Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 35
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 |
UK governance
|
I think the U.K would qualify as a confederation as there is a system of shared powers within the U.K The U.K has three "federal" branches Federal Government U.K Parliament U.K Government U.K Supreme Court U.K. Law (Reserved competences and shared competences such as tax) (They can technically legislate in any areas but there is a convention that the U.K. government won’t legislate in devolved competences) And has three National branches or / and regional branches for the different constituent counties of the U.K. (Devolved competences, shared competences such as tax) Devolved Parliament Devolved Executive Devolved Courts Devolved Laws ChefBear01 (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The UK is divided into four territories each with its own set of powers and the U.K. Supreme Court that interprets the law independently from government and parliament. ChefBear01 (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I put forward a genuine change that I think is right and provided sources to support it. ChefBear01 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
|
“Union state”
- @ChefBear01: I think it’s unclear what text you actually want changed: can you identify what you want modified and where it is in the article. And also what the inline citation supporting it would be. DeCausa (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- It is one word in the info box and the opening statement
unitary
- It is one word in the info box and the opening statement
- ChefBear01 (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- The term is used both in Parliament and in academic parlance. I am looking to see if there are more citations. ChefBear01 (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- To be fair, “union state”, in contrast to unitary state, does have some currency as a description of the UK (eg [8]) and I have found a number of academic articles referencing it. However, as far as I can tell it’s still a minority descriptor compared to “unitary state”. Have you read WP:UNDUE? You would need to show that it is the dominant description in reliable sources, which I don’t think it is. Do you have any evidence of that?
- ChefBear01, as a suggestion for future posts you may make on other topics, it would be far more effective if you had started this thread with what you said in your last two posts. It would have avoided this meandering discussion which wasn’t really related to improving the article. It’s best just to say that you want to change text x to y and here’s the source for it. DeCausa (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, my ranting probably added an extra 4 - 5 unnecessary posts if not more. ChefBear01 (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I too think the term is too unusual to use. BTW the former Province of Canada was also a union state, created by the Act of Union 1840. In practice, while the governorships and parliaments were merged, everything else remained separate. There were even two separate cabinets. TFD (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, my ranting probably added an extra 4 - 5 unnecessary posts if not more. ChefBear01 (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t see how the term union state is unusual to describe a union of four countries, I think it perfectly fits the description of the UK.
- possible text
The UK is a “union state” of four countries, with each having a form of self governance.
- I think that accurately describes the UK’s unique position as a union of countries with asymmetric self governance. The asymmetry in the UK has caused one part to evolve self governance in a different way to the the others. ChefBear01 (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- ChefBear, I think “unusual” refers to it being unusual in the reliable sources. You have to get away from arguing what you think is the “logical” position. You should by now know that all we do is reflect what’s said in reliable sources in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Please focus on that, not your personal view of what the answer should be (aka WP:OR). I acknowledge that “union state” is out there as an WP:RS concept for the UK - but what I’m not convinced by is that that is the mainstream RS description of the UK. You need to provide evidence that that is the case - not try to argue that we should accept it because you believe it is “true”. It’s only about the cumulative weight of reliable sources. DeCausa (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think that accurately describes the UK’s unique position as a union of countries with asymmetric self governance. The asymmetry in the UK has caused one part to evolve self governance in a different way to the the others. ChefBear01 (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- The only thing asymmetic about the UK, that I can see? is a lack of a devolved Parliament for England. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- That alone would make the union asymmetric. But also the delegated powers to Scotland, Wales and NI are all different. And England and Wales are part of England and Wales, while the other two territories are not, while Ni is part of Ireland with open borders to the Irish Republic. TFD (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- The only thing asymmetic about the UK, that I can see? is a lack of a devolved Parliament for England. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- We have 4 sources cited so far and more available to show the normal and common parlance of “union state”, and both the treaty and acts that created the U.K. use the term “union” showing that the term “union” was used long before the use of “unitary” ChefBear01 (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I think you might be right in that looking at the academic literature in the last 10 years, or certainly the last 5 years, does seem to have changed/is changing. There seems to be a consistent tendency to say that the UK should no longer straightforwardly be described as a unitary state - although there isn’t a consensus on how it should be alternatively described. Union state does come up quite a bit, however. DeCausa (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- There is more precedent within our sources as well as historical precedents to support the term Union is a more accurate descriptive, the UK would cease if there were no “union” it would be 4 individual countries and this supports the UK as a “union”. ChefBear01 (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- As the term has not (yet?) been widely adopted, would one possibility be to include a statement (with citations) along the lines of: "Some recent academic publications use the term "union state" to describe the UK's complex governmental arrangements" - while not changing the wording elsewhere? Alternatively, a reference to the use of the term could be included as a footnote. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I was thinking of leaving “unitary” in but with a footnote - following the dictum that WP is behind not ahead of the curve, given that this seems to be in the process of changing. I was perhaps thinking the footnote would say that the UK was increasingly seen as not being a purely a classical unitary state with union state given as an example of an emerging alternative description. Something like that. DeCausa (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- As the term has not (yet?) been widely adopted, would one possibility be to include a statement (with citations) along the lines of: "Some recent academic publications use the term "union state" to describe the UK's complex governmental arrangements" - while not changing the wording elsewhere? Alternatively, a reference to the use of the term could be included as a footnote. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, for now that would be the constructive way forward. ChefBear01 (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no need to change the wording in the introduction or infobox on this issue. The UK remains a unitary state despite devolution. Powers are devolved from the UK Parliament to devolved institutions, it remains a unitary state. The UK parliament retains those powers and is free to legislate on any matter, reserved or devolved as it sees fit. Its a unitary state as opposed to federal state or a confederacy. Considering the conversation above this one was an attempt to incorrectly suggest the UK is some sort of confederation, when there is no sourcing to back that up, this entire conversation seems unnecessary. The UK has been described as a unitary state for years on this article. Nothing has changed to justify a significant change in wording on this issue. Strongly oppose any change. RWB2020 (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I just want to add, It was suggested above that the article be changed to say "The UK is a “union state” of four countries, with each having a form of self governance." Anything along those lines would be totally unacceptable. The statement is factually inaccurate (and easily proven so), its not backed up by reliable sources, and its misleading and seriously misunderstands the constitutional status of the United Kingdom. There is clearly no justification for any change on these issues if that is the original basis for it and it would be undue weight to a small number of academic examples of the phrase being used to even make mention of it in the introduction. RWB2020 (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Note (again) England has no devolved government, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland have devolved governments. All of which, is by the will of the UK Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- The discussion regarding any kind of UK federation was closed and rejected WP:stick.
- This is a new discussion purely for discussion about the proposal of “union state”, no one wants to reopen the closed topic. ChefBear01 (talk15:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- @GoodDay:, There are more academic sources available, the 4 provided shows that this this term is in use in academic and parliaments parlance and has therefore entered mainstream use.
