Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 17

GDP figures

Resolved

The figures for GDP seem to be 1000 times larger than they should be. They are > $2,000,000,000,000,000!Evan3scent (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted! I've fixed it! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. The PPP GDP is still wrong though. (I can't edit it myself as I'm not autoconfirmed yet)Evan3scent (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that was the figure for first thing this morning? It's nearly midday now - I wouldn't rule out a 99,000% drop in that time. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've just discovered I can't manage to change it. Sorry Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Updated to 2008 estimate --h2g2bob (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Flag icon of the Ulster Banner

Does anybody know the flagicon code for the Ulster Banner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zolstijers (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

{{flagicon|Ulster}} - see {{country data Ulster}}). There's some debate about the flags, so please ask here if you think your edit may be controversial. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Ulster Banner - as opposed to the flag of Ulster - is {{flagicon|Northern Ireland}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delinking dates in references

I've begun to (slowly) work through the references, given the appalling state they were in (see subject above, about GA sweeps pre-review) to try to make them at least conform to a more standard format. Much work needs to be done, for which I would grateful if others might find the time to do some of the work as well. One problem is that many references overlink the dates (i.e., they are given wikilinks) which are now not advised, I understand. What I've been doing on a first go is to replace the "|accessdate=2020-02-31" (to give an impossible exaple date) in references as they crop up with the now advised "|accessdaymonth=31 February|accessyear=202" (to follow on with the example). It would help greatly if new references added did not make use of the old "accessdate" form. Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if someone could also provide some links to where this change in attitude to overlinking of dates, specifically within references, is documented. I know of sections in WP:Overlink and WP:MOSNUM, but I note that there doesn't yet appear to be anything on the documentation for the various cite templates one can use to format references, and I think it would help considerably if there were some more specific documentation about this we could point editors towards. Anywone?  DDStretch  (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The only relevant section is here. There's still an ongoing debate about the various cite/citation templates, with a significant body of opinion against their use. I think they're convenient, particularly {{citation}}, but the only real requirement, whichever templates are used, or even if no templates at all are used, is that the reference formatting must be consistent. So far as dates are concerned that means that the date format must be at least consistent within the references section, and ideally consistent across the whole article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Natonal assemblies

Currently we mention: "...three devolved national administrations in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh.". I don't believe it is obvious to the casual reader that these are the capitals of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland respecitively. I propose changing this to: "...three devolved national administrations in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.". The precise locations are much less important than the countries they are in. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. It would be much better if the countries were used there.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. I inserted 'Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh' rather than 'Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland' simply because the role of London as being the seat of the UK government was mentioned in the first part of this sentence and the three countries were already named in the previous sentence. No objections to the proposed change though I think it looks slightly untidy that 'Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland' would now be mentioned in two successive sentences. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of prolonging the discussion too much, could we not reconcile the two already-mentioned versions somehow? How about adding "(for Northern Ireland)", "(for Wales)" and "(for Scotland)" after the relevant city? It would give the countries, as desired, but also lessen the repetition of the list of countries as well as giving the cities in which the devolved national assemblies are located. The problem is that it becomes a bit unwieldy. Any comments?  DDStretch  (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this?: 'It is governed by a parliamentary system with its seat of government in London, the capital, but with three devolved national administrations in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh, the capitals of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland respectively." Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That would do.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll add the extra words then. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have said that only the countries were needed, but I'll bow to majority opinion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, as someone with no influence here I would prefer only the countries were used. Cheers. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Titch, you have as much influence as anybody. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I should really have given my reason for it. The sentence as it is, appears to me to be a little bit of a mouthful. I think the sentence would read better saying "It is governed by a parliamentary system with its seat of government in London, the capital, but with three devolved national administrations in the capitals of N. Ireland, Wales and Scotland." with the countries piped to the capitals, ie, Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh. I think it would look better if it was permitted to do this. Would this be allowed? Titch Tucker (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth is right in saying you as much influence here as the rest of us: it's the quality and the force of the argument that matters. I agree with you that we need to pay attention to readability and so on. I suspect, though I'm not entirely sure, that the solution you give may improve the readability, but that there could be a problem with the links being a little unexpected: I think they may be said to be examples of "easter eggs" (i.e. you open up the link, and - surprise surprise - you don't go exactly where you would have expected to go.) If they are, then I think wikipedia doesn't really like them. I may, however, be wrong on this point.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Having a look at the sentence again, I believe the reader would be looking for the capitals in the link as the preceding words to the countries is "the capitals of". What do you think? Titch Tucker (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You may well be right. If so, your version probably would also work, and probably a bit better than what it now is. It might be an idea to see what any others think.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll look out and see what the others think. Thanks. Titch Tucker (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello hello hello Echo echo echo :) Titch Tucker (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Titch. I'm happy with the sentence as it stands. Each city links to its page, each of which state in the first sentence that they are the capital of their respective country. Works quite well really. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Daicaregos. My first suggestion on wikipedia and its rejected. I hope to bring more successful ideas in the future :( Titch Tucker (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Improvements

In order to achieve GA or FA status, the whole article needs to re-structured, by sectioning the article better. Like for example the Demographic section should not contain sub-section or another to that, it must be all summarised into that single section. Please view Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries#Sections for a guide on how the layout should be for country articles. Mohsin (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Why

Why is it that atheism, the most major other religion, is listed at the bottom with one sentence, basically a footnote?--Nitro378 (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's really more a religious position than a religion. But there probably is an argument for saying more about the history of atheism in the UK. Why don't you find some sources and add it? That's what's so great about Wikipedia. garik (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Not reconcilable

This article, whilst it has some very valuable information, is a mis-representation of the UK and Ireland. In some places it makes the UK look like one entity, (when it is clearly not) and in other parts it separates each nation, but not well enough

i.e. The national anthem is wrong. Each nation of the UK has it's own distinct national anthem. Although England may sing GSTQ at the beginning of a rugby match, each of the other nations would sign their own anthem. This is an obvious omission and should be corrected.

The article should be re designed and split as follows.

1) UK overview detailing a general view of the UK and showing the connections and history of each of the nations. 2) Scotland - and what it is: 3) England - and what it is: 4) Wales - and what it is: 5) Northern Ireland - and what it is: I don't mind writing the Scotland part... John Johnnypict (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the article. Scotland, England, Wales & Northern Ireland have their own articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, the article is fine. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with the article, either, though some work is needed to get it GA or even FA status, nothing like the extent of work on the issues Johnnypict writes about.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Government debt

theunhappymitten we should change the part of the economy section from saying "As of 2007, the UK's government debt was 44% of GDP.[8]" to As of 2007 , the UK's goverment debt was 1.15 trillion pound. this let people know how much debt there is without haveing to work out percentages. Theunhappymitten (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That presumes that people want to know the absolute figure rather than the percentage. The advantage of the percentage of GDP figure is that it allows comparison with other countries regardless of size. Perhaps it would be best to have both statistics? Theunhappymitten (talk)

theunhappymitten i agree we should have bothCordless Larry (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

sveiki;D;D;D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.222.21.144 (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar?

Since Gibraltar is a British territory, shouldn't we mention that the United Kingdom also borders Spain? Just a thought 76.95.154.112 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC).

British overseas territories such as Gibraltar are not and never have been part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Here is the opening paragraph on the British Overseas Territories page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_overseas_territory

"The British Overseas Territories are fourteen territories that are under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, but which do not form part of the United Kingdom itself" BritishWatcher (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Radiohead

Oughtn't any discussion of Britain that touches on modern music make mention of Radiohead?

202.95.58.71 (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)koyama

Small change

Can I just propose small change in the intro? I'd do it myself but I'm only new so I'm not allowed to edit this page.

It says the UK spans the northeast part of Ireland. Can that be changed to the northeast part of the island of Ireland? It's pretty confusing the way its written considering there's a country with the same name and it reads as if the UK has some territory in that country. Thank you. _ You Obviously Need to Go and Learn ...Your geography, Im from Northern Ireland which with England Scotland and Wales Makes up the United Kingdom we are part of the United Kingdom because the majority of people here wish to be so if they wish for a United Ireland in the future and a majority favour such a move then that can happen but at the moment people in NI wish to remain part of the United Kingdom and we are Proud British Citizens go read the Good friday agreement!!!!!!!!!!!!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexham (talk • contribs) 16:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC) 

You have no idea what you are getting into with that comment! You might want to wander around some of talk pages on Irish related pages to get a sense of the sensitivities --Snowded TALK 18:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. PS- where's my football helmet. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

People can just click the link. The first sentence of the Ireland page clearly states "Ireland is the third largest island of Europe...". --Cameron* 19:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

When I think of Ireland I think of the country, probably the same for most people I imagine. Anyway no matter, I don't want to cause an argument, I just thought the Wikipedia article would be better with this change.Rexham (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fear not; ye have done no wrong. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you should wander around some of the talk pages on Irish related AND BRITISH related pages to get a sense of the "sensitivities" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.182.160.2 (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland ???

This doesn't make sence at all - it's either the UK or Great Britain - it can't be both ! The UK is Great Britain. You can't put it all in one. Could you please change it - make it better for people to understand, please? Jonny7003 (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is correct. The United Kingdom is a short from of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain used to be a country but is now only an island...See Great Britain for more info...--Cameron* 17:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeepers, ya come up with a name & people critize ya for it. Anyways, the name makes perfect sense as the UK ecompases Great Britain & the north-eastern end of the island of Ireland (i.e. Northern Ireland). GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Great Britain is a part of the United Kingdom, and the two are distinct. Also jeepers! --Jza84 |  Talk  17:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It's true - look on your passport. Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not it makes "sence", but it certainly makes sense. And we're not going to change the name of the entire country just because you don't understand. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Good God ! I only asked a question for goodness sakes ! Say your point of view and people bite your head off. Jonny7003 (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no cannibals here. Also, if your head was bitten off, you wouldn't have been able to post here (as ya just did). GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. I've seen quite a few people typing on WP pages without engaging their brains over the last few days - and that's usually around the name of a certain country too :) waggers (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah cannibal-eve it! <ducks, with homage to Bud Neill> . . dave souza, talk 12:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Economy

The European Union flag image and its caption regarding the single market has been introduced to the section. The image signifies the degree of involvement and importance for the UK economy. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed per WP:MOSFLAG. Flags shouldn't be added to be decorative. We do not add the Union Flag to Scotland, or the England flag to Lincolnshire. See also User talk:Lear 21. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed no need for the flag there, although i think there should be atleast 1 sentence in the economy section on this page that UK is part of the EU single market which is a major factor in our economy now. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagline for picture of Ben Nevis incorrect

Just to say that the accompanying tag line for the photograph of Ben Nevis is incorrect; it is part of the Cairngorm mountain range, not the Grampians. If someone could check and change that, that would be marvellous.

David, 30/11/08

My understanding is that the Cairngorm mountain range is part of the Grampian Mountains. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Standard links

These are the standard links I would suggest adding, as they cover all the major UK websites someone might be interested in:

• "United Kingdom". The World Factbook (2024 ed.). Central Intelligence Agency.
• United Kingdom at UCB Libraries GovPubs
• United Kingdom/Archive 17 at Curlie
  Flatterworld (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

music section

I'm not convinced there's much of an argument for Amy MacDonald's "massive contribution to popular music"! Sure, a number 1 album in Switserland is highly commendable but it wreaks of fan insertion, as does the inclusion of KT Tunstall, who managed a worldwide peak chart position of no 3 (New Zealand) for her last album. I don't think these figures have really set the world (or even the country) alight, but maybe the fact that they're both female singer songwriters from central Scotland sets them apart?!

To be included in the section of UK music, and mentioned in the same breath as The Beatles, The Who, The Smiths, Amy Winehouse and Coldplay is, at least, moderately comical, but I feel perhaps their manager(s) should stick to promotion through the normal channels.

Thisrain (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, though I also find the mention of Amy Winehouse in the same breath as The Beatles amusing! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The UK or Britain

The term 'the UK' could be replaced by 'Britain' in this article and some others. 'UK' is problematic since it is mainly of local use. Using Britain instead of UK is correct in the frame of political matters. And it does include Northern Ireland. Even Downing St. uses it this way and explains so on their website. There are two external manual of styles that explain the use .Springwalk (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom should be used on these articles to avoid confusion and prevent arguments breaking out about "Britain doesnt include Northern Ireland". The UK certainly isnt just a local term, our countries offical title is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, shorted to the UK. UK is used at the United Nations, NATO, CIA world fact book, IMF and World Bank. I dont have a problem with the "British Government" or "British forces" because people of Northern Ireland are British but we have to be careful with just saying "Britain". The term "Britain" should certainly be avoided on sections and pages that talk of sovereignty. I undid the change you made on the parliament of the UK page because the opening paragraph had "It alone has parliamentary sovereignty, conferring it ultimate power over all other political bodies in Britain" That is just not as clear as saying over the United Kingdom or UK. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The term "Britain" is somewhat underspecified, and thus ambiguous, as the OED entry shows. And it's simply odd to claim that "UK ... is mainly of local use", or in any other way problematic. Given the choice between the UK and Britain, the former is quite clearly the better option when Northern Ireland is included. garik (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I accept that Britain can be used as a synonym for United Kingdom, which is what the style guides show, but that's a different thing from saying that it should be used here. I don't find the local use argument convincing, for the reasons outlined in the two responses above. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, if used properly Britain means England/Wales/Scotland hence the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is not to say that people in Northern Ireland are not British Citizens or to make any value judgements. --Snowded TALK 17:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh god, not this AGAIN. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

formed from the Lordship of Ireland in 1541 and brought under English control by 1691,

I don't think it appropriate to include the statement "formed from the Lordship of Ireland in 1541 and brought" under English control by 1691, preferring the shorter phrase "already under English control by 1691." I do not see that the date of formation of the Kingdom of Ireland or how it was formed is relevant for this article any more than the date of the formation of the Kingdom of England or Kingdom of Scotland would be. I do not think this article would benefit from general details of the history of Scotland or England being added, and that goes for the history of Ireland as well: in my view, all that is relevant from those histories is what directly affects the United Kingdom. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think readers need context. The danger is that the various unions were different. Scotland and England came together by mutual agreement. The Kingdom of Ireland had a very different history. By the time of the union of Ireland with England/Scotland it was in effect a decision of the English Parliament and was motivated in part (if not the main) following an early united Ireland move. Ireland itself has a temporary period as an independent Kingdom largely under English pressure. Its a complex history and the danger is that the impression is given of a gradual coming together of long standing political entities. --Snowded TALK 11:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded, we need to give the background to the forming of the union. I would even go as far as saying it should be pointed out that Scotland and England came together by the mutual agreement of Parliaments and not the people. They never had a say in it. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that the Irish Parliament petitioned a few times for union only to be ignored for nearly a century... So which history are people trying to promote? The KISS philosophy (Keep it Simple Stupid) might be good especially when complex histories like Ireland are better explained in another article. So should we also add the Irish wish to unite in the next sentence? Or keep it simple? -- Phoenix (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "brought under English control by 1691" should let readers know that Ireland's route into the United Kingdom was different from Scotland's route, but I don't see how adding a mention of the Lordship of Ireland aids understanding. There is an article about the History of the formation of the United Kingdom that is already flagged up in the UK article's history section. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Ireland had only been formed shortly before then (and as a consequence of English action) --Snowded TALK 20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

UK Coal

"The UK has a small coal reserve along with significant, yet continuously declining..."

This is a confusing and possibly innacurate, I know it is referenced and well written (sourced from the sentence “In Great Britain there is in excess of 400 million tonnes of proven coal reserves indentified, which at present extraction rates would last approx. 20 years. "), but it the person who wrote this section does explain the meaning the different terms in the source. A "proven" reserve is a technical description of what can be econmically and legally mined, and this has obviously declined significantly with the closure of many still productive coal mines in the U.K.

The oil industry uses "Proven", "Probable" and "Possible" reserves, and I assume the coal industry is the same. The "resources" are a very different thing. The amount of coal physically under the U.K is massive and is only described as small because no one is in a position to mine very much of it, just due to economics and nothing more.

Why am I saying this? I would like some help to find the actual reserves the U.K has, it is a major part of the mineral wealth and has powered an industrial revolution. I don’t think that the Underground coal gasification in the same sentence is even a drop in the ocean compared to our coal reserves. To give an example, the Vale of Belvoir, Notts, was defined by the British Coal Board in 1976 as one of the largest coal resources in Western Europe! So please help to sort this out, Save our Coal!

Cheers.

GeologyTom (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic groups table

The table in the ethnic groups section has recently been modified to include a 'notes' column which lists a variety of estimates of current ethnic group sizes. I suggest that this be removed. First, the estimates are all from different sources. Secondly, some of them are not fully referenced - for example the Chinese estimate is sourced to a table of statistics about England only, and simply notes that there are other Chinese people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Thirdly, adding the figures up gives a total higher that the current UK population. Would anyone object if I removed the column? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No objections here. Should a reliable source be found some time in the future, the information could added back then. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed it once but it appeared again, courtesy of Stevvvv4444 (talk · contribs) --Jza84 |  Talk  14:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll remove it for now and see if anyone can do any better. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Leeds Town Hall

Are we all happy with this change? Just checking, --Jza84 |  Talk  01:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I just removed it before checking the talk page. I think the article is already saturated with images. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 15:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Flora and Fauna?

Why is there no section about the Flora and Fauna of the UK? --Christian140 (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair point... I shall look into that. Wills316 (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Wills316

There is a Fauna of Great Britain and a Fauna of Ireland article that may help. Also there are loads of 'List of ...' articles that would be useful. Daicaregos (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Does any other country have this section? Doesn't WP:COUNTRIES recommend a specific layout? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Some countries do: e.g. Germany#Biodiversity, Scotland#Flora_and_fauna, Australia#Ecology, South_Africa#Flora_and_fauna and Brazil#Wildlife. Some countries don't: e.g. Denmark, Sweden, England and France. Personally, I think it would improve the article. Although it may be more relevant to the Great Britain and the Ireland (Island) articles. Daicaregos (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to a relevant article in the 'See also' section would suffice? I'm aware that the article is already on the long side! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of main connected issues that need to be sorted out in order to have a clear view of how any articles dealing with flora and fauna might be arranged or exist:

* Whether to categorize the articles along political boundaries (e.g., United Kingdom, Ireland, Isle of Man, Channel Islands), or whether to use the geographical areas as a basis (e.g, "Flora and fauna of Great Britain", "Flora and fauna of Ireland", "Flora and fauna of the British Isles".)

• How fine-grained to take these categorizations if political areas are chosen as the basis, e.g., "Flora and fauna of England", "Flora and fauna of Northern Ireland", "Flora and Fauna of Scotland", and "Flora and fauna of Wales"
• How to decide on the geographical areas if these are chosen: e.g., "Flora and fauna of Great Britain", or "Flora and fauna of the British Isles" (the two are different) if geographical. "Great Britain" restricts the coverage to the main island of the United Kingdom, and formally excludes the other islands where there are probably differences in ecosystems and flora and fauna found; the use of "British Isles" includes all the islands if we adopt a geographical interpretation of the term, but then would also include the island of Ireland, which might lead to undesirable drama.
• Do we lump flora and fauna together in the same article?

