Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 9

Language

Accoring to http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Gtgl1/GuideToGovernment/AboutBritain/DG_10012519 English is the "official" language (not just de-facto).

The 1362 Statute of pleading also recognised English as the core language of England, mandating it to be the sole language spoken in court, replacing French.

Major Cities

I've added Newcastle to the list of major cities with over 250 000 inhabitants, given that it is one of the country's most important cities and the Wiki for it put the population at around 280 000.

Newcastle upon Tyne does not have an urban population above 250,000 - it's quite small at 189,863. You may be thinking of the entire Tyneside conurbation, which also includes other towns such as Gateshead, or alternatively the larger local government area named after Newcastle (its seat and largest settlement) that includes a rural population. Fingerpuppet 16:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

But thats purely semantics and Newcastles importance as a regional capital cannot be completely overlooked simply because the boundary was redrawn in the 1970's giving large swathes of the city to neighbouring North Tyneside council. These areas are still regarded as Newcastle in the same way that parts of Trafford is still regarded as Manchester, council boundaries notwithstanding. To ignore important cities on the basis of this is ridiculous and totally counter-productive to the educationary nature of Wikipedia. If it is just on census why include nottingham? in fact, why set the arbitary level of 250,000 at all?

Nottingham - It has a population of about 249,500, so should it be included in a list of cities with a population in excess of 250,000? Marky-Son 14:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that one too. I've been pondering on it for a long time, and haven't taken it out as I think it's probably within the error value of the Census, but I have an uneasy feeling about it. It really ought to go, though. Fingerpuppet 15:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This section has once again been altered to add randomly chosen cities, which is not NPOV. The cities chosen were Middlesbrough, Newcastle upon Tyne, Plymouth, Portsmouth, and Sunderland, and the criteria for the list was removed - which makes the section unverifiable. This will only lead to editing wars as unqualified "major cities" can only be POV. The cities chosen are not even the next largest urban sub-areas to those above the 250,000 threshold (plus Nottingham for the reasons outlined above). The next 5 largest settlements would be Plymouth, Southampton, Reading, Derby and Dudley - only one of which was given in the POV list additions. The Urban Sub-Area populations of the additionally listed cities are Middlesbrough (142,691 - 42nd largest); Newcastle (189,863 - 24th); Portsmouth (187,056 - 26th) and Sunderland (177,739 - 31st). Fingerpuppet 21:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fingerpuppet in reverting this section. Having an exact population limit, such as 250,000, stops petty arguements over "my city is better than yours". You can't just pick a random selection of cities. This has been done over and over again in the past, and it's always ended in squabbles, with someone usually adding Norwich as a major city then the whole section been deleted, for example. Marky-Son 21:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested 200,000 as the criterion which should enable everyone to be happy .Abtract 21:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The additional change made is still unverifiable, as it does not state the measurement method used. As shown above, all (with the exception of Plymouth) have Urban Sub-Area populations of LESS than the 200,000 stated. If the criteria being attempted is local authorities with city status with populations above 200,000, then the given list is still incorrect as Middlesbrough does not hold that status. Additionally, there are other local authorities with city status that would fit into the criteria given, such as City of Wakefield.Fingerpuppet 21:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have re-ordered the section to make it clearer and hopefully avoid "randomly chosen" additions in the future. Abtract 00:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I stil dont understand why population according to artificial census boundaries should be the measure of a 'Major City'. Its quite ludicrous that cities with a major cultural, historical and industrial contribution to the country such as Newcastle or Portsmouth have been discounted at the expense of towns or metropolitan authorities of larger conurbations with a much lesser impact nationally. Is this part of the article meant to educate or simply be a list of statistics? You have effectively discounted an entire urban region spanning two cities home to over 1 million people (Tyne and Wear) simply because of the way the local council boundaries have been redrawn. This is surely unacceptable.

Because any other way of doing things is subject to major POV issues. Another point to note is that the figures used relate to Urban Areas and Urban Sub-Areas, which are not related to modern local authority boundaries, but to built-up areas. Fingerpuppet 13:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a list of the biggest cities where most people live, not most important cities, or urban areas for that matter. If you to look at a list of urban areas, there is a separate page for it. These are not artificial census boundaries at all, the borough of Reading has a population of 144,000, that is the only artifcial boundary. Historical and cultural contribution is irrelivent, this is about Geography. Please give examples of these towns that have a lesser impact nationally. Marky-Son 14:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, Derby, Stoke, Reading. With the best will in the world, no-one could argue these towns,(fine though they are) have the same national impact as ommitted cities such as Oxford or Newcastle. I wouldnt say they were 'irrelivent' (sic) but they simply haven't had the same contribution. And as for the artificial boundaries comment, there is a link to the 'Second City of the UK' page which encapsulates the whole debate. The fact that the strongest challenger to Birmingham's de facto crown lies on this list in the same category as Leicester, Coventry and Hull (no offence to any intended) based SOLELY on the position of council boundaries shows the inherent weaknesses in this system perfectly.

OK then - just which cities would you place here, and what objective criteria would you use?

I will also point out once more that Urban Sub-Areas (which are the figures used) are unrelated to modern administrative boundaries' but to built-up areas. Therefore your objection on those grounds is irrelevant. Fingerpuppet 08:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You're just repeating yourself now. How do you figure these towns (sic) are less important than a small city like Oxford? How many times do you have to be told this list is not based on council boundaries? This is a list of largest cities, not conurbations. Heading: Geography. Sub-heading: Largest Cities. Marky-Son 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"How many times do you have to be told...?" Hahaha! Fanastic! You sound like a supply teacher who's lost his temper within seconds of meeting his new class!

At no point did i say more or less important. My point is if we are really wanting a list of "where most people live" (your words) then no matter how accurate the figures appertaining to 'Urban Sub-Areas' are, it is not an accurate depiction of the real population of both included and ommited cities. Look at the source list and several cities have had suburbs excluded from their total (Newcastle for example has two large suburbs excluded - why?), making the accuracy of this source list itself highly questionable. This entire debate is becoming more and more pedantic, and the list on the home page looks nothing short of amateurish. I would direct you to the 'Germany' home page where an equivalent section tells you a whole lot more about the make-up of the country, its cities, administrative areas and its population...and isnt that the point - to educate rather than simply provide questionable and inconsistent lists? PS Reading doesnt have city status, it's classed as a town.

Why do certain cities have "suburbs excluded from their total"? Because the Office for National Statistics considers them to be separate settlements. Conurbations are not the same thing as individual cities. There is no question regarding the accuracy of the source list, save that that you are creating for yourself in order to push your personal POV. And yes, Reading does not have city status - which is a peculiar thing to the UK. It is the largest settlement without that status and should be in the list as it is within the population criteria given. Newcastle upon Tyne does not fit within that objective criteria, so it does not.

Once again, I will ask you the same question. Which cities would you place here, and what objective criteria would you use? Fingerpuppet 08:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to go overboard: Taking the lead from the pages of other countries, and if we want to represent the major cities as centres of population (which surely is the point) we could have, for example London + top 5 (or ten) population centres plus the city around which they are massed (Such as the USA page) with stats for each. We could do it regionally, such as the page on Germany. We could reference the government designated 'English Core Cities' group, plus Cardiff, E'boro, Glasgow and Belfast, with a brief synopsis of each. All im saying is we have options outside of slavishly following the list which, like it or not, is simply not representational of the real size of British cities. And if a visitor to the site wants a list of the top 100 population centres by ONS boundaries then we provide a link instead of presenting it as the only source. This is meant to be an encyclopedic article after all, and what we have at the minute does not reflect this.

Let me get this straight. I'm not trying to be obstructive here, just trying to understand your point. You first argued that artificial local authority boundaries are not representative of the size of British cities. Then when told that the figures used are not based upon local authority boundaries, you are then arguing that Urban Area (and Sub-Area) population figures are not representative of the size of British cities either. If I'm reading you correctly, you are somehow arguing that the real size of British cities is actually the size of conurbations - you appear to be arguing that, say, Bradford is simply a part of Leeds, or that Wolverhampton is simply a part of Birmingham. Clearly neither of these is the case. If you decide to measure conurbations by the EU method of allowing gaps in the built up area of up to 200m, then Liverpool and Manchester are parts of the same city. This doesn't seem at all logical to me. There simply are no official figures in the UK for Metropolitan Areas, so that can't be what you're arguing for. Fingerpuppet 09:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously i wouldnt class Liverpool and Manchester as the same city but that just emphasises how sometimes accepted statistical measures can be misleading. If i've misunderstood the nature of these particular statistics then i apologise - my point is that even if these stats are unerringly accurate in the confines to which they have been drawn, that doesn't mean they are necessarily a realistic representation. A cursory glance at the list and you could think that Leeds, Bristol and Liverpool could be vying for the title of England's second city, that Hull and Leicester are on an equal footing with Manchester or that Newcastle isnt a major city at all. Anyone living here, or who has a basic knowledge of the country will know none of this is the case, but a visitor to the site could be misled. Those ideas were just off the top of my head and may not be viable, but i do think a more realistic picture could be drawn up with a little imagination. There is an old adage that 'statistics can be used to prove anything', i think we should perhaps not see everything in such black and white terms.

I don't see what the problem is here ... surely no-one is suggesting that the current section is incorrect and no-one is suggesting that it is the best we can do. What we have at the moment is a list of "cities" with populations over 200,000 by a well cited definition contained in the main article. I have no doubt that in a years time this will have been expanded so that other places are included using different definitions (after all size isn't important ... is it?) and it will be more than a list because editors will have added explanations as to why various places are worthy of note. Surely the way forward it to accept what we have as the stumbling beginnings and add/change/expand/build (all this is called editing) with nice citations until we have an even better section(s) covering places of note by virtue of size etc. \Wouldn't this be so much better than arguing? Abtract 16:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely - I have no issue with other cities being added using other clearly identifiable, verifiable, non-POV criteria. It seems illogical to me to remove the largest by population, but if there are other deserving cases using sensible additional criteria, then I have no problem with that. Currently, however, there are no additional criteria of a suitable standard being put forward. As Marky-Son mentioned above, not having set defined criteria causes major edit wars and opens the section to POV additions. Fingerpuppet 09:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

References tidy-up

I have tidied up all the references into a standard format using the {{cite}} template as this was one of the major concerns at the last FAC review.
→ Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fishing/Snooker

Reading the sports section, I was suprised to see no mention of fishing, as from what I understand, it is the sport that is most actively participated in, I don't have any data to support this, but perhaps a sport guru might be able to prove/disprove this. If it is true, then I believe it is worth a mention. Also there was no mention of snooker, which I always thought was very popular (although less so now than in the 1980's), and I was led to believe was created in the UK. I'm not a writer or researcher, so I apologise if this is incorrect, and will not add this myself, but hope that these will be considered for inclusion 213.48.1.172 03:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

UK's oldest newspaper

In the media part is says that the Belfast Telegraph is the oldest newspaper still running, started in 1860. But the Stamford and Rutland newspaper, which i recieve, dates back to the 1600s. Its kinda well known if you know what your looking for. Please update. --84.66.18.84 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is incorrect - the oldest daily newspaper is not the Belfast Telegraph but the Belfast News Letter, with the article of the latter stating it was first published in 1737. Is the newspaper you mention a daily? Jonto 22:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made the correction. Jonto 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the newspaper you mention does claim to be the "oldest in Britain", but it looks like it is published every Friday? Is this correct? Jonto 22:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

External link for UK

I would like to suggest adding this UKwebsite to the external links section of the article. i've found it very useful for keeping in touch with the latest news and events information for individual regions in the UK. The website also features personal blogs written by people from all over the UK. Let me know what you think. (MW1983 10:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

I would tend to be opposed, it's a commercial site run by Northcliffe as a holder for mortgage/property ads, etc. Generally Wikipedia is opposed to adding commercial links. The photos on it are nice though! MarkThomas 11:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised at the paucity of the existing external links and particularly at the lack of a prominent link to the UK version of bbc.co.uk. Is that commercial opposition, really a clear policy on WP? I tend to be a bit on the inclusionist wing myself since it's always easier to delete rather than include. However, I am very conscious of the `wood-for-the-trees' argument and would also respectfully point out that now EVERY non-WP hyperlink has been HTML no-followed, we have less to fear from (knowledgeable) self-publicists.