- @DeCausa: has suggested that an inline note be added next to term unitary and in the footnote and so far two other editors seem to agree generally with that idea, which lead the discussion to the exact wording of the note for now I think after discussing it a note next to the word unitary is what could be agreed upon. ChefBear01 (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The UK has according to recent academic publications been viewed as not being a purely a classical unitary state but as a union state which is given as an example of an emerging alternative description
- I have withdrawn this text as I have been corrected Ghmyrtle below. ChefBear01 (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- I suggested a wording earlier - "Some recent academic publications use the term "union state" to describe the UK's complex governmental arrangements" - with citations. I agree with DeCausa that it should be a footnote, rather than in the text itself. ChefBear01 - please preview your posts before putting up text that is both ungrammatical and incorrectly formatted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Ghmyrtle’s suggestion. ChefBear01 (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Given the academic sources ChefBear has given above, I'm inclined to support a footnote close to Ghmyrtle's wording. I think the Mitchell source is probably the strongest/most relevant in expertise, the McLean/McMillan source is more of a historic overview rather than an examination of the current constitution. I think the suggested footnote follows the sources reasonably well, as they describe the "union state" concept as rival to the more dominant (inferred by Keating: 217–218) "unitary state doctrine", but suggest neither is an adequate explanation by itself (Mitchell: 86). One point to note is that it isn't solely an academic term (it has been used by parliamentary select committees, Mitchell: 86–87), and I'm not sure where "recent" is appropriate either, as it seems to have had some use from the 1990s (and perhaps earlier, although it would've been heavily outweighed by references to "unitary state" as Keating discusses). Jr8825 • Talk 12:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I've done a bit of digging on this, and have literally found dozens of citations (constitutional law and political science academics) saying that the UK is no longer considered a traditional unitary state with most applying "union state" as the new description. I've given a smattering (18 citations) in the collapsed list below. It's definitely not WP:FRINGE and I would say that it's now possibly even the mainstream, with some of the most prominent academics in the field such as Vernon Bogdanor having advocated it.
The context was that it was a theory developed by a couple of Norwegians (Rokkan and Urwin 1983). This source gives a survey of it's development "Up until the 1970s, it had been common to conceptualise the UK as a unitary state. However, Rokkan and Urwin's specification of the UK as a case of a union state rather than a unitary state has been influential" Another says " Although the UK was a 'union-state' (Rokkan and Urwin 1983) the popular political conception of Britain as nothing less than a unitary state would not become openly challenged until the dawn of legislative devolution" and another even says “Until recently, the UK was seen as a unitary state but a new orthodoxy has emerged. Amongst others, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution described the UK as a union state rather than a unitary state in outlining the basic tenets of the constitution." So, it's the new orthodoxy. I therefore propose the following footnote to the word “unitary” in the infobox:
Although the United Kingdom has traditionally been seen as a unitary state, an alternative description of the UK as a “union state” has become influential and has been put forward by, amongst others, Vernon Bogdanor.[1] A union state is considered to differ from a unitary state in that while it maintains a central authority it also recognises the authority of historic rights and infrastructures of its component parts.[2][3]
References
- ^ Bradbury, Jonathan (2021). Constitutional Policy and Territorial Politics in the UK: Volume 1: Union and Devolution 1997-2012. Policy Press. pp. 19–20. ISBN 978-1-5292-0588-6.
- ^ Gagnon, Alain-G.; Tully, James (2001). Multinational Democracies. Cambridge University Press. p. 47. ISBN 978-0-521-80473-8.
- ^ Bogdanor, Vernon (1998). "Devolution: the Constitutional Aspects". In Beatson, Jack (ed.). Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom: Practice and Principles. Hart Publishing. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-901362-84-8.
I think the second sentence is necessary because we don’t yet have an article on the concept to link to - a gap for someone to fill! - so an explanation is needed.
Example “Union state”replacing “unitary state” citations
|
|---|
|
Comments please? DeCausa (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to shuffle through so many sources, I would be happy to create dedicated article on this topic given that I now have an extensive amount of information and sources to use.
- Is the consensus to still to continue as discussed above?, or given the amount of sources now presented does this now not show that is in dominant use more so than unitary.
- That would surely make it more appropriate giving the weight of the sources to change it. ChefBear01 (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- I am a little confused because while the UK is considered a union state because of the manner in which its constituent parts combined centuries ago, the description has become popular because of devolution, which occurred in the last few decades. Which makes it a union state? TFD (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think the theory rests on the historical union and strictly speaking devolution isn’t a determinant i.e. the Uk was a Union state prior to devolution because of the nature of the Treaty of Union settlement. It was first put forward in 1983, 15 years before devolution. However, my reading of it (but open to correction) is that devolution plays into it in 2 ways. Firstly, it’s considered an important modernisation rather than a creation of the concept - that’s what Vernon Bogdanor explicitly says. (Although I also read that his view was devolution has taken the Uk beyond Union state and on to “quasi-federal”.) Secondly, on a practical political level, devolution just made “union state” more understandable/obvious outside of academic circles and has helped to popularise it. DeCausa (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
The world is split basically into Unitary states and Federal states as Unitary State makes clear. It is very clear that the UK remains a unitary state, rather than a federal state. That is a fundamental and clear distinction. These are widely accepted and recognised terms, as reflected by the fact there is a whole article on it. I still do not see the justification for the use of a footnote with a flawed and ill-defined invented term such as "union state" to be added. It gives undue and unnecessary weight to a fringe term barely used, even if some believe the UK is moving towards being less of a unitary state than others. This risks moving to original research and also attempting to predict the future of what the UK may be moving towards. What even is a "Union State"? This seems to be an attempt to undermine the fact the UK is a sovereign state and country. I still see no reason at all to add another footnote. The current wording in the article says the "The United Kingdom is a unitary parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy." This is factually accurate and clear. The UK parliament is sovereign. Every action carried out by a devolved administration is using a power the UK parliament has chosen to devolve to it, and is free to revoke or overrule at any moment with a simple Act of Parliament. This is an important distinction, and its one of the reasons the UK is a unitary state, not a federal state or confederacy as someone was attempting to advocate earlier. RWB2020 (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- That’s a personal opinion. Let’s stick to analysing the WP:RS. What do you have on that, given the RS position I’ve set out above? DeCausa (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- There are a few academics that have used the term. I dont accept that makes it a fact the UK is a union state. And the only thing i can find about a so called union state on wikipedia is Union State this article which has a completely different meaning. Academics are free to express their opinion. If they make a political claim that the UK is not a unitary state, then they are incorrect and fail to understand the meaning of a Unitary state. Maybe they should probably read Unitary State. "union state" has no recognition, its a fringe academic view which certainly does not have widespread use, and its undue weight for it to appear in the introduction, even as a footnote. This whole debate started because someone was attempting to claim the UK was a confederacy, and then advocated wording that was easily proven false. It hardly gives this whole debate much credibility. RWB2020 (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Is the United Kingdom a unitary state? Based on clear recognised definitions and reliable sources, yes it is. So i fail to see the need for any clarification? This article does not have to list every single thing the UK has ever been described as by any academic. The introduction sentence in question is there to make clear the UK is a unitary parliamentary democracy (yes the UK parliament is sovereign, and its a unitary state not a federal system) and its a constitutional monarchy. We do not need to list every single term some academics have used to describe the UK and its constitutional and governance status. RWB2020 (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- ”Academics are free to express their opinion. If they make a political claim that the UK is not a unitary state, then they are incorrect and fail to understand the meaning of a Unitary state.” That’s just WP:OR - you want to ignore RS on the grounds it’s not “the truth”!!