There may be other issues. The already-existing articles may force our hand into adopting a particular way of arranging the articles if we do not wish to go through the problems of trying to secure an agreed page move.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As I say, I think it would improve this article if a flora and fauna were included. However, as flora and fauna don't respect political boundaries it may be more relevant to the Great Britain and the Ireland (Island) articles. While the flora and fauna of Great Britain and the island of Ireland share many species, there are many that exist on one island that do not exist on the other. Alternatively, perhaps we could take this opportunity to slim down this article by reducing text and increasing links to the country pages, and create/develop flora and fauna sections there. Daicaregos (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article needs to concentrate (as it does) more on the social, cultural, economic etc. topics that are appropriate to the UK as a political entity, rather than on the natural and physical topics that are more relevant to islands, groups of islands, or even countries in the UK sense of the word. In that case, what are needed here are more links to articles like, for example, Fauna of Great Britain and indeed Fauna of Ireland (as the latter article deals with the island not just the state). Given that Fauna of Scotland is a Featured Article, by the way, the same argument would suggest that someone should create similar ones for England and Wales, at least. (And, if at some time someone wanted to create, say, [[Fauna of the Isle of Wight]], or [[Fauna of Devon]], would there be any reason to oppose?) Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

EU context in locator map (continuation)

When I was reading the first section on this topic, it was sometimes a little bit difficult for me to understand which type of map was specifically meant in some comments. To facilitate the discussion, I have summarized all maps available (to me at this point) in a gallery. Please, feel free to add maps that you feel might be of interest for the discussion.

• 
  A-1
• 
  A-2
• 
  A-3
• File:...
• 
  B-1
• 
  B-2
• 
  B-3
• 
  B-4

With respect to the above straw poll and the main point of the present discussion, the maps of type A correspond to support or show EU context, while the maps of type B correspond to oppose or do not show EU context. I hope this code will enable us to communicate in a more concise yet less ambiguous way. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This is the kind of information I wanted to see prior to a straw poll. Do you have any data on which kind of maps are used by country articles for other members of the EU? It probably would be a good idea to work out what they do, if consistency arguments are to play a positive part in informing the debate.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Done a quick check 13 use A1 and 13 use A2. Totally divided :) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

When I looked at all of them last time (this was about 2 months ago for another discussion) they were all A-1 or A-2. The maps A-3 have been introduced afterward, so I can imagine that some countries show them in the meantime. Certainly no B type. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

While I was checking them, you both posted the above messages. I roughly agree with your figures with one exception. Look at Netherlands. It doesn't have the EU separately shaded, and it shows its remaining overseas possessions as part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Am I right there? If so, it is an anomaly in the way that the UK could be argued should be an anomaly (though I'm not arguing in any way for this by merely mentioning the possibility here.) It would be a map of the B-2 type. Latvia also has a minor deviation in not showing an inset of the world in the top left hand corner, but that is minor.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes i didnt mean they were identical, just took a quick look at the countries to see which maps they looked the closest to. On the netherlands the Netherlands article uses the EU map where as the Kingdom of the Netherlands shows the world map with the 3 parts which form their kingdom. Im slightly confused on their situation and i asked for help on their yesterday. As far as im aware Netherlands is the sovereign state that is part of the European Union.. not the "Kingdom of the netherlands" despite it having the same name. The Netherlands is the one that talks about being part of the EU, OECD etc. I changed the EU article for members to link to Netherlands as that seems the correct article. I thought the UK "countries" was confusing, the netherlands situation is even more complicated. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh... yes it does, and has done for a long time as far as I can see. There's even a discussion at Talk:Netherlands#Change the map in the infobox, dating back to May 2008, where two of these maps are debated, namely A-1 and A-2. Nothing about the other map you speak of. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 20:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There was an error (from what i can tell) on the EU member states page. It linked to Kingdom of the Netherlands rather than just Netherlands which is the EU member, so i changed it. Their situation seems very complicated. I was trying to figure out what the correct article to be linked on the UN members page was yesterday so tried asking for a info on their talk page. At the moment it goes to Kingdom of Netherlands aswell, but i think it should be just Netherlands. This was giving me a major headache yesterday . BritishWatcher (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, BritishWatcher: I was using the link to the Netherlands article that was present on the table of member states on Member State of the European Union. I assumed that they would be pointing at the correct article there, which was an assumption I should not have made. However, I'm glad that this error has led to a correction being made, if not one to this article, as a result.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at other EU articles (which were all updated on the same day in June 2007) and saying that there is no "B" type in use therefore we shouldn't use a "B" type is frankly a bit of a sneaky argument, not least because consensus can change. Nowhere was it decided that all EU articles should show the EU. And, for the third time, it begs the question: who says that the consistency rule applies at the EU level? It is not mere coincidence that the people who think such a rule exists are the people who want to show the EU on the map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"saying that there is no "B" type in use therefore we shouldn't use a "B" type is frankly a bit of a sneaky argument". Not really. To begin with, similar articles should apply similar principles so the fact that every other country in the EU shows the EU in the map is a rather good argument for doing it here as well, especially as no reason has been given for why the UK should be an exception. All in all, the lack of arguments from those who want to change the page is almost surprising. It is they who have the burden of proof, yet they have hardly come up with anything at all this far. Instead of all the talk about polls, consensuses and coincidences, please provide a list of reasons for why the map should be changed instead.JdeJ (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are looking for a list of reasons, why don't you read people's entries in the straw poll? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done that, and there's nothing there.JdeJ (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You've said that before but arguments have been made, even if you disagree with them they do exist. In particular, we shouldn't select the EU over the Commonwealth of Nations, UN, G-8 map etc, which I still haven't seen a reply to. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing there, JdeJ? I have listed three reasons, GoodDay a fourth, and Cameron a fifth. The main argument on the other side seems to be "because that's what all the other EU articles do". Not a very clever argument, considering that:

• (a) they didn't all do this before June 2007
• (b) there is no rule anywhere that says the EU should be the grouping to which the standard is applied
• (c) even if there was, it's just a matter of changing the majority of the other article maps to make the "standard" not to show the EU, and where would that leave your argument? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

May be it would be more helpful for those advancing reasons to list them simply and succinctly in a series of bullet points (perhaps even in an "evidence" sub-section), rather than at this point asking others to read through a mish-mash of discussion to see what the arguments in favour of one's own preferred solution would be, whilst at the same time producing a summary of one's non-preferred solution that could be at risk of being too selective or otherwise too defective, and thus be more a hinderance than a help. Just a thought.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. That was the whole point of the straw poll (though I note that you were the only editor to not put in a reason along with their vote). You want people to repeat what they have written in the straw poll? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you must have missed my comments that it was premature because adequate discussion had not yet taken place. Additionally, I think you will find that the wording of the straw poll does not include any idea of its purpose being to explore ideas, rather than give a quick snap-shot of people's opinions about one alternative. After all, the wording of it had to be cleared up to avoid ambiguity after it had already started. I was not the only one who thought this, either, and so I suggest you drop the fake "oh my gosh" type of comments here and elsewhere as a means of petty point-scoring and work towards providing the evidence succinctly and simply in favour of your own preferred option, otherwise it may appear that the only strong evidence you can now provide is that you can denigrate other editors' legitimate concerns about the way these discussions are proceding.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: Map A1 A2 was the version used on this page from June 2007 - when similar maps were added to other EU country pages by User:Quizimodo - until 8 December 2008, when it was changed without debate to Map A3 by User:KeyanFretwell. I changed it back to Map A1 A2 on 1 January 2009 - see note earlier on this page. This note is simply for the benefit of other editors - if it's more helpful to move it to another location on this page, please do so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you confuse A-1 and A-2. It's A-2 which has been on for some months until 8 December. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Aargh! That's what happens when I try to be helpful - I won't make that mistake again... Corrected above. Sorry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Country box

The caption below the map ("Location of the United Kingdom (orange) in Europe with respect to the European Union (green)") really isn't written in good, clear English - in fact I'm not entirely what "with respect to" is supposed to mean in this context. Could we not return to a map like this[1] and say that the location is shown within Europe and within the EU? Or better still, stick with a map that simply shows the UK within the region of Europe. After all, the EU isn't a country; it's an international organisation like NATO and isn't especially relevant here. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Its an awful image currently, but i also do not like the idea of a world map. [File:EU_location_UK.png] would seem like a good one to me and is similar to the image used on several other EU countries. Considering the amount of effort that goes into explaining the different parts of the United Kingdom in this article, im suprised theres not just a proper map of the UK there rather than one showing a small dot in a very big world. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The change from the old map was made on 8 December here by the person who created the map - no edit summary, and it doesn't seem to have been discussed at the time. I don't like the current map in this context, it's unclear, and I'd prefer to go back to this earlier map. Any objection or comments? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats certainly better than the current one, please change it back to that for the time being. If theres a better map people can discuss it later. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if that counts as a consensus, but it's close enough for now... so I've done it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of showing the EU on the map. This is an article on the UK, not the EU. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a matter for a separate discussion. Both the maps we're talking about here have shown the EU, as do most if not all of the maps for the other EU member states. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm glad the other map's gone. But why must the map show the EU? Apart from the fact most of the other maps do? If the Commonwealth or NATO were shaded in a different colour instead, we would say it was a clear case of undue weight, wouldn't we? Personally, I would favour something like the image to the right (obviously without England in a different colour). If the close up map were a little bigger, it could show the Scottish and Welsh borders because, as BritishWatcher points out, at present this article lacks a map that demarcates the four countries.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow i like that map alot except for the England colour bit. If it was all the same colour with clear borders i would like that one. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

We have a clear consistent approach among EU countries. Could you please explain why you think a different approach is necessary for the UK, or is it just WP:IDONTLIKEIT? There is no need in this article for a map which shows the different UK countries; this article deals with the UK as a single sovereign state, and other linked articles like this one show the four countries' boundaries quite adequately. Please remember that this article is aimed at international readers who need a map here to show where the UK is located within the world. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle. We could of course discuss whether all countries should display the EU map, but this is perhaps not the place for that discussion. If anyone feel we should employ a different policy for the UK than for the other 26 countries in the EU, I would be interested in hearing the arguments.JdeJ (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm only asking why most (though not all) EU country articles must have the EU map. I don't see that the approach is partiucularly consistent: it's not as if all EU countries use the same map. This certainly is the appropriate place for the discussion, probably the only place. As I suggested above, there's perhaps a problem of undue weight if the article begins with a map of a particular international organisation. Though it's far less of a problem now, that was my immediate reaction when I saw the earlier map. I also explained that I wouldn't feel comfortable if this were a map of the North Atlantic, with the UK shaded in relation to NATO. I think such things probably deserve explanation in the opening paragraph but maps are best left to later sections. Also, I don't quite see how a change in map would disadvantage international readers. The map I suggested does, indeed, show where the the UK is located in the world. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 13:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and 26 wrongs don't make a right. The reason the other countries' maps show the EU is because someone made and uploaded maps showing the EU. There is no rule here at Wikipedia about this, it is a matter for consensus. And Ghmyrtle, the oft-misused WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies to deletion discussions, not decisions about maps. Even if it did apply, I can say that you only want to show the EU because YOULIKEIT. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So...there was a consensus, right, and you think it's "wrong"... ??? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone give a good reason why the map should not show the UK within the EU? Isn't wikipedia suppose to inform our readers? Titch Tucker (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Precisely - unless there is a consensus to change all 26 maps, of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclined to agree. ENG/SCO/WLS/NI show the UK in their maps, whilst other states in the EU show the EU. as MOS says, "consistenct promotes professionalism". Whether that map is of befitting quality is another matter, but I think we ought to keep the EU. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the only risk is that people start asking for colourations for, say, the Commonwealth of Nations as well. Whilst I'm not sure what the argument would be to differentiate the two organisations, I for one have no problem with the EU colouration. --Breadandcheese (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone point me to the talk page(s) where this consensus was reached? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, up until this point there was no objection to it. I would say that silence = consensus. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not true. It has been raised before on this talk page, so we have not had "silence" on the matter. We clearly do not have "silence" on the matter now as more than one editor has raised it here in the last couple of days. It's not even a matter of consistency, because we have had a different map here to the other EU countries, without objection, until it was raised here. By the way, all these maps were placed on the pages by User:Quizimodo on 17 June 2007 [2] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Titch in reply to your earlier comment, I think I've given my reason twice. At the moment there isn't silence or consensus. If there were a single page where a consistent approach had been discussed (or even could properly be discussed) I might agree. There's no place in which a common approach to all EU articles is discussed and that's because there is no common approach. There's no {{Template:EU countries}} or similar. The maps used on the EU articles have a range of different designs and don't look consistent or professional. Are you saying that unless there's a consensus on the talk pages of all 26 articles, this can't be changed? Where exactly would such a consensus be reached, if not here, on the matter of showing the EU country articles? In my view, this is a location map that is supposed to show the position of the UK, so it's really for you to say why the UK should be shown within the EU. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 15:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, it is a circular argument to say that the UK should show the EU because it should be consistent with the other EU country articles which happen to show the EU! Why choose the EU as the deciding factor in consistency? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"There's no place in which a common approach to all EU articles is discussed" ... here, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is it agreed on the relevancy of showing the EU? I fail to see it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

To the users opposing the map, I don't think anyone has failed to notice that fact so you can stop arguing that particular point. We would all be much more interested in knowing why you'd want the map changed. As was already pointed out, your arguments this far build almost exclusively on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.JdeJ (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Pardon? I didn't follow most of that but I have given reasons above and they certainly aren't "I don't like it". --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As I already said, Showing the UK within the EU informs our readers, which I would say is a good thing. You ask why choose the EU as the deciding factor. If we highlighted every political or geographic location of the UK it would be a rather messy and confusing map. Does this mean we should short change our readers? As Jza84 says, consistency promotes professionalism. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, but you are short changing readers by not showing NATO and the Commonwealth. Where does one draw the line? And "consistency promotes professionalism" is not an argument because we can very well change all the maps to not show the EU, thereby ensuring consistency. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Can people please stop throwing around WP:IDONTLIKEIT? This applies to deletion discussions and frankly, can be used in virtually any argument. As I said before, we WP:IDONTLIKEIT but you WP:ILIKEIT. What sort of an argument is that? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

But the maps simply aren't consistent. They don't all look the same so I really don't see that the professionalism thing applies. Interestingly, the comments on the page Ghmyrtle pointed to indicate that there was a consensus against the EU maps and they were still changed (!) I'm not against giving information but by selecting this particular organisation, the country box is given an EU-centric POV. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

My reasons for opposing the display of the EU are not POV based, just that this is an article on the United Kingdom, and this is the headline map. You don't see the EU shown on Britannica, Encarta or the CIA sites. It's fair enough to show the location of the UK in Europe to give geographical context, but why also show a political organisation? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a lot more I can say without repeating myself. I do understand your arguments, whilst not agreeing with them. Simply put, the more information we can provide the reader the better. Removing information because there is a disagreement over what should be shown is, in my opinion, wrong. As I said, I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll leave it for now. Cheers. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you'd be happy if an EU map appeared elsewhere in the article, rather than as the location map of the country box? I mean nobody's arguing the information shouldn't be in the article. Just that it shouldn't be in this particular place. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed: a separate map deals with the objection of "removing information", even though that is really a non-argument as it's in the text, and information is already removed by default because we are not showing NATO, CoN, G8 etc. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the EU map creates the false impression that the EU is a country. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides, why the EU map? We don't show the UK (or other respective member countries) in a Commonwealth of Nations map, UN map, G-8 map etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

One answer is surely that the states within the EU, including the UK, have delegated some of their sovereign functions to quasi-federal EU institutions - see Member State of the European Union#Sovereignty - so that, to give a full picture of the geographical extent of the entities with powers over any of the EU states, the EU as a whole should be shown. That doesn't apply to either NATO or the Commonwealth, so far as I'm aware. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, could we put the EU map, in another part of this article? Having it at the top Infobox, is misleading. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the UK delegates certain competencies but the UK could also take them back. Delegated powers don't have any effect on sovereignty. The UK also delegates power to the NI Assembly and the Scottish Parliament and but you've opposed marking their respective territories on the map. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In what way, precisely, is it "misleading"? For example, are you concerned about the projection used? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It creates the impression, that the UK is a dependancy of the European Union. The EU is not a sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it almost impossible to believe that any reasonably intelligent and unbiased reader would gain that impression, but, if it was a real issue, the caption could easily be clarified. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Map & the EU

As requested, I've attempted to summarise briefly (and in one case clarify) the reasons people have given on both sides. Feel free to add comments, reasons or corrections.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In support

1 a. A consistent style exists for all EU countries

Counterargument: This is not the case (see Finland). But even if it was, who says that all EU articles must have the same style (why EU)? Australia and New Zealand, India and Pakistan, Chile and Argentina do not.

1 b. The EU is especially relevant because the UK delegates legislative power to it.

Counterargument: If this is so important, why do Encarta, Britannica and the CIA factbook not show the EU when mapping the UK? Furthermore, membership of the EU is mentioned prominently in the lead.

1 c. As much information as possible should be given on the map.

Counterargument: Yes, as much information as possible about the UK. It does not help the reader to understand the UK to learn that Finland is part of the EU (that is helping the reader to understand the EU and Finland).

1 d. The primary purpose of the map is to show the state's location globally/internationally, not its internal geography

Counterargument: That is an argument for showing the UK situated off of Europe, not the members of the European Union. It is also a strong counterargument to 1a-c.

In opposition

2 a. This is a UK location map showing where the UK is located geographically. The EU is not relevant.

Counterargument: If that is the case, why is the EU shaded on the maps for all the 27 members of the EU.

2 b. The map creates a false impression that the EU is a country or that the UK is an EU dependency.

Counterargument: Not one user has still claimed to have been led into thinking that the EU is a country by the maps.

2 c. If the map were not of the whole of Europe, it would be possible to show the UK in much more detail.

Counterargument: Keeping the map does not rule out adding a more detailed map of the UK to the article.

2 d. Further to 2c, this is what other major encyclopaedias/factbooks (Britannica, Encarta, CIA) do. They show the major cities of the country and don't show multilateral organisations.

Counterargument: Maps such as those in Britannica and Encarta can be added to the article.

2 e. Further to 2d, it is odd to have an encyclopaedia article on the UK without a map showing where Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast, London and other major cities are - how should the reader locate the places mentioned in the text?

Counterargument: As already stated, a map showing major UK cities could be added to the geography-section of the article.

2 f. It gives undue weight to the EU. The map can't show all international organisations and it's a mistake to pick a particular one.

Counterargument: Membership in the EU cannot be compared with membership in other organisations. The EU is the only organisation with a parliament to which people in the UK elect members of parliament.

2 g. EU country articles use a number of different map layouts. There's no consistent layout. A consistent colour scheme on all maps would be a far better way for country articles to appear professional.

Counterargument: For all 27 EU-members is the map consistently colouring the country in a dark shade and the EU in a brighter shade.JdeJ (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

2 h. Further to 2g, the argument that articles about countries in the EU require same-style maps is circular: on what basis was the EU chosen?

comment

Not sure how helpful this is. 2a & f are the same argument. 2d&e are the same argument 2g&h is a counter argument and permits both solutions. --Snowded TALK 08:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree the list is not very helpful. It seems to me there are three central issues:

• whether or not there should be a consistent approach between this map and maps of other European states (and, if so, whether the approach should be determined at WP:COUNTRIES or in some other way);
  
• the scale of the map, related to whether it should primarily or only show the location of the state, or also some of its internal geography;
  
• whether the boundaries of any supranational entities, such as the continent of Europe and/or the EU, should be shown, and if so which and how.
  

Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it's merely what two editors have requested, one of whom seems unable to comprehend the fact those who are opposed have given any reasons at all. And 2a and 2f aren't the same. The point of 2a is that a map of the EU is irrelevant. The point of 2f is that even if you disagree with 2a, it's still wrong to prioritise. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 11:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is very odd that there is no map of the United Kingdom, i think no matter what the outcome of this debate is there should be atleast one map of the United Kingdom. Personally i would rather we do away with the "UK's topography" in the Geography section and replaced it with a detailed map of the UK showing the United Kingdoms countries and major cities. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. You might want to look at this (Map of Wales.svg) as an example, the guy who did this is excellent and I would think open to new tasks. --Snowded TALK 10:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, on the first of three points above: as I've already said, the maps of the various EU countries don't look the same. If all maps were of a particular design there would possible be a case for saying "consistency promotes professionalism" but they're not. Maps of non-EU countries vary even more. There's no reason why this can't be changed here rather than by discussion at WP:COUNTRIES. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 12:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read all the above and I've been trying to resist the temptation to write a really long comment. I tried, but here goes:

Firstly, an understanding of what England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are is essential to any understanding of what the United Kingdom is. It provides historical and political perspective and it explains why the United Kingdom is "United". Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think most people (Wikipedia readers rather than Wikipedia editors) don't know the difference between England and UK. (This is why Fox News sometimes talks about "the State Of England"). People who come to this article may want to see where the UK is in relation to Europe or the rest of the world. They almost certainly aren't trying to find a map of the EU. Given the choice between the four nations and the EU (and I don't think there's room for both) the former is surely far more useful to an international readership. The latter is interesting but by no means integral.

Secondly, why? Why is it important to show the EU? Precisely what purpose is shading EU countries supposed to achieve and how does that purpose advance one's knowledge of the UK? Does it become easier to locate Britain if certain countries on the map are shaded light green? Are there many people who know where the European Union is but aren't quite sure which bit of it is called Britain? Is it relevant that, at a quick glance, I can discover that Malta is an EU member state but Norway and Switzerland are not? Or perhaps this is simply a crude pictorial way of saying "Britain is in the European Union"? But isn't there a better way doing that? What would be lost if the EU were not shaded? Anything more than six words? A mention in the intro of the fact the UK is part of the EU is very sensible. Demonstrating this with a picture, if that's all it is, is a bit silly. Any sort of diagram that shows all the other EU countries is not only undue weight, it is also pointless and irrelevant. I'm afraid I've only read one[3] convincing argument for the EU map. Mostly there's been lots of appealing to status quo, a (non-existent) consistent approach in all country articles, (non-existent) consensus and burden of proof. There's been almost no discussion of what is best for the article and for the encyclopedia as a whole. Couldn't we convey vastly more in the introduction if we had a decent map? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 14:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Writing a really long comment is ok, but you should resist the temptation to keep slagging everyone off. Red hat requested a straw poll, not an in depth treatise on the relationship between the UK and the EU. It may have been a bit previous, and that would be the reason there is so little debate so far. Lighten up. I agree with you that most readers probably don't appreciate the difference between England and UK. Those same readers probably don't know much (if anything) about the EU either. The EU has a direct influence on the laws of its member states in a way that supranational bodies such as the Commonwealth, NATO etc do not. I think it is relevant to point out the EU in the headline map, but not overwhelmingly so. I'm prepared to be swayed. However, the 'zooming' enhancement, as shown on the Scotland map for example, would be a positive step. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(I'm not sure where Lo2u is slagging anyone off.) The day the UK ceases to be a sovereign state and becomes part of a Federation of Europe, I agree that the EU needs to be shown. However, the UK is still a sovereign state and as such one does not need to see that Finland is part of the EU to understand the UK. (NB, I'm pro-EU, so this isn't EU bashing on my part). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Sorry, that was written rather fast, mostly for fear of edit conflicts. But I wasn't trying to insult anyone, actually I'm not even sure I did. There has been a certain amount of wikilawyering in this discussion (in particular the burden of proof discussion is a huge diversion). Yours is only the second real attempt to justify the EU's inclusion. The EU is related to the United Kingdom and its relationship is certainly different from the Commonwealth and NATO but the relative importance of these relationships is more a matter of degree and is to an extent a matter of opinion. Again, I would like to know what would be lost if the EU were removed. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 15:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that the UK is part of the EU is in the lead. The article has to be taken as a whole, text plus images - images do not exist in isolation from the text. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The counter-arguments above were removed. This was an unsigned list compiled by several users. As WP:TALK makes clear: "In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point)..." In this case Pat Ferrick actually helped compile the list. So really it was his own comments he was interrupting. Removing other users' comments is even less appropriate. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange that Lo2u decided to remove any hint of NPOV from the list of support and oppose by adding counter-arguments to the points he disagrees with but not to those he agrees with. He is free to do so, but must surely understand that such a biased presentation is only preaching to the choir and unlikely to persuade anyone. Most of the counterarguments are rather confusing

1. "This is not the case (see Finland)." The map of Finland shows Finland within the EU, just as for any other EU country.
2. "Australia and New Zealand, India and Pakistan, Chile and Argentina do not." No, and they are not members of the EU. I would be delighted if the UK left the EU tomorrow, but I'm afraid that's not very likely.
3. "If this is so important, why do Encarta, Britannica and the CIA factbook not show the EU when mapping the UK?" This is Wikipedia, not a copy of another encyclopedia. You will discover that the text is different as well.JdeJ (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the counterarguments, not Lo2u, and judging by your responses, these arguments seem to be a little lost on you. (1) EU consistency is being touted as a reason for not changing, but the EU maps are of a differing style. (2) who says the EU is the deciding factor here? (3) in discussions like this, WP guidelines suggest looking at what other encylos do. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Others have alrady recommended that you acquaint yourself with WP:CIVIL and I add my voice to theirs.JdeJ (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

JdeJ, nobody's being uncivil and you misunderstand me. I tried to compile a list of the reasons given by both sides in as fair a way as possible. Because I didn't wish to appear to misrepresent anyone, I didn't sign the list and I encouraged others to edit them or add comments. So far only Pat Ferrick has done so. He added the counter arguments to section 1 and additional reasons to section 2. That was entirely appropriate. And I encourage you to do the same. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lo2u, thanks for the clarification. In that case there is no problem with the list, my bad, I misunderstood it. To address the points made by red:

1. EU consistency is being touted as a reason for not changing, but the EU maps are of a differing style. The style of the map is, in my view, a rather minor detail. All maps show the country and the EU with the country of the article in a darker shade and the EU in a brighter.
2. who says the EU is the deciding factor here? We're discussing whether to show the EU on maps for EU countries, remember? It's hardly very relevant for countries that are not members of the EU.
3. in discussions like this, WP guidelines suggest looking at what other encylos do. We can always look at other sources, it doesn't mean we have to follow them.JdeJ (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Consistency is an argument, even though people keep on repeating that different versions of maps are in use. If you look carefully, you will see that all EU member states shade the EU, i.e., they are all of type A. The fact that there are two versions to do so, namely A-1 and A-2, does not rule out the fact that the EU context is consistently shown on all other EU member states articles. Lou's counterargument supports a change between A-1 and A-2, but fails to legitimate the change from type A to type B.

I also find it a bad style of discussion to add the counterarguments to the list of support arguments. Basically, they reproduce what has already been listed under oppose arguments and in some cases they even seem to ridicule the argument they are countering. A little bit unfair IMO. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(You are welcome to add counterarguments to the oppose section, even if they repeat the support section.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me to do so, but I simply do not find it good practice. I think that this approach for most confuses our discussion and is therefore counter productive. Arguments provided should be signed, because it helps to follow in many respects. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I just didn't want to claim mine was the definitive list. I'm happy for others to edit it, that's all, but never intended it to substitute for a comments section. I think this has been done on other talk pages. JdeJ, on another point the reason PF said that "these arguments seem to be lost on you" is that you've asserted several times that those who wish to remove the EU have given no reason. Maybe you missed the reasons, which is why they're summarised, but that just wasn't the case. And sometimes the best way of encouraging incivility is actually quoting WP:CIVIL and WP:TROLL at people, I'm sure you wouldn't like it. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) JdeJ: "EU as the deciding factor": I've said this umpteen times now. It takes a little lateral thinking to get it, but bear with me for a second. Can you not see that arguing that we must show the EU because the other EU articles show the EU is a circular argument? Your "consistency criteria" is the exact thing that we are arguing about here. Let me spell out your argument:

Premise 1: Maps of countries in the same "grouping" should be consistent.

Premise 2: The "grouping" that applies to countries in the EU is that the country should be a member of the EU.

Premise 3: The other EU articles show the EU.

Conclusion: Therefore, we must show the EU.

Do you see that this argument is not an argument at all? That premise 2 is completely circular? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point here. No-one is arguing that we must show the EU, rather that we should - on the basis that the decision to do so was taken in another forum (WP:COUNTRIES) for all EU states, and there are some virtues in maintaining as much consistency as possible. (Or are you suggesting that the maps for the other EU states should also be changed if that is the result of discussion on this page - which would seem a little presumptuous?) Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at your link posted above, and I could not find where it was ever agreed that the EU should be shaded. All I am saying is that the argument being touted here is not that "it was agreed it should be this way..." (which it was not) "...for reasons X,Y and Z", instead it's "because that is what the other EU articles do". This is not a good reason and just reflects the ad hoc decision to group the EU articles in this way. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "it was agreed", I said "a decision was taken" following discussion there. But I'd suggest that, if there is a consensus to change things here, it should be referred for international WP-wide reconsideration of how all states are shown in the infobox, before being acted on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to agree here first and then refer it on to WP:COUNTRIES. You can't have it both ways: claim that what other countries do dictates what we must do, and then say that we must agree here first before we refer it on to other countries. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That is one of the reasons many of us suggested that WP:COUNTRIES might be a better place for this discussion. And I'm afraid you're confusing things here, no other countries dictate what "we" (who are "we") must do, but principles that Wikipedia-users apply may apply to the UK as well. This is not to say that those principles cannot be challenged and changed, but I repeat that this is not the best forum for that discussion.JdeJ (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I haven't suggested either of those things. What other countries do doesn't "dictate" anything, and I haven't suggested we "must agree here first" before referring it on. I'd be perfectly happy to stick with the internationally agreed stable consensus that we have had here, up to the point that you (RedHat) suggested it be changed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(You wrote "if there is a consensus to change things here...": sorry if I misunderstood the intent). Please let's dispel the idea here and how that there is any international consensus. Even within the EU, different map styles are used. It's silly to claim we must adhere for reasons of professionalism to consistency but to have the consistency apply only to showing the EU whilst being inconsistent in the graphics. And outside the EU, just look at Argentina vs Brazil and India vs Pakistan. BTW I'm sure you would agree that it is silly to single out the EU as requiring a different style to the rest of the world. I'm a fan of the orthographic projections, myself - they look the most professional. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with some of the reasons listed for not showing the European Union, however we should remember if we showed a map of the UK in other international organisations the UK would be even smaller. I agree the European Union should not be seen as above all other international organsations the UK is part of like NATO, the Commonwealth of nations etc. I support the current map because all 26 other European Union countries do the same thing.(13) use A1 and (13) use A2. Whilst all countries dont have to be the same there are times when a similar pattern is useful, as we now have with the 4 UK countries leads saying they are a country that is part of the United Kingdom. A common approach seems like a good one, and considering it had been the same sort of map for such a long time, i think it should stay the same. Although as ive said before i would support a better map of the United Kingdom so we can see it more clearly. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why we couldn't keep the existing infobox map and also have a larger scale map in the Geography section, for instance one which shows the E/W/S/NI boundaries as well as some topography (or even just the boundaries, as from the Countries of the United Kingdom map). Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A second map? - a suggestion

The majority view is to retain the current map in the infobox. Given that, is there any opposition to my suggestion that an additional map of the boundaries of the four countries be copied (reduced in size) from Countries of the United Kingdom into this article? I would suggest under Geography, to replace the existing topographic map. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support a second map of the United Kingdom, showing the UK and its countries. The one on Countries of the UK would do but if theres a better map showing things more clearly and more detailed it would probably have more support. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree - but does one exist? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Dont know, ive not seen one. Id certainly rather the map from that page than none at all like currently. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Added map for now - happy for others to discuss / revert etc. at leisure. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We should've had one showing the four parts a long while back. However, I've never been keen on the vivid colours used in that map. With the greatest respect to its creator(s), it looks like a map from a Children's book, and not very professional. Can of worms I know, but it'll start nagging me if I don't speak up! --Jza84 |  Talk  13:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The saturation of the colours is rather too much, in my opinion, and would be better looking a bit more "muted". Looking at it there makes me think about restructuring the article a little: at the moment in the section that it is in, it jostles for position with the other map, though I do think it was positioned well given the current structure. I think that, given their prominence, there is a need for that section to contain another sub-section, written in summary style, and dealing with the status of E/NI/S/W. It can include a "See also" link to Countries of the United Kingdom, though I ontinue to think that that title may be best changed. Any comments?  DDStretch  (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view on the colour, though I'm aware that some colours for some countries are unacceptable, and in a way it may be better to stick with what was agreed in a previous discussion. Perhaps ideally there could be a toned down version of the map, with a few major cities added. I agree that the position in the article is not ideal in some ways (though I think there are some benefits in having both maps viewable on the same screen), but do we really need to provide new text which could provide some with yet another opportunity for "status" questions to be raised? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The map provides useful information and does actually fit into that section pretty well in my opinion. Im not too keen on the map itself either, the yellow for Northern Ireland is the colour i cant stand. Till theres a better map i think that one should say, it is a simple one but considering how many people dont understand the difference between England and Britain its helpful.

On a new section dealing with the countries on the UK id support one although im not sure what sort of information would go in it, remembering alot of this is covered in other sections. (georgraphy, the 2nd paragraph in the opening section, politics talks about devolution, history deals with the formation of the UK etc BritishWatcher (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Province

I have yet again removed this non-neutral Unionist term, as it is redundant in the sentence in question to begin with. Countries of the United_Kingdom#Other terms in use shows it is rarely used, so why the need to use it here? O Fenian (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? The BBC style guide actually recommend using the term. I'd hardly call your username neutral...--Cameron* 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Right there. I'd hardly call your attempts to describe Irish people as British against their wishes neutral, which is much more offensive than any username. O Fenian (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Calm down: I was typing in the section below (now a sub-section) which edit-conflicted at least 3 times with the messages above.

An edit-war over the use of "province" with respect to Northern Ireland

I've noticed an edit war breaking out in the Geography section where there was a use of "province" to describe Northern Ireland, and this was removed and reinserted a number of times in fairly quick succession. I hope editors here won't mind me making a rather more radical change to the wording which now removes the relevance of any discussion about whether "province" should be used to describe Northern Ireland or not. As always, I'm happy to discuss the change I made here. Details are:

• Original sentence: "The highest peak is Slieve Donard at 849 metres (2,785 ft) in the province's Mourne Mountains."
• Version changed to: "The highest peak is Slieve Donard at 849 metres (2,785 ft) in the Mourne Mountains."
• My edited sentence: "The highest peak within Northern Ireland is Slieve Donard at 849 metres (2,785 ft) in the Mourne Mountains.

Although the BBC style guide may say the use of "province" is acceptable, we do not have to be bound by it on wikipedia, and I think the strategy of re-wording in a very simple way to avoid the matter is best. Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We should avoid biased words if possible. I consider the "within Northern Ireland" to be slightly redundant (as was the original use of province) given the preceding text, but that works for me. O Fenian (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Living in UK on Wikia

I have just got a wiki created at Wikia:linvinginuk which is about living in UK/moving there. I would appreciate any help from people who would like to launch this project. It is still very new and basically no content so don't judge it yet... For those that are sharp eyed they will see I had a typo in the URL. That will be fixed soon I hope - if the former link doesn't work try Wikia:livinginuk. At present I'm not going to edit the UK article of Wikipedia to point to it until it is a bit better. This wiki is not intended to replace Wikipedia article but rather compliment it. Thanks for any and all support. Imcdnzl (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Imcdnzl, I think you mean complement rather than compliment - although it's always nice for Wikipedia to receive compliments Dom Kaos (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes you're absolutely right.. Imcdnzl (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The URL is now fixed so come on over and help at Wikia:livinginuk Imcdnzl (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that it's useful for Wikipedia to point outwards to a commercial makey-uppey Wiki website. If there are references on reputable sources then Wikipedia could point at those. This example doesn't count. If there is a link to this site it should be deleted. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a commercial website at all. I'm intending to move to the UK but wanting to learn about a few things then and want it to be a useful reference site so people can say "How is this done in the UK?". I see it also useful for residents if they want to learn about where to find something etc. I know it is still very raw and lacking content, hence I haven't linked it here. I posted on the talk page only as I am a keen Wikipedia editor and about 3 other wikis also. I thought other people might be similar to me and help turn the Wikia one into something useful. Imcdnzl (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, it does have all the appearances of a commercial website: the first two pages I clicked on, "minicab" and "culture in London" both are advertorials with prominent, themed banner adverts. I tend to agree with Wotapalaver Dom Kaos (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I chose Wikia as a free Wiki hosting site and there are a lot of good wiki's up there. I don't actually see the ads but maybe that's because I'm signed in or not serving them up to me?? Wikia was started [4] by the guy who started Wikipedia and is meant to be a community effort but obviously now has some commercial aspects. I'd still like people's help, but understand if you don't because of the commercial aspect. Imcdnzl (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Imcdnzl, I don't think anyone suspects you of intentionally trying to pass off a commercial site as a non-commercial one: hopefully the information on your site increases, it will dilute the adverts. To maintain integrity though, I would suggest that you try to avoid advertorials - "Culture in London" is a good example of what not to do! Good luck with it, though :) Dom Kaos (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Even tho you lot are talking about the subject matter of the article, you lot are not fufilling the purpose of this talk page which is about improving the article not about advertising your wikia website about something relating to the topic. So can we keep it to discussing about improving the article thank you. Pro66 (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

ethnic groups discrepancy

there is a significant difference in the percentages of ethnic groups given in the infobox and in the ethnic groups subsection of the demographics section. for example 1.2% black in the infobox and 2% black in the main article. can somebody try to resolve this? both seem to be based on the same 2001 census. thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

another discrepancy, the national anthem is listed as "god save the queen" in the infobox but in the symbols section it states that the title should remain "god saves the king" and only the lyrics change to "queen". Jessi1989 (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On the second point, the wikilink from "God Save the King" goes straight to "God Save the Queen": also, searching for "God Save the King" redirects to "God Save the Queen". I'm not sure where this page's assertion comes from that '[t]he anthem's name remains "God Save the King"' - unless anyone can come up with a compelling reason to retain this last sentence, can I propose that it be deleted? The page for the song explains the gender thing fairly well anyhow Dom Kaos (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On the first point, I think you must be misreading the infobox: the information is a bit squashed up, but it says "83.6% English, 8.6% Scottish, 4.9% Welsh, 4.0% South Asian, 2.9% Ulster, 2.0% Black, 1.2% Multiracial, 0.80% East Asian/Other". It's not particularly easy on the eye, but the information is correct. here's the source Dom Kaos (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

oh thanks yeah i did misread it... hmm i wonder if there is a way to change it so that others don't make the same mistake... Jessi1989 (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

83.6 English+8.6 Scottish+4.9 Welsh+4 South Asian+2.9 Ulster+2 Black gives a total of 106% - how can this be correct? 86.139.52.86 (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not - someone has misunderstood the ONS figures. 83.6% of the total UK population live in England, 8.6% in Scotland, 4.9% in Wales, 2.9% in NI, giving 100% total UK population. Breaking the same 100% total down by ethnicity gives 4% S Asian, 2% black, 0.4% Chinese, 1.2% "mixed", 0.4% "other", and 92.1% white. I don't think (but stand to be corrected) that the ONS site has a breakdown of the "white" group by area of origin - the fact that 83.6% of the UK population live in England, for example, doesn't mean that the same proportion would define themselves as "English". Until this is sorted out, I've deleted the E/S/W/NI national figures from the infobox. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw Poll - Infobox Map & the EU

Should we identify and shade the European Union in the infobox map (support), or not (oppose)?