I do compliment MW1983 on bringing this to the talk page first and MarkThomas for his moderate and thoughtful response. Can anyone think of any other suitable `one-stop-shop' source for the photos?...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 12:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct term for a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Hi, question from WikiProject Formula One. Appreciating that this is likely to be a sensitive point, is there an agreed approach anywhere to the use of the term 'British' to describe a citizen of the UKoGBaBNI? It's being discussed at talk:Eddie Irvine and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#UK_Nationality. To my mind British is what's in the passport and I can't see what other term could be used, but I imagine you've been over this one countless times already, so I was hoping someone could point me to a guideline. Cheers. 4u1e 12:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the specific objection that's been raised is to the use of 'British' as the nationality of a driver from Northern Ireland. 4u1e 13:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

'British' is the adjective of the United Kingdom. It's the official term used, not just in the passport but in legislation (e.g. British Nationality Act). Bastin 14:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, British citizenship is what everybody born in NI automatically gets; they may also have Irish citizenship if they want it (I'm not sure if that still applies since the Good Friday Agreement in 1997, but it did before), but that would be for the individual to obtain. -- Arwel (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that officially there are no citizens of Britain, we are all subjects.(80.189.224.209 15:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

Nonsense. My passport quite explicitly says "British citizen", and so does the British Nationality Act 1981. -- Arwel (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to disagree with any of the above, but I don't see anything wrong with saying "X is a UK citizen" if the word "British" is deprecated. (It's unwieldy and often harder to work in smoothly, of course.) Doops | talk 15:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My main objection to that is that the vast majority of people in Britain prefer our current system of rule to a republic (the figures are even in this article) therefore the use of the word citizen is not only factually incorrect, but most people in Britain prefer to be subjects.(80.189.224.209 15:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

People born in Northern Ireland are triply blessed: they automatically become citizens of the EU, UK and Ireland providing at least one of their parents had at least one of the three statuses. Even if none of their parents were so blessed, they may still obtain at least two citizenships by descent from at least one Grandparent. My own situation is somewhat unique since I was born in an area whose county status was unclarified at the time of partition and thus I have an Irish driving licence that states I was born in Northern Ireland and a Commonwealth driving licence (NOT NI) that states I was born in the Republic of Ireland. Since both licences use the EU model codes of GBR for Northern Ireland and IRL for the Republic, I must be almost unique in having TWO misleading driving licences! At least I'm able to just say I'm Irish without distinguishing the two different entities. God help me when the retina scan ID cards begin their rollout!

People driving cars registered in NI also have a problem with what to stick on the back of their cars. Both IRL and GB are technically incorrect for different reasons! ...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 16:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Whilst you are correct to state that the vast majority of Britons are loyal to Her Majesty, it is incorrect to state that we are subjects. That is a lie perpetuated by republicans, who (consequently) claim that he don't have the same sort of status that (say) French or American people have. However, the status of 'British citizen' has existed since 1949. Since that date, 'British subject' has been a different legal term. Since the British Nationality Act 1983, British citizens are no longer British subjects; almost all subjects nowadays are connected to the legacies of the Irish Free State and British India. Nonetheless, the term 'subject' retains a meaning pertaining to its original etymology, i.e. one that owes allegiance. Hence, one is a citizen of the United Kingdom, but a subject of Her Majesty. Bastin 16:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, as usual, Bastin. Used to comes in very useful if you wanted to hang anyone for treason (did you hear about the Pitcairn defence)? Sorry for being delayed in saving my previous response and jumping in out of order...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 16:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the law which calls us British Citizens, but that is as far as it goes, it is merely a label introduced to differentiate people in different countries of the commonwealth. Just because we are called citizens does not mean that we are, nor do we fulfil many criteria of what a citizen is. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, but I want to call it a sheep, it's still a duck.(80.189.224.209 16:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

Neatly sidestepping the issues of whether we're citizens or subjects (interesting, but not directly relevant here!), it sounds like we're on solid ground describing the nationality as 'British' then? (I'd avoid 'X is a UK citizen' only because I don't think it's normal usage, which is usually the key at Wikipedia, and because it's inconvenient to fit into an infobox). The editor who raised this has since conceded the point anyway, I believe he was thinking of the geographic distinction, by which Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain. Thanks to all. 4u1e 21:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of 'Public Education' is confusing

I found this quite confusing in the article as I would imagine most people in Britain and myself would read this as private education, could it be changed to 'State Education' so not to be ambiguous and to still be understandable by the rest of the world. (80.189.224.209 15:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

Good solution!...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 16:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Occupies?

The first paragraph of the lead section currently states: "It occupies all of the island of Great Britain and the north-east part of the island of Ireland." I understand that the term 'to occupy' can mean "to take or fill up", "to be a resident or tenant of; dwell in", "to take possession and control of" and "to take or hold possession", that it can be neutral. But in regards to the Troubles of Northern Ireland, I don't think the word occupies to refer to "the north-east part of the island of Ireland" is an apt choice of words. It carries too much of a connotation. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Easily fixed. Thanks! Doops | talk 01:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Culture vs. Economy

Good article!
People often discuss a country / sovereign state in terms of its economic power / influence, at the expense of its cultural output / influence. Of course, in many senses, a country's economic strength is linked to its cultural "exports". Catholicism, for example, could be seen (amongst a great deal of other things) as one of Italy's most successful cultural exports.
In a sense, I'm proud to be British not because of the Empire, but because of (for example) William Shakespeare. Subsequently I feel that the intro to the article perhaps stresses the diminishing of Britain's status in global affairs as a result of the decline of Empire at the expense of a more positive take on things: the article, in its introduction, could alternatively be stressing the consistently successful cultural output / influence of Britain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.152.82.198 (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

That Britain's global status is not what it used to be 100 years ago is a very key piece of information about the country, and objectively verifiable. Cultural "success", on the other hand, is a matter of opinion - you may consider British cultural influence abroad to be a success, others may find it a legacy of unwelcome Western colonial aggression. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 18:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Britain's cultural influence doesn't necessarily have to be good for it to be successful. Whether it is good or not is obviously a matter of opinion, but it is a fact that it is successful.(80.189.121.40 19:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

How are you defining "success" though? "Blair/Bush was a successful Prime Minister/President. Discuss.". How many different answers would stem from those questions? Again, your definition of success may not be mine. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 19:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not discussing the success, or lack of, of a Blair/Bush administration and that is a hugely different question, quite what their objectives were are unclear therefore you can't even begin to quantify the success. On the subject of British cultural influence however it is far easier to see the 'success' as you can clearly see the huge impact Britain has had on the rest of the world. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that Britain's cultural influence has had a big impact on the rest of the world, personally I don't see how anyone can argue this hasn't been successful as this was obviously the aim when Britain went out to make itself an empire. Without Britain the vast majority of people in this world would be living entirely different lives today, imagine a world without the British colonies, a Europe without Britain's involvement in war, a western world without industrialisation, an eastern world without trade to the west, a third world without an underclass and you have a completely different world. At no point have I ever mentioned whether I think British cultural influence is a good, bad or indifferent thing, but surely to deny it's success is insanity.(80.189.121.40 00:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick" above, is, of course, not suggesting that British cultural influence abroad is a legacy of unwelcome Western colonial aggression. The suggestion is that others may feel this. I just wanted to add that if anyone, anywhere, thinks that William Shakespeare's influence is a legacy of unwelcome Western colonial aggression, they are undoubtedly an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.209.159 (talk • contribs)

Article is too long

I added the verylong tag but it seems to have been removed. Well, the article is 112 kb, which is obviously 'very long', even for a country article. Most of the sections can do with some trimming, particularly culture and demography. Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries for guidelines and countries that are featured articles. Christopher Connor 19:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is! I had pointed this out in an earlier (unresolved) discussion too. Lets work toward a summary style article. AJ-India 03:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Seems to be a dearth of sources for many statements. Is this typically so in these types of article? Candy 04:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Chronologically challenged?

"Economically costly wartime loans, loans taken in 1945 from the United States..."

Is this referring to the loan arranged by Keynes? If so, I thought this was after the war not during the war (albeit by a few months) which doesn't make them wartime loans! Has anyone got a reference or information to back up whar is stated in the article? Candy 04:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Banner

This appears twice in this article as the flag of Northern Ireland, this is not and never was the flag of the state, it was the banner of the Government of the Northern Ireland Parliament between 1953 and 1973 when that government was disbanded by the British Government and replaced under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, 1973. Since that time the banner has had no official use and cannot be used in any official capicity in Northern Ireland. The Union Banner is the only official flag in Northern ireland.--padraig3uk 14:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell EUFA and FIFA. NI still uses this flag in sports competitions. --Guinnog 14:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the Commonwealth Games also use this flag? Thunderwing 14:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

EUFA, FIFA and the Commonwealth games all use the symbol provided by the countries sports bodies, they don't convey any legitimacy on the symbol provided. The Ulster banner ceased to exist in any official capitity with the disbanding of the Northern Ireland House of Commons and its government, under British constitutional law the flag was of the government and not the state. The Union Flag is the only official flag that can be used to represent Northern Ireland today, and WP should present that fact and not the POV of certain editors promoting the use of the Ulster Banner.--padraig3uk 14:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that is your opinion. However there are other opinions which it is only fair to take into account when editing.--Guinnog 17:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Either the official flag should be use or none, my edit is removing POV and mis-representation of the facts.--padraig3uk 18:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no official flag of England, either. Are we suggesting that we get rid of that? Bastin 19:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The British government wouldn't agree with your statement:

This is what the British Government says about the Ulster Banner:

Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:

What legislation covers the definition of the form, shape and design, and any rules about the permitted use, of (a) the union flag; (b) the English flag (cross of St George); (c) the Scottish flag(St Andrew's saltire) (d) the Scottish royal lion flag (e) the Welsh flag (dragon); (f) the flag of Northern Ireland. [HL1099]

18 Jan 2007 : Column WA181

Lord Davies of Oldham: (a & b) There is no legislation that governs the form, shape or size of the union flag or the English flag (St George's cross). There are no rules about the permitted use of the union flag or English flag (cross of St George) on non-government buildings, provided the flag is flown on a single vertical flagstaff and neither the flag nor the flagstaff display any advertisement additional to the design of the flag as explained under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. Government departments are restricted to flying flags on 18 fixed days a year in compliance with rules issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Consideration should also be given to flag protocol, which considers it improper to fly the union flag upside down and requires that the flag should not be defaced by text or symbols and should be treated with respect.