- I don’t think your oversimplified binary position is reflective of the WP:RS. (and you’re not backing up your position with RS) It’s not every academic position that has to be described, but only those in proportion to their relative prominence. I’ve produced RS that says basically that in the world of constitutional theory “unitary state” as a concept for the UK is dated and has fallen/is falling out of favour because it is an oversimplification. There are dozens of scholarly works saying that “union state” is a better description. It’s actually quite difficult now to find a decent scholarly source from the last 20 years that says that despite the challenge the Uk is solely and best described as a “unitary state”. I know, I’ve looked because I started out researching this with the same assumption as you and found that my assumption was poorly founded. There are sources that do make that unequivocal assertion - a minority of academic ones and non-specialist and WP:TERTIARY sources. That’s why I’m not suggesting taking out “unitary state” or putting it on an equal footing with union state. I’m suggesting something quite modest: a footnote. I think anything less than that falls well short of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. DeCausa (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Given all the WP:TERTIARY sources that have been provided showing it’s common use, it would be difficult to show that it doesn’t pass the criteria for WP:NOTE. (23 citation in total if the new sources provided exclude those that were already provided)
- I agree with DeCausa, putting it in the footnote takes into account the weight of the citation provided. ChefBear01 (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ChefBear01: just so you're aware, these are secondary sources we're looking at, not tertiary ones. Also, notability only applies to overall topics, not to content within an article – the relevant policy is due/undue WP:WEIGHT, part of NPOV. Hope this helps, Jr8825 • Talk 11:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- I am still not convinced even a footnote is really necessary on this but based on the additional sources you have provided and the fact there seems to be majority support for the footnote suggestion, i accept the change. But its really important the footnote is worded in a way that does not give Union state equal weight to unitary state, and reflects the fact its mainly academic opinion believing it is a more appropriate term, rather than the term having any official endorsement by the UK Government. RWB2020 (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Is the United Kingdom a unitary state? Based on clear recognised definitions and reliable sources, yes it is. So i fail to see the need for any clarification? This article does not have to list every single thing the UK has ever been described as by any academic. The introduction sentence in question is there to make clear the UK is a unitary parliamentary democracy (yes the UK parliament is sovereign, and its a unitary state not a federal system) and its a constitutional monarchy. We do not need to list every single term some academics have used to describe the UK and its constitutional and governance status. RWB2020 (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Props to DeCausa for finding additional sources. I was a little hesitant about changes above as the 3 sources initially put forward seemed to be strong but I was unsure about the relative weight of the term. I think the extra sources help make the situation clearer. I support a footnote in the infobox as DeCausa suggests, as I too think we should be cautious about replacing "unitary" with "union state" as things stand – particularly as some of the sources aren't unequivocal about the term's accuracy. For example, Mitchell calls it "a new orthodoxy" (as quoted above) but says in the next sentence "this new orthodoxy now needs to be challenged"
.
I suggest a slightly modified version of DeCausa's proposal: Although the United Kingdom has traditionally been seen as a unitary state, an alternative description of the UK as a “union state”, put forward by, amongst others, Vernon Bogdanor,[1] has become increasingly influential since the adoption of devolution in the 1990s.[2] A union state is considered to differ from a unitary state in that while it maintains a central authority it also recognises the authority of historic rights and infrastructures of its component parts.[3][4]
Jr8825 • Talk 11:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Bradbury, Jonathan (2021). Constitutional Policy and Territorial Politics in the UK: Volume 1: Union and Devolution 1997-2012. Policy Press. pp. 19–20. ISBN 978-1-5292-0588-6.
- ^ Leith, Murray Stewart (2012). Political Discourse and National Identity in Scotland. Edinburgh University Press. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-7486-8862-3.
- ^ Gagnon, Alain-G.; Tully, James (2001). Multinational Democracies. Cambridge University Press. p. 47. ISBN 978-0-521-80473-8.
- ^ Bogdanor, Vernon (1998). "Devolution: the Constitutional Aspects". In Beatson, Jack (ed.). Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom: Practice and Principles. Hart Publishing. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-901362-84-8.
- Could we clarify what "increasingly influential" means by stating its within academic sources, or amongst academics? The sources using them are almost entirely academic opinions and having that clarification would be clearer about the status of the term and who is mainly using it. Apart from that, i think your proposed wording and DeCausa's original are fairly reasonable. I remain unconvinced a footnote is even needed, but i think the proposed wording is reasonable and is something i can support. RWB2020 (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's not just academic sources though, as mentioned above, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, "amongst others", has used the phrasing. Jr8825 • Talk 11:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Jr8825, just to confirm I’m happy with your revised wording. And yes, it isn’t just “academics” - it has currency amongst politicians. But that’s a curious criticism anyway. On a topic such as this that’s the highest quality WP:RS. “Increasingly influential”: can’t be qualified in that way because that’s not what the sources say generally and it’s not what the source cited for that statement says in particular. Btw, Mitchel does argue against the “Union State” but the reason for citing it is his assessment that that the Union state is the “new orthodoxy”. I would say the fact that he argues against what he regards as what is now the orthodoxy only strengthens that citation as evidence that it has replaced “unitary state” as the mainstream view! DeCausa (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's not just academic sources though, as mentioned above, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, "amongst others", has used the phrasing. Jr8825 • Talk 11:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Forgive me folks, if I'm loosing my cool. @ChefBear01: 'again', I had to fix your signing of your posts. Please stop putting a gap between your post & name & stop out-denting your name. At this point, either you're unable or unwilling to sign them correctly. Which is it? GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- As there doesn't seem to be any further comments I've gone ahead and added the footnote with the agreed wording to the inbox. DeCausa (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Capital of England
The lead says, "The United Kingdom consists of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.[22] Their capitals are London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, respectively. Other than England, the constituent countries have their own devolved governments, each with varying powers."
While there are sources for the capitals of the devolved countries, there are none that say London is the capital of England. I suggest that we find a source or delete this.
London of course was the capital of England and became the capital of England and Wales, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. But since England no longer exists as a political unit and does not have a devolved government, it makes no sense to say it has a capital. There was for example no capital of Wales until 1955, when the government selected Cardiff.