• Oppose This map is a "location of the UK" map, so it needs to show the UK and its location to help the reader, not political associations. EU map can be elsewhere in the article. Same argument applies to other 26 EU countries' articles (though it begs the question to argue that the EU is shown because the other EU countries it: why what makes the EU the deciding factor?). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The map creates the false impression, that the EU is a country. Besides, we don't use a Commonwealth of Nations, or UN maps etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose There's no consistent house style for EU country articles but a map showing the EU should be included further down. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - status quo which has been stable since June 2007 on most if not all EU nation pages, following debate at WP:COUNTRIES. No reason for change, map serves purpose and looks fine. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment First: If the options listed at the top are "yes" and "no", then why are we having "Support" and "Oppose" comments here? Or are they supporting and/or opposing the notion of having a straw poll? Second, I don't think a straw poll at this stage is at all useful unless more background information is gathered and it is discussed. So, if the "Support" and "Oppose" refer to the notion of a straw poll, I say "Oppose", and if they are supposed to refer to the two options (option 1 = support, I guess, and option 2 = oppose, though it isn't as clear as one might think), then I say "Neither" because of the need for more discussion, as seems to be happening in the so-called "Straw Poll" already. It seems premature.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok - I've altered my comments because the ambiguities were edited out during the edit-conflict when I tried to add my comments.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What more information would you like to see? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(after many edit conflicts) I would like to see a more serious attempt on the part of those people arguing in favour of any change to discharge their burden of proof in convincing others that a change is required.

This will require a determination of which form was a stable one up to this current discussion. Once that is determined, then the people who want a change from that have the burden of proof assigned to them and the obligation is on them to argue in its favour.

If the matter of what was a stable version cannot be decided upon, then we have a simple disagreement in the presence of an unstable version, and so all disagreeing parties need to muster arguments in favour of their own position.

The kind of arguments I would expect to see would include a survey, reported accurately rather than in a hand-waving imprecise way, of what is done in other countries' articles if they are part of the EU. What is done can be classified in a number of ways, such as (a) whether a map is shown at all or not (probably trivially, the answer is "yes") (b) whether it shows the EU as well as the country or not, and (c) whether the style of any maps used is consistent amongst all EU countries (a map may be the same style as another even if one map shows the EU or not).

If any of these three conditions fail to show consistency, then any argument in favour of a change to existing consistency is weakened, as there is none to begin with: this should then inform the remainder of the discussion about the merits or otherwise of showing the EU or any thing else, on the map.

The "Why choose the EU, why not choose the commonwealth?" type of argument can be discussed at this time, but it isn't really anything other than a request to clarify why the EU is chosen over and above any other entity, and since they have been given scant attention so far, I think it merely illustrates that insufficient discussion has happened.

Any arguments need to be made clearly and explored before any straw poll is taken, in my opinion, as the aim should be to arrive at the best solution possible after a clear and honest exploration of all the information that are found, so as to best inform any decisions.

I am disappointed to see such a rush to straw polls in the absence of any real substantive discussion about the matters, and do not think it would impress others who like me, have come across and read this discussion anew just now. You are not complying with wikipedia's principles in taking a "straw poll" at this stage.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Burden of proof"... "not complying with Wikipedia's principles"... I think you are taking things a little too seriously. A straw poll allows everyone to see who favours what and succinctly publicise their reasons (we don't need to have a straw poll on whether to have a straw poll), and neither side needs to "prove" anything here: it is a matter of preference and it all boils down to what the community decides. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but those in favour of change must argue in favour of it: it is not the job of people who do not want the change to defend it. That is a core wikipedia principle. I think it is you who are misunderstanding the process here by calling prematurely for a straw poll. The use of "prove" is clearly meant in terms of testing out the alternatives by reasoned arguments. As Tomeasy stated, straw polls are not the way such things should be done at this stage of any matter. The whole issue needs to be restarted without the rush to straw polls.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change and all this straw poll is trying to achieve is see who wants what and why: noone suggested it was meant to be binding. Show me the policy which dictates when a straw poll can be had? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, consensus can change, but the best way to do it is via discussion. I think the way in which you used an edit summary to caricature my concerns as "straw poll bashing" does you no favours and only diminishes your own contributions at this point. I think you could have done better. Of course you can go to the extreme to caricature my concerns by asking for a policy which states when star polls can be had, but this may only show that you want to dismiss my legitimate concerns out of hand, since I am clearly not adopting that kind of position at all. The fact is that wikipedia does work by consensus, and that the way to determine consensus is by adequate discussion, which I argue we have not yet had. That is all I am saying. Can I suggest that your responses have been a bit harsh here, and that it might be an idea to review WP:Etiquette, WP:CONSENSUS (which emphasizes discussion)?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi DDStrech, I agree with some of what you say. I voted in this straw pole but personally I dislike them. However, the arguments were getting a little circular and involved a small number of users so I disagree that this was some sort of breach of Wikiquette. Would you acknowledge that the support side has some explaining to do too? I've still to see a good explanation of why the UK article (or indeed all the EU country articles) must show the EU, whereas I think the support side has made its case quite clearly. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The matter of wikiquette was concerned with the labelling of my legitimate concerns as "ridiculous straw poll bashing" in an edit summary, and other caricaturing of positions not agreed with; not about the proposal of a straw poll, even tough I believe it was premature. Until the straw poll was proposed, I did not see much in terms of arguments either for or against any particular position, which is why I beleive it was premature. The obligations rest with those who propose change away from an established position, and wikipedia is clear on that matter (see the link I give below). If the "support side" do not possess this immediate burden of proof or burden of evidence, then once the real discussion of the merits of any change are in motio (at the start of which the initial presentation of evidence has to be from those who want change), then usually claims are then made by either "side", and each claim places a burdens of proof upon those who make these claims. But, to emphasize, the initial burden, which is what I was concentrating on, rests solely with those who initiate the first claim in favour of a change away from the established and stable state. That is quite widely accepted in all areas of enquiry, and is recognised by many experts who write on the matter of informal logic and argumentation as can be applied to fields like this.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"those in favour of change must argue in favour of it: it is not the job of people who do not want the change to defend it." -

Absolutely not. Major changes should not be made without discussion. This avoids revert wars and ensures articles are stable. Consensus applies to both sides in a discussion and both sides must explain why they support a particular version. Burden of proof doesn't rest with anyone. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my words were unclear: it is the job of people who are arguing in favour of change to justify why change is required. It is not up to those who are not convinced about the desirability of that change to show why it should not be done: that is the way the burden of proof, or the burden of evidence works in any area of enquiry like this. You can read about it here: WP:BURDEN where the first sentence reads "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." The presentation of the evidence then must be made and may then be the first part of a discussion which attempts to reach a consensus view about the change, either in favour or not, if the evidence is unconvincing or challenged. It is never a good idea to indulge in edit-warring. eing WP:BOLD is merely acting as if the evidence is contained in the changes and thought to be readily seen to be acceptable. However, it may not be, and so the change can be challenged, obviously. It is open to question whether part of the challenge can justifiably be a reversion of the change or not. I thought a lot of what I wrote would either be clear on that matter, or else readily implicit, but it obviously was not, so thanks for prompting me to clarify it.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

But what WP:Burden is actually talking about is citing sources. It says that if people add things they can't verify, others may remove them until a source is produced. I don't think it applies here. At the moment, it is up to both sides to seek consensus. I've never seen it written than where two different position are held, the earlier one should remain until those proposing a change are convinced. I think it would be best if both sides explained their objections to the other's arguments and explained why they prefer their own proposals and I believe that is implicit in WP:CONSENSUS. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that up until 1 person changed the map a month ago (which has now been undone) there was a stable map for over a year which was used on this page, and this is the same type of map used by all other European Union countries. There for the reasons for changing it to one that doesnt show the EU needs to be justified. At the moment based on the poll so far there is clearly no consensus for changing to a map without the EU. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c reply to Lo2u) It does apply here, as the matter of burden of proof applies in a much more wider sense than what is described in a restricted sense in the link I provided: it is always up to those people advocating a change to provide evidence in favour of that change. This to to avoid the kind of exchange that goes something like this: "We must do X" "Why should we?" "No, tell me why we should not!" Now, it is clear that once an argument is put forwards in favour of a change the discussion commences and during this further claims are made which require their own evidence and obligations upon those who make them, but the initial requirement is for those who make the initial claim (in this case, in favour of a change) to state why they think the change should be made, and NOT upon others to argue why the change should not be made. As I said, later exchanges will almost always result in additional claims requiring their own obligations of proof or evidence to be satisfied, but the initial one always rests with those advance or make it. Now, I think this specific discussion is way off-topic now for this page.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

But WP:Burden says is that if I write that Winston Churchill spent a year of his life in Outer Mongolia and don't give a source another user may remove it. It prevents me saying "Where does it say Winston Churchill didn't spend a year in Outer Mongolia?" WP:Burden is all about verifiability, no more than that. There is no consensus at the moment. My preference would be for a proper discussion of whether the EU is shown (I think discussion of the precise layout is premature at this stage because new maps can easily be produced). People should discuss the arguments and not ignore them or claim (as one editor seems to be claiming) that they don't exist. At the moment, the arguments of the oppose side are quite strong. The arguments of the support side seem to be that things that are stable should not be changed. Or is that unfair?--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

T is right. There is no policy or guideline where it says that the current state of the article wins by default unless the editor(s) requesting change can "prove" that change is required. "Burden of proof" quite rightly applies to WP:V, but not to changing the encyclo. As I said before, this issue is a matter of consensus, not "proof". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In any discussion, it is widely accepted in all areas, not just wikipedia, that those who propose changes or make claims have obligations to explain and justify why. Do not be misled by any misinterpretation of "prove": it does not refer to any mathematical or formal logic proof here, instead it merely means "tested by critical discussion of the evidence", though Proof is not clear on the matter (the meaning used here is somewhat similar to the Evidence (law) sense of it, but that contains matters that do not apply here. On wikipedia, if reasons are not offered and/or discussion and consensus not achieved, then the changes can be (not "must be") reverted. If you cannot accept that, then we merely must accept that we disagree. I think you will find that policies and guidelines require discussion on wikpedia, and that undiscussed or unexamined changes are quickly reverted. As I said, "proof" means in this context, testing by the critical examination of evidence, though it is often misunderstood because of ideas that its meaning is confined to ideas of mathematical or formal logic proof.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support If some of those opposing are happy to have the map of the UK within the EU further down the article, then they must feel it brings some kind of clarity to the article. If that's the case then the sooner it's clarified the better. The map should remain as it is. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support At present the supported option applies to all EU countries. If this shall be changed, the motion for change should be discussed elsewhere. BTW, I consider straw polls as evidence of incapacity to deliver arguments, especially when initiated just one day after starting a talk page section. Keep in mind and appreciate the policy that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I am happy with the current image and dont think we need to remove the shading of the European Union. I wouldnt mind using a different map that shows the United Kingdom more clearly (like the image in the last section on this talk page but the current one seems ok. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support As per Tomeasy. JdeJ (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Gives undue weight to the EU. I would support a closer view of the UK. Due to our use of an image including the EU, the UK actually appears tiny. Let's get our priorities right, eh? This is an article about the UK not the EU. Best, --Cameron* 18:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Best to show the EU. However, I would prefer if the UK was also enhanced by 'zooming' into the map, as on the Wales article etc. Daicaregos (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support UK is a European country and a member of the EU and that is the best context in which to show the UK Agree with Dai on zooming that would overcome some of the issues. The idea that anyone would think this implied the EU was a sovereign state is laughable --Snowded TALK 08:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I agree to the already stated arguments in favor of keeping the EU shading in the map. Additionally, the EU membership of the UK is mentioned in the initial section of the article: If it's important enough to be in the abstract, the corresponding map should be consistent with that. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Per the stated arguments in favour of keeping the EU shading. - SSJ ☎ 03:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support The EU is "super-national" and has lots of authority over the UK ect. Ijanderson (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

First Line

The first text line 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,[12] commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain,[13] is a sovereign state' I believe to be inaccurate. Technically the UK is a union of states, much like the European Union and since devolution many of the sovereign powers have returned to the national level. I agree - in part. The UK is not the same as Britain. Britain consists of Scotland, Wales and England, but not NI. The Isle of Man is not in the UK either! As for the Channel Islands...well I'm not sure of their position (politically that is).

I propose changing the strap line to "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,[12] commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain,[13] is union of states" and update the history area accordingly.

What do people think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardeast (talk • contribs) 07:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ above. In spite of devolution, the UK remains a sovereign state. None of the constituent countries of the UK can be termed states either in the sense that France is a state (i.e. a sovereign state), or in the sense that Texas is a state (i.e. a federal state). The UK is a state in the first sense. garik (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a sovereign state and country. It is not a union of states or anything close to the European Union. Understand that the UK parliament has supreme Parliamentary sovereignty over EVERYTHING in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. By passing a single bill the UK parliament can suspend the Scottish parliament, Welsh assembly, and Northern Ireland Assembly. It can withdraw the United Kingdom from NATO and the European Union, as well as scrap any previous bill or treaties passed. That is what makes the United Kingdom a sovereign state, making the introduction clear and accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see them try that. There is a difference between political theory and the real-world practicalities of a complex political balancing act. Wikipedia must explain both the theory and the real-world complexities, in an NPOV manner.--Mais oui! (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As you say, these things are easier said than done. I would go so far as saying that if they unilateraly suspended the Scottish Parliament, Independence would be closer than ever. It is correct to say that both theory and real word practicalities should be mentioned in the text. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need to go down this route? The proposal above is something of a red herring IMO. We have a good lead ATM. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Scotland is still recognised as a state, in at lease one context. Please see State (law). --Mais oui! (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that the UK parliament has the power to do what it likes giving it parliamentary sovereignty over everything that happens in the United Kingdom. There are plenty of cases where suspending devolution might be acceptable to most of the people in Scotland. The UK parliament can choose to reintroduce the death penalty and restart national service, it is legally able to do so even if its political suicide.

If we are seriously going to get into a debate about the opening sentence of this article then i think including the term country to the opening sentence will have to be on the table as well. "The United Kingdom is a sovereign state and COUNTRY." There is a clear justification for the inclusion of the word country but i thought the majority were now happy about the way all the UK article leads started. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"There are plenty of cases where suspending devolution might be acceptable to most of the people in Scotland." Indeed? Please provide some evidence for that. Abolishing the Scottish Parliament usually gets about 10% or less in surveys of Scottish voting intention.

Scotland and parliamentary sovereignty, Gavin Little, Professor of Law, University of Stirling - "... this paper focuses on the implications of Scottish devolution for the orthodox doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The constitution, and the legislative supremacy of Westminster within it, remains a controversial political issue in Scotland... It is contended that the foundations of the Scottish political order have shifted in a way which is already presenting significant challenges. Moreover, looking to the future, the pressure on the orthodox Diceyan approach is likely to intensify over time. In this context, it is questionable whether constitutional conventions of the sort which are already evolving or the possible development by the courts of more formal constitutional norms will, in the long term, be able to reconcile parliamentary sovereignty with Scottish political reality. Indeed, it is argued that — from a Scottish perspective at least — the viability of classic, Diceyan parliamentary sovereignty as a meaningful constitutional doctrine will be called into question in the years to come."

Where exactly does Wikipedia try to describe the complexities of this "controversial political issue in Scotland" in the context of "Scottish political reality". Answer: nowhere. Currently we give WP:UNDUE weight to what British nationalists want the world to be like. Not how the world really is. --Mais oui! (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the Scotland Independence article should deal with such issues, we also have a sentence right on the main Scotland article in the opening paragraphs saying that Scotlands constitutional future continues to give rise to debate. I am sorry but the fact remains the United Kingdom is the sovereign state and it can act anyway it likes within international law or even outside of it. Ofcourse it would be very difficult to suspend the Scottish parliament without good reason, but there was not a huge problem when the Northern Ireland assembly was suspended and it showed that Westminister and the British government still has supreme power over these devolved administrations. There are as i said before many examples of when suspending the devolved administrations may be needed even if public support was against it. A state of emergency, a war, a mad first minister on the loose who knows. The fact remains that parliament has the power to do it, just as it has the power to withdraw from the European Union even though that would have huge implications and very unlikely to happen.

The funny thing is US states have more rights and protections from the federal government than the Countries of the United Kingdom do from the United Kingdom Parliament :) BritishWatcher (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and the whole of the Scottish parliament could vote for independence but that means nothing unless the UK parliament votes to allow Scotland to leave the UK (which of course it would do following a referendum which it allows to take place). But lets be under no illusions, the Scottish parliament today is not the sovereign Scottish parliament that voted itself out of existence 300 years ago when Scotland joined with the Kingdom of England to form the Kingdom of Great Britain BritishWatcher (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

NOT a British Nationalist here, but an Australian republican. Lets not look at Scotland but at Northern Ireland where powers were devolved and then removed then devolved again in a different form. The legal relation is not the same as between a state and national government in a Federation. It is more similar to a very large municipality and the national government. And no, I am not saying Scotland is some shire council. I do understand that it may not be politically possible for devolution to be reversed, but that does not alter the legal relationship. The UK may well evolve into a true federation, or it may break up into several independent countries. It is really not my business what direction it heads. What does matter to me is that the current legal, and political, situation is accurately described. Using terms such as "state" to describe Scotland or either of the other two devolved entities only confuses the reader, implying Scotland is something it is not, that is either a nation state or a state in a federation. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the current wording is very accurate and clear for people to understand. BritishWatcher (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

While the UK was formed by a union of states, what that union created was a single, sovereign state. (The theory of parliamentary sovereignty is actually not relevant to any discussion on this basic point.) I also think the first sentence is accurate as it stands. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The first line is correct. The United Kingdom is a Union of Kigdom's, Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of Ireland. It is not a Union of States, if this was so it would be called the "United States of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", but its called the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" because its a Union of Kingdoms. Ijanderson (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The UK as the only European nation not occupied by the Axis (i.e. in this case, Germany) in WW2

This is an error as the Channel Islands were occupied from 1940 until 1945, and were one of the last German occupied areas in Europe to be liberated. In fact, no European allied combatant nations were unoccupied. I appreciate the position of the various Channel Islands and their relationships to the UK and The Crown.

