Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 4

message: Now let me get this right: the section on 'Terminology' is almost as long as the section on 'History'. That says it all. 
A concerted effort is required to make the language plainer and to clean up the mistakes in the prose.
Perhaps a clean-up notice should be posted at the top, like this:

Tony 12:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it looks to me like your criteria would put a clean-up notice on practically every article. We all know that the wikipedia is a work in progress; and if you look at the edit history you'll see that this page has lots of edits every day. If you have problems with this article the best motto, as always, is "be bold." Along those lines: do you like what I did with the opening ¶ of the gov't §? (The rest of the § could still do with some trimming, in my view.) Doops |  talk 08:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is way below standard 

message: Shouldn't it start with the Celts, the Roman occupation, and the waves of migration during the first millennium? Just one paragraph might do it. Tony 08:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What for ?  The UK has only existed for two or three hundred years depending on whether you pick 1707 or 1801 for its creation. The events that you are talking about are relevant to the History of Britain where they are already mentioned in the Ancient Britain article but they hardly form part of the History of the UK. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 14:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: I've managed to get the article down to 33Kb. The main ways iv'e done this is:-
*Reduced lists down to three items unless they cover every instance. For example, i've prunded endless lists of bands from the UK to the 3 most important in each area. Same with inventions, sports, people etc.
*Removed historical references that are outside the history section. 
*Removed references to current events in the history section.
*Removed references to cornish independance and regional assemblies in the Government and Politics. These do not exist as actual governments in the UK.
*Removed extranious descriptions such as when Tony has tea with Liz and the House of Lords reforms.
I think it's not a bad size considering the complexity of everything in the UK (probably the only country in the world that has to explain what it is first). I think the size of the info box needs to be reduced as well.  The names could go in another article and then be referenced. josh 20:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My article hacking 