TFD (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that London be deleted from England's infobox, as its capital? GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- As has been debated to death England, Scotland etc are countries. It’s axiomatic that a country has a capital which is why Britannica’s article on England says: “In the early 19th century, England became the epicentre of a worldwide Industrial Revolution and soon the world’s most industrialized country…while London, the country’s capital, emerged as one of the world’s preeminent cities.” DeCausa (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- As I said above, the statement is ambiguous and anyway Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, "Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available." London of course was the capital of Great Britain and later the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland the early 19th century, and remains the capital of the UK although not Great Britain, because it no longer exists as a legal entity. As a lawyer in England and Wales, you would not use EB as a source for constitutional law. Please provide a source that you would use.
- There's also ambiguity about the term England since, per the Wales and Berwick Act 1746, England as a legal unit includes Wales. As I said above, an argument could be made that London is the capital of England and Wales, since it is a judicial division of the UK, the other two being Scotland and Northern Ireland. Each of the three has its own laws and courts of appeal. If you are a solicitor, you may belong to the Law Society of England and Wales.
- GoodDay, as I mentioned above, we are discussing this article.
- TFD (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I suggest the following re-wording: "The United Kingdom consists of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own devolved governments, each with varying powers, with capitals at Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, respectively." TFD (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- I’m opposed for the reasons expressed above and in the previous thread. Nevertheless, as TFD originally proposed I have no objection to removal of the sentence of “Their capitals are London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, respectively.” from the lead for the purposes of trimming. DeCausa (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- We can't deny that London is England's capital. That being said, I've no objections to deleting the sentence which comprises the constituent countries capitals. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I suppose if capital refer to the seat of government, then there is no capital of England as there is no government of England, just the government of the United Kingdom, therefore, it would not make sense to refer to it as such. Lolitart (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- That supposition is not necessarily true: Capital city. Bazza (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Ordering of names in the first sentence
I'm going to explain my reasoning for my edit here per WP:BRD. As far as I can tell, besides this article and the one for the United States (which I edited similar to this one), country names are listed in articles with the common name or names first and the official name second. I figure that considering this article and the one on the United States are outliers, it would make more sense to edit both to be in line with the order other countries have (and beginning the article with the WP:COMMONNAME). If there is a reason the official name is given before the common name in this instance and not for any other country (and I could list one per continent to prove this point), please let me know, because a cursory glance at talk page archives did not settle it for me. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- I can see the advantage to keeping the full name first in this case, as the full title immediately makes it clearer what the country consists of – particularly for readers who find the terms UK/GB/Britain etc. confusing. So I'm not keen on this change myself. Jr8825 • Talk 23:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t really see how it makes it clearer beyond the bit about Northern Ireland, and the name will still be at the top of the page and on the infobox (which is the immediate eye catcher that lays out what the country consists of anyway). Paragon Deku (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- There is reasonable ambiguity as to whether the term Britain includes NI. Therefore it is preferable in this case to include the official name. It could also be argued that United Kingdom is the official name shortened, not the common name, which is not quite the same. Britain is a common name; Holland is a common name, Russia was a common name in the days of the USSR. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note I am not arguing for the exclusion of the official name, just the ordering. Also, the United Kingdom (UK) is definitely a common name. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- There is reasonable ambiguity as to whether the term Britain includes NI. Therefore it is preferable in this case to include the official name. It could also be argued that United Kingdom is the official name shortened, not the common name, which is not quite the same. Britain is a common name; Holland is a common name, Russia was a common name in the days of the USSR. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t really see how it makes it clearer beyond the bit about Northern Ireland, and the name will still be at the top of the page and on the infobox (which is the immediate eye catcher that lays out what the country consists of anyway). Paragon Deku (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Putting the full name first makes clear to readers from the start that this article is not about the United Kingdom. Bazza (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- MOS:FIRST does seem to support Paragon Deku's point (which United Kingdom does conform to). MOS is guidance only, of course. But haven't read anything in this thread which really suggests it shouldn't be followed (for example, 'Northern Ireland' stays in the first sentence , just a few more places along - does that really alter clarity?) DeCausa (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's a case where the status quo ain't broke, and is better than the new version. The full title isn't just a rarely used label, as is the case for most countries (e.g. Federal Republic of Germany), because it defines what it's a united kingdom of, which is why I think it's slightly more useful to the reader than starting with "The United Kingdom, or Britain", as they can be confusing terms. I don't think the proposed change is wrong and my objection isn't especially strong, it's just unnecessary in my opinion. Jr8825 • Talk 14:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- I want to point out that if the reason for putting the full title first is so that it won’t be confused with the defunct UK, why do we have China listed first in its article before the People’s Republic of China when it could be confused with the Republic of China or the other republic of China? Why do we have Ethiopia listed before the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia when it could be confused for the Ethiopian Empire? I’m pretty sure most readers can jump to the very next bolded word and realize they’re on the article for the modern nation and its modern holdings rather than an older iteration with different holdings. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- MOS:FIRST does seem to support Paragon Deku's point (which United Kingdom does conform to). MOS is guidance only, of course. But haven't read anything in this thread which really suggests it shouldn't be followed (for example, 'Northern Ireland' stays in the first sentence , just a few more places along - does that really alter clarity?) DeCausa (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I would add that where it says the United Kingdom is a country this is wrong for the UK is a union of countries not a country, the UK is a sovereign state consisting of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is a very big difference because these words have meaning country vs state! Wrong terminology is misinformation and we should all endeavour to be as specific as possible especially on an educational platform/encyclopedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.4.35 (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- The UK is a country. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- How and why do you think the UK is a country? You can't have a country inside a country like some sort of matrix/inception film. So you also believe England does not exist? England died along with Scotland,Wales and Northern Ireland and became the United Kingdom then? I think a lot of English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish would disagree with you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8D21:7600:8C6E:2E8D:E38B:7DEB (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- What exactly are you proposing for the article's lead? GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- "You can't have a country inside a country". Yes, you can. The word "country" has many overlapping meanings, and this question has been discussed here many times before. You are unlikely to get a different answer from raising it again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- How and why do you think the UK is a country? You can't have a country inside a country like some sort of matrix/inception film. So you also believe England does not exist? England died along with Scotland,Wales and Northern Ireland and became the United Kingdom then? I think a lot of English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish would disagree with you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8D21:7600:8C6E:2E8D:E38B:7DEB (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I propose that sovereign country is replaced with sovereign state. I believe this is far more accurate. The reason I believe this is more accurate is because United Kingdom is a union of countries but it is also a sovereign State, unlike England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which are countries but not sovereign States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8D21:7600:8C6E:2E8D:E38B:7DEB (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose, as sovereign country was a hard fought compromise. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose, there has been a discussion and compromise to get to where it is now, and it is more likely to create confusion than create clarity as it is an overlapping terminology with multiple uses and meanings. For example: In the United States the meaning of a “state” is that of an internal part of the United States, however a “state” in the United Nations refers to the “sovereign counties” that are members of the UN. ChefBear01 (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Sionist