(c & d) There is also no legislation that governs the form, shape or size of the Royal Arms of Scotland (here referred to as The Scottish royal lion flag) or the St Andrew's cross, but the design is firmly specified in the Public Register of All Arms and Bearings in Scotland. The Royal Arms of Scotland can only be used by the Sovereign or Her Great Lieutenants when acting in their official capacity. The Scottish flag(St Andrew's cross) may be flown by Scots and to represent Scotland on all occasions; however, under The Act of Lyon King of Arms Act 1672, cap. 47 individuals may not deface the flag by placing a symbol on top of the flag or use it in such a way that suggests it is his/her personal property.

(e) There is no specific legislation about the Welsh flag design or rules about permitted use.

(f) The union flag is the only official flag that represents Northern Ireland. The Flags (NI) Order 2000 empowered the Secretary of State to make the Flags Regulations (NI) 2000, which governs when and where the union flag can be flown from government buildings in Northern Ireland on specified days. The legislation does not define the form, shape or design of the union flag. Flag flying from non-governmental buildings is unregulated.

For all flags, consideration should also be given to flag protocol, which requires flags to be treated with respect, not to be defaced by text or symbols or flown upside down. [1]

So in accordance to the Government the Flags of England, Scotland and Wales are recognised, but not the Ulster Banner.--padraig3uk 20:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be misquoting horrendously. "There is no legislation that governs ... the English flag (St George's cross)". How on Earth does that prove that the English flag is recognised by the Government? Bastin 21:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It says There is no legislation that governs the form, shape or size of the union flag or the English flag (St George's cross), it dosen't say the flag isn't recognised, don't you think it strange that they only mentions the Union Banner, the flags of England Scotland and wales, but not the Ulster banner, in fact it is made very clear that the only offical flag for Northern Ireland is the Union Banner, whereas for the others it dosen't say that.--padraig3uk 21:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation of this debate. It confirms to me that all four UK nations' flags are unofficial, which I already knew. I don't think this is a mandate for you to selectively remove all instances of the Ulster Banner from Wikipedia, although it might be an interesting data-point at WP:FLAG. --Guinnog 22:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It has never been my intention to remove all instances of the Ulster Banner, just from templates and articles that represent or protray Northern Ireland today or since 1972, I have added the Ulster Banner to this template I created Template:Politics of Northern Ireland 1921-72 so don't see where this idea comes from that I want to remove the flag completely.--padraig3uk 11:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing this padraig3uk - the consensus is above is that it's all unofficial. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Ulster Banner is NOT the Flag of Northern Ireland to state that it is is POV. Please see the Northern Ireland article and talk page for full details. regards--Vintagekits 19:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere does this purport to be stating that this is the official flag of Northern Ireland. It's just a graphic. There is no need for either of you to get ants in your pants about it. I'd also enjoy hearing you explain away the flag's presence on Britannica's page [2]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't need consensus to remove false information or POV from articles in WP, the Ulster Banner is not the flag of Northern Ireland, and never was as it was the flag of the disbanded government of Northern Ireland that was suspended in 1972 and abolished in 1973, under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.--padraig3uk 19:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should we care what Britannica uses as the Flag of Northern Ireland? By using the UB as the FoNI you are portorting it to be the FoNI - that is incorrect and will not be tolerated.--Vintagekits 20:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Will not be tolerated"? Who died and put you in charge? In this present debate it's 3 - possibly 4 - (who are of the opinion that this is not trying to state anything "official") against 2. So presently you and padraig are in the minority. I'm not going to get in an edit war with you, but still, WP works on consensus, not on people getting bees in their bonnets. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WP has a policy of removing POV, and that articles containing such can be edited to make them comply to NPOV, the same applies to removing false information, no consensus is needed for this.--padraig3uk 22:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You'd have a tough time arguing POV when the NI football association uses it as its flag. And it's not "false" because nowhere does it state that it is the official flag of Northern Ireland, or indeed that any of the flags are official. As I say, I'm not going to revert it, but if the other editors that were party to this debate return and deem it should stay, I'll be siding with them. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The table in the article is for admistrative areas of the UK, you are using a flag in the Northern Ireland section, that the British Government dosen't even recognise, and one that the government removed from existance when it disbanded the government whosflag it was in 1973, as for Encyclopdeia Britannica it says: According to British tradition, a coat of arms or flag is granted to the government of a territory, not to the people residing there. Therefore, when the government of Northern Ireland was disbanded in March 1972, its arms and flag officially disappeared; however, the flag continues to be used by groups (such as sports teams) representing the territory in an unofficial manner...--padraig3uk 20:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my belated comment to this argument. I suggest we reinstate the flag, using {{flagicon Northern Ireland}} for Northern Ireland, and thereby delegate the decision of which flag (if any) is displayed to this template. I don't particularly care whether the Ulster Banner, or something else, or even nothing, is displayed; but for the sake of uniformity with other pages, I think we should use the template designed for this purpose to delegate the decision to a central place. That way, we can avoid repeating the same arguments dozens of times across Wikipedia. — ras52 18:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

While perusing this article I noticed that the flags of England Scotland and Wales are included but the flag of Northern Ireland is not. The flag of Northern Ireland consists of a red cross with a white background, the same basic design as the flag of England. However, in the middle of the cross there is a six pointed star which is supposed to represent the six counties that make up Northern Ireland. Inside the star is the red hand of Ulster and above the star is the Imperial Crown. This flag is based on the flag of Ulster as Northern Ireland consists of six of the nine counties of province of Ulster. The other three counties are in the Republic of Ireland. It is almost like an Anglicised version of the Ulster flag which consists of a red cross with a yellow background and a crest in the middle of the red cross. The red had of Ulster is in the crest.

The Northern Ireland flag, which is nicknamed 'the Ulster banner,' was created in celebration the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. It has ceased to be used for official purposes but remains as the flag used by the people of Northern Ireland and is flown by many civilians and at various national events across Northern Ireland, for example, international football matches. It remains to be the local flag for that part of the United Kingdom like the flags of St. George in England, St Andrew in Scotland and the Welsh flag, with the red dragon and green and white background, in Wales. The flag used in Northern Ireland for official purposes is the Union Flag. Northern Ireland is represented in the Union Flag by St. Patrick's flag which consists a red cross shaped as an X on the flag (like the white cross on the flag of Scotland) and a white background.

I would be grateful if this page could be amended to include the flag of Northern Ireland. 10th June 2007

This has been brought up many times, it is no longer the Northern Irish Flag. see Talk:United_Kingdom#Ulster_Banner
Bennelliott • Talk • Contributions 18:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the anonymous comment and Bennelliot's reply to it to the appropriate discussion section. Hope I did right!jonathan riley 19:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does the Northern Ireland flag repeatedly get deleted from the chart? Claudia 01:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Parliamentary democracy?

The United Kingdom is not a democracy. Democracy means "Rule by the people". There is no point pretending that ordinary people are constitutionally tasked with making or altering the laws of the land. They aren't, and therefore the country is not a democracy. The UK has a system of representative government. Democracy is not representative government. The two terms describe two different things. The term representative government is accurate as a description of the UK's type of government (Will anybody come forward to dispute that?). The use of the word "democracy" as a description of our system of government is pure propaganda.
jonathan riley —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathanriley (talk • contribs) 21:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

• It is a term analogous to Parliamentary system. Thunderwing 21:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just amended it to precisely that!
I dispute that the two terms mean the same things though.
jonathan riley 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks- Parliamentary democracy was a re-direct to Parliamentary system in any case- however it is always better to use direct links. Thunderwing 21:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no such thing as a democracy by your definition. There are no countries that are ruled by the people. In the UK, you can vote for your leader--which makes it a democracy by most people's definition. Loyh 17:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jonathanriley obviously misunderstands that the use of the term "democracy" is not limited to its literal translation. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• The United Kingdom shouldn't probably be referred to as a democracy unqualified. 'Representative democracy', however, is rather fine. 'Parliamentary democracy' implies 'representative democracy', as Parliament is a form of representation. Digwuren 07:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  

Digwuren,
What's wrong with stating that we have a Parliamentary System. That term has the virtues of being both specific and uncontested.
jonathan riley 19:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with that, at least for now. Digwuren 20:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Loyh,
: There is no such thing as a democracy by your definition.
That is not the point at issue.
: There are no countries that are ruled by the people.
I'm not trying to say anything about other countries when I'm editing a page about the United Kingdom.
: In the UK, you can vote for your leader
That is factually incorrect.
: which makes it a democracy by most people's definition.
I did say that the use of the word "democracy" as a description of our system of government is propaganda. Government and media propaganda has obviously worked very well, hasn't it. This oughtn't to come as a surprise. I hope that Wikipedia can help to cut through such sophistry, and call a spade a spade.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick,
: Jonathanriley obviously misunderstands that the use of the term "democracy" is not limited to its literal translation.
Please write in plain, coherent English. Then I will feel confident about exactly what you mean, and can take your point on. "... Misunderstands that... " for instance is just horrible, and dealing with such imprecisely expressed thoughts is like nailing blancmange to a wall. Sorry if this seems bitchy, I don't want to get into a flamewar.
jonathan riley

Representative government is a form of democracy. A word today might well not mean the same as it did when it was first coined - in other words, what it meant to the Greeks may not be exactly what it means to us. This does not mean the word is used wrongly today, it simply means the meaning has changed. Look in a modern dictionary and you'll find a reference to "a system of representation" or elections as a form of democracy. For example, Merriam-Webster - not my favourite dictionary but handily on the Internet - http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/democracy Hobson 01:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hobson,
: it simply means the meaning [of the word "democracy"] has changed.
The dictionary definition you yourself have linked to above has as its first entry:
1a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority[.]
It appears to me that by saying, "the meaning [of the word] has changed", you have tried to suggest that the word democracy no longer means rule by the people. That is not true; it means precisely that as the primary definition in the dictionary you cite, and as the only definition for me, and for others I have spoken with too.
: Representative government is a form of democracy.
The ordinary people of this country have no direct say in what passes for law. That is the truth, and such words could not be spoken in a democracy.
jonathan riley 05:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is the dictionary I cited is not relevant - this is not a personal battle of wills between me and you. I am suggesting the definition in this dictionary tells us both what the word means. I don't understand what you mean by primary definition - Merriam Webster says "1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections". Both usuages of the word are correct, according to Merriam Webster (both a and b). Furthermore, the fact that power may be exercised through a system of representation involving elections is not usually taken to mean that supreme power is not vested in the people, as the defifition makes clear.Hobson 14:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• jonathan riley, you appear to be pushing an exclusivist meaning for democracy. It is not a good idea, and the changes to the meaning of the word have removed some of the exclusions you're suggesting. Furthermore, as to your suggestion that the inherent absurdity of a word not having any real meaning is "not an issue here", well, it is absurd. Digwuren 07:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  

