Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 → Archive 35

On terminology

There is currently an ongoing discussion whether the Wikidata item for this article actually is connected to the content of the article here, the United Kingdom, or whether the meaning of the term can equally be replaced with that of Great Britain. -- Plast (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Europe

Shouldn't Russia be dark grey in the map ? AFAIK Russia is the largest European country and even if it also extends into Asia that would be true as well for France and the UK itself just to name a few. Does it matter that the larger part of Russia lies in Asia ? What about its capitol and main population being located in Europe ? Would Greenland make Denmark a North American country ? At least the part of Russia visible in the map is in Europe. Please don't let the Cold War cloud the waters ... JB. --92.195.108.68 (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The part of Russia that is in Europe is dark grey. The part of Russia that is not in Europe is light grey. Europe is green and dark grey. Rob984 (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2016

Please change the Flag of the EU to UK Flag back, because obvious reasons. And the capital back to London. And delete at "Government" Overlord, EU puppet etc.

Thanks

Robinh95 (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Vandalism reverted.GliderMaven (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2016

Vandalism on the page probably related to the EU referendum. Revert edit by Camjay7. Includes PM name, type of government, capital, etc.

Blueshimmer007 (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Already done st170etalk 00:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Second land border?

Obviously, Northern Ireland shares a land border with the Republic of Ireland, but what is the status of the Channel Tunnel connecting Great Britain with the European continent (specifically, France)? Does the fact that it is underground (or should that be 'undersea'?) negate its physical connection between two countries?

Perpendicularity is Overrated (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

See Channel_Tunnel#Security. The treaties that allow French officials to operate on English soil and vice versa are bi-lateral Franco-British agreements. Brexit may change who is allowed in, but shouldn't affect how the checks are performed. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
(e/c) So far as the opening paragraph is concerned, it should not be described as a land border, but there may be scope for referring briefly to the tunnel link. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

United Kingdom left the EU

It was reported in the media that Britain has voted to leave the European Union (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-idUSKCN0Z902K). Now, any information about the UK and the EU must be changed accordingly, if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolated (talk • contribs) 04:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This is excellent news, however we have not officially yet left. There are hoops we have to jump through first before we officially leave. Heck, its just been announced that we'll have a new PM before the negotiations start. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
This is disastrous news, however we have not officially yet left. There are hoops we have to jump through first before we officially leave. Heck, it's just been announced that we'll have a new PM before the negotiations start. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
We all have our opinions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
And this is not a forum for debating them. Can we stick to the facts alone and the editing of an encyclopedia please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The referendum is not binding on the government or parliament and therefore has no direct effect on UK membership in the EU. The UK remains a member of the EU in the meantime. TFD (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The UK is leaving the EU but until it invokes article 50-which even the Leave campaign said they won't invoke yet-then the UK is still a full paid-up member of the EU. All we can say is that the UK public via referendum voted to leave the EU. Nothing else at present. Mabuska (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

European Union

The main image in the info box needs to be changed. We are no longer in the EU.  — Calvin999 18:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

FFS, how many times do we need to repeat this? The UK is still a member of the EU, until such time as negotiations on its withdrawal are concluded - some time away, by all accounts. All EU provisions continue to apply to the UK for the time being. When that changes, we can change the article and the map. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2016

In the Music section there is a reference to John Barbirolli. This should be Sir John Barbirolli.

It would perhaps also be appropriate to include Sir Thomas Beecham, who was arguably more influential than any of the conductors currently mentioned.

Hemlocktrees (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: I'm going to decline the first part per MOS:HONORIFIC but any other editor is free to override me on that. The second part in regards to Beecham requires a source that says he is "more influential." --Majora (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majora. I have taken you at your word and added the "Sir". MOS:HONORIFIC 2.1.8.2 Honorific titles applies in this context ("The honorific titles Sir ... are included in the initial reference..."), particularly since Barbirolli is sandwiched between Sir Simon Rattle and Sir Malcolm Sargent. Agreed about a citation required though. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Not a problem. Thanks for catching that. --Majora (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Tedious resurfacing of Great Britain as synonym

This old chestnut has surfaced again; just search in the archives. Dubious usages of terms should maybe be noted, with an explanation of their dubiousness, but not given undue credibility, arguably in the lede at all and definitely not given effective parity in the first sentence alongside more correct terminology. Are we going to add "England" as a synonym because of common sloppy popular usage from some in that most populous of the constituent countries? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid it will keep returning because outside of Wikipedia Great Britain is still used as a synonym so new readers will keep adding it and raising it on the talk page, see archives. MilborneOne (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
"Are we going to add "England" as a synonym because of common sloppy popular usage from some in that most populous of the constituent countries?" — It's not in the Oxford Dictionaries. "Great Britain": "The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom". Need to add that to the article. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
To repeat myself from my edit summaries, the matter is already covered, and in a better manner. It does not need to be added, it's in the very second sentence. You are over-egging it snd implying that a term that correctly refers to another entity but is "often used loosely to refer to" this entity should be given parity with the correct terminology in the first sentence, as well as being correctly dealt with in the second. It's both redundant and wrong. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
"(the name of which is also loosely applied to the whole country)" — Oh, sorry Mutt Lunker. It was already mentioned in the article. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2016

The United Kingdom is no longer in the European Union, so you should fix that on this page. TheFappening94 (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Actually it is. The leave is not immediate and won't be official for years to come. --Majora (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
i removed the category. To be accurate may be we need to add the word "previous" before the name of the category. If my edit is not correct you can revert it. Regards---مصعب (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
And I revert you. The UK is still a part of the EU until they invoke Article 50 and either both sides agree that negotiations are over or two years have passed, whatever happens first. They are still a part of the EU as of today, therefore, the category stays for now. --Majora (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2016

Include a map of British overseas territories below the map of the UK (similar to that of the French Republic page):

|image_map = British Overseas.png |map2_width = 250px

|map_caption =

  British Overseas Territories
  United Kingdom
  Crown dependencies

|image_map2 = United Kingdom (overseas+crown dependencies), administrative divisions - Nmbrs (multiple zoom).svg

Sackopickles (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Not really relevant as the British Overseas Territories are not part of the United Kingdom. MilborneOne (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Nor are the crown dependencies for that matter. They are owned directly by the crown. Uamaol (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sixth economy, not fifth

The claim that the UK is the world's fifth economy has not been true for a week now and there are countless of WP:RS to back that up. I would not change List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal), but for this article (and for France), I think it would be better to have accurate information rather than information we all know to be wrong. Jeppiz (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems pointless to update the figures plainly because of a change in ranking. No other countries figures will be updated until the IMF publishes 2016 data, which means it wont be comparable, one of the main purposes of an infobox. But sure, if you can source up-to-date and reliable figures, go ahead. Just changing the ranking would not suffice as the UK's economy was larger than France's in 2015, so would be conveying incorrect information. Rob984 (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you. It's not something I find terribly important, and not a change I'll make before there has been some discussion. The problem is that we convey wrong information no matter what (and I was thinking about the intro, not the infobox - though of you the two should not contradict each other). This is not a big deal for me (being neither British nor French) but it's of course in everybody's interest that the information we give is correct. Jeppiz (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an explanatory footnote (including "as of" information and a reference) be the best way to go? It could be referenced from the infobox, lead, and body.--Boson (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
The claims of the UK falling to sixth place are purely speculatory, and fly in the face of normal conventions of gauging GDP. Leave it to the experts (IMF, World Bank etc). Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2016

Prime Minister: Theresa May

Zamerino (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

 Cameron isn't standing down until Wednesday. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep, trip to the Palace required first. Looks like it's Wednesday for changes here too! Brendandh (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2016

• Prime Minister David Cameron

This part needs to be changed, because today, Theresa May is becoming a Prime Minister of the UK. Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-wrapup-idUSKCN0ZR19P

Schambergnicholas (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this will be done after May officially becomes PM (expected to be about 5pm today) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2016

In reference 125 - David Cameron is no longer the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He has obviously been replaced by Theresa May so this should be edited. Jamesdavies01 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Population update

The population figure has increased by almost 50,000 in the same source. As of around now, it is currently 65,147,213. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stopitnowok (talk • contribs) 11:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Leaving the EU is not a certainty

At least two points in text imply that leaving the EU is a certainty (the caption of the EU photo; and footnote 10).

I think this is not factual, as the referendum was not binding; and the politicians expressed intentions are just that; expressed intentions; they are also not binding.

Even if article 50 were to be invoked, it would still not be certain that the UK would leave the EU, as the invocation can (potentially) be retracted (src: Prof. Michael Dougan).

We will only know for sure when, and if, the UK is no longer an official member of the EU.


Furthermore the caption of the EU photo says that the UK was the first country to leave the EU. This is false, as the UK has not left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.146.152 (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a tendency for editors to jump the gun. I've adjusted the caption for the photo, and am open to suggestions for rewording footnote 10. There's no doubt it's what the population has voted to do, and is likely to do, so it's worth a mention somehow. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I have attempted to clarify the footnote as follows: In the referendum of 23 June 2016, a majority voted for the UK to withdraw from the EU, but the process and date for Brexit have yet to be determined. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2016

"UK" redirects here.