Sionist meaning 82.132.244.225 (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- "I can't answer him sir, I don't know what he's talking about". -- GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
What we have here, is a failure to communicate
Quite a few of @Umbreus:' edits have been reverted on this article. He's made no attempts to discuss his additions 'here' or on his own talkpage. Indeed, he's never communicated with anybody on Wikipedia, since he showed up in October 2018. Seeing as this article has been his latest interest, I think it's time he start acknowledging he's not the only person in the room. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation note
Twice @FJDEACKB: has attempted to change "country" to "sovereign state" in the article's disambiguation section. I've implemented a compromise, matching the article's intro, via changing "country" to "sovereign country". I hope FJDEACKB will accept that compromise or at least, join this discussion, rather then just 'revert'. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- "This article is about the sovereign state" is far better. Why? Because it is trying clarify ambiguity (the use of Great Britain). The word 'country is ambiguous. Therefore, its use here is not clarifying anything because ambiguity is trying to clarify ambiguity. Sovereign state is not ambiguous. In addition, the term sovereign country is not commonly used, if at all, and amounts to original research, unlike sovereign state which is widely used and widely understood. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I had no issue with the original wording
"this article is about the country"
(in layman's terms, the UK is a country and I think it's perfectly adequate to distinguish it from the geographic island). The original version is my preferred one. Neither do I have issue with FJDEACKB's changed wording"this article is about the sovereign state"
, if other editors feel it makes things clearer. However, I'm not keen on the compromise version, "sovereign country". I'd prefer we kept the original wording or accepted FJDEACKB's change, as I think they're both simpler/more familiar than the fudged compromise. There's no need to insert "sovereign" here (unless we're opting for the familiar, frequently used phrase "sovereign state") as it's simply distinguishing the political entity from a geographic one, I think it's better to keep that detail to the actual lead – the only purpose here is to make a distinction, not explain what the UK is precisely. Jr8825 • Talk 04:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
It is always a compromise between ambiguity and readability. Often the more technically accurate you are the less readable something becomes. The purpose of using more ambiguous language is that it is often more readable so in the end makes more sense. Given that sovereign state is not unreadable or complex, and it is infinitely more technically accurate the country, I see no reason why it shouldn’t be used. It is as clear in language and clearer in meaning. (I’m not trying to claim country is wholly wrong, simply too ambiguous, especially for a disambiguation section, in which it is possibly more important to be clear than in the body of the article). FJDEACKB (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- What “ambiguity”? This is classic WP:AINTBROKE. Country is technically correct (whatever that is supposed to mean in this context as is sovereign state. However, it makes no sense to replace one word with two so leave as is. DeCausa (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Can I have half a dozen of one and six of the other please. No need for any changes. Mabuska (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Also agree, Country is accurate and clear. There is no need for any change on this. RWB2020 (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- It might be accurate, but it's not clear. A couple of inches down the page, in the second paragraph, you can find "The United Kingdom consists of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." I know that "country" has several meanings in this article, and you all probably do as well, but some readers will not and it's incumbent on us (para 2) to make things as clear as we can. "Sovereign state" is what the hatnote is referring to, and is probably the least ambiguous term that ought to be used; particularly as Wikipedia seems to have settled on that in preference to "sovereign country". "Country" may well be "technically" correct, but, as its own article shows, it's ambiguous. Bazza (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Also agree, Country is accurate and clear. There is no need for any change on this. RWB2020 (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Can I have half a dozen of one and six of the other please. No need for any changes. Mabuska (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- The vast majority (all FA's) simple say country in the opening sentence with political structure in the third paragraph... be it a partially recognized state, independent state, a dictatorship, a monarchy etc.. This is done to simply state a fact in the first sentence with further explanation later but still in the lead. Problem we have is how words are perceived differently by different peoples even English speaking countries. Good example is the UK and Australia that says "sovereign country". To many other English-speaking nations the addition of the qualifier "sovereign" implies it wasn't sovereign before or has recently become sovereign.....that i assume is supposed to have the opposite intent .Moxy-
16:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- The compromise for 'this' article, came about because of the refusal to describe England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland as constituent countries to help defuse any confusion. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- CLUNK! Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- I understand why.... but it's a disservice to our readers by making it even more complicated...... thus less understandable that I assume again is the opposite intent. Further in the lead is where this should be explained.... As its clear that we need more than one word to explain the situation..... especially when the one piped linked word goes to the wrong article.Moxy- 17:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Why not normal ? Why not regurgitate the sources most seen?[1][2]Moxy- 16:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yep. “Sovereign” is unnecessary. DeCausa (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose any attempt to change the first sentence of this article which has been relatively stable for some years since the reasonable compromise was reached. "Sovereign country" is accurate and necessary, and it covers both the fact the United Kingdom is a country and sovereign, which distinguishes it from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland which are countries but not sovereign. Any attempt to change the UK being described as a sovereign country would have to lead to changes to how England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are described across many wikipedia articles. Any change will cause huge amounts of unnecessary instability. RWB2020 (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yep. “Sovereign” is unnecessary. DeCausa (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- The compromise for 'this' article, came about because of the refusal to describe England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland as constituent countries to help defuse any confusion. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
My recommendation on how to avoid the confusion, isn't going to be adopted. So, do whatever ya'll think is best. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- So stop opportunistically harping on about it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Would changing it to "kingdom", be acceptable? GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ "United Kingdom". The Commonwealth. August 15, 2013.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) is an island country that sits north-west of mainland Europe. It is made up of mainland Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) and the northern part of the island of Ireland (Northern Ireland). It has numerous smaller islands.
- ^ "United Kingdom | History, Population, Map, Flag, Capital, & Facts | Britannica". www.britannica.com.
United Kingdom, island country located off the northwestern coast of mainland Europe. The United Kingdom comprises the whole of the island of Great Britain—which contains England, Wales, and Scotland—as well as the northern portion of the island of Ireland.