message: Yes it's a Unitary state but the first sentance should use the most common desciption. It could also be called a kingdom, commonwealth realm, union, member of the UN security council etc. Every other country is called a country in the first sentance the UK shouldn't be any different.unsigned
The UK is different. Unlike other entities it is not a country but an amalgam of countries, all of which have retained a separate sense of national identity, unlike in Germany, for example, where a separate country identity does not exist in the lander, even though they once were themselves separate countries (pace Bavaria.) Indeed within Wales and in particular in England and Scotland there is a separate sense of national identity and separateness from the other countries in the UK that is not found in say US or German states, or in the regions of Italy. So to call the UK a country is at best POV. In the views of many in the various countries within the UK, it is factually wrong and demotes their countries to mere regions, something they clearly are not. 
The UK is a state. It is standard where one is talking about federal or confederal states to refer to them as a federal state or a conferation. The UK however belongs to the third category in that definition tree: a unitary state, a single state governed from the centre but where the centre has given (ie, in home rule) or could give, certain governmental powers to subsidary units that owe their legal existence to the whims of the centre and can be abolished at will (ie, they  have no constitutional right to exist in their own right). So just as it is normal to call a federal state by that name, especially if it is not a country but is a federation countries, so it is standard to refer to a single state containing countries but in which all power theoretically resides in the centre as a unitary state. 
Calling the UK a "country" in this article makes the article a joke. For one thing a country cannot have countries in it. But then as this article shows, whomever defined the categories here doesn't seem to know such elementary facts as the difference between states, nations and countries. They are different things. Calling the UK a country is constitutionally illiterate. FearÉIREANN15px\(caint) 23:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have hit the nail on the head, Joshurtree. Half Wikipedia is wrong along with a whole bunch of the bureaucrats that put together websites for the UN, the IMF, etc. That is because they have been written by people with a hazy knowledge of political science. On the other hand this is JTD's area of expertise and I trust his opinion on the matter far more than any number of unqualified webmasters. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 03:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but look at what you've just said: that political scientists get to define the word "country." That's not how it works. Newly-invented words and phrases may have precise meanings; but you just can't pin down an ancient word like "country." Doops |  talk 03:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: But that's the point. Political scientists are the only people who have truly defined the word "country". The rest of us just use it in the same vague ambiguous way that we always have. That may be good enough for day-to-day speech but when we're trying to write down an exact definition for an encyclopedia we should be aiming for precision. And "unitary state" is exactly what the UK is. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 03:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK is many things to many people. Your version, it seems to me, is politico-centric. There is more to life than governing and being governed. Here's a good example: imagine a wikipedia written during the many periods of history when there was no political entity for all of greater London, just a collection of independent cities and boroughs. The article at London would still be about the city as a whole, not just the square mile; and it wouldn't be ashamed to call London (as a whole) a "city." The article would go on to explain the precise governmental situation, of course — we're all nerds here and we like being accurate — but it wouldn't let details of government define what London is. Government and the English language are our servants — we aren't theirs. Doops |  talk 04:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK is an oddity. Many people use "England" and "UK" interchangeably, even though England ceased to have any formal existence centuries ago. There is no Queen of England, for example, because that title was abolished. People use "nation", "country" and "state" in much the same way - interchangeably, and there are no precise definitions for each term. If you find one definition that seems authoritative and precise, then I can find another equally as good that says the opposite. --GrangeH 09:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The definition of a word isn't the sole domain of a set of people who know most about the subject.  While I agree that the article should specify exactly what the UK is the first paragraph isn't the place to do it. It should create a frame of reference using a term that everyone knows. This article is designed for people without political science degrees who think of the world as a bunch of countries so to specify the UK using some obscure term confuses them straight off the bat. It also is incomplete. It only describes the style of govenment. This isn't a politics page. It's also about the people, the industry and the geography. So the most accurate title would be a western, industrialised, temperate uintary state/constitutional monarchy. BTW could you give us the definition of country that excludes the UK from that list.josh
Yes, some people have different understandings of the word country. But encyclopædias need to be precise. Accuracy is a fundamental requirement in an encyclopædia. That is why we don't call Queen Elizabeth the "Queen of England". An encylopædia's need for accuracy means that we have to define her title strictly and accurately. Similarly we don't call the Republic of Ireland the "Irish Republic", even though some elements of the media do, because it is not correct. The Irish Republic actually was the title of the 1919-1922 UDI Irish state. Accurately is a fundamental requirment is a project like this, not merely something that sounds kinda right-ish. Unitary state is the best option. It is 
* a standard term that can be used;
* it is 100% accurate;
* it has a clear umabiguous meaning, so we know what it is and as important, what it isn't. 
Country means everything and nothing. A historian, a political scientist, a school-kid, an academic, and ordinary person in the street, may well mean different things when they use the word. That some of ambiguity is not something an encyclopædia should have, certainly not in an article on the UK, when there are already nations within the UK that also describe themselves as countries. People should be able to read the article and know exactly what we mean, not read the article and be confused wondering "which definition do they mean", "what do they mean by that?" Or even worse, "but isn't Scotland a country too? How can you have a country in a country? I'm confused." FearÉIREANN15px\(caint) 16:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. I'm trying to imply that either terms could be used. Perhaps that isn't clear enough.
To quote Jtdirl: An encyclopædia is in effect a factual dictionary that has at its basis absolute factual accuracy.  For an amusing thought-experiment, go through the any paragraph of this or any encyclopedia and try to bring it in line with that standard. Just as an example, here's a revised "unitary state" version of this article's first sentence: "The UK of GB and NI is the name given to a region of the world by the government under whose de facto control it is run — a government recognized by the UN and many other states as being the legitimate de jure authority there and which bears the characteristics of a unitary state — and to the collective polity formed by certain inhabitants thereof." Doops |  talk 20:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: He's at it again. I'm just about to put 'country' and its nice socio-cultural connotations back in.
Rednaxela 23:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm glad he's at it again. He's right. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not right. There is no doubt that the UK is politically a unitary state; no argument. But it is far more than that, and to restrict it to political technicalities in the intro is just plain wrong - these are discussed later. Mucky Duck 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country or unitary state 

message: The Scotland Portal is now up and running. It is a project in the early stages of development, but I think it could be a very useful resource indeed, perhaps more for general readers (the vast majority I presume), rather than committed editors, who may be more attracted by the great possibilities of the notice board format: Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board.
Give it a Watch, and lend a hand if you can. It is (hopefully) fairly low-maintenance, but if we run with the "News" section, that will take dedication: time which I cannot commit to presently myself. Most other boxes need replacment/update only weekly, fortnightly, or monthly, plus the occasional refreshment of the Scotland-related categories. Anyway, I assume this is how the other Portals are run, so we can follow their lead.
Please add the following code -  - to your own User page, and you will have the link to the portal right there for easy access. I will investigate how other portals use shortcuts too.
Assistance from Wikipedians in the rest of the UK, and indeed everywhere, would be greatly appreciated!--Mais oui! 08:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Scotland|Scotland Portal]] 

message: Well given that London is the greatest city on Earth and the most wikilinked city on Wikipedia, it seems ridiculous that Bucharest had its own portal and London did not.  So I made one.  And made a right hash of it too.  But anyway after figuring out how the boxes worked and after having about 4 hours work evaporate when Wikipedia crashed as I clicked "Save", it looks half decent.  I've got some people from WikiProject:London helping, but not many of us have worked portals before...
Anyway, the Scots got their portal up and running so we Southerners were never going to be far behind.  Ditto everything they said! Any help would be appreciated.  Cheers, Deano 21:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:London|London Portal]] 