31.52.4.146 (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Information icon It does, indeed, and clearly states "(Redirected from UK)" on the third line if you arrive here that way.
However, that is not a semi-protected edit request - Arjayay (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

UK Article Devolved Administrations

States Peter Robinson is First Minister he is Not He Retired after a Heart Attack It is now Arlene Foster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.102.224 (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you - now  Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Provisional Government of Ireland (1922)

Discussion about what legal description of UK-devolved provisional government in Dublin was back in 1922. Marginal topic; knowledgable editors welcome! Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Kent is arguably not part of England

Wall of text

Why? 1. Kent was not Anglo-Saxon being a Kingdom of Jutes (Hengist and Horsa) 2. Æthelberht (also Æthelbert, Aethelberht, Aethelbert, or Ethelbert was King of Kent from about 589 until his death. The eighth-century monk Bede, in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, lists him as the third king to hold imperium over other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. In the late ninth century Anglo-Saxon Chronicle he is referred to as a bretwalda, or "Britain-ruler". Æthelberht's law for Kent, the earliest written code in any Germanic language, instituted a complex system of fines; the law code is preserved in the Textus Roffensis. Some features of modern law link or trace origin from the laws of Kent. The first coinage from the Germanic races that invaded the British Isles came in at this time in Kent. 3. Kentish warriors did not go with Harold Godwinson to fight the invaders from Norway [[[1]] Kent negotiated a settlement with the Normans at the time of conquest and was not conquered. Hence 'Invicta' = Latin for 'unconquered' on the Kent flag; Canterbury being the head cathedral and Kent being the first region of Britain to have 2 cathedral cities (Canterbury = East Kent; Rochester = West Kent) 4. Legend has it that, while marching from the battle site at Hastings, William marched on to London on his way to the capital (this was the capital in 1066) Winchester. While passing through Kent, the local people picked up branches and marched at William's men. Scared, William and his army took flight and took a different route to London. As the people of Kent felt that they had chased William away, they adopted "Invicta" as a motto. Kent Invicta Monument A different version of the legend above is depicted on a monument at Swanscombe in Kent where legend states this meeting took place on the Old Roman Road to London (Watling Street). The monument was moved in the early 1960s due to the construction of the A2 dual carriageway. It is now located in the church yard of Saint Peter and Saint Paul's Church in Swanscombe where the picture was taken. The monument states that "Near this spot by ancient tradition the men of Kent and Kentish men carrying boughs on their shoulders and swords in their hands met the invader William Duke of Normandy. They offered peace if he would grant their ancient rights and liberties otherwise war and that most deadly. Their request was granted and from that day the motto of Kent has been INVICTA meaning Unconquered." Its origin has also been said to have been because Dover was not besieged or defeated on William's march through Kent, but instead agreed to a conditional surrender to him, on its own terms, and was therefore not conquered by him. Holding of land in Kent by gavelkind, rather than the feudal-Norman laws of primogeniture, lasted until the early 20th century suggesting that the people of the county did indeed acquire some concessions from the Conqueror. 5. The Domesday book has poor records for Kent - probably due to the Kent law of inheritance not being the Norman equivalent - land being divided (as is the case today) between the surviving children - and if these were girls the surname (or recorded first name and profession) changed so the traceability of the land ownership history in one family was less obvious. The old Norman law of inheritance by the oldest son has, nowadays, changed to a version of Kentish law. 6. For a considerable time the English throne have used Kent as the Principality for the oldest girl in the royal family (Victoria was Princess of Kent before she was a Queen and an Empress). 7. This changes with the machinations around Victoria's children and grandchildren - eventually resulting in a Prince of Kent [we have a prince [Prince Michael of Kent] but according to some we're not a Principality...Duh! Of course we Kentish are living in a Principality...even if our Prince lives outside his country [compare Charles not living in Wales despite being Prince of Wales]. 8. What counts as Kent? I contend this would be: all names on the map as Kent; Medway; the bits that joined London in the 19th and 20th centuries (2 tranches - firstly Lewisham, Greenwich etc and then later Bromley, Beckenham, Orpington etc; the county of Surrey (an area settled by Kent Jutes - the name 'Surrey' deriving from a Kentish land measurement (plus their accent is basically posh Kentish); all London Surrey - Croydon, Richmond etc; the Isle of Wight (also conquered by Jutes); parts of North London - origins given away by their name - so Kentish Town , Houndsditch ('ditch' is a dialectal Kentish word); East Sussex (held or influenced by Kent for a considerable portion of history - reflected nowadays best by accent similarities and shared views; South Hants and West Sussex (from a history of invasion and repelling invasion by Kent and Isle of Wight Jutes.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.143.190 (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Your personal opinion on the matter means nothing to us. We run on published, independent, reliable sources that have editorial oversight and a history of fact checking. And please don't write giant walls of text like that. It makes it impossible to read. --Majora (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

[Edit Request] Grammar in Education

"About 38 percent of United Kingdom population has a university or college degree, which is the highest percentages in the Europe"

Should instead be

"About 38 percent of the United Kingdom population has a university or college degree, which is the highest percentage in Europe"

Located within the first paragraph of Education in the United Kingdom.— Preceding unsigned comment added by M0DXx (talk • contribs)

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

'Official' language of the UK

English is the 'de facto' language of the UK, but it's not the 'official' language of the UK, partly because there's plenty of acts written in old French which are still relevant today, e.g. Treason Act 1351, but also because UK's monarchy still uses some French 'official' phrasings such as 'Dieu est mon droit', 'La Reyne le veult', etc.. Also Gaelic and Welsh are somehow as 'official' as English. For instance, since 1981, people can apply for British citizenship in Gaelic or in Welsh (see British Nationality Act 1981, schedule 1, requirements for naturalization) and can pass the Life in the UK test in one of these languages instead of English. Also, in Scotland, kids can go to Gaelic medium primary schools, where English is introduced only as a second language after Primary 4 - so clearly, there is no such thing as the 'official' language of the UK.

By the way, the names of the UK are : Gaelic -> Rìoghachd Aonaichte na Breatainne Mòire is Èireann a Tuath in Gaelic Welsh -> Teyrnas Unedig Prydain Fawr ac Iwerddon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buidheag (talk • contribs) 10:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There's two sources cited:
"English language – Government, citizens and rights". Directgov. Retrieved 23 August 2011.
"Commonwealth Secretariat – UK". Commonwealth Secretariat. Retrieved 23 August 2011.
No contemporary acts of parliament are written in French. French was an administrative language historically, but I'm not sure how that has a bearing on the official language today.
Today, the working language of Parliament, national government, and other national bodies is solely English. Welsh and other regional languages are accommodated for interaction with citizens, however, they're not used as administrative languages across the whole country.
No regional languages are considered official languages of the whole of the UK, even if they are official within some jurisdictions.
English is used as the official language of the UK, in the same way Castilian is in Spain, French is in France, etc.. It's plain wrong to imply that it isn't the official language, simply because there is no legislation saying so.
Rob984 (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The sources you’re giving have no legal value – they’re online info, not acts, bills or statutes in any way – and by the way, one of them is an old page that has been archived by the Government (either irrelevant or out of date).
Also, ‘contemporary acts’ doesn’t mean anything from a legal point of view – just ask Theresa May where she gets the executive power to activate article 50, she tell you it’s royal prerogative, a discretionary power tracing back to the Bill of Rights, 1688 and the Act of Settlement, 1700 (and there’s a court case going on about the legitimacy of these powers if you haven’t noticed).
Of course you could argue that some languages are more official than others, part of the problem being the fuzzy definition of what constitutes an "official language."
And of course, English is for sure the de facto language of the UK, being far more spoken in this country than any other language.
What is plain wrong, however is to claim that "English is used as the official language of the UK, in the same way Castilian is in Spain, French is in France" since both these languages are the official languages of their respective countries by law, and in fact by constitutional right: article 2 of the Constitution of the French Republic ("La langue de la République est le français") and article 3 of the Spanish Constitution ("El castellano es la lengua española oficial del Estado").
It's plain wrong to imply that English is the official language of the UK simply because most people speak it - that's just not enough.
Buidheag (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Just noting that the article states that "The UK's de facto official language is English". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
That's the point: English is 'de facto' the language of the UK (i.e. in practice, actually), but it's not 'de jure' the language of the UK (by law, legally). So 'official' is vague in this case, if not plain wrong.Buidheag (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
It seems to fit the definition of official as written by Oxford dictionaries. It is the language of government. At any rate, without delving too much into arguments about common law and all that, the Welsh language act placed Welsh as equal to English, implying it must be official, and overturned laws going back to the 16th century noting English was the language of the law. CMD (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how describing it as the de facto official language is vague, Buidheag. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, first of all, “de facto” is not a qualifier, it’s an adverbial expression. As such, it can modify substantives or qualifiers, such as ‘official’ (adjective) or ‘language’ (noun), though of course, you can argue that it’s not Latin anymore, and that in English, it is indeed used as a qualifier.
So saying “English is the de facto official language of the UK” is not the same at all as saying “English is de facto the language of the UK”.
The first sentence means that in practice, English is used as the official language of the UK. In other words, English is the official language of the UK.
The second sentence means that in practice, English is the language of the UK. Even though it is not official, it is used by most people, included law makers in the UK.
Now, the question is, in the absence of any explicit mention of "official language" in the law, can there still be an "official language of the UK" (as this Wikipedia page states)?
Even if you describe it as “the de facto official language of the UK”, the term "official language" by itself doesn't require any specific action: no one is forced to learn and use English to interact with the UK government (and the very fact that you can apply for citizenship in Welsh or in Gaelic proves it). If tomorrow, the Welsh parliament decides to pass a law in Welsh, there’s nothing that could prevent it (though again, I doubt this will ever happen).
So the point is that in the case of the use of English within the UK, to the term ‘official’ is not used with precision, but rather as a commonly vague term of the popular discourse. And that’s not what Wikipedia is about, is it?Buidheag (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be mixing up "legal" with "official". Something can be in official use without being mandated by law. We do not require acts of law as sources for all of our information, any interpretations or statements that are deemed to be WP:Reliable Sources are useful. CMD (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
To me ‘legal’ is not vague, so thanks but I’m not mixing up. Once again, none of the WP ‘reliable’ sources quoted here give a clear defined notion of what ‘official’ status means in the UK context, unlike other Wikipedia pages (France or Spain to take Rob984’s examples), which use ‘official language’ with a precise meaning (check the relevant pages or my comments above).
So while we do not require acts of law as sources for all of our information, we somehow should use the same interpretation of field key word in our WP standard fact sheets.Buidheag (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
An "act of Parliament" creates "law", law itself cannot act! You also need to remember that not all law is statute law; have a read of common law for an overview. The point is significant: France and Spain use the civil law system, they have precise written laws. This country uses (along with the USA and a lot of the Commonwealth) the common law where judges can codify and interpret precedent, natural justice and custom as well as statute law and regulation. Quoting civil law countries is irrelevant. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Precisely, thanks Martin of Sheffield! That’s what I’ve been trying to explain - you can’t compare things that are not comparable. Buidheag (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
But you have been. You've been taking a civil law based definition of "official" from somewhere and attempting to force the common law system into it. If the government says it is "official" on the government's own website that is a far better source than trying to impose a Franco-Hispanic interpretation. It seems to me that you have a view of what "official" is based upon non-anglophone civil law countries and are really just saying that the UK is not exactly the same as France. Welcome to reality, it hasn't been since the Romans left. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I have been indeed taking a civil law based definition of ‘official’ from somewhere - from other Anglophone WP pages with related format as a matter of fact.
What I am saying is that, somewhere (else), actually on Wikipedia, the same word is used to refer to something different.
Now if you think this discussion is about winning an ideological battle, I guess it’s fair enough to use ‘official’ on all WP pages, without any terminological discrimination (as it is the case for the moment).
But if we want to participate to the WP project with an open mind, maybe we should take a different approach?
Maybe the solution is not to change the word ‘official’ on the UK page, but rather on the pages about France, Spain, etc.? Or maybe we should put some notes somewhere regarding the use of the word ‘official’ in each context? Maybe, it’s the topic of a new page? (I actually have not checked if there is one).
And thanks for welcoming me to reality. I thought I wasn't welcome here but now I feel relieved. Buidheag (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