RfC on use of quote in British nationality law article introduction
Editors of this article might be interested in an RfC taking place at Talk:British nationality law#rfc E6F0D24. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Interest rate rise for UK needs updating
Interest rate rise for UK needs updating 82.10.136.118 (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Why? We don’t state what the Bank of England base rate is in the article (and why would we per WP:NOTNEWS?) so nothing needs “updating”. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The United Kingdom has/is
Excluding the first sentence, six lead sentences begin with this phrase, including 5 of the 6 lead paragraphs. Can we think of some alternatives to avoid this unappealing repetition? Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- The introduction is stable, i think we should just keep the current wording. Trying to change the opening of these sentences may result in needing to reshape entire sentences and paragraphs. Its not repetitive enough to justify that. RWB2020 (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Literature subsection
In paragraph four of the Literature subsection, Iain Banks is referred to as a "psychological horror-comedy" author, while he seems to be most well known for his science fiction. I do not feel informed enough to make the edit, but I think his description should be as a science fiction author not a horror author. Theldir Essiviar (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t think that’s true. He’s probably known equally for both (per how the British Council summarise him) although I’d say The Wasp Factory and The Crow Road are his best known books as headlined in his Guardian obit. The Scottish and Welsh paragraphs in that section are overly and unnecessarily wordy - each writer doesn’t need a little summary - and this is one of the perils of doing that. Everyone’s got a slightly different take on the author in question. DeCausa (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. I have boldly culled some of the wordy off-topic text. The article does not state he was a "psychological horror-comedy" author, but that his work in that genre offers a "...more grim outlook". He used similar but separate names for each main genre, and was successful in both. I prefer his sci-fi stuff, but the two DeCausa mentions are worth a go. Bazza (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- That’s an improvement. That section is little strange anyway. We have fairly lengthy (too long?) lists for Scottish and Welsh writers, but what I take to be the “English” paragraph (the 2nd one), we curiously only have Shakespeare and Agatha Christie! Kate Roberts is more noteworthy than Chaucer apparently. DeCausa (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. I have boldly culled some of the wordy off-topic text. The article does not state he was a "psychological horror-comedy" author, but that his work in that genre offers a "...more grim outlook". He used similar but separate names for each main genre, and was successful in both. I prefer his sci-fi stuff, but the two DeCausa mentions are worth a go. Bazza (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2022
 | This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The UK is not in Europe they left the European Union The UK is classed as a Country in Britain 92.7.142.83 (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Not done: Just..... They're still in Europe. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm quite certain there's no possible way to move the UK out of Europe. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
All kinds of wrong
How can it be claimed that a political union is sovereign, or a country. Why not call it what it is, a temporary financial agreement? 82.47.254.143 (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Wrong information
Very odd that this page refers to the UKs as a country!? 82.47.254.143 (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022
| This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the etymology and terminology section of the article, they describe the "Kingdom of Ireland", as the "kingdom of Ireland" with a lowercase which is a grammatical error, please fix this. ObliviousRetard (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- It could be either, much as "kingdom of Great Britain" is used earlier in the same section. I've reworded the particular sentence you refer to bypass the conundrum. Bazza (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
this is uk (united kingdom)/this is usa (united states)
i see united kingdom /europe nation (europe uinon) how to make united staes the united kingdom of new contries u south europe as north europe (northwest / northern / southwest / southern... 2A02:9B0:4B:B79C:4107:B1C2:B1DB:73E5 (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2022
| This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change:
"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain,[note 1][19] is a sovereign country in north-western Europe"
To:
"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain,[note 1][19] is a sovereign union of four nations (England, Scotland Wales [Great Britain] and Northern Ireland) in north-western Europe" 2A02:C7E:2C06:C900:F8A0:F0C7:180B:FEB6 (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2022
| This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
List Of Sylheti Hip-Hop Band
Mahin 31 (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not done: Don't think a list of subgenre bands should be here. Definitely don't think a bunch of redlinks should be added Cannolis (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2022
| This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the Music header, please change "After moving to London under the reign of Qeen Anne" to "After moving to London under the reign of Queen Anne" 75.134.148.236 (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Why does UKIA link here?
"United Kingdom Intersex Association"? What is the relevance? Equinox ◑ 21:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- UKIA doesn't exist. Did you mean UKia? (I don't know the answer to your question.) -- Dr Greg talk 22:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- The article-in-question was created by an editor who hasn't been around since 2003. IMHO, instead of it being re-directed at all, it should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Rape prosecution rates and highest ever recorded number of rapes
user:DeCausa Hi, you reverted my edit (22:25, 22 December 2021) on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS. However, the news articles in question are analytical in nature, based on government reports, and are not 'first-hand news reports on breaking stories'. The only possible exception may be an article which reports on a government ministers speech. I would like to keep the information on the page so please let me know what you think. RickyBennison (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- The article is meant to be an overview of the country with key information only. Detail, particularly recent statistics etc should go into satellite articles. One of the problems with this article is that there’s been a lot of bloat over the years as editors add recent items that seem important at the moment. This is also true of that section and that paragraph. That isn’t the place to add detail such as rape statistics/data for 2019 or 2021. (Hence, NOTNEWS) I would suggest that better home(s) may be Crime in the United Kingdom, Crime statistics in the United Kingdom, Sexual offences in the United Kingdom, Law enforcement in the United Kingdom or Crown Prosecution Service#Controversy. DeCausa (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with DeCausa. Readers are going to be looking for an overall summary of key facts in country articles; this kind of detail is best placed in an article with a narrower scope. Jr8825 • Talk 17:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- I agree also with DeCausa.....as per WP:DETAIL.Moxy- 18:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- The criminal justice system has struggled to cope with the crime of rape for years, and arguably decades. It is a systemic failing, as admitted to by the Lord Chancellor.[9] It is impossible to understand the state of the modern criminal justice system in the UK without understanding that it has an atrocious record in terms of dealing with rape. It is essential information. In terms of the article providing a strictly confined general overview, there are far more tangential details mentioned on the page. There is no reason why there should be an article bias which excludes rape statistics being mentioned, especially not when they so obviously highlight the state of the criminal justice system in the UK. RickyBennison (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- This article is not dedicated to understanding the state of the modern criminal justice system in the UK. There are certainly many tangential items in this article, but that is not a reason to add more. If there are reliable secondary sources discussing the UK justice system that afford high-level prominence to any particular topic, that is a stronger source case than news reports. CMD (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- RickyBenson, that’s not what the text you wanted to add was about. Your text was about the deterioration in rape convictions 2019-21 because of budgetary cuts. There was nothing about systemic failings, or struggling with rape convictions for decades, or that it highlighted the state of the criminal justice system in the UK. And indeed if you had added that sort of text with those sources it would be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. More generally, yes there are more tangential details in the article - and as I said above, there is a problem with editors adding what they think is the latest hot topic to this article, severely bloating it. But that’s not a reason to add to that bloat - that’s a reason to take out those other tangental detals. The only other crime statistics in that paragraph relate to murder: I wouldn’y have a problem takeing that out for instance. DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- I will find some of the government sources which the articles are based on. Although I do not think there is anything wrong with using the articles. Also the information was very concisely stated. Anyone who understands the state of current UK policing, knows that due to its failings that violence against women