message: I have added the following about Cornwall:
"In Cornwall, there is a movement that calls for devolution  (Cornish nationalism), and an academic debate over the Cornish identity and constitutional status of Cornwall." 
Bretagne 44 19:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cornwall]] Kernow Cornubia Cornwallia Cerny 

message: The page was getting seriously large so I took the liberty of archiving a chunk.  Hope I haven't annoyed anyone too much... I kept the most recent stuff... Deano 19:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 3

message: Timeline of states in the British Isles           	Timeline of states in the British Isles           	Timeline of states in the British Isles	Timeline of states in the British Isles	Timeline of states in the British Isles
(936–1284)                                        	Principality of Wales (1220–1284)                 	(843–1707)                             	(1171–1541)                            	
Kingdom of England (England and Wales) (1284–1707)	Kingdom of England (England and Wales) (1284–1707)	                                       	(1541–1801)                            	
(1707–1801)                                       	(1707–1801)                                       	(1707–1801)                            	                                       	
(1801–1922)                                       	(1801–1922)                                       	(1801–1922)                            	(1801–1922)                            	
(1922–present day)                                	(1922–present day)                                	(1922–1937)                            	(1922–1937)                            	
                                                  	                                                  	(1937–present day)                     	(1937–present day)                     	
In Detail                                         	In Detail                                         	In Detail                              	In Detail                              	
I've created this infobox. Does anyone have any comments on improvements and articles/sections it could go in? I have made some compromises to simplify the box. The names used are the common terms rather than exact titles. For example, i've used Great Britain rather than Kingdom of Great Britain. I've done this to make it more obvious where the term comes from and reduce the size of the box. josh 21:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a slight problem. I understand the strong disinclination to clutter up this box with needless verbiage; but as it stands now the law of least astonishment suggests that "England" should link to England, "Great Britain" to Great Britain, and so forth. I think the full names need to come back in, alas. (Flags might be nice too, by the way.) Doops |  talk 22:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: England, hath now of its favour, wholly and entirely transferred under our proper dominion, the land of Wales, with its inhabitants, heretofore subject unto us, in feudal right, all obstacles whatsoever ceasing; and hath annexed and united the same unto the crown of the aforesaid realm, as a member of the same body. 
Another minor point is that Northern Ireland seems to be divided on the Kingdom of England map. josh 23:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *I'm no expert, but looking at the various Wikipedia articles, they say that the 1284 Statute of Rhuddlan brought in Wales under the English monarch (which isn't quite the same as merging the kingdoms, since for example the Kingdom of Ireland shared a monarch with England, but they were still separate kingdoms), while the Acts of Union 1536-1543 annexed Wales to England and created the legal entity of England and Wales.  Actually, I'm not sure what the start date for the Principality of Wales should be....should it be 1218 (i.e., Llywelyn the Great)? --JW1805 (Talk) 02:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline of British Isles Nations 

message: Why has my edit on clarifying the 2012 Olympics UK Football Team been re-edited to be far more vague? I originally wrote that though the English and N.I. FA's were for, the Scottish FA were dead-set against, and Wales having previously agreed, have stated their intention to revaluate their position. 
Now it says "To which the England and Northern Ireland Football Associations have given their backing". Why has it been changed, as this seems less informative? 
:I edited it out completely because it seemed too long-winded. Somebody else added the concise version, which says explicitly that England and NI are in and it is implicit by omission that Scotland and Wales aren't. -Rednaxela 03:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that many readers may not be familiar with the idea that each Home Nation has its own football association, I think including the fact that the other two are not involved is reasonable.Robdurbar 09:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've just realised that it explains this in this very article. However, I still don't feel there is any harm in adding that sentence. Robdurbar 09:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the concise version after Rednaxela had removed the original - the POVs of each of the home nations' football associations are fact, and therefore need to be included.  Given that Rednaxela had just removed the direct POVs, I did not want to start a revert war so I just left it as implication by omission.  All in all, however, I'd suggest that the full explanation should be somewhere, if not here.  A link to that somewhere would be good though.  Deano 17:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Olympic 2012 Football Team

message: The "other" parts of this page; those in italics at the beginning of this article - are fairly biased. Where it says: "If you mean England, (Great) Britain..." - I believe that they are forgetting that there are three - yes three - other countries that make up the United Kingdom; and are blatantly ignoring them. Becuase of this, I have "hidden" the England part --Kilo-Lima 21:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: England is mentioned, because in non English speaking countries, the UK as a whole is referred to as "England". The purpose of entering England is to disambiguate terms which in other languages mean the same thing. I will restore the England notice. Izehar (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction/Other uses

message: This date seems a little late to me, what about after the Hundred Years War?
66.205.108.8 02:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 1801 is perfectly correct. What about "after the Hundred Years War"? That ended c.1450, England and Scotland didn't even share the same king until 1603, or the same parliament and government until 1707. 1801 is the union of parliaments of GB and Ireland (i.e. abolition of the old Irish Parliament and formal union of the Kingdom of Irelad with the Kingdom of Great Britain to form the United Kingdom). -- Arwel (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with the date of establishment? 