We certainly should not change the fact it says official there in the infobox. If its worthy of an additional note next to it, to point out there is no specific legislation declaring it as official then so be it. But i think its fine as it is. Much of the stuff that relates to the UK is defacto and official.. despite not being written into law. ObserverUI (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Another editor is seeking to overturn the consensus reached in 2013 - here - on the wording of the opening sentence. I have reverted once, as has another editor, but it needs to be discussed here. Thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Description of the United Kingdom in the first paragraph

This is the first time I have touched this page, so I am not aware of any previous discussions on the lead or any section of it.

We have... "Lying off the northwestern coast of the European mainland, it includes the island of Great Britain (the name of which is also loosely applied to the whole country), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands." [My italics]

I have learnt to consider (carefully) the use of parentheses in copy writing, their necessity and whether their content could be better moved elsewhere. In the quoted sentence, (1) Precisely which country is referred to: Great Britain is not a country, the United Kingdom is not a country? (2) Why should we have mention of a "loose application" of the name, when our definitions should define accurately and concisely? (3) Could the statement in parentheses be re-stated elsewhere, if not removed completely? If we are starting by defining the geographical extent of the United Kingdom , then I suggest "Lying off the north-western coast of the European mainland, it includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands." says all that is necessary and sufficient.

I presume northwestern was the result of consensus, but I prefer north-western, liked also by my Oxford Dictionary. I suggest that northwestern is American English. Which part of the world is this article about?

Loose definition is always coming into public usage. Accurate definition seems to be most important in all the sciences, including geography, and actually less important in some fields where feelings come more into consideration, for example the arts and politics. Sadly there must be many who do not know the difference between Britain, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, and here there has to be precision.

I would like to thank the editor who reverted by previous edit. I included political areas when the subject was geographical. P0mbal (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection in principle to removing the statement in parentheses and placing it elsewhere. In some ways, the situation is analogous to the Netherlands, where we have a separate sentence at the end of the opening paragraph: 'The name Holland is also frequently used to refer informally to the whole of the country of the Netherlands.' Similarly, the name Great Britain is sometimes used informally to refer to the United Kingdom as a whole - and officially it is deemed "incorrect" (but "Britain" is correct). There is confusion over the terminology used - often simply to give variety in the use of words without punctilious attention to accuracy, as here for example - but we should try to be accurate. I favour including a hyphen in "north-western", per MOS:COMPASS. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the current wording concisely clarifies the usage of "Great Britain". When the national Olympic team is named "Great Britain", and American politicians are calling this country "Great Britain" almost exclusively, it cannot be ignored. I also don't see how it is incorrect, considering "Britain" is just an abbreviate form of "Great Britain". "Britain" is also more common when referring to the island. "Great Britain" has largely become an international brand name for the country, hence it's use for the Olympic team, Visit Britain, and the "Britain is Great" campaign. Not clarifying this on the first instance of "Great Britain" might lead the reader to conclude that those usages are not referring to the whole country. I am open to other proposals on how to deal with this, but I certainly oppose outright removal. Rob984 (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Rob984 - Umm.... multiple previous discussions here (and on other pages) over several years have concluded, I believe, that there is a notable difference between the use of "Britain" - which is used officially as a short form for UK - and "Great Britain" - which is not used as an official short form for UK except in some specific sporting contexts, but is widely used unofficially in other countries. In other words, "Britain" is not "just an abbreviate form of "Great Britain"", they are used differently. It doesn't assist in resolving confusion by claiming that uses like Visit Britain (which covers Northern Ireland) are examples of the use of "Great Britain"!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Visit Britain (see the website) is an example of the term "Great Britain" being used interchangeable with "Britain". "Britain" is an abbreviate form of "Great Britain". Visit Britain, and the Britain is Great campaign, both use "Great Britain" as a brand name for the whole country. UK Trade & Investment using the term "Great Britain" is not exactly unofficial. Also officials in other country's referring to the country as "Great Britain"... unofficial? The overwhelming preference in the UK is not to refer to the country as "Great Britain", official or otherwise. Likewise, nobody refers to the country the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". I accept the Government intentionally avoids using the term "Great Britain", but I don't think the reasoning is as simple as it being considered incorrect. They have never felt the need to correct their American counter-parts. My guess is it is avoided as it is considered an archaism and now sounds overly patriotic. In the past, it was quite common for UK officials to refer to the country as "Great Britain". Rob984 (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
We have an article - Terminology of the British Isles - where all these issues were discussed at great length and, I thought, resolved a few years ago. At the very least, this article needs to be consistent with that article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see much on that article discussing this issue. Other than "'Great Britain' is sometimes used as a short form, and is the name used by the UK in some international organisations" and "The UK competes as Great Britain at the Olympic Games". Also I notice the apparent usage of "Great Britain" to refer England, Scotland and Wales, politically, is lacking reference. For the most part, this is referred to as "England, Scotland and Wales" (or similar), or even "Britain" (for example by the British Transport Police). Rob984 (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey ho..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I've changed "northwestern" to "north-western" per MOS:COMPASS. The outstanding question seems to be whether or not to leave the existing statement in parentheses, or to move it to a separate sentence (either as the immediately following sentence, or at the end of the paragraph). A sentence that would do that without changing the existing meaning would be something like: 'The name Great Britain is sometimes used informally to refer to the United Kingdom as a whole'. Other editors' views are welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there consensus about whether we should use sovereign state or sovereign country? I've just reverted a change to "sovereign nation", but was surprised to see "country" instead of "state". This seems to hae been the subject of some back-and-forth editing recently. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I've long since given up on this one. It's actually quite straight forward: a Nation can be used for the geo-political entity, but is based upon a tribal (in a very general sense) cohesion. The "tribe" of Mexicans live in Mexico, so Mexico can sensibly be defined as a nation. Consider though the tribe of the Apache, the Apache Nation does not define a sovereign area. A state is ultimately derived from the court of a monarch, and as such is a geopolitical area. Since petty kingdoms, principalities and dukedoms may be part of larger kingdoms or areas, there needs to be a distinguishing term for the top level - a sovereign state. A country is an area of land which in some usages (the country of France) may be co-terminate with a sovereign state, but in other cases (the north country) is not.
In the case of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the UK is a sovereign state. Within the state are the countries of England and Scotland. The principality of Wales and the Province of Northern Ireland may also be considered countries according to the speaker's viewpoint. The confusion occurs, I think, due to the history of the USA. The original states where severally founded as separate self-governing entities - so state is an appropriate term. When they united they formed the United States, which is a sovereign state. The US is a country both as a definable area of land and in the colloquial shorthand of country = sovereign state. In the case of the US it is useful to keep the country (sovereign state) of the US distinguished from the constituent states. Unfortunately people then take this model and try to apply it to the older UK.
As a final example, consider Imperial Spain. The sovereign state was the empire which included the countries of Spain and the Low Countries.
HTH, but I suspect any corrections will be undone in less than a midge's lifetime. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it is important to keep the article worded as currently. The UK is a sovereign country which is made up of four non sovereign countries. As we call those four parts countries, it is important this article make clear the UK is a country too. The current wording does that. I would not object to "sovereign country" pipelinking to the sovereign state article, but i think its important the word country is used there in this article to avoid the situation where some say "the UK is not a country it is a sovereign state" and reference wikipedia. ObserverUI (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The fact that you need to link to sovereign state does rather negate your argument! Why not keep the opening statement correct, but include a refernce to "the UK, as a country, ..." shortly thereafter. As for people saying "...is not a country it is a sovereign state", then we ought to aim to educate people out of ignorance, not pander to it. Regardless, this was an answer to Larry's question; due to persistent warring I'm having no part of the article. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The reason that I was surprised to see that the wording was country is that, to my ear, "sovereign country" is a rather unusual phrase - at least compared to "sovereign state" (which is not to say that I don't think it is a country!). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Your ear and brain both seem to be working! ;-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The recent edit description by someone changing it back to state said "UK is not a country", this demonstrates why the very first sentence really does need to be absolutely clear it is a country. It could perhaps just say "Is a country and sovereign state in western europe". It would be accurate, clear and properly cover both terms. Its a pretty short sentence anyway. But if it cannot have both, keep it as sovereign country. ObserverUI (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Both terms, "state" and "country", can be prefixed as "sovereign", since it's a widely recognised legal concept.
A sovereign country is a state, but a sovereign state isn't necessarily a country (for example, the Kingdom of Denmark, which contains three nominally separate countries). Therefore, "sovereign country" conveys more information: that the UK is both a sovereign state and country.
And a more informative term is preferred because the lead sentence should unambiguously define the topic. An American, looking for a country called "Britain", might have little idea if it is the island or the "sovereign state". The hat note is helpful, but only the lead sentence is shown in a search engine for example.
However, there are plenty of other opportunities to use the term "sovereign state". For example, we could change:
Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another sovereign country...
to:
Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another sovereign state...
And
With an area of 242,500 square kilometres (93,600 sq mi), the UK is the 78th-largest sovereign country in the world...
to:
With an area of 242,500 square kilometres (93,600 sq mi), the UK is the 78th-largest sovereign state in the world...
This would be preferable regardless, since like I mentioned, not all sovereign states are countries.
I struggle to see why we need to refer to the UK explicitly as "sovereign state" in the lead sentence, and I agree with others in that "country" is important here, since it is far broader then simply the legal concept of sovereign states.
Rob984 (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Good points and fully support those changes. Putting sovereign state with the Republic of Ireland line in particular certainly makes a lot of sense. ObserverUI (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone has altered the introduction and removed "sovereign country" again. This is against consensus, and the person has not engaged in debate on here about it. Please can it be reverted back until there is consensus for a change, as that previous wording has been stable until an hour ago. ObserverUI (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