and girls (which usually incorporates rape in its definition) has become a main strategic priority. The rape statistics are not bloat facts, but fundamentally represent the state of the UK justice system and its ability to cope in the modern day. It is essential information.RickyBennison (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- All well and good, but what you want to write about is not appropriate for this high-level article about a country. There is not room for such specific information about everything people might want to add about policing, geography, transport, the media, history, government, money, science, culture, ... You should, instead, be doing this at Law of the United Kingdom, or Policing in the United Kingdom, or some other more appropriate and detailed article for the topic which interests you. Remember that, as the first of those articles states, the UK has four legal systems and you should be careful to ensure that whatever sources you use are applicable to each. Bazza (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- I will find some of the government sources which the articles are based on. Although I do not think there is anything wrong with using the articles. Also the information was very concisely stated. Anyone who understands the state of current UK policing, knows that due to its failings that violence against women and girls (which usually incorporates rape in its definition) has become a main strategic priority. The rape statistics are not bloat facts, but fundamentally represent the state of the UK justice system and its ability to cope in the modern day. It is essential information.RickyBennison (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- The criminal justice system has struggled to cope with the crime of rape for years, and arguably decades. It is a systemic failing, as admitted to by the Lord Chancellor.[9] It is impossible to understand the state of the modern criminal justice system in the UK without understanding that it has an atrocious record in terms of dealing with rape. It is essential information. In terms of the article providing a strictly confined general overview, there are far more tangential details mentioned on the page. There is no reason why there should be an article bias which excludes rape statistics being mentioned, especially not when they so obviously highlight the state of the criminal justice system in the UK. RickyBennison (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
"Kingdom of Britain" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kingdom of Britain and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#Kingdom of Britain until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Balkovec (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
"Realm of Great Britain" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Realm of Great Britain and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#Realm of Great Britain until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Balkovec (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
"Realm of Britain" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Realm of Britain and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#Realm of Britain until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Balkovec (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
"Great Britain (country)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Great Britain (country) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#Great Britain (country) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Balkovec (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Post-war composers
The list of post-war composers is tricky, and it's hard to judge notability. Some are DBE/KBE; there are not many women; the four nations are not all represented proportionally. The number of post-war composers has not changed much; Sir Richard Rodney Bennett has been added; and Sir Harrison Birtwhistle died on 18 April. The only women are Judith Weir and Thea Musgrave. user:Moxy should explain why they have tagged post-war composers. Mathsci (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Some sort of sources that explain why these people should have minni bios here with sound file? Seems like a push to add your preferred era of music.. WP:UNDUE =OR is this the Winston Churchill of music (note no bio on Winston Churchill here) After moving to London under the reign of Queen Anne, George Frideric Handel became a naturalised British citizen in 1727, when he composed the anthem Zadok the Priest for the coronation of George II; it became the traditional ceremonial music for anointing all future monarchs. Many of Handel's best-known works, such as Messiah, were written in the English languag--Moxy- 04:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Moxy: the header is for post-war (classical) composers, as the header shows. The tag states "overlong lists of composers". There is a single sentence: "From the post-war generation, Sir Peter Maxwell Davies†, Sir Malcolm Arnold†, Sir Richard Rodney Bennett†, Sir Harrison Birtwistle†, John Rutter CBE, Sir John Tavener†, Alun Hoddinott† CBE, Thea Musgrave CBE, Judith Weir CBE, Sir James MacMillan, Mark-Anthony Turnage CBE, Sir George Benjamin, Thomas Adès CBE and Paul Mealor have been amongst the foremost composers." Some are English, Scottish, Welsh, but so far none from Northern Ireland. Mathsci (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yup multiple editors have multiple problems with the additions. Moxy- 05:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Moxy: this is a section where you can comment on "post-war (classical) composers", i.e. the period 1945–2022. Mathsci (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I added the "overlong list" header, and it's for the entire "Music" section, not just post-war (classical) composers. (I have generalised the header to make it clearer.) The lists (plural)are inappropriate detail for an already-long article about a country. They make the section difficult to read. There's no indication why their members in particular have been chosen, and there's likely better articles for them to be properly described (such as Music in the United Kingdom). (There are other sections of the article where the same could be applied, but the "Music" section is, by quite a way, the longest of them.) Bazza (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Bazza. Such lists do not meet WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and as a broader point inform the reader of very little. CMD (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I added the "overlong list" header, and it's for the entire "Music" section, not just post-war (classical) composers. (I have generalised the header to make it clearer.) The lists (plural)are inappropriate detail for an already-long article about a country. They make the section difficult to read. There's no indication why their members in particular have been chosen, and there's likely better articles for them to be properly described (such as Music in the United Kingdom). (There are other sections of the article where the same could be applied, but the "Music" section is, by quite a way, the longest of them.) Bazza (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Moxy: this is a section where you can comment on "post-war (classical) composers", i.e. the period 1945–2022. Mathsci (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yup multiple editors have multiple problems with the additions. Moxy-
- @Moxy: the header is for post-war (classical) composers, as the header shows. The tag states "overlong lists of composers". There is a single sentence: "From the post-war generation, Sir Peter Maxwell Davies†, Sir Malcolm Arnold†, Sir Richard Rodney Bennett†, Sir Harrison Birtwistle†, John Rutter CBE, Sir John Tavener†, Alun Hoddinott† CBE, Thea Musgrave CBE, Judith Weir CBE, Sir James MacMillan, Mark-Anthony Turnage CBE, Sir George Benjamin, Thomas Adès CBE and Paul Mealor have been amongst the foremost composers." Some are English, Scottish, Welsh, but so far none from Northern Ireland. Mathsci (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Lists will always be a problem, as the entries are arbitrary. The two paragraphs for pop music and particular pop artists are also possibly a bit indigestible.
In general Grove is a good source: for post-war classical music, only Peter Maxwell Davies and Harrison Birtwhistle are mentioned by Grove, with specific operas. Music in the United Kingdom has similar unsourced lists, with entries like Julian Anderson; the timeline has gaps. Grove accurately states that, except for G&S comic operas, many classical composers have been regarded as "outsiders", eg Ethel Smyth.
The literature section has omissions for poetry, drama and novels: presumably it has been thought that it's enough to add portraits of Shakespeare and Dickens .
For Europe (where CMD have common editing experience), lists are not useful. On some other wikis, however, they are popular, e.g. fr:Musique française. Chacun à son goût. Mathsci (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- So no sources to explain why there's mini bios or a giant list of people correct? Will give a few days for some sources...if non will redo section with current sources available to actually discuss relevant information like position in World economy.... historically patriotic music... and legislation...like FA level article Canada#Music. Moxy- 23:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment Not at all. I'm in a differenent timezone, and normally would be asleep. User:Graham87 is an expert on audio files; he changed the ogg file for "Zadok the Priest" to an oga file. The commments here apply to several other editors who have added contentl some of that content had become disjointed (Handel vs Lloyd Weber). I have not understood the very random comments about Winston Churchill, which have no relevance to United Kingdom#Music; nor the assumptions about "era in music". But in general I have looked at the following:
- for classical music in the UK or the British Isles, the main references are Grove Online (for which I use a university proxy). They are organiised according to the 4 nations, i.e. England {i}, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (the island + Belfast); in addition, there are articles on Great Britain [Opera] and Military Music [Ceremonial Music]. It's easy to check that each of the named composers above has lengthy biographies and lists of musical works; composers missed include George Butterworth, Frederick Delius and Oliver Knussen.