Hobson,
: I don't understand what you mean by primary definition
I concede that my words two lines previous to those you quote, ie. "has as its first entry" were better chosen.
: supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation...
Surely you can see how convoluted that is. How can a Jane exercise power by relinquishing it to John? It is a fatuous notion. In the real world, you cannot exercise power if somebody else has taken it away from you.
jonathan riley 20:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a debate about whether modern understandings of democracy are convulted, make sense or simply wrong. That would be an interesting topic for discussion on many message boards, but that's not what this talk page is for. You are expressing a personal opinion about whether what we call democracy in the modern world *should* be called democracy, and it's an interesting opinion. But all that matters when it comes to writing this article is what the word *does* mean. I'm sorry but it does seem to me that you are presing a personal point of view. Don't assume I disagree with your point of view. However it's not relevant to how we should approach writing a Wikipedia article.Hobson 21:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hobson,
Thankyou for so pointedly running away from a short question.
I did make the suggestion to Digwuren above that the use of the term, "Parliamentary System" is both specific and uncontested. Digwuren graciously agreed that it may at least for a while be satisfactory. How do you feel about that?
jonathan riley 01:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. When you reply to someone, can you reply underneath them with a colon or colons, so it is clear which point you are responding to? If the comment you are replying to has a colon, then you use two - if it has two then you use three.Hobson 22:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Like this!Hobson 22:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be sarcastic. This is not a forum for debating, scoring points or trying to prove who's right and who's wrong. These talk pages are designed to help create a consenus. I tried to explain why I wasn't answering your question - it makes no difference whether or not I think a system in which people elect other people to make decisions for them can truly be called a democracy. What;s important for the purposes of this article is that it *is* called a democracy. As for what the article should say, I believe parliamentary system is accurate but parliamentary democracy is equally accurate and more specific. It's possible to have a parliamentary system which is not democratic.Hobson 22:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The US Department of State website on the UK says "the Commonwealth helps preserve many institutions deriving from British experience and models, such as parliamentary democracy, in those countries." and indeed this organisation is set up to do exactly that, with its motto "Contributing to parliamentary democracy throughout the Commonwealth". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren,
: "not an issue here"
I never used those words, which you have wrongly attributed to me as a direct quote. I'll take your points on if you will kindly stop putting words in my mouth.
jonathan riley 20:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree in saying that the UK is not a 'good' democracy, but neither are many countries that claim to be democratic and actually don't rig elections and allow freedom of speech. However the statement that 'Democracy is rule by the people' in a summary is, bull sh**. Communism would claim to be rule by the people directly (e.g. Peoples' Republic of China), democracy has never claimed this to be the case either in the past (at the time of Athens) or in the present. In Athens democracy was twice as corrupt as it is now, democracy has always been corrupt and open to fraud of those who wish to take advantage, but in most cases (unless this constitutes despotism or oligarchical rule) it is still a democracy. In todays terms, disregarding whatever the base meaning is, the UK is accepted as a democracy, where people have the right to vote to determine their future, and where parties with differing ideas are allowed (unlike say the communist parties where you may get the communist workers party, the communist democratic workers party etc.), to be quite blunt in this sense what you currently consider to be democracy is irrelavant in the world.

The other point I have to make is that removing the fact that democracy, as you so name it, is not the defenition of most countries and bodies (such as the UN), the actual meaning of democracy is not 'rule by the people' unless in a very indirect sense. Ever since democracy was formed in Greece, and the word was formed, no one realistically expected an anarchy where every man ruled the country independent of a leader, in greece, if you recall, they voted for a patriarch via depositing pebbled stones into bags, pretty much something along the system most countries have today, though a little more primative. 'Rule by the people' is an idead laid claim to by the idea of the dictorship of the proletairiat that Marx put forward and the eventual transition to a type of utopian anarchy (anarchy is not meant in a derogatary sense here). Here is your correct defenition of democracy, that I think most would agree with, though it is purely original research using my common sense 'Democracy is power of the people, power of the people to have the right to influence the governing body (which is representative of their opinions) and change the line their country follows'. The actual wikipedia defenition includes "Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." However, you may not accept this defenition although pretty much every encylopidia has something along these lines. This does not make democracy ideal or perfect by any means, nor am i saying proportional representation in the UK is neccessarily fair, but technically, it is a democracy as the people have freedom and rights, and namely the right to influence their countries leadership.

When the word democracy was devised in Greek it may have had liks to 'rule of the people' but ever since its foundation in Grreece it was practically accepted by all citizens of Athens that all this meant (and all that happened) was that the people now had some power to change their countries policies, through representation of a party (in Athens one leader). In a broad spectrum this is the same as 'rule of the people' because the decisions of the people (even in this country, the UK) do ultimately rule over what line the country takes even if not in a completly direct sense. Unless there is some kind of crackpot conspiracy theory of rigged elections and illuminati you've got up your sleeve I think this should pretty much settle the matter. Basically all im saying is democracy, I guess, is whatever you want it to be, although forcing your own defenition and idea of what democracy should be, when there are other defenitions, most of which include the UK in their spectrum, is not acceptable. You can go and debate with someone your own view of democracy whenever you like, but since the majority of views include the UK as a democracy and yours dosent, then by consensus wikipedia should accept the UK as a democracy, apart from the fact that your defenition of democracy is gravely over-simplified.

And btw reply to my post if you want to in full, dont make points out of it because that is just selective and takes a lot of things out of context.

Having looked through the history of this page, the factbox read that Britian's government type was "Constitutional Monarchy and Parliamentary Democracy", until an edit just over a week ago. Before my edit today, it simply read Constitutional Monarchy. There is clearly no consensus for the removal of any mention of democracy, judging by what I read on this talk page. I have changed it to read "Constitutional Monarchy and Representative democracy". This links to the Wikipedia article which describes representative democracy as a form of democracy in which decisions are taken by representatives chosen by voters in elections and explicitly contrasts it with direct democracy. Hopefully this will meet everyone's concerns. Hobson 22:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hobson,
: ... It *is* called a democracy.
Not by me it's not. Nor it seems by the person who made the same edit (or similar) that i did, who has by the way had no contact whatever with me. And there are more than just the two of us.
: It's possible to have a parliamentary system which is not democratic.
I know. I'm living in one.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick,
: The US Department of State website on the UK says...
I don't need instruction from the USA to tell me about the constitution of the country that i have lived in for nigh on forty years thankyou very much! I don't care what the US state department says about this, and they are certainly no authority at all on the matter.
jonathan riley 03:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I obviously didn't explain what I meant about formatting replies on talk pages very well, and I'm sorry about that. Take a look here where it is explained more clearly- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_page#Formatting . The edit you point out was made with no discussion on this talk page and no edit summary, and I am reverting it for the reasons explained above. To make it clear, it doesn't matter whether you personally or I personally think the UK is a democracy. It does fit the definition of Representative democracy does it not? Even if you or I or anyone else think the whole concept of Representative democracy is flawed?Hobson 03:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually having looked at it again I have removed Representative democracy and put Parliamentary system back in. When I first edited that section, it simply read Constitutional Monarchy, which is not sufficient. As to what else should be there, Parliamentary system does the trick and would seem to be less controversial. But I hope it is clear what this debate is about. It's *not* about whether the words and concepts in use in the world today are correct or are propaganda or misleading. Wikipedia is not really a place for original thought, terrible as that may sound! Something like the US state department is an authoritative source. You and me, dear reader, are not EVEN IF WE ARE RIGHT AND THEY ARE WRONG. No excuse for caps, I mean to shout - it's the key point in this whole discussion.Hobson 03:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a little question... Parliamentary sovereignty..... would that work better? Probably not, but it'd be good to find out the reasons as to why not. :P Bennelliott • Talk • Contributions 20:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Bennelliott,
That seems to work as a description of the government, but is perhaps less than wholly fitting as an entry in the infobox as what is sought there is not a description of the government, but a name that denotes its type. The same objection holds equally well for suggestions such as, "Parliamentary Government", "Parliamentary System", etc. What about "Parliamentary Model"? I'm having a hard time coming up with anything truly satisfactory.
jonathan riley 02:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, the UK is recognised internationally as and understood to be a democracy by almost all reputable experts on the matter. From the UN and the EU to individual English-speakers round the world, the UK's political system is described in one way or another as a democracy. Who are we to debate that? If that is how the UK is recognised by the majority of people and organisations who know about this stuff, then that is how the UK should be described in Wikipedia. If it isn't, then Wikipedia's entry on Democracy (and many of its related articles) should be changed to exclude not just the UK's form of government but that of many other constitutional monarchies around the world. (Ajkgordon 16:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Request to be Listed as a site that links here

I would request to be listed as a site that links here the link can be found on http://www.local-phone-service.co.uk/links-directory.html. Unsure if this is corect area to ask this. 86.13.131.236 06:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't list sites that link here. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Map showing the 4 nations?

There are 2 or 3 maps on the page, but no single one that shows the boundaries between England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. I think it would be a nice addition. (And I think the map on the Scotland page didn't enlarge very well.) EJR 17:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask User:Morwen. She created this, and many other maps. Although I note she has not been around for over 2 months. --Mais oui! 19:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Amount of Atheists

The data on the percentage of Atheists is misleading. The study quoted asks about those who believe in god and those you believe in a spirit or life force. Both of which are generally considered non-atheist, yet the article only quotes the inverse figure of those who believe in God. 12:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)edholland

I disagree. "Spirit or life force" is not generally considered non-atheist, only non-materialist. Atheism is independent of materialism, so the study can't probably be used to support atheist count, either, though. Digwuren 07:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

An atheist can't believe in a spirit or life force, by the defenition of an atheist, although some may belive in this and consider themselves atheists at the same time, however to belive in something non-materialistic in humanity can be (as in toaism, and buddism where ther eis no God) as a religion. If this is the case then someone could belive in this without making it into religion which I belive would either make them agnostic or humanist, but not atheist.

Atheism does not necessarily conflict beliefs in spirits, as long as these spirits are not considered divine. This is not an unusual position to be held by non-Western atheists, either. You're confusing atheism with rationalism, materialism, or the Brights movement. Digwuren 08:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Digwuren. A-theism is simply the opposite of theism. Refers solely to the belief/disbelief in the existence of one or more gods.Graldensblud 21:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Im no theologan but would most Buddists consider themselves taheist then? As Buddists don't actually believe in a God, the closest thing they have is Budda but they wouldn't compare him to a God as such.

Have a look at articles on 'God in Buddhism', 'atheism' and 'naturalistic spirituality'. Atheim is defined as not believing in God thus the statement is correct. The Eurobarometer only had three options: God, 'some sort of spirit life-force' and 'no god/spirit/life force'; so it is likely spiritualistic atheists would choose the scond answer. If anything the figures on Christianity are misleading. Despite stating they are Christian when asked (because of an indoctrinated belief that they should) many people do not have Christian beliefs or attend church. I think all this shows a lack of good statistics on beliefs Halon8 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, anyone reading the article will of course assume that the survey question was "Do you believe in a God". Wikipedia so totally and utterly sucks for any controversial topic, I can't be arsed to edit it.