No matter. it has now been corrected and changed back to the consensus version. Thanks. ObserverUI (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I missed some of the more recent discussion. It looked to me as if a stable, very long-term consensus for "sovereign state" was being changed without consensus. Closer examination doesn't do a lot to change my opinion. I don't see a consensus to change "sovereign state" to anything else.

My reading of the history is that "sovereign state" was the stable consensus for many years (more formally confirmed in 2013 but going back before that) until it was boldly changed to "country" on 3 November 2016. That was immediately reverted, and since then it has been unstable, without any clear consensus for anything else. I would suggest reverting to the long-term stable consensus "sovereign state" until we can establish a new consensus.

Do we have any serious contenders other than "sovereign state" and "sovereign country"? Who was/is actually in favour of changing "sovereign state" to "sovereign country"?

It appears to me that "sovereign country" is sometimes used, but not very often, and seldom in a defining or identifying manner (as in the first sentence of a Wikipedia article). It looks to me as if it is mainly used in persuasive speeches etc. in statements expressing a point of view, rather than in an identifying or defining legal sense.

If I search for "sovereign state" and "sovereign country" at un.org, I find

  • "sovereign state": 7450 Ghits
  • "sovereign country": 613 Ghits.

1. The Google Books ngram viewer shows that "... is a sovereign state" is by far the most common of the two:

This shows that (both in the UK and in the US)

  • "is a sovereign state"

is much more commonly used than

  • "is a sovereign country".

And this

  • "a sovereign state is"

is much more commonly used than

  • " a sovereign country is".

--Boson (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Should drop the term "sovereign" all together ..having this pre-word will lead many to believe it was not "sovereign" until recently. The word also dose not help anyone find out the form of government there is. Keep it simple for the lead is what we say for GA and FA articles (Canada, Australia)..or link a term that will help expanded understanding of the form of government ( Germany, United States). Linking Sovereign state does not help our readers understand anything about the UK.... nor does it help at Republic of Ireland...best not to link common terms in the lead..especially if it takes our readers to pages that dont even mention the article they just came from or expand the topic at hand larger then knowing that ever UN member is a Sovereign state....simply to broad to link or mention =WP:CONTEXTLINK, WP:LEADCLUTTER. Simply saying its a country (as the term "state" has multiple meanings) and leaving the more detailed term in the first sentence of the second paragraph would read better .....as of now terms are all over the place in the lead =sovereign country=sovereign state=four countries= developed country - all for places with the same stature. --Moxy (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The word "country" does not have a single, unambiguous, meaning - it has several different meanings, not all of which cover sovereignty The single word "state" also has several different meanings. The two words "sovereign state" are clear and unambiguous. There is no evidence that using the term "will lead many to believe it was not 'sovereign' until recently". Other states including Canada, Australia, the US and Germany have different constitutional arrangements, and the same issue does not apply. It is better to be clear and unambiguous by using the words "sovereign state" for the UK than to be unclear by using the word "country". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The article still refers to the UK as a sovereign state further down the introduction. But it is more important that the opening sentence refer to the UK as a sovereign country, there is clear misunderstanding from some people about what the UK is. It is a country, and a sovereign one. Unlike England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The current wording has been stable for some time, so i fail to see why it should be reverted back to sovereign state, which causes confusion. Some claim "oh the UK is a sovereign state, not a country". That is unacceptable, and the article first sentence must state the UK is a country. ObserverUI (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Look at the FAQs at the top of this page. the very first frequently asked question is.. "is the UK a country". The fact that is deemed necessary to be there, demonstrates exactly why the first sentence must be very clear on this. I do not object to "is a country and sovereign state", being in the first line. But to just say sovereign state and not country is extremely misleading and problematic. The current first sentence provides the most information, it clearly states the UK is both sovereign and a country. I dont see why we should provide less information by removing country from the first sentence. ObserverUI (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Yep, I agree, and I'll briefly reiterate what I stated in this discuss months ago (since many don't read past discussion). The lead should unambiguously define the topic. A reader looking for the country named "Britain" should be able to decipher this from the lead sentence, which might be confusing since we have another article talking about the island named "Great Britain". And indeed some islands are countries, but not sovereign states. And also, of course, the UK is much more then a legal entity under international law. Greenland and the UK are both first and foremost countries. And "sovereign" sufficiently explains the status under international law regardless. Rob984 (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify my opinion. I don't have a strong view about "sovereign state" as against "sovereign country". But, I agree that the word "sovereign" needs to be retained. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Regional languages

I don't understand the logic behind the ordering of regional languages in the infobox. Wouldn't it make more sense to rank them by number of speakers? Alfie Gandon (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your comment before making this change. The native names were ordered alphabetically, per the UK passport. Then a user moved Welsh to the top, presumably because they believe it is the second most spoken language in the UK, but left the others alphabetical. I have today changed it so that they are grouped by language family, as they are in the "Recognised regional languages" field. For one, the two should be consistent. But also, I think this looks better and is more informative, since languages of the same family are more similar to each other. Now when you look at the native names, you can see the similarities between English and Scots very clear, and likewise for the other language families.
An issue with listing them by number of speakers is that Scots is arguably not a distinct language from English. It has more speakers then Welsh, although Welsh may be considered the second most spoken language in the UK.
Rob984 (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, makes sense now. Alfie Gandon (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Economy of the United Kingdom

Would appreciate some eyes over there, with a certain issue surrounding a dubious Forbes article. I left a comment at WikiProject United Kingdom, but no luck so far - so leaving this here too. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

2 History/2.3 Since 1945/"brexit" referendum

Hello,

i'm not a wiki user, so i can not login;

i think that the actual section about the "brexit" referendum (In 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. As a result of this, Prime Minister David Cameron announced that he would resign; he was replaced by Theresa May.) can be better in this way:

In 2016 the United Kingdom Government made a non-binding referendum concerning about the fact if UK have to leave or to stay in the EU; about 52% voted to leave the European Union, but with a lot of differences in result across the whole UK. As a result of this, Prime Minister David Cameron - officially supporter of the remain-vote - announced that he would resign; he was replaced by Theresa May, and the management of the non-binding referendum result is now object of debate.

regards--37.180.41.59 (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

missing link

Am I blind ? - Well, I can't find any link to the important lemma "Commonwealth of Nations"--Jokergoestoscotland (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Try the last sentence of the introduction (fifth paragraph). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit request 27 January 2017: The English language is in fact "not quite" solely official (deemed and de facto by Common law) within the United Kingdom

Category I languages.
(Official throughout the United Kingdom.)

  • The British form of the English language (deemed and de facto official by Common law and by common usage, under the English Common law in England and Wales, the (Northern Ireland) "English" Common law in Northern Ireland and the (Scottish) "English" Common law in Scotland.)

Category II languages.
(Accorded official recognition by and under some legislation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in Westminster.)

Category III languages.
(Accorded some form of (limited) official recognition by and under some legislation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in Westminster.)

Category IV languages.
(Non-statutory, local and informal "official" recognition accorded, but otherwise with no official recognition.)

  • The Scots language (in Scotland only, by the (current) Scottish Government (the Scottish Ministers), under their Arts and Culture policies; but otherwise not recognised as such.)
  • The (revived but otherwise moribund) Cornish language (in Cornwall only, by the Cornish Language Office of Cornwall Council; but also otherwise not recognised as such.)