- the BBC lists alphabetically the 50 most famous composers, irrespective of nationality, with 5 compositions for each.[10] 9 British composers are listed (Britten, Byrd, Elgar, Gibbons, Handel, Holst, Purcell, Tallis, Vaughan Williams). There are also listings for "Desert Island Discs". For educational purposes (lockdown for schoolchildren), the BBC picked 4 contemporary composers to discuss: Benjamin Britten, Malcolm Arnold, Peter Maxwell Davies and John Taverner. For Britten, Purcell's Rondeau for the dance suite from Abdelazer was chosen (The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra).[11]
- otherwise for contemporary composers there's Andrew Palmer's 2015 "Encounters with British Composers", with just under 40 contributions; Palmer's book was inspired by a previous book of Murray Schafer, "British Composers in Interview". Other sources are Peter Holman's survey of British music from 1690 to 1914.
For the US, I'm not sure whether Samuel Barber, Morton Gould, Steve Reich, John Adams and Philip Glass are mentioned. On Grove Online, there are short descriptive sentences describing Tudor Music, the creation of an English rustic tradition in the late 17th century and then a renewal two centuries later with a reurn to folk music and nature, with Elgar, Vaughan Williams, et al; British opera and oratorioshad a renaissance in the 20th century. Mathsci (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really want to get involved here, except to say that All I did at Zadok the Priest was a semi-automated change of the filename, and the music section is indeed probably excessive (especially the post-war composers) for a very high-level country article. Graham87 07:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you've understood the reason for my applying the "overlong lists" header. It's not because I doubt the validity of the lists' contents (as you have provided three examples of similar ones from reliable sources). It is because I do not think they belong in such detail in this article about the United Kingdom because they make the prose difficult to read, and stray towards WP:OFFTOPIC. It seems that other editors agree with me. Moxy's suggestion to wait a while for you and other contributors to support retaining these lists in this article is reasonable. If there is consensus to retain them, then a note might be added to the "Music" section pointing to this discussion; otherwise they should be removed and replaced with more generalised wording and links to the appropriate in-depth UK-music articles. Bazza (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm quite surprised Music of the United Kingdom isn't in better shape. CMD (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Music of the United Kingdom is not in a good state: wikipedia is not a source, while the five Grove Online entries are reliable. Entries for the Victorian/Edwardian era have remained reasonably stable. Film music and musicals are in a different paragraph. As already mentioned, I don't support retaining a long list for contemporary composers, so have reduced it to three (taking into account what the BBC have written). The prose has been rewritten and summarised, with sourcing and verification from Grove Online. Otherwise two audios have been hidden, with only Zadok the Priest kept (particularly apt for today). Rock and pop does not seem in a very good state, although there are plenty of sources. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- You appear to have made the over-long "Music" section even longer. The lists of people and details about them are still there, in some cases expanded, yet you unilaterally removed the section header warning. I have restored it, partly because you seem not to have attempted to recognise why it was added in the first place: "may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. Specifically, overlong lists". Much of the detail should be moved to other, more specific, articles (in particular, Music of the United Kingdom) rather than kept this country-overview article. There is scope to reduce its length by at least half. Other contributors (Moxy, CMD) may disagree with me, in which case I will stand corrected. Bazza (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Music of the United Kingdom is not in a good state: wikipedia is not a source, while the five Grove Online entries are reliable. Entries for the Victorian/Edwardian era have remained reasonably stable. Film music and musicals are in a different paragraph. As already mentioned, I don't support retaining a long list for contemporary composers, so have reduced it to three (taking into account what the BBC have written). The prose has been rewritten and summarised, with sourcing and verification from Grove Online. Otherwise two audios have been hidden, with only Zadok the Priest kept (particularly apt for today). Rock and pop does not seem in a very good state, although there are plenty of sources. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm quite surprised Music of the United Kingdom isn't in better shape. CMD (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The short paragraph is sourced; it concerns prose content from music in the British Isles, excluding the Republic of Ireland. Those sources can be read and checked; they concern several centuries of music and periods, Tudor, Restoration, Victorian/Edwardian, and modern/contemporary. Particular music forms such as masses, madrigals, anthems and folk songs are mentioned; the BBC's music magazine listing of the 50 top composers worldwide has been used — there are only nine entries for British composers, starting with Thomas Tallis. (None are living, with Birtwistle's recent death.) The paragraph is brief and without nuance: 20th century composers consciously referenced works of previous centuries such as Vaughan Williams (Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis), Britten (The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra: Purcell or Gloriana), Maxwell Davies (Messiah), etc. Italian opera, Haydn's "London Symphonies" or the "London Bach" or Mozart in London are not mentioned. So there does not seem to be any "intricate detail" here. By comparison, France#Music has three expansive paragraphs on classical music with far more detail; it's written in the usual prose way, mentioning particular compositions. Similarly for Austria#Music. For Germany#Music, Handel is counted as being German and Heinrich Schütz doesn't get a mention.
Returning to United Kingdom#Music, there are other paragraphs on conductors/orchestras, film music/musicals, rock/pop genre, pop groups which are mostly in bare list format, sometimes with no sources. The content on classical music 1500–2022 is brief; it is not inaccurate but is too brief. The article Music of the United Kingdom is not well written, as CMD has commented. There are very detailed links to "royal patronage" in Early music of the British Isles#Renaissance c. 1450–c. 1660 (Tudor music) and Baroque music of the British Isles (post-Restoration music). More detailed information is given in Classical music of the United Kingdom#British musical renaissance 1860-1918 (Victorian/Edwardian music). Elsewhere in the latter link, there are just lists. Mathsci (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Will redo section on Sunday. Clearly not not going in the right direction. Moxy- 11:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Officially Northern Ireland a province & England, Wales and Scotland countries
The previous discussion showed that 3 editors agreed that Northern Ireland is a province with only one editor diagreeing with semingly no research done by this one editor in Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/Archive 4#NI is a "Province". Kbimbatti22 also agrees that NI is a province as do I. That makes 5:1 in favour of Northern Ireland being a province and therefore I would suggest this is CLEARLY A CONSENSUS. I will amend the page as such. Please discuss before reverting any edits I make.
See further evidence below
According to the International Standards Organisation (ISO) Northern ireland is a province, whilst Wales, Scotland and England are countries.[1]
Northern Ireland is also a province and Wales, England and Scotland are countries according to a current version of the UK GOV website.[2]
Northern Ireland also referred to as province by author on books on Northern Ireland. [3]
Thanks for your time. Titus Gold (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- All four should have the same political descriptive. Northern Ireland, shouldn't be treated differently from England, Wales & Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- ^ https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:GB
- ^ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/toponymic-guidelines/toponymic-guidelines-for-map-and-other-editors-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland--2/
- ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/30/the-end-northern-ireland-unionists-blame-themselves-dup-sinn-fein