Footnotes

Why does your Infobox use footnotes? What are their purpose? Should other Infoboxes support footnotes? We request your comments at Template talk:Infobox CVG. Taric25 04:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Bestiality/Necrophilia

(unsigned post by 172.141.190.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) removed due to offensiveness - see archive)

Erm, I don't think so somehow. Do you see it on any other country's article? No. Leave this kind of trivial nonsense to your own talk page. Bennelliott • Talk • Contributions 19:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah I was just expressing my opinions on the matter, I am sorry if what I said offended anyone (namely Welsh people) I am generally quite ignorant, the purpose of what I said was not to offend, but merely to inquire (if in a slightly derogatory and unserious manner, which in itself is not something dissallowed, ive noticed, on many a talk page) as to why these matters are not adressed, call it whimsical curiousity if you want to. Basically I wasn't being serious about what I said, and just demonstrating some ridiculous ignorance, which in a way cancels its veritablity out, about other people of the UK that people my age, 16, (me included) seem to have and making a mockery of thAat, and not insulting anyone. However, for the point of dicussion since this is a whole complete, and completly non biased and uncensored encylopidia it is an intersting question as to whether sexuality (however taboo) should be mentioned in its pages.

Inclusion of the Thrash scene and its impact globally

I was fairly dissapointed to see the removal of my edit which included into the music section the importance of the current UK Thrash scene and it's international significance.

Ignorance of the subject is no excuse to deny it's recognition. The movement is very popular, more so than many of the types of 'rock music' listed and the deletion of my edit is both intolerant and insulting not only to myself but to thousands of fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holy Crap! Lions! (talk • contribs) 04:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The United Kingdom page is essentially a summary of lots of more detailed pages devoted to the individual topics. As such, material shouldn't appear in the main page until a more extensive section has been included in the various sub-pages (see WP:SS for details of the process). The sub-page for music is Music of the United Kingdom which, in turn, has its own sub-page at Music of the United Kingdom (1990s-2000s), and Music of the United Kingdom (1980s) I suggest that you initially add your contribution as a section of this last sub-page, and mention the genre in Music of the United Kingdom. However, looking through Thrash metal, it appears as if the genre was developed mainly by US bands, strongly influenced by the British New Wave music. New Wave is alread mentioned in Music of the United Kingdom. Bluap 13:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As the editor who removed your edit, I just wanted to re-iterate what Bluap has said about this essentially being a summary page. As such, it can only cover the most notable of subjects under each heading. Although you talk about "thousands of fans", I'm sure you'd admit that bands such as Evile aren't as well known as the bands currently listed, such as The Beatles, The Clash or Franz Ferdinand. One of the bands you listed doesn't even appear to have a Wikipedia article, judging by the red link. Cordless Larry 13:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting each other

Njan, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and Gwernol, please stop reverting each other. If you have something to say, do it here. Discuss change, don't editwar. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

I was trying to fix the broken photo caption in the economy section (see here [3]) and thought that someone had broken it by inserting a Dickensian essay into the caption, when in actual fact the closing tags were just in the wrong place. I then got irked by an accusation of vandalism on my talk page when this got reverted, when I should have double checked more carefully instead of reverting back. This was what I should have done [4]. Apologies to all, it was a good faith edit. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

To err is human. --Guinnog 23:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect at best

The famous Spitfire of the RAF. The RAF won the Battle of Britain and ended Germany's advance in western Europe during World War II.

This is certainly not encyclopaedic content, it's a biased opinion with no basis in fact. The Battle of Britain was indeed a major turning point in the war - but the spitfire was not. Also - it's very unfair (nigh incorrect) to state that the Spitfire won the B.o.B - there were far more Hawker Hurricanes in service, not to mention other aircraft (The Defiant, Blenheim to name two) involved, and radar and ground defences. The Spitfire is certainly famous, but it didn't win the Battle of Britain - at least not by itself. 89.241.167.236 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't actually say that it did. The text says that the RAF won the battle, not the aeroplane. Naomhain 08:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Armed Forces

It says in the article, "Its global power projection capabilities are deemed second only to the United States military, and its navy is the world's second strongest."

This statement is grossly untrue.

Firstly, the United Kingdom's armed forces does not have global power projection capability and nowhere in the reference provided does it say that the UK global power projection capabilities are deemed second only to the US, nor does it mention the UK having global power projection capabilities at all. The United States and Russia are the only two nations with global power projection capability, and even if you would say that the UK does have global power projection capability, Russia's military capabilites far exceed that of the UK. I'm quite documented in this case, and believe me that Russia has the second biggest Air Force (see Russian Air Force), the biggest Army (operates more than 22,000 tanks - triple that of US) and the second largest navy in the world. The UK only has 190,000 active troops, compared to Russia's 1,200,000. Currently, the Russian military is in the process of modernisation and rearmament, with the government in the process of spending about $200 billion (what equals to about $400 billion in PPP dollars) on development and production of military equipment between 2006-2015. Also you can have a look at the List of countries by size of armed forces which clearly confirms that said by me.

As for the statement that "its navy is the world's second strongest", saying that it is the "strongest" cannot be proven and this is POV and the reference provided is biased and provides no evidence or even discussion as to why this is so. The Russian Navy has 1 aircraft carrier, 5 cruisers, 15 destroyers and 40 nuclear submarines while the Royal Navy has 2 aircraft carriers (which are quite obsolete and will be replaced) 0 cruisers, 8 destroyers and 13 nuclear submarines. How can the Royal Navy be larger than the Russian Navy, if the Russian fleet is almost triple the size, and the British fleet and has only 36,000 sailors compared to Russia's 142,000? Let's be serious.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya1166 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 2 June 2007

Why are you bringing a superpower arguement here. You seem biased in the russians favor. There are many references to comfirm what the article says on the British armed forces. You need to stop this irrelevent arguement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledsabbathstein (talk • contribs) 00:39, 3 June 2007

I've removed the word "nominal" from the sentence stating the UK has the second highest defence spending, as I understand nominal to mean "in name only" (or to phrase it in a blunt manner, "not really"). If I have understood the sources correctly, UK spending is the second highest when the spending in Sterling is converted into dollars by exchange rate but fifth highest when converted by PPP. I don't think the first figure is nominal, even if it is possible to make a very good argument that the second is more meaningful. They are just different ways of measuring spending, and both clearly are used by people whose job it is to know about these things (eg the CIA seems to use exchange rate). Also, I have to admit I didn't understand the source for the PPP figure - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm - as it doesn't seem to state on that page how the figures are calculated (ie it doesn't actually state that it uses PPP, or perhaps I just can't find it).Hobson 02:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand "nominal" to mean like it does with regards to the GDP figures, as in the "nominal" GDP of a country and the "PPP" GDP of a country —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya1166 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 3 June 2007

User 82.23.120.74, here is a source saying that the Russian Navy is the second most powerful in the world after the US Navy, - http://english.people.com.cn/200508/18/eng20050818_203233.html - this is from a Chinese site, not a Russian one. This demonstrates that such a comment, "so and so's navy has the 2nd best navy" is point of view (POV), and should not be included in articles. With regards to military spending, globalsecurity.org says with regards to China's military budget "Most analysts estimate China's real spending on defense is at least three times as great as the publicly disclosed figure." http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/budget.htm. Same thing with the Russian military budget. And their budgets are significantly higher after their budgets are adjusted for PPP figures (AS WAS POINTED OUT IN THE ARTICLE) as China's PPP GDP figure is 4 times higher than it's nominal GDP figure, while Russia's PPP GDP is about twice as large as its nominal GDP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya1166 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 5 June 20077

The article you have provided from the Xinhua News Agency, the mouthpiece of the Communist Party of China's Propaganda Department, does indeed state that the Russian Navy ranks 2nd only to the USN, although doesent exactly state the extent to which this is the case i.e. in terms of power projection capabilities. Indeed the Russian Navy has never proven it's ability to conduct any extended naval or amphibious operation far from it's territorial waters. Indeed, despite certainly superior numbers of mostly former-Soviet submarines, it is questionable to what extent the Russian Navy is even seaworthy, indeed these reports don't make comfortable reading: [5] [6] [7]. The Royal Navy in contrast has proven numerous times during the Falklands War and more recently, during Operation Palliser and Operation Telic that it has this capability in a capacity second only to the United States Navy and also maintains several standing deployments globally. There is the potentially compromised source from the Royal Navy but now backed up by an article from the Cambridge University-based think-tank the Henry Jackson Society, which adds considerable credibility to the assertion that the Royal Navy has a capability in this regard only rivalled by the USN and as a result I belive it is perfectly acceptble to include this claim in the article.

Also as regards your repeated addendums to UK Defence Spending, the Official 2007 sources for global defence spending from the CIA and SIPRI in the List of countries and federations by military expenditures article are far more credible than your link to circa 2005 figures from "globalsecurity.org" which in no part states that Russian defence spending is calculated using PPP measures and if it were the case for instance, UK spending would still be higher than France as the former's economy is larger using both nominal and PPP measures and spends a greater proportion of GDP on defence, which is not consistent with what is in the article. You have also provided no source to substantiate claims that Russia and China "unofficially" spend more on defence, contrary to what is in the Wikipedia article on the subject, which does not validate the claim on the main UK article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.120.74 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 June 2007

Please sign your posts using four tildes. Viewfinder 16:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable, you ask me to find a source that contradicts this and I did. You cannot include information that is contradicted in other sources. NOBODY IS DOUBTING THAT THE UK HAS THE SECOND HIGHEST NOMINAL MILITARY SPENDING. The information about Russia and China probably having higher military expenditures is SOURCED. You cannot remove this just because you do not like it. The CIA did not list Russia military expenditures for 2007, as no information was available to the World Factbook's compilers. The UK's Navy performance in the Falklands war was poor to say the least, losing 10 (Sea) Harriers, 24 helicopters, 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, 1 LSL landing ship, 1 LCU amphibious craft to Argentina! Obviously you do not know much about this topic at all. Globalsecurity.org is an extremely respected source of military information, and its sole focus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya1166 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 5 June 2007

Ilya1166, please comment on edits, not editors. There is no such organisation as the "UK Navy"; you may be thinking of the Royal Navy. One of the problems (other than the fact they breach policy and do not help build the encyclopedia) with saying things like "Obviously you do not know much about this topic at all" is that it encourages a tit-for-tat spirit of argument. Rather than go in that direction, can I ask you to focus on well-argued rationales in terms of our policies towards making improvements to the article. Thanks and best wishes. --John 16:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)¶

Oh, and when you said, "The Royal Navy in contrast has proven numerous times during the Falklands War and more recently, during Operation Palliser and Operation Telic that it has this capability in a capacity second only to the United States Navy and also maintains several standing deployments globally" - that is what we call original research and wikipedia doesn't allow articles to be based on it. --Ilya1166 16:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

John, sorry I got a bit carried away but I have provided well argued rationales while User 82.23.120.74 seems to be providing argument based on his opinion and original research.--Ilya1166 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression from the main article edit history that there hs been serial breaching of of WP:3RR on both sides of this edit war. Hopefully this will cease and the disputed issues can be settled here. Viewfinder 16:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've warned both editors; Ilya1166 clearly appears to be new, whereas the IP might be new. In any case, nothing to report quite yet. The Evil Spartan 16:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

- I am not disputing the fact that PPP calculations for defence spending are different and produce different rankings and I believe that listing both nominal and PPP with appropriate sources is a perfectly acceptable compromise (although perhaps not cluttering up the introduction with such a detailed digression as you did). However, the source you provided ([8]) offers no explanation of how the figures are actually calculated, we only have your word that they are examples of defence spending in terms of PPP. The latest figures in the link you gave are circa 2005, yet the link you provided uses the same sources (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and The World Factbook) as Wikipedia’s List of countries and federations by military expenditures article, which has figures dating circa 2007, which leads me to believe that the link you have provided is outdated and no proof of PPP defence spending rankings. This is not to mention the fact that PPP can be inaccurate and is in fact completely useless when accounting for international arms trading, which has to be convertible into dollars, pounds or euros for obvious reasons. “PPP measures can be highly inaccurate because of the difficulty of allowing for differences in quality and devising appropriate and relevant “weighting” of individual goods and services. Civilian based PPPs may also not be representative of defence goods and services.” ([9]). The only aspect of calculating defence expenditure in which it is extremely accurate is that of relative Wage costs, which even at that also doesent take account of other factors e.g conscription vs. professional armed forces. I would therefore suggest this is why these figures have not been included in the actual Wikipedia article, which is why I believe for issues of consistency it shouldn‘t have been included. I also imagine that it is no coincidence that these figures show Russian Defence spending in a more favourable light than in nominal terms, which would follow the pattern of your edits in this and other articles. For the sake of compromise however I am willing to accept both measures’ inclusion with appropriate sources and is why I would therefore suggest that an alternative source should be obtained if such a claim - as regards PPP spending - is to be included and would like to invite other contributors to state their opinion as regards this so an acceptable popular consensus is reached.