message: *The House of Lords has 724 members (though this number is not fixed): hereditary peers, life peers, and bishops of the Church of England. The Church of England is the established church of the state...
I'm not entirely sure on this, but if we're referring to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, surely there is no overall established state Church. Anglicanism (Church of England) for the constituent country of England, and Presbyterianism (Church of Scotland) for the constitutent country of Scotland.
Whilst I realise the Queen is Supreme Governor of the CoE, she is also a member of the CoS, and the Act of Union 1707 secures the place of the Church of Scotland in British politics and law. Shouldn't that final sentence be amended? 
Kaenei 03:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It's a common source of humor that the queen changes religion when she crosses the Anglo-Scottish border. - Calgacus 19:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: State Religion?

message: Over twenty three nations around the world celebrate independence days from British rule.
What does "over 23" mean? 24?, 25?, 50?, 250? This needs to be reworded to give the actual number. MRSC 13:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: over 23...

message: Do we have to have the footnotes in the infobox. There are eight of them there and IMO make the box look ugly. Can't they be moved to the bottom of the page? Izehar 16:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: Hving reverted an IP editing about the power of the empire in the first paragraph several times, they now seem to have decided to add a few sentences to the end of the intro instead. I've not reverted again as it would be my 5th (allowed for anti-vandalism by 3RR) and the added section seems to be in order having checked with other pages on wiki. It's also 2am here so I might be jumping a little quick thus I'll leave for someone with a clearer head.
However I am unsure about whether the IP will keep as current. I also suspect that Ouip is a new account for the person using that IP given that the revert back to the IP's version was that persons first. The IP seems to have vandalised in the past (see IP's talk page) so keep an eye out. - JVG 02:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read the added content again, almost all of it is repeated later in the article... - JVG 02:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reverts 

message: This article had many external links, and using WP:EL as a guide I could not find basis for the vast majority of them - most are more suited to other articles (where they are already listed).
I have removed them all, leaving in place links to the UK gov portal and the main tourist site.
Can I ask that any other links be discussed here before they are added. Thanks/wangi 17:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you wish. I intend putting back the link to The Official Yearbook of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland published by the Office for National Statistics. It is accurately described as The definitive overview of the United Kingdom and is highly relevant to this page. zzuuzz (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links - rationalisation 

message: I have a suggestion. Rather than edit-warring over it, why don't some people provided sources for their claims as to whether this is the 4t/5th biggest economy Robdurbar 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy Size

message: Just a quick thought, but would it not be an idea to mention cricket in the Sports section?
:It's already there: ' Cricket is also popular; although the popularity of the game is dramatically greater in England than the remainder of the UK, all four constituent nations as of 2006 compete at the One-Day International level - Scotland independently, Wales as part of the English team, and Northern Ireland as part of All-Ireland.' Robdurbar 19:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg - shouldn't the red lines on the left be at the top not the bottom?
:No. The broader diagonal white stripe should be at the top left hand side of the flag nearest the flagpole.  -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: Why is there an entry for 2005-06 in English football, whilst there is no equivalent entry for Scotland or Northern Ireland, or Wales? Doesn't seem very British -- Wouldn't it be better to adapt one entry for British Football which further breaks down into the respective national leagues of the home nations?
Kaenei 04:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not - the home countries are run entirely independently of each other - the relationship between football in Scotland and football in England, for example, is the same as that between football in the Faroe Isles and football in Armenia. However, links to the Scottish football season could possibly be added; the others (no offence) are nowhere near as nationally important. Robdurbar 10:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I've just noticed - its 2006 now isn't it? Better update that one! Robdurbar 10:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose you could look at it like that -- Adding a Scots entry would definitley balance things out properly. Kaenei 13:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 In the United Kingdom infobox? 

message: Someone revert the population figure I added - presumably because it was from the CIA? If you note, the other version is a compeltely uncited one; so either I think it should be reverted to the 2001 census population or to the 2005 CIA estimate. Robdurbar 09:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The CIA population number is a disaster (discussed here before). The source for the 2004 ONS estimate is in the infobox (#7) -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Apologies; I was suspicious as the editor who altered the population to agree with this also cliamed that we'd passed France population wise, which the ONS doesn't claim. Robdurbar 09:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: I apologize for my brother's vandalism in my name of the United Kingdom page.  --Kevin Hanse  (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that did seem a bit out of character. Plus, the edit summary of "VANDALISM!!!!..." was a bit of a tip off that it might have been a temporarily-hijacked-account.  Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 23:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If only all vandals were so helpful as to summise their vandalism so. Dmn € Դմն 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by [[User: Kevin Hanse]]