I think that the Infobox should be amended accordingly; e.g. it is clearly highly misleading to readers to suggest that the Scots language (in Scotland) and the Cornish language (with absolutely no disrespect to the Scots or to Cornish Cornish enthusiasts and revivalists!) both somehow have the same official status within the United Kingdom on par with e.g. the Welsh language, by simply listing all the non-English indigenous (pre-1564/1616) languages of the United Kingdom by simple alphabetical order...the former two clearly are not! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I see merit in your argument. We are currently using solely the UK's deceleration to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages to designate what is a recognised language, but I've noted before its an injustice to simply state Welsh as merely a "recognised language" when it is actually a co-official language in part of the UK. Part of the UK being officially bilingual is pretty significant I think. That said, you're categorisation is OR I'm guessing? I also don't think four sections is really necessary. Rob984 (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

EU(EC) Accession in Infobox

The UK is the only EU member state that does not have a mention of it's European Communities accession date in the infobox. I realise the UK will be leaving the European Union in the not too distant future but this does notchange the fact that the UK joined the EC in 1973. I propose that this is constitutionally significant fact is reinstated to the infobox. I also suggest that as a temporary solution, the UK's vote to leave the EU is also added to the infobox until such time that the UK has formally withdrawn from the Union and it is no longer governed by it's institutions or bound by it's treaties. 118.92.141.142 (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

the fact "UK's vote to leave the EU" is real only for people who not understand the difference between "government and mass media propaganda" vs. "real fact".--37.176.191.87 (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I do not get your point? I am saying that the UK leaving the EU does not change the past, nor does it change it's constitutional significance. I am saying that we should include EU/EC accession dates as well as the referendum result (and later withdrawal date in the constitutional timeline in the infobox. If devolution is to be included then so should entry and exit from the EU. PLease provide an argument against this point if you have one, asI can not see one in your above comment. 118.92.141.142 (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no need for including the date of the UK joining a continental community. Otherwise we'd need to do the same for Montserrat joining the Caribbean Community, South Africa joining the African Union or Rwanda joining the Commonwealth of Nations. It is a minor thing in the history of the nation and puts WP:UNDUE to the joining rather than participation. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
It was just as significant for the UK as it was for Spain, Republic of Ireland and the rest. It should be added to the infobox. Batternut (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, ideally we should either include this in the infobox for all EU members, or for none. I'm not sure that the comparison with the Caribbean Community, African Union and Commonwealth comparisons are entirely valid, as the EU is more highly integrated than any of those three organisations. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
"The UK is the only EU member state that does not have a mention of it's European Communities accession date in the infobox." ... "I propose that this is constitutionally significant fact is reinstated to the infobox." I think this is a good idea; but the data about "brexit" is not official in the same way, is more a mass-media fact than an question with istitutional meaning: a non-binding referendum, and that's all.--37.176.123.24 (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
.. .. just a new form of public-opinion poll/survey, in fact, the "institutional public-opinion poll": it's result is good for anything except for made a choice between two explained options; the next "institutional public-opinion poll" will be probably "do you think the earth is too much round?", and no one can suspect that if "yes" win, a very big cutter will do a less-round earth bypassing any right reason and any fundamental law --37.177.135.218 (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added "Joined the EEC ... 1 Jan 1973" to the infobox. I think the date of formal exit can be added (if and) when it happens. Batternut (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Or might be easier to just remove it altogether when the UK leaves, no sense in hanging an UNDUE redundancy about something that the UK once was a part of. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps depending on the manner of exit - in terms of formation of UK legislation we might just get an Act of Parliament saying more or less that all the old EEC/EU rules still apply until specifically replaced one by one for the foreseeable future. You're probably right though, and the History section will no doubt go on about being a member once upon a time. Batternut (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Religion

I've changed user:Anandmoorti's edit to the infobox. He is quoting the 2011 census but later surveys indicate that non-religious have overtaken Christian. See United_Kingdom#Religion for a brief and Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom#Surveys for a fuller discussion. To keep the infobox as a simple summary it needs to be neutral in a period of rapidly changing attitudes. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I personally support adding the data to the infobox. The census can be considered far more reliable. As for the high number of reported religious affiliations, my guess is participants feel like they should classify themselves into one of the categorise, even if they are not religious per se. To say your agnostic or atheist, is not the same as not practising a religion, so how the question is asked will greatly affect the results. I don't think if the 2011 census question was asked today, we would see a starkly different outcome. Marriages in Churches, Christmas services, etc. haven't seen a substantial drop for example. This affiliation we see in the census is slowly decreasing, and has been for a long time. And it is probably becoming more common for those non-practising to identify as agnostic. But as long as the data is dated so the reader can interpret it for what it is, I don't think there is a problem with its neutrality. You could argue the same for ethnicity, language, etc..
This change is not helpful in my view. The UK has not, since its formation in 1707, been a solely Christian country.
Rob984 (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Slightly different questions, posed by different organisations, will always give different results. Many people, for example, are likely to have had a broadly Christian cultural upbringing without retaining any religious beliefs in the sense usually understood (such as belief in a god). Best to stick to the census figures, with an explanation of the question asked (perhaps in a footnote) if necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I strongly in support of "census" data as they are far more accurate and reliable compared to other data.--Anandmoorti (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm putting reverting back to original edit. As consensus has been achieved that census data should be put.--Anandmoorti (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Better to go back to the original non-cluttered infobox (the figures are discussed in the article), but since Ghmyrtle is a Master Editor IV I wasn't going to continue the discussion. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@Rob984: @Ghmyrtle:, Guys pls let me know should I add religious figure in the infobox. If yes, which reference should I use, both of you stated UK census stats earlier. Could you please provide me the source of UK census url where breakdown of UK religious figures are given, I can't find the website. Thanks--Anandmoorti (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
In my view it's perfectly OK, and conventional, to use census figures, even if they are a few years out of date. Later surveys may well have asked the question in a different way, and are less reliable in any case (as the census has close to 100% coverage). But, any census figures included should be for the UK as a whole, not just England and Wales. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted this change as an over-simplification. Further discussion welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the point of adding a Religion parameter if you're not going to list a religion. The UK is a Christian country. We are not secular, we are not multi-faith, neither legally nor politically. It's very PC to just say "See religion".  — Calvin999 11:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure this has all been discussed before. It is misleading to state that "the UK is a Christian country", without further explanation. As correctly stated at Religion in the United Kingdom: "Religion in the United Kingdom and in the countries that preceded it has been dominated, for over 1,400 years, by various forms of Christianity.... According to the 2011 UK Census, Christianity is the major religion...". But also: "the relatively large number of individuals with nominal or no religious affiliations, has led commentators to variously describe the United Kingdom as a multi-faith and secularised society." Of course, if you have sources to challenge those statements, please do so. But, the position is not as clear-cut as justifying a bald statement in the infobox that the religion of the UK is "Christianity". Hence, it's best to guide readers to an article explaining the position. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Then surely every sovereign state article should have a more descriptive parameter? I get it with France, for example, because they have become secularized and have no state religion; instead that article has the % listed for each religion. The main religion is Christianity in the UK and it is perfectly legitimate to include it as such, perhaps with a bracketed note saying "See religion". Th UK government has never issued any bills stating non-secularism, multi-faith, however you want to phrase it, and thus not Christian. Our head of hate is also head of our church. Commentators stating what they think/believe is not a suitable alternative for a written act of parliament passed legally.  — Calvin999 12:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
(Even for a republican, it seems a bit harsh to refer to her as "head of hate"..??) Template:Infobox country does not seem to give clear guidance on this. The parameter is religion, not state religion, and in any case there is no established church in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. In the infobox, we need to balance accuracy with brevity. Stating "Religion: Christianity" is in my view misleadingly simplistic. One alternative is to link to the Religion in the United Kingdom article; another is to add a footnote; another is to omit the parameter entirely. Other views welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
"our church"?! This is not the England article and even there only a small minority are members, active or otherwise. (Nice Freudian slip too.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • *head of state, not hate. Duh. No established church in Scotland? Haven't you heard of the Church of Scotland? How is saying 'Christianity' simplistic? This is a Christian country and has been for hundreds of years. It seems very PC and 'aiming not to offend' by simplistically put 'See religion in the UK'. I don't see the point of having a Religion parameter is you're not going to put a religion there. Either include Christianity (because the UK doesn't adhere to any other religion on an official or majority scale) or just remove it altogether. England has Church of England and Scotland has Church of Scotland. It only seems natural and normal to include Christianity on United Kingdom.  — Calvin999 11:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The Church of Scotland is not established and is not a state church, though it is recognised as the national church. See this section. The existence of a parameter means it is available for use, not that it has to be used; unfortunately an empty parameter seems to some editors to be like a red rag to a bull. For some countries the state religion is highly significant, but in the UK the position is much more complex. "Christianity" can include everything from Roman Catholic to LDS Church, then there are the non-Christian religions which have significant numbers. Finally there is possibly the largest and growing group, those who have no religious adherence. You can't put that in an infobox which is designed for brief snap points. This whole issue has been debated at length and the best compromise is to point interested readers to a detailed discussion rather than a bunch of bland, debatable and misleading statistics. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Most country articles include %'s of religious groups, I'd rather see that than the current misleading and uninformative situation. If the parameter doesn't have to be used, then why use it if you're not going to use it properly. It doesn't have to be empty, you just don't include the parameter. The only religious group in the UK which has a significant adherence is Christianity. The rest are minority groups. But, of course, you are entitled to your opinion of what you believe is 'bland' debate.  — Calvin999 09:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
It is a misuse of language to state that: "The only religious group in the UK which has a significant adherence is Christianity." There is no simple solution to a complex issue, and, as Martin says, "the best compromise is to point interested readers to a detailed discussion." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
No it isn't. The article itself says that 2011 census stated that 71% of people adhered to Christianity, with the next group as Islam at 3%. 3% is not major in the slightest. Even if you take the 2015 national survey, 15% for all religions excluding Christianity at 42% is still not a major % for any individual groups within that 15%. What is wrong with including the 2011 census of %'s in the Info box, like so many, if not most, country articles do? At least that way the parameter would be being used properly. To counter your argument, the United Arab Emirates article has a Religion parameter stating Islam. Further down the article, it says that 77% of of their population adheres to Islam, with 12% adhering to Christianity, yet only Islam is mentioned in the Info box. I would agree with this, as the UAE is an Islamic country. But I'm using this as an example to show that two different concepts are being used for something which is the same. By your reasoning, Christianity is a significant religion in the UAE, as it has a higher proportion of Christians than we do of Muslims, though we both know that in reality, it is not significant at all.  — Calvin999 09:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
If you are now proposing that a short list of religions be included in the infobox, that is quite different from your initial edits that stated baldly and inaccurately: "Religion: Christianity". I'm open to discussing the inclusion of a short list with percentages, but you need to make a concrete suggestion. The 25 million plus UK residents who do not describe themselves as Christian need to be acknowledged in some way in the infobox here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I said that I don't see why Christianity (because that is accurate; this is not a Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Bhuddist, Sikh etc country) by itself couldn't be used, but if not I'd rather see a breakdown of the %'s so that the parameter is at least being used in some way of how it should be. That way, irreligious % can be included as well, like many other country articles include it too. Having it as "Religion: See religion in the UK" is not helpful and what the parameter is supposed to be used for. I am proposing options, not shutting them down.. The fact that you have ignored my example of the UAE shows that I am right to raise this as a concern because there is no consistency across country articles.  — Calvin999 09:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
If you wish to include percentages in the infobox, you need to come up with a proposal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

"Lesser degree"

In the first paragraph, after the lede section, the text reads:

"Although the United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country, England, Scotland, Wales, and to a lesser degree, Northern Ireland, are also regarded as countries, though they are not sovereign states."