- The sentence you included about defence spending being underestimated as regards Russia and China was in fact unsourced and aught to be reverted if no credible source is forthcoming.

- The source you provided ([10] ) mentions nothing whatsoever about the ability of the Russian Navy to project power overseas, therefore does not contradict the source I have provided regarding this ([11]), which indeed explains at considerable length the current and future capabilities of the Royal Navy in terms of power projection.

If I am apparently guilty of original research then I respectfully suggest that your analysis of the Falklands War as being “poor to say the least” is a classic example of original research on your part. In fact I personally struggle to see how you can logically reach such a conclusion:

The Falklands conflict remains the only major air-naval combat operation between modern forces since the end of the Second World War so I’m curious to see what comparable criteria you base your claim on. Taking a look at the Wikipedia article on the subject of the Falklands War, it can be established that the UK achieved all of it’s operational objectives (Status quo ante bellum) for the loss of only 258 soldiers to the defending Argentine’s 649, which is a more favourable rate of attrition than the Battle of Normandy for example. Infact throughout the war Sea Harriers claimed 24 kills for no losses in air to air combat, although six Sea Harriers were lost to ground fire and accidents. The reason for the substantial losses of helicopters was due to the sinking of the unarmed civilian Merchant Navy transport vessel the Atlantic Conveyor by an Exocet missile. All the helicopters carried except one Chinook, were destroyed. The loss of these helicopters meant that British troops had to Yomp across the Falklands from San Carlos to capture Stanley, which speaks volumes regarding the ability of the much smaller but professionally trained British Infantry to operate successfully against numerous entrenched, but largely conscript, Argentine ground forces, despite limited air mobility for the duration of the land campaign. The sinking of the ARA General Belgrano by the British SSN HMS Conqueror (S48) effectively established British naval dominance of the South Atlantic. Argentina’s ability to operate fast jets from Port Stanley Airport was denied by British bombing. Despite this certainly there were several shortcomings subsequently identified in the Royal Navy’s ORBAT. Specifically the fact that Royal Navy surface ships were vulnerable to sea skimming-anti-ship missiles and this led to the retrofitting of most major classes with Close-in weapon systems and the redesign of the then future Type 23 frigate. However this shortcoming can be somewhat explained due to the fact the Royal Navy at the time was optimised for operations against the Soviet Navy in the GIUK gap, who at the time had no such sea skimming-anti-ship missiles in their inventory, the Cold War-era Royal Navy hardly planned to be fighting against an enemy armed with the technology of a western ally! It also demonstrated the lack of an organic AEW capability in the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy’s AEW capability had been lost when the Fairey Gannet aeroplane was withdrawn after the last of the RN's fleet carriers, HMS Ark Royal, was decommissioned in 1978. As a result a number of warships were placed in vulnerable “radar picket“ patrols, which resulted in a number of losses including HMS Sheffield (D80), as a result the Westland Sea King ASaC7 was introduced to remedy this particular shortcoming.

The accusation of me being guilty of original research I think is a tad disingenuous considering that the examples I listed i.e. the Falklands War, Operation Palliser, Operation Telic and Standing Royal Navy deployments were all classic examples of what is known as Power projection, which I believe was the original bone of contention, and is indeed further explained at length in the source I had provided ([12]). You have failed to provide any evidence that the Russian Navy has at least equivalent capabilities in this regard. Therefore I feel that your removal of the statement that “The Royal Navy's ability to project power globally is perhaps second only to the United States Navy” (on which I had already offered a compromise on definitive phrasing) was unjustified and aught to be reverted and I would be interested to hear further feedback from other contributors as regards this matter in order to reach an acceptable popular consensus. 82.23.120.74 23:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the statement about the Royal Navy having the "second best global power projection in the world" is not a fact and cannot be proven, no matter how many sources you find (so far only 1). Such statements should not be included in the article at all, and the information should be kept purely factual. With regards to military spending, Globalsecurity.org is a reliable source, and if the information about the UK having the second highest military spending is to be included, the source (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm) that states that Russia and China have greater military expenditures (these are not PPP figures) than the UK should be included to give readers a more accurate picture, and Russia's and China's military budgets have increased since 2005, not decreased.--Ilya1166 08:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I’m afraid that’s where I disagree. Power Projection is a quantifiable capability (otherwise why would there be a whole article devoted to it) and if sources are provided (not only Royal Navy but further substantiated by an independent source) then you have absolutely no justification in removing it and I would like to ask for feedback from administrators and other editors to clarify this before I restore it to the article to prevent any further reciprocal reverts on your part.

“The Royal Navy's ability to project power globally is perhaps second only to the United States Navy.” [13] [14]

There is nothing wrong with that sourced statement other than it appears to contradict your personal opinion.

You have repeatedly claimed the globalsecurity.org source as based on PPP so I take it you are now withdrawing that assertion? I am perfectly ok with wording of this section as follows:

“According to various sources, including the Ministry of Defence, UK has the second highest military expenditure in the world, despite only having the 28th largest military in terms of manpower. According to other sources, the UK only has the fifth highest military expenditure in the world. ([15]) Total defence spending currently accounts for 2.2% of total national GDP, compared to 4.4% at the end of the Cold War. It is also the second largest spender on military science, engineering and technology (Source)."

Could others please offer their opinions on this?

I also do not appreciate the fact that you have unilaterally decided undertake further extensive editing of the article, including the removal of various referenced sources without first seeking a consensus to do so, this is almost tantamount to vandalism! I would ask for feedback from as many administrators and editors as possible so that a consensus is quickly reached on this and the general quality of the section on the British Armed Forces can be restored. 82.23.120.74 15:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Power projection article does not cite any references or sources, and you are again referring to the Royal Navy website, a source which is unsuitable because it is essentially the Royal Navy praising themselves. There doubt the Russian Navy would say that its ability to project power is second only to the US so you can see the futility of this argument. The Henry Jackson Society source does not say that the UK's global power projection ability is "second to the US", it only talks about its ability as a blue water navy, direct me SPECIFICALLY where it says that the "UK's global power projection ability is second to the US". --Ilya1166 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the whole Armed Forces section is ridiculously long compared to military stubs in other nation articles, and full of waffle. This article is on the United Kingdom, not the British Armed Forces, and thus the Armed Forces stub should include only major details. All of the waffle I removed is covered in the British Armed Forces article. Also I removed the CVF Aircraft Carrier picture because the article is about the present-day Armed Forces, not future potential. The article is about what it is able to do NOW, not in the future.--Ilya1166 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, it would appear that the the vast majority of the artice was in it's current form before I started editing it and indeed you were the first to start removing parts, including sources, claiming the Russian Navy was superior without providing any basis on which that is the case. That has followed the theme of your edits ever since. Why you have chosen to target the UK article specificaly, remains a mystery. [[16]] You cannot just delete large parts of articles just because you deem it to be necessary, without seeking a consensus first, therefore it should be reverted. Furthermore it is not full of waffle, it is a relatively concise overview of the British Armed Forces in terms of equipment, manpower, service branches, doctrine, capability and command structure. On the other hand your addendums, such as ranking military spending, including listing the higher ranked countries, using different measures, could be contrued as digressing and "waffle".

The source as regards the Royal Navy is backed up by an independent source - perhaps a suitable compromise explicitly stating this would be in the form of: "According to various sources, including the Royal Navy, their ability to project power globally is perhaps second only to the United States Navy". 82.23.120.74 16:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The source as regards the Royal Navy is NOT backed up by an independent source, The Henry Jackson Society source does not say that the UK's global power projection ability is "second to the US", it only talks about its ability as a blue water navy, direct me SPECIFICALLY where it says that the "UK's global power projection ability is second to the US".--Ilya1166 17:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully we can agree that the CVF Aircraft Carrier picture should be removed because the article is about the present-day Armed Forces, not future potential. The article is about what it is able to do NOW, not in the future.--Ilya1166 17:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, removing the waffle is not vandalism, like I said, all of this information is covered in the British Armed Forces article, it's not lost.--Ilya1166 17:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you would agree that the defining nature of a blue water navy is it’s ability to project power overseas, it a prerequisite capability, therefore the source is perfectly valid. It is stated in numerous occasions such as:

“The only other ‘blue-water’ navy other than those of France and the United States, its ballistic missile submarines carry the nation’s nuclear deterrent and its aircraft carriers and escorting naval squadrons supply London with a deep oceanic power projection capability, which enables Britain to maintain a ‘forward presence’ globally, and the ability to influence events tactically throughout the world.” and

“No ‘blue-water’ fleet is complete without a coastal assault capacity, and the Royal Navy is no exception. Here, the fleet’s ability to project significant ground forces onto the land has also been upgraded in recent years.”

“It is therefore essential that the government continues to provide all the necessary resources so that the Royal Navy’s global power is maintained and, wherever possible, reinforced. In short, the government must adopt a Second Power Standard and maintain permanently the Royal Navy’s position as the world’s second strongest fleet.”

It’s capability relative to other navies is specifically referred to at various points in the article, including the introduction and in the final paragraph.

[17]

I don't think it is appropriate to delete significant sections of an article without first proposing such changes on the talk page and waiting for a consensus first, especially when the vast majority of the content is long established in the article and yet you have still included your more recent edits, that go into the detailed and varied intricacies of defence spending, including irrelevant lists ranking other countries relative to the UK. However I have no problem with removing the CVF image or replacing it with an image of the Invincible Class CV‘s, with the future carrier project only mentioned under it in the caption. 82.23.120.74 17:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Both the pictures on the Armed Forces stub are of equipment, and either the Invincible carrier or the Trident picture should be removed and be replaced with something other than equipment. The caption about how the carriers are to be replaced should be removed as the carriers will not be commissioned for many years yet.