F W Thompson E: tuanfrank@hotmail.com

If you really appreciate the relationships of the Channel Islands to the UK, why do you think that they are part of the UK ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Did the Axis occupy the Soviet Union? The Germans invaded the USSR, but were beaten back. Better still, whatabout Switzerland? GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

They did occupy parts of the Soviet Union. The Ukraine for example, many of the Ukranians were quite happy to have the Germans there, though when the Soviet Union retook it, those who collaborated with them were severely punished. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) But whatabout Switzerland (the neutral country)? Or whatabout Monaco? GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Switzerland wasn't occupied during WW2, but Monaco was. However, there was one European allied country that remained unoccupied, apart from the UK - Turkey - but they only entered the war towards its end, and I'm not sure if they played any meaningful role in hostilities. Also have a look at German–occupied Europe.Pondle (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I presume when it say's the only unoccupied country it means among those countries at war, I think. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, I thought that what the questioner meant, but wasn't certain. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It should mention the channel islands and also make clear its talking about only country at war with Germany in Europe that was unoccupied. However where abouts is this statement on the article? i cant see it BritishWatcher (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No matter i see it. It says clearly Allied European country. Switzerland etc were not allies they remained neutral throughout the war. The message is clear enough although i dont know why its mentioned in an image description. Surely that could be mentioned in the actual history section which is very thin with only a couple of lines on the war that had a huge impact on the UK. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The questioners section title, lacked clarification. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And Turkey? Of course they did not play the role the UK did, but technically they render the statement wrong. Or do I miss a point? Tomeasy _{T C} 18:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

how about just adding Western Europe instead of Europe. Just so its clear and more accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Turkey is in Asia though!AEHAS (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We dont want to get into a debate about where Turkey is, This is all covered in much more detail on history article or on the specific Britain in world war 2 pages. Adding western would explude turkey and mean the information can stay. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Right so, the discussion of Turkey being Europe or not is the least thing we need here. Sorry, for accidentally provoking such comment. Adding western makes the statement very weak. What about throughout the war to emphasize that the UK was an ally during the whole period, which Turkey wasn't. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That would work, anything to make it more accurate and clear is fine with me. im still rather unsure why the info is mentioned in the image description rather than the actual history section considering there is only a couple of lines on WW2 in it. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Come on ppl let's be honest here, the description of the image is simply technical/legal BS. The Channel islands are technically/legally not a part of the United Kingdom. The Soviet Union was invaded but only a part of it was temporarily occupied (technical THE Soviet Union wasn't occupied). I fail to see the relevance of the sentence at all. It simply sounds as some little piece of old-fashioned nationalistic propaganda. Flamarande (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Shall we then say France was not occupied? After all, the German's did not occupy the region that became Vichy France. The Ukraine, along with other areas of the Soviet Union was occupied. How much of a country has to be occupied before we can actualy say it was? Titch Tucker (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Titch Tucker your knowledge of history seems to be lacking. I suggest that you read Case Anton. Flamarande (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the statement as it stands is always going to be subject to these sort of technical arguments about how correct it is, how much of a country has to be occupied etc. The photo is of the Spitfire, which is famously associated with the Battle of Britain. Why not something like Between July 1940 and May 1941, during World War II, the United Kingdom stood alone in Europe against Nazi Germany, a period known as the Battle of Britain. Maybe some more work needed, but you get the drift. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That would make more sense yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Germany entered the war in Greece from April 1941. But to mention Vichy France being occupied, is not relevant, as anybody could tell Vichy France was not hostile to Germany, and it could be argued was a puppet of Nazi Germany. From late 1940 until early 1941 Britain was alone whether some people like it or not. What some people dis-regard on here, is the known actual facts At The Time and to dis-regard this, with a statement as `nationalistic` is Total folly. Let’s not forget the Soviet Union at the time had a peace agreement with Germany, the U.S.A was nowhere, and most of Europe in Nazi hands, or in-directly under their control etc. Britain could have been forgiven for chucking in the towel and bowing to the new superpower on the continent, but it didn`t, it stood alone without any hope. The reason why this is important in world history is because what if Britain had given up, the U.S.A would never have a had launching pad to enter the European theatre, would the Soviets have survived with the masses of extra German troops not required to man western Europe or protect their cities from air attacks and etc etc etc.--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we are here to answer or even discuss the many hypothetic questions Rocky has raised. Actually, i agree very much with Michale's reasoning that the figure caption should be more close to the figure. His proposed wording might be improved to be safer against factual errors. IMO, the mentioning of the Battle of Britain appears very appropriate; perhaps the word Spitfire might be introduced as well; and when we do mention that at this specific time in history, Britain was the only opponent to the Axis aggression, this would not be nationalistic, but just a fact. I guess, at this point Rocky might come on board again ;-) Tomeasy _{T C} 11:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you have mis-read my intentions; my closing hypothetical synopsis was not posed as a question to other users at all. I am merely pointing out that the accusations of Britain and her empire being alone as being `nationalistic` is false, from 1940 until 1941. Also I was making the point of how important in world history the Decision by Britain to carry on. Moving on, the Battle of Britain is the wrong term also as this ended around oct 1940 which as you know turned into the Blitz. Therefore a comment of the UK and its empire carried on the flight alone with Germany from July 1940 to April 1941 --Rockybiggs (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention in the main text would be more appropriate. The image of the spitfire should be accompanied by a few words on the Battle of Britain, for which it is famous for. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We agree, Rocky, in that some mentioning of Britain's special situation has nothing to do with nationalism. However, I find it highly irrelevant to hypothetically reason what would have been different in world history had Britain decided differently. Ok, but I think we do not have to iterate on this controversy.

What I honestly did not understand was your objection to the Battle of Britain. Why did this turn into the Blitz? As Blitz, I understand the German advances between 1939 and 1941 (e.g., the Blitz in France happened before October 1940). Perhaps you could clarify to me what you meant.

Keep in mind that Italy invaded Greece in October 1940. So, the time of the Battle of Britain, which is symbolized by the Spitfire shown in the picture, seems to perfectly match the addition of a comment with the following sense: stood alone against the Axis aggression in Europe.

I find Titch's idea also good. This information can very well be conveyed in the text, where we are not so much restricted by brevity while we are trying to be correct. The figure caption might then be reduced to convey information about Spitfire and Battle of Britain. Tomeasy _{T C} 13:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Without meaning this harshly , but you are so of the mark, i don`t know if i can have a discussion with you, I think you need to pick up a history book and a dictionary. Blitzkrieg and The Blitz are 2 totally different things. Blitzkrieg (means Lightening war by the way) of Poland, Holland, France etc. The Blitz of London which followed after the Battle of Britain. The Battle of Britain was from July until end September. The Blitz (bombing of British cities, mainly London) started from October 1940 and ended May 1941. Secondly Italy wasn`t on my Rador as i said `Britain stood alone against Germany`.--Rockybiggs (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You may not have meant it to be harsh, but it certainly came across that way. Would you agree that the image of the spitfire should be accompanied with a mention of the Battle of Britain, and Britain standing alone added to the main text? Titch Tucker (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right Rocky, I did not know the meaning of the term Blitz, and I assumed you meant Blitzkrieg. Since I was not certain with this assumption, I asked you for clarification, which you gave. I am happy having learned something :-) And yes, I found your reply harsh, but I see you already apologized for that. Accepted. Tomeasy _{T C} 14:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies then, To answer your question I`d rather have the `UK stood alone aginst Germany for the period 1940-1941`. But if the term axis is brought in the picture, then `the UK stood alone against the Axis during the Battle of Britain (may - sept 1940)`, then i couldn`t dispute that line. --Rockybiggs (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It was never only the UK. All available forces of the whole British Empire plus numerous forces of Free French, Polish volunteers, etc fought, suffered, and died during that battle. Flamarande (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Flamarande, my comments earlier clearly state `UK and its empire` [5]. As for Volunteers this has nothing to do with it, as their nations had surrendered or been defeated, which after all is what we are trying to get at.--Rockybiggs (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice the text to the spitfire image has been changed. When it says a victory for the allies, which allies are we refering to? Certainly not the US or the Soviet Union. The text should say "Spitfire, made famous during the Battle of Britain." or words to that effect. Mention of the UK standing alone should be in the main text. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree Titch, Flamarande looks to have changed this. But oviously there were no Allies fighting after June 1940. As Allies of World War II The Allies of World War II were the countries officially opposed to the Axis powers during the Second World War. Within the ranks of the Allied powers, the British Empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United States of America were known as "The Big Three". U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt referred to the Big Three and China as the "Four Policemen". Poland and France, before its defeat in 1940 and after Operation Torch in 1942, were considered major allies--Rockybiggs (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok im getting confused, i thought this was about the UK being the only European nation not to be occupied in ww2 by the axis (it aint, ireland was not occupied), if you lot are discussing something else then create a new section to discuss it coz this bit is getting confusing. Pro66 (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read the thread you will see it has been talked through and decided that any text should say it should only refer to those nations at war. It now has to be decided what text should accompany the Spitfire image and whether or nor a reference to the UK standing alone should be in the article, which I think it should. I don't see where this has gone off topic. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you have made it more confused with your statement about Ireland !, along with Sweden and Switzerland were neutral during WW2 and therefore worthy of no comment. Therefore the UK was the only european non-occupied participent in WW2.

First of its not a thread its a discussion page, second the ireland statement is a response to the topic header (i.e, "the only European nation not occupied by the Axis in WW2"), the topic header does not include the words "participent in WW2" hence me saying such statment. You say that you lot are now deciding what text to accompany an image, this looks to me that you went from deciding upon one description to another this should go under a new section as its not about what the current (uk the only european participent not occupied) section is about, this will cause less confusion among other editors.Pro66 (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

First,I'm glad you pointed out my mistake in regard to the meaning of thread and discussion page, yet I'm also pleased that you knew what I was refering to. Second, only responding to the topic header will only mean you are not following the discussion, and your response to that may already have been answered earlier. As for starting a new section, if someone wants to do that, its fine by me. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of the word 'Country'

There are a number of times in the article where the UK is referred to as a 'country' whereas at the top it's correctly defined as a sovereign state made up of countries.

Would there be any objections if I were to clean up the article using a more appropriate description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardeast (talk • contribs) 10:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty sources that confirm that the United Kingdom is descibed as a country and therefore we should not be trying to remove all references to the use of that word. That said, depending on the context, it may be that describing the United Kingdom as a 'sovereign state' would be more appropriate than describing it as a 'country' - but certainly not on all occasions. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it would be far better if you first gave here the specific changes you think should be made. This is because of the contentious nature of matters concerning the terminology used, which I hope you have reviewed and understand: the links are given throughout this talk page and in the FAQ, mentioned in one of the banners at the top. I note that you have only been editing for a comparatively short time, though you may have been editing under an anonymous IP address before. It would be best if you took your time to thoroughly inform yourself of the history of the terminology discussions surrounding the issue, and being bold in the way you have proposed here in a matter which is tricky may be a bit too much at your current level of experience: even seasoned editors would tend to tread very carefully by discussing any changes in this first on this page in this case. I hope you see this as advice to help you avoid getting into an argument that would do no one any good here, yet which would still allow you to make your case for the specific edits and changes you think should be made.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(additional comment) I also think you need to pay attention to the discussion you previously initiated above (Talk:United Kingdom#First Line) which seemed to result in a view not entirely in your favour. That also gave pointers to the FAQ and so on. Also, just as a friendly piece of advice: please begin to start signing your name by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your messages. It would help considerably.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the UK made up of 4 constituent parts and not 4 constituent countries? NI isn´t a country, it's a province. Wales may or may not be an historical "country", but it's usually defined as a principality, isn't it? Wotapalaver (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the FAQ mentioned in the second banner at the top of the page, in particular questions 2 and 4.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I can see that the bug is apparently well documented. It's still a bug. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Lmao, the attempt to claim that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not a country would be laughable if it wasnt so crazy. Get over it, the UK is more of a country than England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and millions of sources can be provided to prove this. If this really is a concern then again as i suggested above when someone attempted to have the intro changed, lets add the United Kingdom is a sovereign state "AND COUNTRY" just so people are clear. (even though the second line clearly says the UK is an island country). When it comes to describing the 4 parts of the UK as countries, i use to have a problem with this but the UK government itself has described them as countries there for i can accept they are 4 countries, but they are 4 countries OF the United Kingdom and people should not forget it. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The UK is most certainly a country. The point at question is whether - in particular - Northern Ireland or Wales qualify. The UK website describes them, in a website, as countries but I don't think it's done in law and other countries (AFAIK) don't call Northern Ireland a country either. The EU doesn't. FIFA does, the IOC doesn't. The UN (in the places I found) doesn't. None of these so-called countries have any independent foreign policy, defense policy, currency, international treaties, etc., that would describe an entity that should be described in an international encyclopedia as a country. Scotland may be entitled by tradition, but I doubt that Northern Ireland is. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree its harder to justify the use of country when it comes to Northern Ireland however we have to remember the definition of country means different things to different people. My original understanding of the term was a country is a sovereign state but wikipedia and other sources do not share that view. http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823 is the source that in my opinion justifies the use of the term countries for all 4 parts of the United Kingdom. If the British government itself describes them as countries then thats good enough for me. Although that does not justify their placement on international lists of sovereign states. They are countries of the United Kingdom and not sovereign in any way. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(oudent) Yep, the UK is a country made up of countries. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Self description is not good enough for WP to accept the "country" designation for NI or Wales, especially if the only sources is a rather sloppy website. I can describe my left arm as "Oh masterful one, ruler of the seven universes". It doesn't make it true. Now, if my left arm was internationally recognized as such then that would be different.... Wotapalaver (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing country as the discriptive of Wales & Northern Ireland, might be opening a can of worms. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be opening a can of mushy peas. It might not. It's certainly more accurate and reasonable. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that truth is not the test - verifiability is. The UK government should be a source that carries weight. By the way, there are plenty of sources if you look - many of them are listed in the Countries of the United Kingdom article Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And there are plenty of sources that do NOT describe them as countries, including the vast majority of the international sources. If other countries don't consider a place a country, then it's not a country even if it calls itself one. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Rather than just repeating your assertion you need to deal with the evidence tables referened by Fishiehelper. --Snowded TALK 11:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What evidence provided by Fishiehelper? Oh, and before anyone starts with the difference between a Sovereign State and a country, California - to take only one example - is a Sovereign State but it is most certainly not a country. Neither is Northern Ireland. Scotland and England may be able to make an argument by tradition, but even that argument fails for Wales. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

⬅ I said "referenced" and its fairly obvious but to help you out its all at Countries of the United Kingdom. I have no intention of repeating arguments which have been extensively debated in the past, for which citation evidence has been assembled. All of this material is (as I am pretty sure you know) readily available to you. --Snowded TALK 11:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

An important aspect of claims made is whether one can find evidence relevant to them and, if so, whether the evidence supports the claims. The claim of interest here is: "there are plenty of sources that do NOT describe them as countries, including the vast majority of the international sources". Of this, it can be decomposed into two parts: (i) "plenty of sources do not describe them as countries", and (ii) "the vast majority of the international sources (do not describe them as sources)". So, my questions sre (a) What kind of evidence would be relevant to the questions given in parts i and ii? (b) How could we evaluate the relevant evidence in order to arrive at an answer to the two questions? and (c) What answers does the evaluation of the relevant evidence lead us to conclude?

Since I am sure that Wotapalaver is convinced that his claims are true, and that this should surely have come about by him critically evaluating the evidence, then I invite him to list the evidence and his reasoning here so that he may let us examine and critically evaluate it. This would be much better than than merely repeatedly making assertions with no evidence about them.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes. How about we start with the UN (none of Scotland, NI, Wales or England are countries), the EU (ditto), the OECD (ditto), ISO (ditto), the Olympics (ditto), Fifa (yes, for reasons related to the UK's unusual structure), the Commonwealth (not on the main list, although it describes NI as a country and as a province in the same paragraph), the Council of Europe (no, and the Council is not the same as the EU), the nuclear test ban treaty organization (no), the European Patent Organization (no), etc., etc., etc. So, apart from Fifa and the confused Commonwealth, is there any international intergovernmental organization that recognizes these parts of the UK as countries? Not that I can find. As above, I can describe my right arm as "Oh masterful one, ruler of the seven universes". It's much the same as Scotland or Wales calling itself a country. Unless other countries agree (which they don't) then it's self-deception (albeit self-deception that can be referred to). The countervailing views of international organizations and other countries which do not regard the parts of the UK as countries must carry more weight. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

None of those claims have been supplied with even the most rudimentary evidence in terms of hard references. As it stands, it remains a series of allegations. I suggest that if you think it important, you attend to what it means to supply evidence on wikipedia, and report back when you are ready to do so with respect to your claims: (i) "plenty of sources do not describe them as countries", and (ii) "the vast majority of the international sources (do not describe them as sources)" Otegrwise, you appear to be using this talk page as a soapbox, which I am sure you would not want to do. So, once again, please supply the evidence for the two claims in the form that any established editor of wikipedia would find acceptable: review WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CITE if it helps you understand what I and others are seeking here.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are all easily verified and I will provide sources. However, what I see here is a bunch of people who already have an idee fixee (no acutes on this keyboard) and will likely reject references. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wotaplaver. There is a difference between country and sovereign state. Now i originally believed that "country" only meant sovereign states, but thats not the case according to wikipedia and other sources. The British government itself has described Scotland etc as a country. If you really care about this please go to the country article and ask them to make changes to reflect your understanding of the word. Also contact the British government and ask them to take down this http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823. Once those two things have been done you may be able to change peoples minds on this issue, until then England, Scotland, Wales and even Northern Ireland can be called countries aslong as their relationship as part of the United Kingdom is made very clear and they do not appear in lists along side ONLY sovereign states. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear British Watcher. California is a Sovereign State. (Oh yes, it is.) Is it a country? No. Neither is Northern Ireland or Wales. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Continued assertion without argument and without reference to prior cited discussion and agreement is as near as it comes to being a Troll. BW I suggest you ignore the palaver person until s/he changes behaviour. --Snowded TALK 14:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that making personal attacks is against policy. So, SNOWDED, please withdraw the remark. All my comments are easily verified and this is a discussion page which you do not own. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You say that all your statements are easily verified, but you do seem to be having remarkable difficulty in verifying them when asked. To recap: the two claims you made which you claim are easily verified are: (i) "plenty of sources do not describe them as countries", and (ii) "the vast majority of the international sources (do not describe them as sources)". Now, are you going to supply the verification, please? As I said above, reviewing WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CITE may help you see exactly what I am asking you to kindly supply. If you are interested in contributing to the improvement of this article, and of persuading others that your claims have merit, then you would surely satisfy this request, wouldn't you? Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So not all "sovereign states" are countries just as not all countries are "sovereign states". That seems reasonable and accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And what 'sovereign state' is not a country? Indeed, going by dictionary definitions, it would seem all sovereign states are by virtue of their status, also countries. Anyway, what is important here after we dispense with the verifiability issues which clearly show both the UK and the Home Nations can be and are quite properly called 'countries', we must address the question of whether individual uses of the term are likely to better illuminate the reader as to the status of these areas. I have seen several uses of 'country' referring to the Home Nations which seem to be attempting quite the opposite.--Breadandcheese (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

California is a Sovereign State and is not a country. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

⬅ Its not a personal attack to state facts Wotapalaver, you are making assertions and not backing them up, or engaging with prior discussions. Neither is there anything in what I said that would imply a claim of ownership. So I am sorry I do not withdraw the comment. The various UK pages (including individual country pages) have been through this before and the discussions and citations are summarised. --Snowded TALK 16:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

To say that I am trolling is a personal attack. Please withdraw it. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Give me a better term to describe continued assertion of the same point without evidence, and without consideration of cited material and prior consensus and I will consider using it. --Snowded TALK 19:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as country is used at England, Northern Ireland, Wales & Scotland, we must use the term here (for consistancy's sake). GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's apparent that several errors are being replicated around the various UK pages and that this has also leaked into incorrect assumptions about what is a sovereign state. From quick reads of the WP articles on Sovereign State, on Countries, etc ., the number of "Citation Needed" tags that will be there within days is really worrying. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer constituent country for a descriptive of England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland. However, that's just my opinon (which is in the minority). Reliable sources for country out-number Reliable sources for constituent country. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Constituent country is - as far as I can see - a neologism when applied to the constituent parts of the UK. The OECD - for instance - uses the phrase constituent countries when discussing statistics about entities like the OECD 30, the EU 15, the EU 25, etc. The UK counts as a constituent country of some of these. Scotland is a constituent part of the UK. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I find "constituent country" in lots of places about the parts of the UK, but I still find the vast majority of the international organizations not listing NI, Wales, Scotland or England as countries. The phrase "constituent country" and the status of "country" may need to be treated differently. Being one does not mean that you're always the other. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll depart this discussion. I openly admit to preffering the usuage of constituent country for those articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm surprised such a discussion is continuing! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The UK should be referred to as a country. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not countries and only two of them are former countries, Scotland and England. To refer to any of the 4 Home Nations as countries is supporting regional nationalism and this does not reflect a NPOV, therefore it goes against wikipedia's guidelines. We need to make this article NPOV. We can mention that people incorrectly call them countries when they are not. Ijanderson (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion on whether they are countries or not is irrelevent. The UK government call them countries, are they mistaken? If you believe so, your next step is to get in touch with the UK government, tell them your opinion, and try to convince them they are wrong. If you do convince them, they can change the wording on all their websites, documents, etc. Once that is done, we can use these reliable sources to remove the word countries from those articles. Let me know how you get on. Cheers. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Titch Tucker but, while you are trying to persuade the UK government of their error, perhaps you could find time to back up your opinion that Scotland and England are former countries? I could imagine you may have come across articles in which they are described as former sovereign countries (which is not in dispute as they are countries that are no longer sovereign) but I have not come across England and Scotland being decribed as former countries. Have you? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

@ Tich Tucker, I'm sorry its not an opinion, its truth. Please find a source saying that the UK Govt calls them countries. They may refer to them as Constituent Countries, but that is a different matter. You sir are in the wrong. Ijanderson (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Also at Fishiehelper2, please read Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland. Also there is no Kingdom of Northern Ireland, but there is a Kingdom of Ireland. There has never been a Kingdom of Wales. However there was many small Kingdom within Wales, but there was too in England. Ijanderson (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that the UK government has exclusive rights to the naming of the four parts, but countries of the United Kingdom has a few reliable sources, some of which are from .gov.uk sites. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The UK Govt does have exclusive rights to the naming of the four parts because these four parts are apart of the the soverign country the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Ijanderson (talk)

Your position seems to change every time you make a post. Why not go to bed and see if things seem a bit clearer in the morning? Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a bold statment. Do you have a source for it? Citing your sources would strengthen your arguement, otherwise it looks shaking and even baseless. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you should take Jza84's advice and have a look at the references on the countries of the United Kingdom article. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ijanderson977 you said "Please find a source saying that the UK Govt calls them countries. They may refer to them as Constituent Countries, but that is a different matter". I gave the correct link showing where the UK government has called them countries above, and its one of the sources for the countries of the UK article. Please read : http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823 . I once thought the way you did but reading that statement on the British government website, is good enough in my opinion to justify using the term country. I dont see the big problem aslong as its made very clear on every article, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are part of the United Kingdom which they now all do. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand what's meant by "exclusive rights to the naming of the four parts because these four parts are apart of the the soverign (sic) country". Governments don't possess the language. Anyway, here are some quotations which will, I hope, knock on the head once and for all the view that the word 'country' cannot be used for Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, or Wales: in British English it is intrinsically ambiguous, see for example the 10 Downing Street page noted below for the phrase 'Countries within a country', so that the phrase 'this country' may mean (for example) Wales or the United Kingdom depending on context. I have confined myself to official, readily-available quotations from sources which could not by any stretch be considered 'nationalist'. Underlying some of the debate above is an idea that the word 'country' can only have a single correct meaning; dictionaries do not bear this out. Note B3 in particular for its definition! And this is not a use confined to the UK; see Australian reference below.