I cannot see how Northern Ireland is, in any way, a country "to a lesser degree" than the other three. Northern Ireland has its own form of devolved governance like Scotland and Wales. Arguably, Wales could be described as a "country to a lesser degree" because it is a principality of England. Arguably, England could be described as a "country to a lesser degree" because it doesn't have any devolved parliament.

I suggest we remove the phrase "to a lesser degree" because of this and also because, frankly, it comes across as quite insulting. --24.182.92.247 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Being based in Virginia, I would suggest you apply yourself to reading the whole article and previous threads in this article before making uninformed suggestions here. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  19:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The point made seems quite informed and reasonable to me, but an alternative wording such as "... and, more contentiously, Northern Ireland.... " might be preferable. While there is (at least within the UK) widespread recognition that England, Scotland and Wales are countries, there is a strong strand of opinion that does not recognise NI in the same way, because of its very different history. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
It should be noted that the phrase "to a lesser degree" is not attached to the word "country" in the above sentence, but rather to the word "regarded"; it is a statement about prevalence of perception, not absolute status. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I like the idea of "more contentiously" given a separate legal system that seems better ----Snowded TALK 19:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
England, Scotland and Wales are not just regarded as countries, they are countries. And Northern Ireland isn't 'more contentiously' regarded as a country, as that implies England, Scotland and Wales are somewhat contentiously regarded as countries. Wikipedia has decided to describe England, Scotland and Wales as countries and they shouldn't be seen as somehow downgraded here. I'm not keen on 'to a lesser degree' either. Perhaps: "As a sovereign state, the United Kingdom is a country. England, Scotland and Wales are also countries, though they are not sovereign states. Northern Ireland is variously described as a country, province, region, or "part" of the United Kingdom, amongst other terms." (Northern Ireland phrase taken from its article, where it is referenced). Daicaregos (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Article name

  • Think everyone would agree that an encyclopedia needs a constant nomenclature, otherwise it requires some prior knowledge in order to navigate through – agreed? So let's bite this bullet once and for all:
WP is a multi national read encyclopedia and in order to be fit for purpose today, we should split from blindingly following Encyclopædia Britannica's now out dated lead on nomenclature. It may be all very well that WP has a policy to name articles by their common name but not when they obfuscate. The obvious route to bring WP up-to date is use the official names in full. Then the rest will naturally fall into place. I.e., >United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland< and >United States of America. < etc. --Aspro (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Does the post above relate to this thread? This would go against WP:COMMONNAME so better overturn that first before addressing this example. Mutt Lunker (talk)
Think you're unwittingly adding fuel to our fire for change. These are vernacular. I.e. regional, (not common) whilst WP is multi-national hence fall foul of Wikipedia:Systemic bias and mess up a coherent nomenclature. There is approx (at the last time of looking) about 3 million English speakers in North America, WP being multi national, one has to consider though the 2½ million in Europe that can read English WP, the 3 million of India and Pakistan that can read English WP... Don't know the population of Australasia is but there are several more million there and as for South America and Africa I have no idea – yet look at the edits of editors from theses locations to our articles. They are contributing as well. Just looking at a 1962 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica. Have it physically before me. In my very own sweaty hands. Vol 22 page 713 column two. Quote heading in caps as it appears: >UNITED STATES (OF AMERICA) < There. No confusion about turning to the wrong page and getting halfway through the intro before realising one has the wrong US or United Kingdom. Quite apart from being a encyclopedoa we are also a online computerized Document management system and we must remove bad practises that require the reader to complete extra unnecessary clicks before s/he can arrive at their desired destination. Organizing information properly is not rocket science. This is why we think we should bite the bullet and sort this issue out now, to make it easier to edit -without conflict from lesser informed editors.--Aspro (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
As has been suggested you need to raise your concerns about the article naming conventions at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Why is there any need to raise this issue there? As intimated and pointed out above, there is a difference between vernacular and the common. We just update the titles to the common recognized names. Which is the formal names, rather than the vernacular names used in small-talk in Pub's & bars, etc. In trade, industry and commerce the proper common nomenclature is used world-wide. (Gosh, wouldn’t it be embarrassing, if a USA arms manufacture suppled weapons to a member of a different United States ?!!). For anyone who has a UK passport, they know that the UK is not a country (unlike some are editors are trying to suggest), because on applying for a passport they have to state (in black and white) the country they where born in -and they learned that at school.--Aspro (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Because we use the common name for article titles and if you want to change that method then you need to raise it at a central discussion point rather than each article you have an issue with. I am sorry but your comment about passports doesnt make any sense. MilborneOne (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Just my point. We should keep to the common name and not the vernacular usage. WP doesn’t have anything about saying we have to adopt the vernacular, otherwise we will be stuck in the world that Charles Dodgson contrasted:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean.
If editors insist on the vernacular, then I say, we ought to rename Stairs in my local vernacular to Apples (Cockney: Apples and pears), (there are a lot of USA examples as well), then their is the polari vernacular as well. We on WP don't choose meanings and if you say your country of birth is the UK -I will just not believe you either. Don't we need to dispel this confusion by proper titling?--Aspro (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Sarcastic straw-man arguments like this do not contribute to the debate. Batternut (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the common usage term is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and is not "United Kingdom"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This link to a website may help to make things clearer. Project Britain, British Life and Culture by Mandy Barrow. What I'm suggesting is that as an encyclopedia we should make it clear. UK is the vernacular sort form and so should redirect to the official.--Aspro (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a self-published article on a school website, so I'm not sure how it changes anything. Hardly anyone uses the full, official name in either spoken or written English, so I don't see why we should use it over the far more common "United Kingdom". Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The article seems to me to be pretty clear on the distinction between the official name and common usage. One could discuss modifying the opening statement to Officially the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", commonly known as the United Kingdom.... But moving the article to the official name is not required. WP:Commonname rules. Batternut (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrong flag! That is the GREAT BRITTISH flag.

Greater emphasis on James the 1st of United Kingdom Art0hur0moh (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Changed your mind? Your edit of Flag of Great Britain in September 2014 said it was. Batternut (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Someone smoking funny stuff or has April Fools come early? The UK has never had a King James of any number. Aye sure the Union Flag of England and Scotland was invented during the 17th century and can be seen in paintings of James II despite having no official status. And aye sure a single united parliament was a dream of James I but never happened until the 18th century. But in no way at all were the Stuarts ever kings of the United Kingdom even if James I ascension was a union of two crowns. If Arthur is so sure of this extreme revisionist viewpoint then please by all means provide reliable academic evidence to back up their assertions. Mabuska (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