With regards to trimming the fat from this section, I'll start with the statement "Amongst the NATO allies, the Royal Navy's total displaced tonnage is second only to the United States Navy and has the third largest share of tactical combat aircraft after the United States and France." should be removed as why does it matter whether its tonnage or number of aircraft is 2nd ir 3rd amongst NATO, the standard should be measured against the all nations. Also, "Primarily optimised for Expeditionary Warfare" should be removed as this is not common and the article for it has only just begun construction, and the sentence should be changed back to "The United Kingdom fields one of the most technologically advanced and efficient armed forces in the world" as it was before you changed it.

Once again it does not say in the Henry Jackson Society source does not say that the "UK's global power projection ability is second to the US"--Ilya1166 22:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don’t see the problem personally with the current images, on which I already offered a compromise. However I don’t have a problem replacing one with an alternative, non-naval themed image e.g. of British Forces on deployment. I don’t see the problem of including the section describing the CVF and F-35 replacement from approx 2012, as these are directly relevant to the Invincible class image and is central to the UK’s current defence planning and has been since the Strategic Defence Review of 1998.

Again I don’t see the problem with the inclusion of the source stating the British Armed Forces, specifically the RN and RAF’s position relative to other NATO countries such as the US and France, as this is the UK’s principal military alliance. I believe it aught to be retained, especially as there is very little reliable information regarding equivalent statistics in non-NATO countries anyway. If you can provide a credible source that outlines this for all countries, not just NATO, then I don’t see a problem with that, indeed it is mentioned by the editor in the article itself. I don’t have a problem with removing the statement referring to optimisation for Expeditionary Warfare, although the UK has not been invaded since 1066 so it’s strategic role is pretty obvious really. I’m sure I could provide MoD or other sources substantiating that strategic fact.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse regarding this Henry Jackson Society source. The reason I provided it, is that it backs up what was quoted in the Royal Navy source which was originally disputed by you. It does not contain the direct quote which you have demanded stating the “UK's global power projection ability is second to the US” however it provides detailed analysis of the Royal Navy’s capabilities in this regard which leads to the same conclusions as the official Royal Navy source which was directly quoted, and you disputed. Perhaps you would prefer the directly lifted quote that the according to the source, the “Royal Navy is the only other ‘blue-water’ navy along with those of France and the United States” instead? 82.23.120.74 00:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The NATO comparison should be left for the NATO article. NATO only has 26 countries anyway. The List of countries by size of armed forces lists the number of fighter aircraft for each country, and also includes the type and number of major vessels each country operates, which is a much better indicator than "tonnage". I don't have a problem with including the statment, 'The Royal Navy is the only other operating ‘blue-water’ navy along with those of France and the United States'. I agree that an image such as British forces on deployment should replace one of the images, preferably the Invincible carrier picture because this vessel is quite obsolete.--Ilya1166 04:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

With regards to military spending, see the article Military budget of the People's Republic of China. Some interesting quotes:

"In terms of the prevailing exchange rate, SIPRI, RAND, the CIA and the DIA estimated the budget at between US$30 and US$65 billion. In terms of purchasing power parity, or the relative purchasing strength of the expenditure, the SIPRI estimate is as high as US$140 billion."

"The 2007 US Department of Defense annual report to Congress on China's military strength offered several estimates of actual 2007 Chinese military spending. In terms of the prevailing exchange rate, DIA estimates fall between US$85 and US$125 billion. The Chinese government's published budget was US$45 billion."

"While the People's Republic of China officially states to have a lower defense budget than the other world powers, unofficial estimates place the total amount of spending higher than the government claims. However, unofficial calculations about the military spending of the People's Republic of China tends to differ between organizations."

"The official military budget which China and Russia announced does not include spending on nuclear weapons, cruise missile development, and fighter development. These are categorized under the Science/Space development budget. Spending on training are categorized under the Education budget, and veteran pensions are categorized under the Welfare budget. As the result China and Russia's actual military expenditure may be more than 3 times as much as the official military budget. This has been criticized by Western countries as having less transparency."

Real Volume Comparison

• "The following table exposes the effects of Purchasing Power Parity by comparing the forniture each country can afford with its budget. The data, except for the "troops" category, shows only relatively modern and on use material each military owns, it excludes stocks and obsolete hardware."

Type	PRC	Russia	Japan	US	ROC	N. Korea
Fighter aircraft	2400	2200	300>260	4500	400
Tanks	7100	21000	900>600	7000	400>900
Submarines	60	60	16	72		24+24*
Tank/Transportation	225	200	30	900	N.A.
Troops (in millions)	1.6	0.35	0.15	0.65		0.9*

--Ilya1166 09:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

globalsecurity.org

Please could we stop citing sources from the website 'globalsecurity.org'. It is unreliable. There are better organisations, comprised of academics and professionals. Could we please only use statistics from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the International Institute for Strategic Studies or the Royal United Services Institute? These provide extensive academic research on security and defence issues, which is used by most of the world's defence ministries, etc. User:Ouip 13:17 (GMT), 8th June 2007

Globalsecurity.org is reliable, it's even in its slogan "GlobalSecurity.org - Reliable Security Information". The website specifically targets "Subject Matter Experts", "Senior Leaders", "Junior Staff and Interns", "Concerned Citizens", and "News Reporters"; the latter stated to be the site's most important online target audience. Forbes.com has a review of the site and lists it in their "Best of the web" directory.[18]--Ilya1166 13:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. Just because something says it is a reliable source means nothing. Please stop adding this website's defence spending statistics. Britain's defence spending is currently £33 billion, which is $65.6 billion.[19] This is not a topic for debate: these are official Treasury figures used by the British Ministry of Defence. Now take a look at the statistics from your beloved globalsecurity.org rank order list.[20] As you can see, Britain's defence budget is certainly higher than Russia's (which is far too high) and China's. So the inclusion of these globalsecurity.org statistics serves no purpose. They are false. User:Ouip 03.00 (GMT) 9th June 07

Did you not read that Forbes.com has a review of the site and lists it in their "Best of the web" directory. I doubt they would give them that honour if they were 'unreliable'. And their primary target audience is news reporters. The official military budget which China and Russia announced does not include spending on nuclear weapons, cruise missile development, and fighter development. These are categorized under the Science/Space development budget. Spending on training are categorized under the Education budget, and veteran pensions are categorized under the Welfare budget. The US Department of Defense itself estimated Russia's and China's military spending as considerably higher, [21]--Ilya1166 02:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Forbes is not a credible source for assessing the competency of security and defence information—this is the prerogative of academics and defence intellectuals, like those at SIPRI and the IISS. And your source from the US DoD says absolutely nothing about British defence spending, or Russia. Further, Britain's defence budget also does not include nuclear weapons costs or internal defence issues, or the costs of overseas operations like Afghanistan or Iraq, so the real amount spent by the country on defence is also likely to be higher. Now, it seems clear that China's defence spending may plausibly be higher than Britains—although only three 'high end' estimates say this from your DoD source—but Russia's is certainly not. Britain therefore probably has the world's second highest budget, although China may also hold this position. User:Ouip 03.38 (GMT), 9th June 07

• Sigh* I can see this will continue to be a problem as nationalists like you do not listen to reason.--Ilya1166 03:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Double sigh* Nationalist? Ever heard the phrase 'Pot-Kettle-Black'? I'm not the one on the United Kingdom entry trying to make out that Russia is something which it is not... User: Ouip 12.01 (GMT), 9th June 07

• Triple sigh* Yes, nationalist.--Ilya1166 11:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I can see that you're a Russian nationalist. Quite why you're proud of Russia is beyond me... User:Ouip 19.05 (GMT), 9th June 07

• Right, you're the ignorant nationalist, when you can't refute the facts you say pathetic statements like "it's a well known fact in the west", it is clear you know very little outside of your country. Go to bed. You've got a big day at school tommorow.--Ilya1166 06:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe its time to take stock of where this conversation is going and concentrate on improving the article, by discussing edits not personalities? Abtract 12:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Formation

I've removed the date of formation: the uk of gb and ni wasn't formed in 1707, so to simply have 1707 next to formation is misleading. Best to just have the dates of each treaty. Passingtramp 00:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

'Blessed Nation'

Why has the part about Britain being the 'greatest nation on Earth' and a 'blessed nation' been removed? It was not suggesting that it WAS, merely stating that many describe it as that. It even offered sources, quoting Tony Blair, to show that people do indeed describe it thus. It was neither subjective nor incorrect. What fool has removed it in the misguided pursuit of accuracy? 2006-06-03 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.2.142 (talk • contribs)

Please remain civil and do not call another editor a "fool". Aecis^Brievenbus 12:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologise. I thought 'fool' was sufficiently light-hearted. 91.104.2.142 3 June 2007 (GMT)

Every country's leader says that their nation is the greatest on Earth, and people in all countries think that their nation is the greatest, it's called patriotism and is POV. There's no point in adding "so-and-so's president said that so-and-so is the greatest nation on Earth" to every nation article User talk:Ilya1166

That's quite a reasonable statement I (reluctantly) suppose. I'll leave the British nationalism for the Proms then... User 91.104...whatever it is

The British are a proud people, who have a long and successful history, just like many other countries of the world. If articles on other countries do not have a section on the people being patriotic, neither should this one. - Jackm (Talk - Contributions) 18:48, 4 June 2007

What's missing

I can't find any information regarding plant and animal life in the UK, not even in the British Isles article or the Great Britain article. Come on, you biologists, make a substantial contribution! --Voyager 15:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, I'll have to remember to deal with that.Parmesan 10:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a gap in quite a lot of other country pages too though - is it something that's normally dealt with elsewhere than country pages? MarkThomas 17:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I just tried to start a section - not sure why it was taken out. It doesnt tend to be covered in other countries or elsewhere - but I think it would be useful to start. Halon8 20:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Ah ok I get it now. Will write main article then submit summary. Sorry for trying to put it back - I thought my computer wasnt working.Halon8 21:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion: Nationality

There is discussion on how to write nationalities at Talk:England#English versus British Nationality. Please join in! --h2g2bob (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to move this discussion to here instead. Some of it is also being duplicated at Talk:Hugh Laurie#English_rather_than_British; one of the articles I changed that caused the discussion in the first place. Any input would be appreciated and I would like to find consensus.(Ajkgordon 16:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Islam

I noticed someone removed the section on Islam in the religion section of England. What are people's views on this? I must say i agree with it, as it already has 2 parts on the 2 main beliefs in England, Christianity and Athiesm. If a section on Islam was allowed, there would need to be a section on every religion in England, so it seemed "fair", and info about every religion in England would mean alot of info. — Jack Milne – 12:15, 6 June 2007 (Talk — Contributions)

Perhaps. My main concern at the moment is that the section is badly written. I've had a quick go at re-wording it, but would appreciate some help. Cordless Larry 20:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There's since a new section been added on Islam, which is well worded and informative. Jackrm 15:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (Talk — Contributions)

To Ilya1166 and Ouip...