A. British Monarchy example:

1.The British Monarchy website; “click on one of the following countries:England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland ”.

B. United Kingdom government examples:

1. Prime Minister's Office;“The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland “.

2. Office of National Statistics Glossary; “Country. In the context of the UK, each of the 4 main subdivisions (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) is referred to as a country”

3. Office of National Statistics: 2001 Census Commentary; “Country of birth. This question asked "What is your country of birth?" with tick box options of: England; Wales; Scotland; Northern Ireland; Republic of Ireland and Elsewhere.”

4. Met Office; “Scotland often enjoys excellent visibility, since the greater part of the country is remote from the industrial and populous areas of Britain”.

5. BSE Inquiry; “Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - a selective chronology of legislation by country”.

C. UK Parliament; statutory examples

1. Way back: Trade Union Act 1876 s 6; “"country" means England, Scotland, or Ireland.”

2. Up to date: Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 Schedule 1 ; “one appointed from each country of the United Kingdom”.

D. Courts of law examples:

1. Court of Appeal (of England and Wales): a typical example; “the only connection with England is Mr Butcher .... In all other respects the country most connected with the contract of guarantee was Scotland”.

2. Court of Appeal (of England and Wales): another typical example; “the important question is whether R shall live with her mother in England or with her father in Scotland. In whichever country the decision falls to be made, the court will strive to achieve what is best for R.”

3.House of Lords:a 2005 example; “This is a United Kingdom statute. Its subject matter... is of equal interest to litigants in Scotland as it is to those in England. Each country has its own legal system.”

4. Federal Court of Australia: was Hong Kong a 'country' in 1965?; "Hong Kong at the relevant date had a distinct area with identifiable borders. It had its own immigration laws, and was inhabited by a permanent identifiable community, and therefore in my opinion it was appropriate to treat it as a "country" ". See also in this judgment quotations from earlier case of Reed v Holder; e.g. "The word 'country' must be given its ordinary meaning, having regard to the `factual matrix' in which it was formed. I should find it surprising if the ordinary person did not regard Scotland and Wales as being examples of countries; in doing so they would not be considering the existence, or absence, of a separate government, nor the desire, or lack of it, of any of the inhabitants of either area to achieve the position of belonging to a separate state."

E. Scottish Government examples, taken in early 2006 when the Government was run by Labour and the LibDems:

1. Scottish Executive: a typical discussion; “As a country Scotland has a sparse population”.

2. Jack McConnell, First Minister and Labour leader First Minister quoted; “I marvel when I see what a fantastic country Scotland is for cultural expression and cultural events.”

3. Jim Wallace, Liberal Democrat leader Enterprise Minister quoted; “For a small country Scotland is clearly punching above its weight in computer games development”.

4. [www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/census/censushm2011/background/index.html General Register Office for Scotland]; “A key aim for the 2011 Census is to promote UK harmonisation and to produce consistent and coherent outputs for the UK and for each component country”.

F. And, to end with, The Oxford English Dictionary:

'Country: … the territory or land of a nation; usually an independent state or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories, as England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the United Kingdom, etc'.

ariwara (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I think that covers it. Titch Tucker (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Which version of the OED is that quote from? Wotapalaver (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just checked, and it's the third definition given by the current online edition of the OED, which is presumably the most up-to-date. The second definition (actually 2a) is also sort of relevant, I think, although somewhat less so than the one already given: "A tract or district having more or less definite limits in relation to human occupation. e.g. owned by the same lord or proprietor, or inhabited by people of the same race, dialect, occupation, etc.; spec. preceded by a personal name: the region associated with a particular person or his works". garik (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Whilst i agree with the use of the term country, i wouldnt give much time to the Oxford English Dictionary these days. The dumbing down of it over the past few years is a national disgrace and embarrassment. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? In what way? It is worth adding that dictionaries of this sort just record how words are used, so all the OED gives us is a good, well recognised source for how the word "country" is often used. It tells us very little about how a word should be used (whatever it might mean to speak in such terms). The best sources are still British government sources, like the website of the Office of National Statistics (as currently used in the article) and the other sources helpfully provided by Ariwara. They show us how the British government (among other groups) describes these parts of the United Kingdom, which seems to me to be the most important point. This is an article about the United Kingdom, and it seems reasonable to talk about the United Kingdom in its own terms. If it chose to refer to England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland as departments, then this article should use that word (regardless of whether this is consistent with French usage, or whatever). As Ariwara says, no government has exclusive rights over a language, but it does have rights over how it uses a language to refer to its territory. All an OED definition can give us is a sense that the British Government is not especially unusual in using the word "country" in this way. garik (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

English language status

At the moment the article states that English is de facto the official language. Now I don't have the reference at hand, but one of the parliaments of Edward III made English the official language of the courts and other transactions. I think that makes it official de jure? --Snowded TALK 12:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It was during Edward III's reign that the first use of English in the judiciary was allowed but his parliament didn't legislate English as the official language of England. English was allowed as an oral language only in court proceedings but not exclusively and with the proceedings recorded in French. It actually took centuries to completely expunge French from the British system. Even by 1731 it took an act requiring all proceedings in British courts to be in English only, and that was resisted by lawyers who wanted the continued use of French and Latin. See Progress in Language Planning: International Perspectives,p. 90–92, ISBN 9027933588. So I would say that de facto is the correct description. Bill Reid | ^Talk 15:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bill, information appreciated especially the reference. On the article, does the 1731 date allow us to say de jure rather than de facto? --Snowded TALK 15:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Snowded, the relevant passage can be viewed at Google Books but there wasn't an act specifically on making English the official language of England or Britain. The book says of the 1731 act that it was so weakened by amendments that its original intent was lost. The book does deal specifically with the English language status:"... in spite of numerous attempts to make the status of English in England [sic] and to prescribe officially the variety of English which is the national norm, only two statutes actually survive. One of these requires Crown writs and incidental papers to be in English; the other requires sailors on British ships to have knowledge of English..." . Hope that helps. Bill Reid | ^Talk 15:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, its an interesting curiosity and you have given me a good idea for a blog! Will leave it as it is and I suppose I am pleased in a sense that Welsh has official status while English does not! --Snowded TALK 15:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The current text on underground coal gasification says "UGC involves injecting steam and oxygen down a borehole, which extracts gas from the coal and draws the mixture to the surface - a potentially very low carbon method of exploiting coal. Identified onshore areas that have the potential for UGC amount to between 7 billion tonnes and 16 billion tonnes.[171] Based on current UK coal consumption, these volumes represent reserves that could last the UK between 200 and 400 years.[172]".

The use of the word "reserves" in the final sentence is inconsistent with its use elsewhere in the article, where it indicates the amount of hydrocarbons that are economically recoverable. A more appropriate term would be "resources" - that would describe the UK potential of UCG more accurately and be consistent with standard oil industry terminology. Paul freund (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal name of state

The legal name of the state, as set out in the Act of Union of 1800 (coming into effect 1801), is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. An Act of 1927 changed the title of the monarch, and that of parliament, but it did not change the name of the state. ðarkuncoll 00:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Err, OK. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's true - the Act of 1927 did not alter the name of the state. Its current name is only that by convention. ðarkuncoll 00:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anybody told the Stationary Office that the passports they issue carry this error? We might need to let these know too.... then again, WP:COMMON applies. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect the Stationary Office to move on this issue. But the Stationery Office may also be interested. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Do as ya'll like. The country's current name is the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927? This act states "(2) In every Act passed and public document issued after the passing of this Act the expression "United Kingdom" shall, unless the context otherwise requires, mean Great Britain and Northern Ireland." [6] Pondle (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get where I am today by removing entries on CJ in Wikipedia

I thought this would be the best place to post this: the sentence on CJ (Reginald Perrin's boss) has twice been removed from the CJ disambig page on the grounds of non-notability. Any supporting comments at Talk:CJ from Brits would be appreciated (it was removed by an editor from Tennessee, where I doubt the TV series reached). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's A Sheffield Thing

Don’t you think under Sport and Football it should also be mentioned that England created Football? Sheffield FC is the oldest football club in the world. Sort it please.

Well, I don't actually think it is, although it is the oldest club to still be playing association football. Have a look at our article Oldest football club. Jack forbes (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Even older than Villa??! Sarah777 (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled Sarah. Why an Aston Villa supporter? Jack forbes (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

They rock (or so I'm told :)! Sarah777 (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Its major cities are...

"Apart from London, its major cities are Glasgow, Manchester and Birmingham" keeps being added to the lead, removed, added and removed again. Its advocate for inclusion appears to be Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk · contribs) (example diff) who has not raised this on the talk page.

I'm personally opposed to this material being added. Firstly it's unverified. Secondly, why just these cities? Thirdly, London doesn't have city status. Forthly, it's all in the main article about city size, limits, population etc. Fiftly, its arbitary and unnecessary for the lead. I'm raising this so as to stop this edit scuffle. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion. Here are some counter arguments to yours: 1) Well, does it need to be verified per se? As far as I know, no one would dispute those as the three major cities outside London. Sometimes you don't get a source for something because its so obvious. For example, we wouldn't need a reference that the UK is referred to as the UK rather than its full title. 2)Usually on maps, these would be the cities with names in capital recognising their status as the 'big 4'. Obviously we can't list a load of cities, but I think a country's major cities should be mentioned in the introduction, which is where you need to give an overview of the country. 3)I don't know about that, but if you want to put The three biggest cities are...and the biggest town is London, fine. I personally regard London as a city. 4)As for (2). 5)as for (3). ThanksJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

See city status in the United Kingdom. London is one of the regions of England; the City of London is a city (one of the smallest in the UK). The problem with this approach Jandrews23jandrews23, is that this sentence is never going to be sustainable - users will (as has been evidenced in the past) always dispute as to what are the "major" cities. We're setting ourselves up for un-necessary and unencyclopedic editoral disputes. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not say: "Outside London, its major urban areas include Glasgow, Manchester and Birmingham" (my emphasis). The word "city" is ambiguous (large urban area generally, or town granted certain official status), and other cities/urban areas could be considered "major". "Major urban areas" could link to List of conurbations in the United Kingdom, which uses a standard verified (ONS) definition. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we'd then be mentioning things like the Greater Manchester Urban Area as opposed to Manchester proper. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The order of urban areas/cities (whatever term is used) should be Birmingham, Glasgow and Manchester, reflecting their size. ðarkuncoll 13:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The terminology is important in deciding any order - List of conurbations in the United Kingdom would suggest a different order. I accept Jza84's point that the officially listed conurbations have fuller names than simply, say, "Manchester", but does that need to be spelled out in the lead? Common usage would suggest that, elsewhere in the country and certainly globally, the simple term "Manchester" includes areas outside the city boundary. (At this point I think I shall hide under my desk for self-protection.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, including Manchester in there (as the city itself isn't that large) will upset some folk who would want other cities to be in there as by several measures other cities not mentioned are more populous (Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool, Bristol and Edinburgh by settlement size and City of Bradford is an additional example when measured by local authority district), whilst by Larger Urban Zone (functional city-region), "Leeds-Bradford" is smaller than Manchester but larger than Birmingham and Glasgow. London itself is, as pointed out, only a "city" in everyday speech, and not an official City. It's an absolute can of worms. Using Urban Areas and then renaming them to the largest city within each is unacceptable and OR - and besides, West Yorkshire Urban Area is more populous than Greater Glasgow. Best to leave them out, I think. Fingerpuppet (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You mean population, rather than area? The "largest" city would be Carlisle. Manchester, although clearly one of the "major cities", is medium sized when compared against others in the country - it's its position within a conurbation which makes it major, as does Birmingham and Glasgow, and Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds, and of course Edinburgh is a major international city and a capital.... this is a can of worms, and unsourced. We don't need this when we have vast parts of the article which are unsourced. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed so - it should be pointed out that by one particular measure, area, the largest cities in the UK are City of Carlisle, City of Winchester and City of Lancaster. Fingerpuppet (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Major cities really do not need to be mentioned on this article, except for the capitals of the different parts of the United Kingdom. Otherwise everyone just gets bogged down in defining what is and isnt a major city and how they should be listed. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, definitional problems concerning the meaning of "major cities" will become an albatross with accompanying millstone, hanging round our necks.Instead, we could and probably should use just capital cities as these are verifiable, and sensible places to list, given the way in which the United Kingdom is put together.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BritishWatcher: "Major cities really do not need to be mentioned on this article, except for the capitals of the different parts of the United Kingdom. Otherwise everyone just gets bogged down in defining what is and isnt a major city and how they should be listed" Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

London is the largest city in the Uk and is also the capital. It has a population of almost 8 million, which is more than the population of the entire of wales.

My point - get ur facts straight! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudeweresmycar (talk • contribs) 17:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what some people have said about over-complicating things, though using common sense rather than strict definitions would solve that. However, I would like to point out the discussion about size is not completely relevant; the sentence says 'major cities', not 'larger cities'. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Since no replies for a couple of days, I've gone ahead and added a changed version, in line with some of the comments her. Note that 'major' is not the same as largest. And anyway I've now changed to 'important'. Discuss here please. ThanksJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Jandrews23jandrews23 but I've reverted your addition as there is no consensus to include the material. Please don't assume lack of replies to your latest comment on talk is the same as agreement to what you say - several editors made their views clear and just because they have not repeated them for a couple of days does not mean that the views have changed. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

One Question

I am not trying to vandalize but why are one punk band are not even written. If this is suppose to be an encyclopedia than why act like 1970's punk didn't even remotely effect the UK & what happened to the garbage strike of the 1970's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.213.171 (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

UK-US "Special Relationship"

I do not think it is appropriate to have "special relationship" written in this manner.
The quotation marks along with hyperlinked text really confuses whether or not this is an official term or not (it isn't).
It should be changed to something such as 'The UK is considered by many to have a special relationship with the United States.'
Special relationship remaining hyperlinked.

I agree that could be worded better, it should give a brief explanation of the close ties and then say it is described by many as a special relationship. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is at Special Relationship (U.S.-UK). Of course the term isn't official however this precise term is used by the media and politicians in both the UK and the US. --Cameron* 12:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The term is more widely used in the UK, to boost its poodle power.--Rockybiggs (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

GDP per capita and GDP statistics in general

The population statistics for GDP are taken from different places. If you take a look at Britain and France, it says on the Wikipedia pages that France has a greater population and greater per capita GDP, but a smaller total GDP. This is because in the two cases the population statistics are taken from right from the government data, and the GDP data is taken from the IMF. In general it might be wiser to take the statistics concerning such matters all from the same source, eliminating discrepancies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akaash Mukherjee (talk • contribs) 10:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Federacy

What is the name for the federacy formaed between the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the UK?Wgh001 (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There isn't one, its the wrong language to use --Snowded (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry should have been formed. So (to clarify) do you mean that the term federacy is wrong in the article? Or did I use the wrong language (apart from the spelling)?Wgh001 (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm well the source for that sentence doesnt say anything about a "federacy" so perhaps that could be removed and reworded. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well something is wrong because when you go to the linked Federacy page it specifically says that this is not a FederacyWgh001 (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not a federacy so well spotted, they are crown dependencies, that's it, not part of the UK--Snowded (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation

I thought, as per several other countries - Canada, Ireland, Russia etc. - an IPA pronunciation of "United Kingdom" would be good for standardization. I put it in and have now twice had it removed by User:Malarious without any explanation, edit summary or discussion here. Instead of continuing a covert edit war, I'm bringing this to the talk page. Do people think this is a worthy inclusion? Would Malarious care to explain the removals? - Kez (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Both "United" and "Kingdom" are standard English words, and hence an IPA pronunciation guide is quite unnecessary. Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No evidence that it was the first country to prohibit slave trade.

The text says: "the passing of the Slave Trade Act in 1807 made it the first country to prohibit trade in slaves.[31]". This does not appear to be true and is not corroborated by the note ([31]). The page is locked and I can't change it. Could someone remove "the first country" from the sentence? 198.54.206.88 (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Imaginer.

It is a somewhat grand claim, and I agree it's doubtful. I have changed the phrase to indicate that with the passing of the Act, the UK took a leading role in suppressing the trade. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Good change and well spotted. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Denmark came first. 131.111.164.219 (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

England as a part of "Latin Europe" does this sound odd to anyone else?

