot of people. You can't write an encyclopedia constantly worrying your going to offend someone. --Jack forbes (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Check out Talk:Republic_of_Ireland for more on this.WikipÉire ♣ 15:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't get very far there then. -Bill Reid | Talk 19:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Does anyone think it would add anything to the article by including the First Ministers of the constituent countries to the infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack forbes (talk • contribs) 12:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That would definatly add value to the page. A very good table of information it would be. --Duckie for broadway (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The heads of governments of states in federations are not mentioned in their respective countries articles. Given these "constituent countries" have less status than a federal state, it hardly seems appropriate or necessary. --Michael Johnson (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
In agreement. For example - The provincial & territorial premiers, aren't listed in the Infobox of Canada. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a few either way on the question, though I disagree with the view that 'these constituent countries' have less status than 'a federal state' - who says? That's just a personal opinion as far as I can see. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Sovereignty in a federal system is divided between the federal government and the constituent states. This division of sovereignty (power) is defined and protected by a constitution. In the British case, the authority of the "constituent countires" is devolved from the central government by act of parliament. It can also be revoked by act of parliament, as it has been in the past in the case of Northern Ireland. In this they have more in common with a local government authority than a federal state. The British system may evolve into a proper federation, but it isn't there yet. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Your definition of sovereignty in a federal system as compared to a devolved system is absolutely correct, but you are making the assumption that this means that this gives a state within a federal system more status than a 'constituent country'. I would argue that the opposite is the case: the constitution that sets out the powers of a state in the USA also effectively limits that state's potential status as no state in the USA has the right to secede. This contrasts with the situation of constituent countries like Scotland which as former sovereign countries who joined a political union, retain the option of going for independence again at some future point. Of course, I concede that in practice Westminster would need to enact the legislation to make that happen, but since the leading parties in the UK have all made clear that Scotland has the right to become independent if that is the will of the people, constituent countries are potential sovereign states in a way that states like Nevada are not! (As I said, I don't have any particular view on the major question about the infobox.) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The constituent countries of the United Kingdom don't remotely have any right to secede. The supremacy of Parliament is well acknowledged. Even if, in the bizarre scenario that there was such a right - one would have to revive the Parliament of Scotland or the Parliament of England to repeal the Acts of Union which would, of course, never happen.
Moreover, the Acts of Union only have effect 'subject to' the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998, which makes it clear that constitutional matters are entirely reserved. Whether some people may believe that Scotland has some sort of moral right to secede if its people wish, it has absolutely no legal right and therefore no more status than any other national subdivision. --Breadandcheese (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You are contradicting yourself the UK Parliament could revoke the Acts of Union 1707 if it wished without the need to revive anything it is sovereign after all --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say the UK Parliament was sovereign, however I imagine it could certainly claim the authority to abolish the Union between the constituent countries - just like any other state. What I was arguing was that none of the constituent countries, their devolved legislatures, or any other body exclusively limited to operating in any one of them had that right or ability and it was held centrally. --Breadandcheese (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
My point is simply that the "constituent countries" are at best (and I would argue, less) equivalent to a state in a federation, and so including their heads of government in the information box is not appropiate. It does appear to me as an independent observer there is a constant effort by some to aggrandize the status of "constituent countries" on this page. I do think your belief that Scotland retained the right at Union to re-assume independence is misplaced. The Act of Union (Article 1) reads: THAT the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the first Day of May which shall be in the Year one thousand seven hundred and seven, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain. Seems clear to me. That is not to say, of course, that Scottish independence will not be achieved at some time in the future by some other political process. We beyond the seas watch with some interest and amusement. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice to see you so interested and amused. Article 1 of the act of union has already been discussed by political partys here and all agree that this statement "and for ever after" means nothing if the Scottish people vote for Independance. Oh, and we over here looked on with interest and amusement when you had the vote on whether to become a republic or stay with the Queen. Perhaps they will allow you the chance to vote on it again some time in the future. --Jack forbes (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Well we are getting well off topic - I'm sure you will be amused by another republican vote soon, one that won't be wedged. And of course you are right - I can't imagine the troops being sent in to maintain the union in the face of a popular vote, in Britain or any other democracy today. But of course that is not what I said. I was contrasting the current legal position of the Scottish "state" in relation to the central government, compared with the position of a state within a federation, and it is clearly in an inferior position. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how it is an inferior position Scotlands devolved powers are far greated than most federal states, as for the whole Westminster could abolish the parliament with a single act while that may be true it is also true that the queen could desolve parliament becase she felt like it but neither are gonna happen any time soon its a Constitutional convention --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that powers given in Scotland Act are far greater than most federal states - most have far greater economic powers, for example. In the United States, as has been seen, they also have rights to regulate other matters, such as abortion. Moreover, the SP's are only powers insofar as they don't conflict with anything issued by the UK Parliament.
The Queen may be able to dissolve Parliament in this fashion, however she would then be compelled to still obey its laws and would be unable to amend or create new legislation. With one flick of a pen, the UK Parliament could eliminate every Act of the Scottish Parliament and draft any new legislation over Scotland that it saw fit. --Breadandcheese (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they need to be included in this article, as it would imply they have more authority in the UK Government than say the Home/Foreign/Defence secretaries, when in actual fact in UK Government terms, they are no more important than say the London Mayor. The change made to the Welsh box looks odd too, as it now appears the deputy first minister for Wales is more important than the secretary of state for Wales. If it has to be done for Wales/Scotland, then it would make more sense to split the government section in two, national and devolved, as they cover different juristictions. MickMacNee (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not saying they don't need to be in the article, but they don't need to be in the infobox. We don't do it for other countries. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite so, and I'm inclined to agree. This is the UK article; it should be the UK government we focus on, not the governments of areas of the UK that have their own pages. The infobox is there for a very brief summary of information--Breadandcheese (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)