Ilya1166 (talk · contribs) and Ouip (talk · contribs)... There seem to be be some disagreement on this talk page and the article itself. I'm glad to see you're both using the talk page to discuss this but please keep in mind that this article is the super-article for the many UK related articles. The sections in contention should simply be summaries of the main articles for them. So if something isn't in the main article then please add / discuss it their first and only if it is very important of relevant to the UK as a whole add to this article too, once it's on the sub-article. Thanks/wangi 02:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Motto - "God and my right"

Apologies if this has been discussed before and I missed it. The "motto" appears in the infobox as "God and my right" - is this correct? I always thought that Dieu et mon droit to give the old French version was the motto of the British Monarchy and originated with the Black Prince although I could be wrong about the latter. The motto is surely not the motto of the "United Kingdom" which I doubt even has a motto. Am I wrong people? Thanks. MarkThomas 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. See Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. --John 20:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The page you use as illustration supports my argument. The opening sentence is The Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom is the official coat of arms of the British monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II. Quite right. They are the arms of the monarch and the motto is the motto of the monarch. It is not the motto of the state entity known as the United Kingdom, which has no motto. MarkThomas 11:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nation vs State

This article claims that there are four nations within the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland). Northern Ireland is not a sovereign nation recognized by any other sovereign nation, sovereign state or the United Nations for that matter. Northern Ireland is not even the full province of Ulster, since it contains just six of the nine counties that comprise Ulster. Northern Ireland is essentially a political construct that is neither a nation, a province or a state.

None of the four countries or nations - England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - are sovereign in an international sense. None are recognised as sovereign states because they aren't. The sovereign state is the UK from which the four nations or countries are comprised. Northern Ireland is indeed a political construct as are most countries, provinces and nations. But it is part of the United Kingdom, recognised as such by the United Nations (and by the Republic of Ireland for that matter), and therefore remains outside the scope of what we as Wikipedia editors should be debating.

The definitions of state, country and nation are fluid and overlapping and largely depend on context for their precise meaning. The context in which the words are used in this article is fine IMHO. (Ajkgordon 08:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

To be terribly precise, there are two Kingdoms (England and Scotland), one Principality (Wales) and one province (NI). NI may not be the same as the old Ulster, but it is still referred to as a Province. Perhaps "constituents" would be a better phrase? "Nation" tends to refer not to just an area of land, but also a distinct people (such as the phrase "First Nations" for the native inhabitants of North America), so the phrase would certainly be appropriate for Wales, Scotland and England. As for Northern Ireland - well, not as far as I can see. So, nation is certainly not the right word to use, and neither are state or province. Please consider the more neutral "constituent" or a similar phrase. Parmesan 16:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

England and Scotland aren't kingdoms; the respective kingdoms to which you refer were abolished on 1 May 1707. Northern Ireland is not a province at all; no legislation has ever defined it as such, and (since the repeal of the act creating Northern Ireland) it is simply defined as a group of six lieutenancy counties and two county boroughs. It doesn't have the title of 'province' or any such nonsense. Wales may be a principality, but HRH the Prince of Wales cannot be considered to be more than a footnote to what Wales is defined as being.

'Home Nations' is the term that ought to be used, for three reasons. First, it's the term that's best understood. Second, it does not mislead as the term 'constituent country' does; the latter term denotes a degree of federalism (Yugoslavia, Soviet Union) or confederalism (European Union), neither of which the United Kingdom displays. Third, the term 'country', which is an integral part of the way 'constituent country' is defined by Wikipedia, is understood by legitimists to be a sovereign state (which is not true) and by nationalists to be what "should" be a sovereign state (which is not NPOV). Bastin 19:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

While "nation" is often used by official bodies, as in Home Nations, I think constituent country is probably the best term in this context. (Ajkgordon 17:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

I have much sympathy with that view, Bastin. However, in this context, there is no higher authority than the UK government and it describes the four "entities" as countries. Tricky one. (Ajkgordon 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

Hmm, I see. I was clearly being somewhat retro, as it were. OK, how about:

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. It constituent entities are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Both England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland were, historically, separate states and nations. They came together following a process of expansion, colonisation and political union, predominantly driven by England. Northern Ireland was formed in 1922 following the formation of the Irish Republic. Although Northern Ireland may not be a nation as such, the four constituents of the United Kingdom are commonly referred to as the Home Nations. - Then (new paragraph) - the current monarch is...

I see how the bit on England driving the union could be interpreted as POV, though - and the term NI was used in the 1927 GB &NI name change. Plus the "nation as such" is a bit weasel-wordy. Still, a fair stab, I think, in the right direction. Parmesan 21:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Entities"? Might as well call them constituent countries. Country is modified sufficiently to remove connotations of sovereignty and countries is what Downing Street calls them. Alternatively use the phrase Home Nations instead (although there's probably been a discussion on this somewhere).

I think your attempt has merit but I'm not sure the intro is the right place to talk about the intricacies of what is or isn't a nation, state or country in the UK.(Ajkgordon 22:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

New European vector maps

You're invite to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 12:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Facts/Demographics

I would appreciate it if someone could add facts such about the UK such as, 'how much of the UK is urbanised' and possibly government predictions about population growth or population decline in the future.88.110.24.141 14:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a nice population pyramind at statastic.gov.uk that show the population esimates to 2074. Maybe somebody could somehow include those figers?

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/populationestimates/svg_pyramid/uk/index.html

81.111.120.110 16:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister

I've just seen that, according to Yahoo!, Gordon Brown becomes PM "today". Shouldn't we change it from "Tony Blair" to "Gordon Brown"? 89.240.82.159 13:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, he's leader of the labour party today, PM on weds. Bennelliott • Talk • Contribs 14:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So who is the PM until Wednesday?? user:mnw2000 17:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why, Tony Blair of course. Bennelliott • Talk • Contribs 18:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on people, let's not jump ahead of ourselves. Brown won't be PM until around 2pm. Blair is still in office until then. Bennity 23:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right. If Gordon Brown gets run over by a bus before 2pm today, he still might not become PM. We need to report what actually happens, not what we think is going to happen, no matter how likely it appears to be. Waggers 09:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Its class

I think, by my personal opinion, that this particular article fits FA-class. Randalph P. Williams 13:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ships

I'm somewhat perplexed by the issue over captioning a photograph of an aircraft carrier. The RN has two of these, ILLUSTRIOUS and ARK ROYAL, ARKR being the current flagship and LUST undergoing an upkeep period. INVINCIBLE was decomissioned in 2005 and is currently sitting in No3 Basin, Portsmouth. Despite the caption inserted by an IP user OCEAN is not an fixed wing aircraft carrier, the normal implication of Aircraft Carrier in the maritime context, but is a helicopter carrier. If you're going to include ships capable of multi-spot rotary wing operation you need to include ALBION and BULWARK as well, each of which conduct four-spot operations. All Destroyers and Frigates, as well as the River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels can operate a single Helo.

ALR 19:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Royal Navy has currently 4 large ships with through decks for the purpose of carrying large numbers of aircraft. The navy has 3 Invincible aircraft carriers which are called HMS Invincible, HMS Illustrious, and HMS Ark Royal. HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal are currently in service and HMS Invincible in currently decommissioned and in storage. The Royal Navy also has a fairly new helicopter/aircraft carrier built on the Invincible class design called HMS Ocean. HMS Ocean is almost exaclty the same as the Invincible carriers expect she has no ski jump for short take-offs currently but has the capability to have one added.

INVC has been decommissioned and is currently sitting in 3 Basin, as I already noted above. That means that she is not part of the fleet, if you look at the Fleet Bridge card it lists two ships as a/c carriers; ARKR and LUST. The bridge card is a significantly more reliable indicator of what ships the RN currently thinks it has. A lot more reliable than a website.

I'd like to see a reliable reference for OCEA having the capability to launch and recover fixed wing a/c, it does take more than the addition of a ramp, fixed wing a/c require different infrastructure to support them, including maintenance facilities and weapon storage. As I recall, although it's a while since I was onboard her, OCEA does not have the requisite weapons facilities.

As for HMS Invincible no longer being counted as a Royal Navy ship because she's decommissioned then why does the Royal Navy itself still count HMS Invincible as one of their ships on their website? She is in storage and can be called back into service with 18 months reactivation time. She has not been scrapped or sold. Only in one of those cases is she no longer a Royal Navy ship.

You've answered the question yourself. She'd need 18 months to reintall all the kit that's been removed.

As for HMS Ocean she in nothing like the Royal Navy landing ships HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. Landing ships main pupopse is to carry troops not aircraft. HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark do not have a through deck like HMS Ocean does and cannot have a ski jump added to make them carry fighter aircraft like HMS Ocean can. HMS Ocean looks so similar to the Invincible carriers she is often mistaken as one of them. HMS Ocean is an Invincible class carrier in all but name and was built on the Invincible class design but the only difference is that she is currently used to carry helicopters.

That's exactly my point. OCEA is not a FW a/c carrier, she is a rotary wing carrier and supports landing operations with landing craft, as do ALBN and BLWK

It is foolish to compare HMS ocean to a Type 42 destroyer. A destroyer carries a single helicopter not 20-30 of them like HMS Ocean. A destroyer is a small-ish battle ship of sorts whose main purpose it to destroy incoming enemy aircraft using guns and missiles and to be able to counter and destroy enemy submarines and so to guard larger allied ships that it might be escorting . A destroyer's main purpose is not to carry large numbers of aircraft. Anything whose main pupose is to carry large numbers of aircraft is an aircraft carrier.

If you're considering a platform which supports rotary wing operations as an a/c carrier then there are three; OCEA, ALBN and BLWK. OCEA can launch from six spots at any one time, ALBN and BLWK can, from memory, conduct four spot operations. The DD/FF illustration serves to demonstrate that merely saying a ship carriers helo does not make it an a/c carrier.

It seems to me that you don't like the fact the UK is the only nation other than the US to have multiple aircraft carrying ships and that is why I think you have gone to lengths to make the Royal Navy seem to have as few ships as possible and make completely ludicrous comparisons for HMS Ocean.

The RN can operate two concurrent battle groups, one based around and a/c carrier (LUST or ARKR) and one based around an amphibious assault ship (OCEA, ALBN or BLWK), I'm not into self aggrandisment but prefer accuracy.

See Royal Navy's website if you dispute any facts I have given.

Personally I prefer relying on more reliable sources such as the bridge card.

ALR 08:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Domesday Project link

Can I add a link to the BBC Domesday Project website: http://www.domesday1986.com/?

This is a very extensive interactive guide to the UK as it was in the early 1980s. It includes photographs from all major towns, satellite and aerial photo data, and personal viewpoints provided by over 1 million people (mostly school children between 7 and 14 years old -- these slightly naive apolitical viewpoints are surprisingly interesting!) and other data from national archives, museums and art galleries. It was the first major interactive multi-media document in the world (a precursor of electronic Encyclopedias).

The collection is accessible by zooming into the maps at:

http://www.domesday1986.com/

Rnt20 15:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

First sentance

I think the first sentance could be tidied up a bit to:

"The United Kingdom (full title The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but usually shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain) is a sovereign country to the northwest of mainland Europe."

What do people think?

Personally I think it is better the way it is. "Sovereign country" (your proposed version) is not a well-used term whereas both "country" and "sovereign state" are. As the UK is both these things it is best keeping the two descriptions in there even though there is a lot of cross-over between them. --AJKGordon 12:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethic % table

Just reading through and found that the numbers aren't correct - didn't want to alter it without finding out if there is an equation or anything pinning it together. V-Bede 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)