sovereign state, not country

Just wanting to reach some consensus on the first sentence of the article. Factually the United Kingdom is a sovereign state that is made up of countries and regions (England, Scotland, Wales, NI...). I think it would be best for this edit to be made, instead of saying "sovereign country". Although the UK's governance is set up as a unitary state, the UK is not factually a country. Trying to prevent an edit war from starting on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephscullion (talk • contribs) 15:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You really need to read the archive pages to find out how the current words were agreed on, what makes you think that the United Kingdom is not a country. MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
This was decided on the basis that people who don't understand the correct use of Sovereign state and Country would be confused. The more widely known US has 50 states within the country and it was thought that readers wouldn't be able to understand the difference between a state (US) and a sovereign state. The resulting edit war seemed to go on for ever, so don't let's reignite it please. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The term country and similar terms can all have different meanings, and should be clear in the context used. Lots of sources use the term country to refer to the UK, which makes it appropriate in this article. TFD (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
For years, I've been calling for the description country be used for the United kingdom & constituent countries be used for its 4 parts (England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland), but to no avail. Anyways: sovereign country, looks like a strange hybrid term. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
sovereign country is a consensus compromise between those who prefer the more informal country and those who prefer the precise legal term sovereign state. Having reached this compromise let's leave it be and WP:DROPTHESTICK. The nature of a compromise is that both sides may dislike it, but they dislike the middle position less than the risk of the other side "wining". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the UK is not a country, because it is comprised of four countries. The UK is a sovereign state.  — Calvin999 12:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who appear to be missing it, could the flogging of a dead horse aspect be highlighted more clearly with pertinent archive links please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
For a start, there's Talk:United Kingdom/Country, Kingdom or State Archive 1 and Talk:United Kingdom/Country, Kingdom or State Archive 2. The arguments have not changed since those discussions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
A few more for you:
Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
If we want to be pedantic, the United Kingdom is not a sovereign state, the sovereign is the state. TFD (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Why has "sovereign country" been removed from the article so that it now just states country. I thought the previous discussion highlighted the merits of showing it is a country and that it is sovereign. that was the compromise reached. and i see no consensus here for changing it. The articles of the parts of the UK all state they are countries too, that is why the article on the UK should clearly state it is a sovereign country. The unilateral change that took place 2 days ago should be reversed. When those demanding the article be altered because they refuse to accept the UK is a country, it demonstrates their own severe bias and flawed understanding of this topic. ObserverUI (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Sovereign country is a feeble hybrid term, which smacks of original research. We should be using country here & constituent countries for England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:ObserverUI. Whatever wording is chosen, I think there is a strong need to distinguish the vocabulary of "country" used in the UK (and in this article). "The UK is a country, made up of four countries." Isn't that more confusing to readers than distinguishing between "sovereign country" and "constituent countries"? I am open to other ways of doing this, but distinguishing between the two terms, and avoiding confusion, is very important. I say this as a UK-based editor who regularly communicates with people not familiar with the UK, having to explain our constitutional structure to them (and our relationship to Ireland), and having to find the right terms for this. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 14:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"The King's estate" is the King, advisers and assorted hangers-on. It is the origin of the word "state" – does anyone else remember writing essays on "Church & State" in history at school? Since it is possible for there to be petty kingdoms, principalities and dukedoms, the term "sovereign state" refers specifically to a political entity that is not subservient to another. Consider recent discussions(!) about a "European super-state". See sovereign state lead::A sovereign state is, in international law, a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state.
A country is a distinct area of land, originally from the latin for the landscape laid out in front of you. The term is used in a variety of ways. For the UK consider "the West Country" which has not been a sovereign state since Alfred the Great's time or the "Black country" which has clear borders, but has never been a state. US readers may care to consider phrases such as "Indian Country" (dated, I know), the "Big country" or "Coal country".
However, the term "Sovereign country" is one that has been devised for this page to try and stop edit warring. The use of "sovereign state" is unacceptable to some editors and we need to reach a compromise. If it helps, try to consider it as a portmanteau of "sovereign state/country" and let it lie. Can we all now WP:DROPTHESTICK and leave the lead along for, say 3 months to allow feelings to cool. To see if it helps I've added a hidden note to the page asking that all changes are discussed first. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Sovereign country is original research, a feeble hybrid term. If folks would agree to describe England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland as constituent countries (which means countries within a country), there'd be no opposition here about use country in this article's lead. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
As I'm sure you know, "sovereign country" is the longstanding consensus wording here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant, as it's clearly a hybrid original research term. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Not its not. The insistence that we must use the precise, legal term, for the UK, which is niche and not widely understood outside of the legal and diplomatic fields, is just bizarre. The UK is a country, first and foremost. It's what the vast majority of people would describe it as. However, the lead should unambiguously define the topic of the article. The UK's first level administration division is four countries, and in particular, one of those countries makes up the majority of the UK, and has the same capital. So evidently, we could do with clarifying that the UK is an independent country, in contrast to its constituent subdivisions which are also referred to as countries. "Sovereign" is an adjective. "Country" is a noun. Adjectives are used to describe nouns, who would have known? This is not forming a "hybrid 'original research' term", its straightforward use of English vocabulary. Would you like a source for the UK being sovereign? Would you like a source for the UK being a country? Also, Wikipedia is certainly not the first source to make use of this combination of a adjective and a noun [2]. Rob984 (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Call the UK a country & use the descriptive constituent country for England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. Why is there such a resistance to adding constituent for England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
They are all countries and the addition of one adjective to denote something about what type of country the UK is or a different adjective for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is arguably helpful, or superfluous; they are still all plain countries. The wording that was arrived upon by consensus is a compromise; your alternative adjective and its application to the other countries is an alternative but no better, also a compromise and arguably also superfluous and not commonly applied. Have we got better things to do? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
A unitary monarchy would've been an acceptable term as well. It's used in Norway's intro. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
very strange opening line on that Norway article by saying monarchy in that way. Though notice before it does say sovereign, (linking to sovereign state), unitary (linking to unitary state). so actually the norway article reinforces the approach taken on this page by saying "sovereign" and then something else. they for some reason focus on it being a unitary state / monarchy, rather than it being a country which is clearly the primary meaning. There is just no need for any change to this opening sentence on the UK page. ObserverUI (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone has changed the wording again, and this time inserted a message claiming it should not be changed.. That change had no consensus and i am reverting it back to the agreed consensus on this page which is that SOVEREIGN COUNTRY be used. ObserverUI (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This was the edit that without any debate changed the consensus wording and altered the note that it was not to be changed even though it clearly went against consensus as agreed on this talk page. [3] i have restored the previously agreed wording, and the note that was there previously. ObserverUI (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It's an interesting debate but not one I've been tempted to join up to now. However, recently I changed "Although the United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country, England, Scotland, Wales, and to a lesser degree, Northern Ireland, are also regarded as countries, though they are not sovereign states" to "Although the United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is described as a country, England, Scotland, Wales, and to a lesser degree, Northern Ireland, are also regarded as countries, though they are not sovereign states". My problem with the original wording is that it asserts that the UK "is a country", but England etc. are merely "regarded as countries", which flies in the face of their descriptions on their pages. I attempted to change this to what I regard as more neutral wording, but was reverted. I'm not really bothered by what term you eventually decide to use, but in my view the current wording isn't neutral. Alfie Gandon (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the wording of that section is reasonable in its current form. Not all countries are sovereign states, but all sovereign states are countries, so its important that it is stated the UK as a sovereign state is a country. And as some seem to claim the UK is not a country despite all reliable sources as have been discussed above its important the opening sentence says sovereign country (which is what the change someone else made altered previously). Thats the clear distinction between the UK and England, Wales Scotland and NI. ObserverUI (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
My edit concerns the Etymology section, not the lede. Alfie Gandon (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The etymology statement being discussed tries to make two points simultaneously, which is why it is troublesome. Point one is "country UK contains four other countries: England, Wales etc". Point two is "the UK is sovereign, the others are not". I suggest separating the points, eg
While the United Kingdom is described as a country, its constituents parts, England, Scotland, Wales and to a lesser degree Northern Ireland, are also regarded as countries. However, the United Kingdom is a sovereign state, while the four countries within are not.
How's that? Batternut (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Alfie Gandon (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Im not really sure the "is described as" is needed at all in that sentence, but i dont object to that wording proposed being used in that section if it helps bring about consensus on this. ObserverUI (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the suggested rewording clarifies matters - and, while we're at it, I'm not sure what being a country "to a lesser degree" means. As all sovereign states are countries, there's no need to say that the UK is a country, simply that it is a sovereign state. I'd suggest: "The United Kingdom is a sovereign state. England, Scotland, Wales, and often Northern Ireland, are also regarded as countries, though they are not sovereign states..." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the sentence does need to say the UK is a country still, otherwise it makes little sense to say "also regarded as countries" if the previous part makes no reference to the fact it is a country. Sadly some do not quite understand that a sovereign state is always a country. Its important that this matter is clarified as well as possible in the text, because it is certainly unique having a country made up of four countries. ObserverUI (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the current wording in the article is better than either of the alternatives suggested so far above and i really do not see the need to change it. it flows well and is clear within the section. ObserverUI (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
The phrase "regarded as" is quite unacceptable. It makes it sound as if this were some unofficial and inaccurate term. They are countries and have been so for around a thousand years. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Northern Ireland has existed for 95 years, and it's most often referred to as a province. So what is the official definition of 'country' anyway? Are South Ossetia, Transnistria and Abkhazia countries? I don't think country status is that cut-and-dried... Batternut (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
They are countries according to most definitions of the word. But, not according to all definitions - and especially not all definitions used outside the UK. We are a global encyclopedia, and hence I accept the need for some clarification. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Would save a lot of headaches, if we described the UK as a country & England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland as constituent countries. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

If you did that, it would immediately solve a lot of additional problems if you then described them all as being countries. People seem to have a problem with things being made up of things in the same class as themselves. If I have a piece of cake, and I divide it into two, I have two pieces of cake that together make up a piece of cake - it happens all the time! Any residual problem could be clarified by a footnote, as happens in similar situations and readers are expected to be able to read a bit.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Trigger of Article 50 today.

Are we still fully fledged members? Donald Tusk just said that the EU consists of 27 member states. But, he then said that all laws still apply. So are we are still in or now out? Of both?  — Calvin999 13:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

In, the UK still has 2 years of negotiations first before they actually leave in around 2019. -- AxG / ✉  13:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
And perhaps it should be pointed out that it could be "at least two years".  DDStretch  (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it needs to be clear in opening paragraphs that it has been triggered and that it means were are in the process of leaving. And it won't be at 'least' two years, you only get two years. It's only at the end of the two years that the PM can ask for more time, but as such, you don't. It is two years or less.  — Calvin999 18:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The possibility that more time could be available means that "at least" is correct. The fact that the time limit states two years without anything extra being asked for could be mentioned, but the possibility certainly means the limit becomes "at least" two years.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that there is a limit of two years unless all parties agree to extend it. In theory, it could be done within the time limit, in less than two years. Though in reality no-one expects that to happen, stating that it will take at least two years seems wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it could be less than two years, so at least is wrong. Article 50 says "... The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification...". As it stands, exit will be after 2 years unless some other event happens. Speculating on other events is crystal ball gazing, which we don't do. Batternut (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think people are missing out the "could be" in front of "at least", but, ok. I admit that I'm not winning this one, and I withdraw my point.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A lot of people think we'll crash out in 6 months but the time isn't really the point. None of the four opening paragraphs say that article 50 has been triggered and that were are leaving. It's a pretty important point.  — Calvin999 22:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
And some people think when push comes to shove it won't happen. All we have at the moment is the start of a negotiation process no more. Whatever it is not yet a major conditional event so that should not appear in the information box. If we leave then that is the event ----Snowded TALK 21:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The time is not the point here. The point is that triggering Article 50 is not in the lead of the article and it should be. No one said anything about the info box.  — Calvin999 22:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I've just reverted it (for the second time) from the information box on the basis explained above. As to the lede I am more neutral. If we are going to say something then it should be "On 29th March 2017 Britain invoked Article 50 to commence the exit process from the European Union. There is no value statement we can make about timescale ----Snowded TALK 22:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The penultimate sentence of the intro is currently: "However, on 23 June 2016, a national referendum on the UK's membership of the EU resulted in a 51.9% vote to exit." I suggest that the voting figures are now less important than the action currently being taken, and it should be changed to: "However, on 23 June 2016, a national referendum on the UK's membership of the EU resulted in a decision to leave, and its exit from the EU is currently being negotiated." Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Well in law the decision to invoke article 50 was made by Parliament following the referendum and a decision to leave is not made until it comes back to Parliament. I would say "following a a national referendum on the UK's membership of the EU]] and an Act of Parliament (reference) , and negotiatons on exit commenced in April 2017 ----Snowded TALK 05:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle's wording is better. No need to go on about the details, they should go into §Foreign relations. Batternut (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The UK is no different than other sovereign states, so list the UK as a "sovereign state".