On the article Latin Europe the map includes England. Although, England (or English in general) tends to be identified more with I believe the West-Germanic languges than with the Romance or Latin languages. Does the inclusion of England seem sort of half right to anyone else? I belive they are to depictinm both Roman territorial expansion and its linguistic reach in the same map. CaribDigita (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry don't read it that way. The map you refer to illustrates the extent of the Roman empire, other maps cover language, religion don't include the UK. Seems just fine to me. --Michael Johnson (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's a bad choice of map to be sitting alongside the introductory paragraph, though it seems reasonable enough that it be included in that article somewhere. Matthew (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

To be really pedantic: it doesn't include England. It includes areas that would later come to be known as England and Wales. As I say, this is a really pedantic point, but it's worth emphasising that this is a map of an earlier stage in history, and should not be interpreted as implying anything very much about modern Britain. As Matthew says, it may not be positioned very helpfully. garik (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Map is of the Roman Empire so that is correct. Even though English is Germanic it is also influnced by French and LatinWgh001 (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Though (it's worth adding) not as a result of Roman occupation of Britain. There might have been a few speakers of Germanic languages in Britain before the Romans came, but the academic consensus is still that most of southern Britain probably spoke a Celtic language at that point. Many of the Latin words in Welsh date from that time, but Latin words mainly took other routes into English. garik (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

On second glance it doesn't look that bad. I retract... I was viewing the page on my mobile phone which I think actually cropped out the caption below the image. CaribDigita (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Commonwealth realm" or "constitutional monarchy"

The article currently has this sentence:

The UK is a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state. (the "Constitutional Description")

Should it read as follows: The UK is a Commonwealth realm with Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state. (the "Realm Description").

Which description should be used - the Constitutional Description or the Realm Description? Whatever is decided needs to be applied consistently to all 16 "Commonwealth realms" - after all, they have the same constitutional relationship vis-a-vis the Monarch as the UK has. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC) --

Constitutional monarchy comes first in the history of the state, and its more important in terms of understanding the constitution. Non WIkipedia sources uses phrases like "The UK is considered to be a commonwealth realm". --Snowded (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I cannot understand your answer - which description do you support using (the Realm Description or the Constitutional Description) - I've added a simple list-type response to make it simpler for Users. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Constitutional Monarchy is the most helpful description however the article should mention that the United Kingdom is a commonwealth realm. At the moment the Commonwealth realm is only linked to Queen Elizabeth II, it doesnt say the UK is one. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Support use of Constitutional Description:

1. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. The two are not mutually exclusive. The constitutional monarchy phrase has primacy, much as the UK's membership of the EU comes further down. Kbthompson (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. One of the silliest issues we have had here. Agree with Kbthompson. --Snowded (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Constitutional monarchy is my choice. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. It depends on the context; however, if it is the lead we are specifically discussing, then I'd say keep it as "constitutional monarchy". "Commonwealth realm" is an unofficial descriptor. I've undone those changes Redking made (prematurely, I think) to the various country articles; those that weren't undone by others already, that is. --Miesianiacal (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Redking7 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Constitutional monarchy. Any "Commonwealth realm" must be a monarchy, but Constitutional monarchy is the more precise and descriptive term. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
8. I am agreeing with the majority -- Phoenix (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Agree with the silliness mentioned by Snowded. Leave as constitutional monarchy. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Support use of Realm Description:

1. [insert your user name]

Miesianiacal - Why have you undone my changes...No one has so far even supported the Realm Description? I disagree with you and think my changes clearly should be left as they were. Do you think the articles should be inconsistent...some using the "Constitutional Desciription", others the "Realm Description"....That does not appear to make much sense to me. Regards.Redking7 (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Redking, so far NO ONE supports your "realm" proposals (not even you). I don't even accept it as an either or, and I note you did not attempt the change on Canada or Australia. I hadn't realised you had made the changes elsewhere or I would have reverted before Miesianiacal tracked them down. --Snowded (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowded - I think there is confusion. My view is the same as yours. I support the "Constitutional Description". Oddly Miesianiacal supports the "Constitutional Description" but not for the other "relams" where I had changed them so that the "Constitutional Description" would be used. Apparently, Miesianiacal thinks it is appropriate on these articles (countries like Papua New Guinea etc) to say "Papua New Guinea remains a Commonwealth realm". I disaagree and think what has emerged from this discussion is that they should be described in the same was as the UK, i.e. "Papua New Guinea is a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state." They should not be described in some sort of "lesser" way than the UK. Do you agree with me about this? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is always confusion on articles on constitutional status. SO let me be clear, I do not think consistency is appropriate. Some of these nations were created by empire for example against naturally occurring local boundaries. Oh and by the way I don;t think either description has more intrinsic value than the other. --Snowded (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re.: Some of these nations were created by empire for example against naturally occurring local boundaries - what does that have to do with anything? Does it have any relevance to their current constitutional status? Do these countries have a different relationship to the Crown vis-a-vis the UK? Please give reasons for why, in the opening paras, you think it is appropriate for them to be described as "Commonwealth realms" but not appropriate for the UK? Why should consistency not be applied. It is a core Wiki principle. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand why you should think the manner of a countries creation has nothing to do with its constitutional status. In the case of the UK its status as a constitutional monarchy came way before any notion of being a commonwealth realm. In the other cases the countries concerned were created as commonwealth realms (in the main). Its not an issue of consistency. --Snowded (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with snowded on this although i do think we need to mention the fact the UK is a commonwealth realm somewhere in the introduction. At the moment that is not said, but we dont need to remove "constitutional monarchy" to be able to include that. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

My intent was to restore all the articles to their status quo until discussion here was finished. It may only be my opinion, but I think Redking making such wide reaching edits before hardly anyone had even responded here was bad enough, but re-reverting (sometimes more than once) is generally poor form. I agree with Redking in that there is no difference between the UK and the other realms in terms of their presently being Commonwealth realms or constitutional monarchies; however, my position, for the record, remains the same as above: context decides what is best. I would say that "constitutional monarchy" (a more concrete and official term) is best for the context of the lead, and "commonwealth realm" (a non-official descriptor) should be mentioned somewhere else in the article. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That all sounds very grand indeed. Such a desire to uphold consensus but advance no arguments against the change nor any arguments to as to why the principle of consistency should not apply. It seems the majority here are happy to apply the "Commonwealth realm" tag to the "ex-colonies" but not so keen as regards the UK...I am simply going to apply the smell test and it smells like politics to me. I'm bowing out. I expect you, my fellow editors, will leave the "ex-colonies" with their "Realm tags". I will leave it in your collective hands. Hope you surprise me. Redking7 (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Coming up: The United Kingdom is an Olympic realm... Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why consistency? UK existed before Commonwealth. Was its constitutional status changed? 131.111.164.219 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore this is not an either/or situation since all the Commonwealth Realms are constitutional monarchies, a situation which is extremely unlikely to change. Therefore stating that a country is a Commonwealth Realm currently, and for the foreseeable future, implies that it is a constituional monarchy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As to "Why consistency?" Why not? Its a Wiki principle. Explain how the UK is not a "Commonwealth realm" and the others are? That would seem to be the only reason not to be consistent. UK existed before Commonwealth. Correct. Relevance? Are you saying it is not a Commonwealth realm? Are you saying the others are not Constitutional monarichies? Pick one description and be consistent. "Was its constitutional status changed?" No. The sentence that the others "remain Commonwealth realms" is incorrect too - It implies they have always been "Commonwealth realms". They have not. They have only been "Commonwelath realms" since they became separate realms.

As to it not being an either/or situation - If you are happy to call the UK a "Commonwealth realm", do so and be consistent with the others "ex-Realms". As it stands, Users prefer "Constitutional monarchy" for the UK and the "Commonwealth realm" tag for the "ex cololnies". Explain the inconsistency please? After all there is no constitutional difference in their position. Please explain why you differentiate between the two. The description concerns their current status - it has nothing to do with whether (as in the UK's case) it has been a Constitutional monarch for centuries or (as in the case of Barbados) merely for decades. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

They don't *need* to all be the same because each of the separate parliaments in all the Realms give the Queen a different level of role and status locally. For example in Barbados the Queen's role is virtually nil. (quote)"The Queen maintains direct contact with the Governor-General, although she delegates executive power to the Governor-General in virtually every respect."(/quote)[7]

Now contrast this with Tuvalu {quote)"As a constitutional monarch, The Queen acts entirely on the advice of her Government ministers in Tuvalu. She is fully briefed by means of regular communications from the Governor-General and her ministers."(/quote)[8]

Keep in mind it is like a person serving on many different company Boards of Directors. Each board would be different. In the UK the Queen has no "Governor-General" she is the direct Head of State so each place is a little different. In Jamaica she says she respects the decisions of the Jamaican Government "As a constitutional monarch, The Queen abides by the decisions of the Jamaican Government, but she continues to play important ceremonial and symbolic roles."[9]...

In Barbados the Government largely doesn't recognise the Queen as Head of State. As seen on the Parliament website [10] or in the ranking of Government Officials in Barbados. The Governor-General is ranked as the highest of all persons.[11]... Additionally, the Barbados code of etiquette[12] states even in the official presence of the Monarch the Barbados National Anthem will be played first leaving no mention for a "Royal Anthem" (quote)B. THE NATIONAL ANTHEM > The National Anthem shall be played -

(a) for the purposes of a salute on ceremonial or official occasions, *on the arrival and departure of

(i) the Governor General. (ii) the Sovereign or a member of the Royal family,

(iii) a foreign Sovereign, Head of State or member of a reigning foreign imperial or Royal Family,(/quote) So this is just one case where her British song "God Save the Queen" doesn't carry over as a Royal anthem. CaribDigita (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree all Commonwealth realms should say (country name) is a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state. They are all equal in the eyes of the monarchy and in constitutional standings so they should be treated as the same. Its a very logical argument to make. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Phoenix. I am glad I am not alone. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I was blocked for trying to make these changes. It seems I am alone because no one else is bothered to do anything about it. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You were blocked for mass edits (and reversals) without consensus. Others are "bothered" they just disagree with you. --Snowded (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Others have not bothered to give any valid reasons why the "ex colonies" should be described as "Commonwealth realms" and the UK should not. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes they have, you just don;t like them --Snowded (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to start up a discussion on the same point on some of the "ex Colonies" articles....but, unsurprisingly, they don't have too much traffic and its not leading to much of a discussion. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You are wasting ur time Redking7. However what we should focus on is rewording this paragraph "Queen Elizabeth II remains the head of the Commonwealth of Nations and head of state of each of the Commonwealth realms." So that it actually says the United Kingdom is also a commonwealth realm, without removing the previous mention of the UK having a constitutional monarchy. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Military

Not sure where to put this, but was reading through and noticed that the article says the UK has the second or third largest military expendeture in the world a couple of times, and references to the wiki List of countries by military expenditures but this this lists the UK as the 5th largest military expenditure.Philman132 (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is one of those statistics which gets out of date fairly quickly as the world situation changes. Any such statistic should say "In 20XX, Britain's military expenditure was the Yth highest in the world". -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That same list article cites the Stockholm Peace Research Institute, which has the UK in second place for military expenditure. Pondle (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

At one stage in 1940, amid the Battle of Britain, it stood alone against the Axis.

Regarding the statement:

At one stage in 1940, amid the Battle of Britain, it stood alone against the Axis.

If kept, this should be properly qualified to make clear in what sense it was "alone", as it wasn't literally alone in standing against the Axis. --Rob (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

For a start you should stop reverting when an edit is questioned, basic good practice on WIkipedia. During the Battle of Britain the USA was not in the war, there were in effect refugee units from Poland etc. now located in Britain (but supplied by Britain). The commonwealth was in support to a degree (a possible qualification) but otherwise who else was involved? --Snowded (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

According the Battle of Britain, there were 145 Poles, 127 New Zealanders, 112 Canadians, 88 Czechoslovakians, 28 Belgians, 32 Australians, 25 South Africans, 13 French, 10 Irish, and single figures from the United States of America, Jamaica, the British Mandate of Palestine, and Southern Rhodesia. Those figures are referenced. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There were 145 Polish *pilots*, 127 New Zealander *pilots*, etc... Even a pure air war involves more than pilots. --Rob (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not disputed, see point on refugee units and commonwealth --Snowded (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to World War II talks about the British Empire Air Training Scheme, which trained over 1,000 pilots and aircrew in 1940, and is described as "Canada's major air contribution to the Allied war effort". But I guess in the Battle of Britain these guys were flying as RAF pilots, rather than as part of their own air forces? Pondle (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That was my understanding. It might make sense to leave the phrase but add a note, or modify it in some way but not delete it --Snowded (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

To `Britain and it`s empire`--Rockybiggs (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing is "stood alone" does a lot more than imply that only the RAF flew for the Allies in the Battle of Britain. Even if all pilots were born/raised/citizens of Britain, and every casulty was British, it would still be wrong to say Britain "stood alone". The fact other sovereign states were allied with Britain, in a declared state of war against the Axis, and materially aided Britain, means Britain did not stand alone. I don't understand the logic that I have to come up with good true wording, before removing bad false wording. Rockybiggs, countries like Canada, were no longer part of the empire, and were sovereign states, despite sharing a monarch. It's difficult for me coming up with wording that mentions the support Britain had, without exaggerating it, which is why I haven't yet proposed alternate wording yet, although I'm sure someone will do better than me. --Rob (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be worded "At one stage in 1940, amid the Battle of Britain, the RAF along with other British forces fought alone in the defence of Britain against the Axis". It's factual and also does not preclude those who were part of the RAF from other nations Jack forbes (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That claim would probably come as something of a suprise to the RCAF.Geni 17:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it was the British Commonwealth until 1949, so why not say "Britain and the commonwealth nations"? --Snowded (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point. One last suggestion. "At one stage in 1940, amid the Battle of Britain, British and Commonwealth forces, bolstered by a small amount(?) of volunteers from occupied countries and elswhere, fought alone in the defence of Britain against the Axis. Jack forbes (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying! ;) Jack forbes (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If we say Britain and her allies are alone during the Battle of Britain, in the same sense, Britain and her allies were also alone throughout the whole war. It's a tautology to say "So-and-so and everybody their with are alone together". The word "alone" loses it's purpose. How about:

At one stage in 1940, amid the Battle of Britain, it was the sole major power amongst the Allied forces fighting the Axis, and the only Allied nation in Europe not occupied. --Rob (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Other than commonwealth nations who else was fighting the Axis? --Snowded (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Free French and the Crown Colonies, as distinct from the Commonwealth dominions (Allies of World War II) Pondle (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And the Free French were based in (and support by) London. The essence here is that Britain is standing alone, is support by Canada, Australia etc. plus volunteers and exiles. We need a form of words that gets that across. --Snowded (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a contradiction in terms. You're not standing alone if you're standing with others. Canada, Australia, etc... weren't just saying "Good luck, we support you". They declared war and sent people to fight. What doesn't the wording I suggested get across? Britain was the only major power amongst the allies. It was the only one (of the Allied countries) in Europe not occuppied. That makes pretty clear the situation, without going into to much detail. --Rob (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not necessarily a contradiction in terms, Canada is there because of its relationship with Britain (remembering that the Empire is within living memory at this point). Your wording assumes too much knowledge by the reader. I'm sure we can get to something but we need some more ideas. --Snowded (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I hate using qualifiers like "major power" when we don't need to, because arguably Britain's status as a major power depended in part on the Dominions and colonies that stood behind her. Let's avoid that debate if we can. Even though the sentence refers to the Battle of Britain, it is much broader than that -- it encompasses the air war, but also the Canadian merchant seamen desperately trying to get supplies to Britain, the troops mustering in New Zealand, and so on - the whole panorama of the war against the Axis. So Britain wasn't really alone in the main sense of the word. Why not just say: At one stage in 1940, amid the Battle of Britain, it was the only unoccupied nation in Europe fighting the Axis. It conveys that Britain was, in one sense, alone, but also does not diminish the role of its allies. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. --Rob (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I was on a citation hunt and found this "It is widely believed that had the Germans succeeded in their aim of destroying the RAF, they would have been able to invade Britain relatively easily. This was, after all, at a time when the country was the only European power resisting Nazi Germany, even though she did enjoy massive support from her Commonwealth partners." on the BBC web site. That supports the above suggestion and has the advantage of a citation here --Snowded (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to qualify with unoccupied power. There were no occupied countries in europe opposing the Nazis that I can think of (Free French were British auxiliaries, as were the Polish). --Narson ~ Talk • 20:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, my mother would spit in your face. All occupied countries were fighting the Nazis. The dead bodies were piled up from all over the continent. Skeezix is most correct in that the other unoccupied countries were all staying neutral. The only standout I can think of is Finland, which I think was beating the crap out of Russia at the time - but that's the wrong side as it turned out. Franamax (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No one questions that people in occupied countries fought, but there was only one country left unoccupied and fighting --Snowded (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand my point. The countries weren't, the people perhaps, but the governments were generally Nazi puppets (The Quislings of the world). As far as I am aware, neither Poland, France, Slovakia/Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium or Luxemburg had their governments putting out men on the field to oppose the Nazis. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC) (ec)

Hence my support for including "unoccupied" in Skeezix' proposed wording. Oppose not= put men on the field. Rather, count the people who died in the fight, or the deaths they caused, or the damage they did. You can't just discard what the occupied nations did, nor the allies. So per Skeezix: At one stage in 1940, amid the Battle of Britain, it was the only unoccupied nation in Europe fighting the Axis. Franamax (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And sorry Narson, that's complete OR to say that none of the governments you name put "men in the field" and it borders on offensive (not in the wiki sense, I'm just sayin' ) Many of those countries moved their governments elsewhere, Netherlands to Canada, Poland I believe to Britain, King Christian stayed in Copenhagen and when the Nazis decreed that Jews must wear yellow triangles, he wore one on his next ride through the city - and the day after all Danes wore triangles. There are many ways of fighting. Indeed, the language needs clarification. Franamax (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The source that Snowded found makes no mention of a qualifier of 'unoccupied countries', so don't bandy OR around like a blunt club when you are the one seeking to qualify a source. You appear to be trying to make this an emotive issue, which is not how we should deal with it. Anecdotal stories about King Christian are hardly compelling citations for Denmark being at war with Nazi Germany. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC) (ec)