Extended content
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Motivação

The wikilink that says sovereign country should instead say sovereign state, as it redirects to the "sovereign state" page anyway. It is unnecessary to say "sovereign country". "Sovereign state" is fine, as that is the actual title of the linked page. Nations of Nineteen Eighty-Four (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively above and there is consensus for the current wording in the article. The United Kingdom is unique in being made up of four countries, therefore there is an additional need to make clear that the United Kingdom is a sovereign country in the introduction of this article. Please read the above discussion for more. Strongly oppose any attempt to change the opening of this introduction which will lead to instability and more edit warring again. The fact this talk page at the very top includes a Frequently asked Question asking "Is the UK a country", demonstrates the need for the opening sentence to make that very clear. ObserverUI (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the UK is not a country by definition. It is a sovereign state made up of four constituent countries. The UK is a multi-nation state.  — Calvin999 15:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Can you provide any reliable sources to back up the claim the United Kingdom is not a country by definition? ObserverUI (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

British Overseas Territories

The British Overseas Territories should be displayed more prominently on the United Kingdom's wiki page. These territories do not form part of the United Kingdom but the territories are under the direct jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United Kingdom[1]. This is also the same of the Territories of the United States as they do not form part of the USA but are under the direct jurisdiction and sovereignty of the US. However, the Territories of the United States are displayed very prominently on their wiki page.

Arjan (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually the editors of the U.S. article decided that the territories are part of the U.S., hence their more prominent position. TFD (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "These territories do not form part of the United Kingdom." "The 14 British Overseas Territories (BOT) are territories under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United Kingdom" British Overseas Territories

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate and poor use of political terminology in a wikilink

Extended content
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Motivação

There are no other countries in the English Wikipedia listed in their leads as a "sovereign country". "Sovereign state" is fine, and there will be no redirect. Other countries in Europe, including Spain and Ukraine, are noted as merely sovereign states, not "sovereign countries" with redirects to the sovereign state" page. This use of political terminology is unnecessary and could be misleading. If free will exists, do I have less of it than others (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This has been extensively debated above in a number of different sections. There is consensus to use "sovereign country", this is a compromise between use of the term sovereign state, and the term country. Unlike every other country on the English wikipedia, the United Kingdom is a country made up of countries. The articles at England, Wales, and Scotland describe those entities as countries, it is their for essential this articles opening sentence refer to the UK both as sovereign and as a country. Sovereign country covers both. I strongly oppose any attempt to reword that opening sentence which will restart serious edit wars. ObserverUI (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Map of all UK territories

I'd like to propose the readdition of a map showing all of the UK's sovereign and claimed territory in dependencies to the infobox. This is the norm in all other countries with dependencies not forming part of the state (US, France, and Norway), as well as in the Kingdom of the Netherlands article. --RaviC (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Its just cluttering the infobox and the BOTs and Crown dependencies are not part of the United Kingdom and they have there own articles. MilborneOne (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree - it's a map of the entire territory claimed by a state. It is informative and isn't clutter in my view, at the very least, a second map works fine in the other country articles; notably the US article which is a WP:GA. --RaviC (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Pretty sure the crown dependencies are not "claimed by the state" refer to the related article, its up to other articles to clutter up infoboxes but I dont think we need it here it adds no value to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Disagree. These territories are not claimed by the United Kingdom, but by the Queen who administers them on the advice of the government of the United Kingdom. In the U.S. article, editors have determined that the territories are part of the United States. The "Kingdom of the Netherlands" is all the states under the Dutch crown, not to be confused with the article the "Netherlands," which is about the country in Europe. TFD (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Whilst you are correct about the crown dependencies, the overseas territories are indeed UK territory. The US, French and Norwegian articles clearly have maps showing territories not forming parts of the state : unincorporated territories in the US, Overseas collectivities of France, and Norway's dependencies. --RaviC (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
French territories are part of France, the UK's territories are not part of the UK. I agree they are not that relevant enough here. CMD (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The issue of whether or not the territories are UK territory was decided in ex parte Quark, Law Lords, 2005. TFD (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

AGREE: The UK's territories are not part of the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs) 17:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

They are territories under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United Kingdom. The British Overseas Territories therefore are, in any meaningful sense, part of the United Kingdom, and for this reason I support including a map of the British Overseas Territories in the infobox. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagree - it is a peripheral subject; the infobox should just contain key facts. Batternut (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Legal scholars and the Law Lords say they are not part of the UK. TFD (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The constitutional relationship between the British Overseas Territories and the United Kingdom is ambiguous, but I believe that what Lord Hoffmann and Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead were saying was that, although the government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is directed entirely by the FCO (Governor-General of the Falkland Islands), the decisions of the FCO could not be challenged as though they were the decisions of a UK government department. They are not part of the United Kingdom, no, they are clearly different jurisdictions. For the purposes of a Wikipedia article, nevertheless, I feel they ought to be treated the same way we treat the overseas territories of other countries, since their legal status is of no practical relevance to how they are governed. I think it would be difficult for you to say, as you appear to be, that the relationship between the UK and the British Overseas Territories is trivial, when the constitutions of those territories are acts of parliament. I doubt we'll have a sensible discussion about this, however, since the WP:CONSENSUS is essentially just a shouting match followed by a head-counting exercise, in which arguments ultimately don't matter. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
FYI: The following is wrong: "These territories are not claimed by the United Kingdom, but by the Queen who administers them on the advice of the government of the United Kingdom" L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
This same discussion has re-appeared repeatedly for years, and this is what none of you understand: None of the former British Empire was part of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom refers to the territories named in the Acts of Union. When people discover that the judgement in Regina v Secretary of State finds that the British Overseas Territories are "not part" of the United Kingdom, they assume this means that the territories are independent of the United Kingdom in some way, and make declarations such as "These territories are not claimed by the United Kingdom", which are incorrect. The United Kingdom has a peculiar history and legal tradition which other countries with overseas possessions do not have, which makes judgements like Regina v Secretary of State possible. This makes no difference at all as to the relevance of the British Overseas Territories to an article on the United Kingdom. If people want to insist that the territories are of "peripheral" importance (which is a different argument entirely), they will have to justify the non-inclusion of the map when every other article for every other country with overseas territories includes one in the infobox. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
FYI, I am merely saying what the Law Lords decided. "[The Order] makes plain that the Queen is the head of state and the source of authority in the state. Those who hold office locally do so during her pleasure and subject to her instructions and control. While instructions may be transmitted to the Commissioner by the Secretary of State he does so, in constitutional theory, as her mouthpiece or medium. He is passing on her instructions as Queen of SGSSI, not acting as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom." TFD (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The Law Lords did not decide that the United Kingdom has no claim to its overseas territories. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
In UK law, the Queen of the UK is the UK.[4] The Law Lords decided these are territories of the Queen of the SSGSI, not the Queen of the UK. TFD (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The language of "claiming" territory is irrelevant here. To suggest that the UK does not claim its overseas territories is incorrect, both for the reason that it cannot be true when parliament is the source of legislative authority for the territories, and the British state responsible for the defense and foreign relations of those territories, and also for the reason that it implies the territories are independent in some way. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are not part of the UK, but they are British Overseas Territories. As I said, this legal peculiarity is the consequence of the peculiar history and legal tradition of the United Kingdom. It is of no relevance to the way the territories are governed, which enjoy as much (and often less) self-government than the overseas territories of other countries, and has no implications for the significance of the territories, or for the significance of their relationship with the United Kingdom. For this reason, I do not believe that it is valid to argue that a map should be excluded from the infobox on the grounds that the territories are "not part" of the United Kingdom. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not your arguments are persuasive, they are not what legal experts have determined. I suggest you read the link I provided. I agree it is anomalous that in the modern world where states are recognized as legal persons, that in the UK, the legal person is the crown rather than the state. Hence laws of the SSGSI are proclaimed by the Queen in Parliament, British troops in the territories technically are under the command of the governor. TFD (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
My arguments correspond exactly with British law, and do not conflict with expert legal opinion (but your suggestion that the territories have nothing to do with the UK would appear to). Beyond your initial comment, I do not believe we disagree on the legal point. It is now for everyone here to address my main argument which concerns why the legal status of the territories should not matter. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Well even though they are not a part of the United Kingdom like they are in the French Republic, Gibraltar participated on the United Kingdom's referendum on the membership of the European Union, despite being technically incorporated into English results, therefore a vote Leave.

I think they should be added, because some, and to certain extents ALL of the United Kingdom's federal territories take part in referenda. Sure they have their own governments, but their local federal government can be overridden by any decision made by the United Kingdom, like in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Hiitsmebobby (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.83.32 (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom/Archive_30&oldid=1131534832"