The Danish government actually stayed and cooperated with the Nazis until 1943, so I don't think Franamax was actually taking about Denmark being at war with the Nazis. Franamax was simply taking issue with your statement about men in the field - I'm not sure what you mean about bandying about OR. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are correct, Narson, when you say that "The countries weren't, the people perhaps, but the governments were generally Nazi puppets". In many countries the armies surrendered, but the governments fled and continued the fight from abroad (the Netherlands, Poland, Norway, etc.), regardless of the puppet regimes the Nazis subsequently installed. Thus the use of the word "unoccupied". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you are in the iffy area of a government with no land, something the source either ignores or it doesn't consider them to be a power (Or a european power, it might be counting the Dutch as an Asian/South American power?). Either way, what we need is a source refuting things rather than our supposition on what 'opposing' or 'resisting' or 'power' etc might be --Narson ~ Talk • 22:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Your concern appears to keep changing - I'm not actually sure what your concern is at this point, and what you mean by refuting. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That you are trying to introduce an uncited qualifier onto a reliable source is my concern. People wanted a cite for the line, which is fair. Snowded found one, people now want to add our on spin onto it with uncited qualifications. It either needs other reliable sources to refute that source or we go with it. I also happen to disagree with the premise that somehow 10 men hanging around in the Savoy in London constitutes a country/power, but that is more of an aside. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from inaccurate comments like "10 men hanging around in the Savoy in London constitutes a country/power" because they have already given offence - they are not necessary. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No-one can dispute the continued bravery of contingents from many countries against the Axis throughout the Second World War, or of resistance movements in occupied countries. However there is no doubt about it, in 1940 after the fall of France, had Britain come to an accommodation with the Nazis, then the war would have been over. Canada and other Commonwealth countries would have stopped fighting, and all the governments-in-exile would have been moving on somewhere else, presumably. It is in this sense that I read it that Britain stood alone, not in the sense that only British troops were fighting, which is clearly incorrect. There wasn't even much active resistance in occupied countries at that time. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's often, even usually, the case in an alliance, that the lead actor is so essential that all is lost without them. That doesn't mean they stand alone. Also, it's critical to remember that provisions of pilots was just one means of assistance, and not the most important, during the Battle of Britain. Provision of arms and other goods, sent at incredible danger, was absolutely critical. Britain might have survived without non-British pilots (for a time) but would never have survived without supplies. As indicated before, even if Britain's allies provided no combat assistance, she still wouldn't have stood alone, and that assistance would still have been absolutely essential. --Rob (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The latest suggetion was 'in Europe' though, which I think addresses the issue of the Allies (Canada, New Zealand, Iraq, South Africa, Australia, etc were all outside). --Narson ~ Talk • 12:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please quote the text you would support. --Rob (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If Narson's problem is merely that the term "unoccupied" does not appear in the text of the BBC source that Snowded helpfully found, then the problem is easily fixed. Any authoritative history of the Second World War would do as a reliable source for the proposed language, as long as it details the events of 1939-40 showing that by the Battle of Britain all European countries (other than the U.K.) fighting the Nazis had been occupied. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As Rob asked, I am fine with the previous suggestion minus the qualifier: At one stage in 1940, amid the Battle of Britain, it was the only nation in Europe fighting the Axis.. If people object to nation (As it can mean something other than country, merely a collection of unified people), we could always go for sovereign power. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The objection is to the loss of the word "unoccupied", because a number of occupied countries/nations/etc. in Europe continued to fight the Axis. And, unless you advise otherwise, I seem to have addressed your concern about the source. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Except they didn't in all but the broadest sense of the term fight in a war context. In this sentence/section we are talking about a war here. Sources often refer to Britain being alone, including Martin Gilbert. You say you can find sources saying other nations were occupied, I fail to see how they allow you to synthesise the qualifer. That a nation has been occupied does not automatically mean that it is fighting a war against Nazi Germany, in fact the only automatic thing it means is that it /isn't/ fighting a war against Nazi Germany. Certainly when it comes to the wider world, Britain was not alone, it had the Empire/Commonwealth supporting it, but in Europe? I see no other country in Europe in 1940 to 1941 that was fighting a war against Germany, nor do various historians. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree. Many of the occupied countries were, in fact, fighting a conventional war against the Nazis, and the governments in exile had troops, ships and planes involved in the fight. Just using the Poles as an example (with which I am most familiar), the Kościuszko Squadron had more enemy kills that any other allied air squadron in the Battle of Britain. The Poles had troops in England, and a Polish destroyer assisted in the sinking of the Bismark in 1941, with other Polish naval vessels involved in convoys and patrols. Both the Norwegians and Dutch had ships and planes involved in the war (most of the Dutch navy and merchant marine escaped to England). Despite your assertion that none of the occupied countries "had their governments putting out men on the field to oppose the Nazis", these countries had men in the field dying even in 1940-1 (Poland alone had 6000 troops killed in the Fall of France). It certainly wasn't the "10 men hanging around in the Savoy in London" as you have described it. Unoccupied is a necessary qualifier, and the active participation of occupied countries can easily be sourced. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Poles flew as part of the RAF, not as Polish Air Force (The squadron you are talking about, that you call Kościuszko Squadron, I could just as legitimatly call 303 Squadron, RAF). Polish and French troops fought under US and UK generals, their ships subordinated to British command structures. The de facto (And some would say de jure) government of the country of Poland in the period we are talking about (Fall of France to Barbarossa) was led by Hanz Frank and was called the General Government, I am fairly sure they were not in opposition to the Nazis. On the Dutch though I am not certain. That is something I'd have to dig out my Martin Gilbert to check whether they continued to fight as independent forces or as merely attached international units. Until the Japanese attacks, the Dutch still had sizeable land in the east, so it is plausible. I suspect the quibble here is more over our interpretations of the meaning of the term 'fight' than other issues. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Narson, I feel you may be reading in more in Skeezix1000's suggestion than there is. It doesn't actually say the "occupied nations fought the Axis in 1940". Rather, it merely says it was the only unoccupied nation in Europe fighting the Axis (at the relevant point), which was literally true. The statement would be true, even if there was no non-British resistance whatsoever . Frankly, by focussing on the Battle of Britain in 1940, and not mentioning the rest of the war, we're being more than fair to Britain. Because this article is about the UK, we shouldn't go into detail about what others in Europe did, but we also shouldn't explicitly state they did nothing, which seems to be what you want. --Rob (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see the need for the qualifier, Rob. If we arn't saying that the occupied nations fought the Axis in 1940, thenit is equally true to say that Britain was the only European power fighting the war in 1940. I am not arguing for us to explicitly say they did nothing, I am not arguing for us to say that Britain was the only european power fighting the war while no Pole, Frenchman or Dutchman did a damn thing. Just that we shouldn't imply there was this whole other coalition of occupied powers who were somehow waging a stand up war in Europe. It is not the reality, nor is it what the WW2 books I've read say. --Narson ~ Talk • 01:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, you want us to state a literally falsehood, because you feel stating the literal truth gives an impression you don't like. I find it quite outrageous, that while we're having this discussion, people think it's ok that the article tells a LIE. It's a lie to say Britain stood alone, and it's outrageous it still is in this article. Unless/until a replacement acheives consensus the current sentence, claiming a lie, should be removed. --Rob (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I find your tone quite outragous and your assertion assinine. I do not argue for 'Britain stood alone'. I said that when talking of 'Britain stood alone in Europe', we were using an unoccupied as an unnecessary qualifier synthesised by a couple of editors. --Narson ~ Talk • 01:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It has to be understood that Britain was entirely alone following the evacuation from Dunkirk. There was at the time of the Battle of Britain, no Empire assistance - in fact the Empire dominions were pretty look-warm to Britain's position. Resistance in Europe would emerge later. In mid June 1940, Churchill sent a message to all the Dominion prime ministers that Britain had decided to continue with the war alone that this "was not based on mere obstinacy or desperation" but from "the strength of our position". This message got a pretty unenthusiastic response from Canada, Australia and New Zealand worried by British naval intentions and of their own vulnerability. South Africa's Herzog wanted a separate peace with the Axis but his motion was defeated only by 83 votes to 65. India's Nehru said "its no use asking India to come to the rescue of a tottering Imperialism". When the Battle of Britain started the only Empire personnel were the relatively small numbers who had enlisted in the British forces. It was only after the Battle of Britain was won that the Empire committed to Britain's stance. The first Australian and Indian troops (a division each) arrived in Egypt in late 1940. Canada operated a "limited campaign" policy and provided proportionately less forces to the war than Britain, Australia or New Zealand but her navy was crucial in the North Atlantic. Canada's first real land force involvement didn't happen until the middle of 1944. --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

So, if her allies didn't supply her, at great cost and danger, do you think she would have survived? Of course she wouldn't. Commonwealth countries independently declared war on Germany early on. Free France troops considered themselves the continuation of the state that already declared war and refused to surrender. The evacuation of Dunkirk was a retreat, not a surrender. The evacuation of Dunkirk by itself, proves Britain was not alone. That's an enormous distinction. In an encyclopedia we have to ensure that we're correct in a literal sense. Now, in some other (non-encyclopedic) contexts, in order to convey a message, a writer may legitimately employ understatement or overstatement, particularly if they assume their reader already knows the literal truth. But, this is an encyclopedia, and we can't do that. We have to write the literal truth, while trying not to imply anything misleading. --Rob (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Britain was not alone in any sense of the word. What happened in the air was dependent on what was happening in the Atlantic, and Britain required more than a million tons of imported food and material per week in order to be able to survive and fight on against Germany. Canadian merchant seamen were no less signifcant in 1940 that RAF flyers. And I do not think that one can translate the concerns of some Quebecois, Afrikaners and pro-Independence Indians into a broad antithapy to the war across the entire Empire - my knowledge of Canadian history would suggest quite the opposite to the "luke warm" stance you suggest.

As for earlier comments by Narson, I am not sure why we would actually focus on and place more importance on command structures and ignore the thousands of troops, seamen and airmen in the field in 1940 under the flags of their respective occupied countries. If we use that logic, the thousands of Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, etc. were part of Britain's contribution to the war. And, I do not think too many people people in 1940 believed that Hanz Frank represented the government of Poland, or that the government in exile was not the legitimate government of Poland, and I am surprised to hear anyone suggest otherwise.

In addition to the RFC, I am going to post notices of this discussion on two or three related Wikiprojects (as I was first drawn to it by a post over at Wikiproject Canada), as it seems to going to the heart of the very issue of what countries were standing against the Nazis in 1940. We could use some fresh viewpoints. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You are misinformed. The first Australian troops arrived in Egypt in February (not "late") 1940. The cable you refer to was received in Australia on 15 May 1940. The immediate response was to send Australian troops to the United Kingdom. They arrived at Gourock on 17 June 1940 — six days before the Franco-German Armistice. The liners Queen Mary, Mauretania and Empress of Canada (three others brought New Zealand troops) brought over 8,000 Australian troops of the 18th Infantry Brigade, 2/1st Anti-Tank Regiment, 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion, 2/3rd Field Company, 2/1st Field Park Company, 2/3rd Field Ambulance and other units of the 6th Division. The force moved to the Salisbury Plain, where it prepared for a possible invasion of the United Kingdom. The Australian government authorised the formation of a new division for overseas service (which became the 8th Division) on 22 May 1940. The RAAF's No. 10 Squadron was in the United Kingdom when the war began, and remained until after VE Day. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the commonwealth were certainly there and in large numbers.I think we need to move away from "people" who were fighting and say something like the UK was the last country in western europe still at war with Germany which had not fallen by late 1940. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Something like that, yes. Someone above found a cite that would help. dougweller (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The proposed wording says just that ("At one stage in 1940, amid the Battle of Britain, it was the only unoccupied nation in Europe fighting the Axis"), but if we can reword it somehow to get consensus, then that would be good. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That wording is fine with me or along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this statement is entirely accurate. Possibly something along the lines of the British Empire stood alone, or Britain and its Empire stood alone might be more accurate. The Commonwealth does not come in to this as it is not a political or military alliance but an economic one (the statement seems to infer that they stood alone in a military sense). At the time this statement refers to the British Empire was very much in existence, and even though nations like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada were self ruling or almost so, there was an unspoken military obligation in place. If Britain declared war on someone the other countries in the Empire or affiliated to it followed suit automatically, and they had all declared war on Germany by this stage. Canadian troops were already in Britain. The British Empire at this point was the only military organisation fighting back or able to fight back. British Empire troops fought under the British military, wearing British design uniforms etc. The Australians did not remove their troops from British command until the Japanese entered the war.I picked up on this discussion from the MilHist project page. Hopefully this helps a bit. But to be honest it reminds of statements made during World War 2 that were propaganda based in order to show the bravery of the British to give their population hope by instilling a sense of pride in their survival against great odds. The majority of the world had pretty much written them off at this point and had decided that fighting Nazi Germany and winning was not a good plan. Tristan benedict (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm more in favour of the focus on Europe (as above) as otherwise you run into the arguments over what counts as 'Empire', the mandates for example. Just without the synthesis by a couple of our editors. --Narson ~ Talk • 01:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Australian Army did not wear "British design uniforms". The Australian Army wore Australian designed uniforms, manufactured in Australia, similar to those worn in the Great War. (The felt hats and brown boots were especially distinctive.) A certain commonality of equipment was for logistical purposes, just as NATO attempts to standardise today, but while some equipment was obtained overseas, most was also manufactured in Australia because the United Kingdom had enough trouble equipping its own troops, particularly after Dunkirk. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has moved on since I was last here but I want to correct some points of Hawkey7's. Yes, Australian troops did arrive in Egypt in February 1940 but only in transit for Palestine where they would train before being committed back to Egypt late in 1940. They were still building their forces by late 1940 peaking in December with arrival of the troops he mentions from the UK. However these 18,200 soldiers didn't arrive in the UK as a result of Churchill's cable to Menzies as he suggests. These troops were convoy number three from Fremantle and left that port on 12 May 1940 a full 3 days before the cable referred to above was sent. It was destined for Suez and was diverted at the last minute by the British War Cabinet. In other words it was an involuntary act and Australia pressed for their return to their division without immediate success. They did get back to Egypt in December 1940. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the diversion was not involuntary. British War Cabinet suggested the diversion on 15 May. There was some discussion and the Australian government agreed to it on 19 May. The ultimate destination of the troops training in Palestine was still France at this point—there was no fighting in Egypt, as Italy had not yet joined the war. Like the rest of the armies in Britain, the Australian force in Britain was stood down from invasion alert on 23 September 1940. The 18th Brigade sailed for the Middle East on 15 November and reached Alexandria on 31 December. The 25th Brigade followed on 3 January 1941 and reached Palestine on 10 March 1941. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Plowman's Across the Sea to War mentions that the convoy was notified by the War Cabinet on 15 May to change course from its Ceylon heading to that of Capetown, which it did. That was the same day that it notifed Canberra but if as you say the approval came on the 19th then the Australians would have been ratifying a fait accompli. It also mentions the Australian reluctance to the force going onto Britain and suggested that the troops be trained in South Africa closer to the rest of the 6th. So "The immediate response was to send Australian troops to the United Kingdom" isn't quite correct—the British had the convoy diverted and the Australians, four days later, agreed to that. Menzies continued to press for the troops be reunited with the rest of the 6th during their stay in Britain but without success. However I accept that you obviously have a good source for the 19 May acceptance of the proposal so I'll go along with that.

Not sure why the bit about the destination of the troops ... was still France or there was no fighting in Egypt or Italy had not yet joined the war were added - nobody was suggesting otherwise. --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that the word unoccupied is crucial. Polish contribution to WWII in 1940 was a fact, just as were the contributions of France, the Netherlands, and other countries.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

taking a break

When we start to argue about who designed uniforms its getting problematic and there is a lot of OR around. If you trawl around you find:

1. The phrase that Britain stood alone is common with citation support
2. The fact that commonwealth nations also fought, and that the "stood alone" comment is disputed by some modern commentators is also supported buy citations
3. The presence of exiled governments in Britain, and their providing troops to the war effort is also cited and supportable

Now if Britain had negotiated a peace settlement with Hitler, or had fallen then it is (this is an opinion) unlikely that commonwealth nations would have continued the fight, although alliance with the US would probably have preserved them and its interesting to speculate on what would have happened to the USSR and the Japanese Pacific Rim strategy. However alternative history and opinion about what is right or wrong is not part of our duty. We are required to agree facts, cite them and find forms of words that make the article readable and informative. Can we then agree on the facts first? I suggest three above. --Snowded (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit iffy on such a simplified statement of #3 and as regards #2 I am not sure how many modern historians dispute the BBC's version (It is a difficult assertion to search for, and I have not read any histories that dispute it) that Britain was alone in Europe, but yes, with those caveats in mind, they are in general agreeable. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to rephrase them! On 2 I found several newspaper and magazine articles but have not had a chance to check out any books yet. --Snowded (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, to clarify, I wasn't disagreeing with 2, merely saying that I think we have moved past the idea of saying 'Britain was alone fullstop', or most everyone seems to, an onto 'Britain was alone in Europe', which is what the BBC said in the quote you found, and that finding cites to argue against that is a bit more dfficult(We have had one suggestion of synthesis, but thats it) --Narson ~ Talk • 11:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with all three points, Snowded. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just come over from WP:RFC and just like to say that I always presumed that Britain stood alone was really In Europe Britain stood alone against the axis. Nothing to do with other nations helping but the fact that the Germans had driven across Continental Europe and all that was left was to take out Britain which was Alone or all on its own as everyobdy else was under German control. MilborneOne (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I thought it was obvious, but the reason for the disputed tag (which was removed) is simple. The article still states that at one point Britain "stood alone against the Axis". As said above, it clearly didn't. It didn't come anywhere close to standing alone at any stage. If there's a way of just tagging the relevant section, I don't know, but some tag is justified. Really though, the false statement needs to be removed until a truthful statement can gain consensus to replace it. --Rob (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that every dispute requires the use of the tag, but having said that, I think anyone involved in a discussion is entitled in their discretion to tag the relevant article or section, as appropriate, so I've added the tag to the history section. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding a disputed tag to a whole section because one phrase (which is, incidentally, verifiable) is total overkill. Sort out your disagreements here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The verifiability of the statement is very much in dispute. You should perhaps read the discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not the ideal solution. The ideal solution is to remove the one sentence that contained the falsehood until a new correct wording that is accurate and has consensus can be added to replace it. That would avoid the need for any tag. But certain editors have insisted in keeping a falsehood in article while discussions are on going to a solution. If we keep a falsehood in the article, we need something to alert the reader that there's a problem. --Rob (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rob's take on the matter; I find the claim very dubious and there should be some kind of notice to alert readers that the particular statement is under question, not only so that they don't take the claim as irrefutable fact, but also so that any who are interested can help in finding a resolution. --Miesianiacal (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm new and trying to learn how to edit. I think that it should be changed to "In 1940, the first major campaign to be fought entirely by air forces occurred in skies above the UK and became known as the Battle of Britain." or something like that. The standing alone part is semantics (the UK doesn't have legs!) and should be removed or discussed on the battle of Britain page. PS this is one of my first comments so be sparing w/ the criticism and open with the suggestions LittleHutcH (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether we tag the section or the sentence, a tag is not inappropriate given this contentious discussion. The inexplicable removal of the tags is starting to make me worry that some of the editors here may have WP:OWN issues. Advice such as "sort out your disagreements here" is not helpful, and somewhat patronizing given how much effort editors have been putting into doing just that. Please leave the tag alone (unless there is some better way of tagging the text in dispute), and let's get back to Snowded's productive approach to resolving the issue. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Redking7 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Britain did not stand alone

The statement that Britain stood alone is dramatic but false. Here's a ref: [Veterans Affairs, Government of Canada, Canada and the Second World War 1939-1945: The Battle of Britain] which says "Britain and its Dominions stood alone" which appears to be more accurate. Here's another canada-at-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/canadians_in_the_battle_of_britain Canadians in the Battle of Britain (won't let me post a link to this - it is not "spam") which clearly indicates that Britain was not alone. Probably there will other info from other other dominions that is in parallel. Note that Canada was fully sovereign and declared war completely independently, deployed troops and aircrew etc. under its own officers, and agreed to missions on its own per the Statute of Westminster from the 1920s. --Fremte (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to read Churchill's speech in full from which the term, although not a direct quote comes from. It is a domestic speech to the House of Commons in which he says we will defend our island if necessary alone but if it all goes bad and Britain is invaded then the Empire will help us. So I think we need to take the phrase in context of June 1940 with the threat of invasion. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment as a result of the RfC. The article should give some sense of the isolation and vulnerability felt by the British at some point in WWII but it should also recognize the support from allies who were active at that time. The two need not be mutually exclusive. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Also as a result of Rfc. A suggestion made some time back in this discussion seems to suggest quite a good compromise. I've shortened it slightly -

"At one stage in 1940, Britain and it's Commonwealth (sub Dominions or Empire if necessary), bolstered by volunteers from occupied countries and elswhere, fought alone against the Axis."

There are certainly valid arguments relating to the status of the British Dominions and people/governments of occupied Europe and the relative weight and emphasis that should be given to their role. Already discussed at length above. Something along these lines would perhaps recognise that support, both from Individual volunteers and Dominions/Colonies Britain had, without removing the equally valid point the original editor was trying to make that Britain was left isolated following the defeat of its continental alies. Kurtk60 (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That should be "Britain and ITS Commonwealth". A simple enough grammatical rule to master, surely? Malcolm XIV (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A new suggestion

How about:

"Following the defeat of it's European allies in the first year of World War II, the United Kingdom continued the fight against the Axis, holding off Germany in the aerial campaign known as the Battle of Britain."

This links in with the Spitfire image, and does not deny the involvement of others, but does not give undue weight either. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That should be "ITS European allies"! How hard can it be? Malcolm XIV (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously a little harder than it seems. Thank you for your correction. --Michael Johnson (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

ITS terrible how some people can't get it right. :) Jack forbes (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)