Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 6

message: Under the sport section, cricket is mentioned by name but not elaborated on like all the other sports - it surely ranks as more nationally important than motor racing, for example.  A few lines should be inserted about cricket. Saccerzd 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps; though bear in mind that it is highly popular in England but maybe less so elsewhere. --Robdurbar 20:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It's just not Cricket!

message: "The national sport of the UK is association football". Is it really? Yes it's the most popular sport, but that doesn't make it the national sport. Every reference I've found to back it up has turned out to be a Wikipedia clone. DJ Clayworth 17:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moaning is the national sport/wangi 17:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like most things in the UK, nothing is officially anything - the national sport is not stated anywhere of any official importance.  Therefore, the de facto national sports have been simply chosen in terms of their relevance to the country - football, cricket, rugby, tennis etc.  DJR (Talk) 18:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this has come up before and it was thought that as football is described almost solely as the national sport it was worth while; could be cut out as an assertion, however. --Robdurbar 23:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Check the last archive, this was discussed there. It was agreed football was the de facto national sport, as with many things in the UK. For example English is the de facto national language.
Well Football is now the defacto national sport but i remember hearing years ago that snooker was but this may of been based on how many people where watching the matches.Corustar 20:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: National sport

message: Made a start. Someone help fill in the others. Skinnyweed 14:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I've done the first few paragraphs... the sooner we can do this, the sooner we can maybe start to head towards fa status. --Robdurbar 09:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I consider that the fantastic UK ties template removes the need for others at the bottom of the page. If EU were to be added, it would leave the gate open for all the rest to be reinserted too.
Rednaxela 11:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we have a UK ties template? It's never going to be used anywhere else, is it? If it was coded directly into the UK article then this confusion and duplication wouldn't arise because the reference would be there for all to see. Mucky Duck 13:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's why I said it was fantastic. It just gets silly if the page has multiple templates at the bottom. An anonymous user keeps adding the EU template and I keep removing it. That's all. Rednaxela 21:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No, stop getting me backwards. I'm the one defending the UK ties template, which I think is a fantastic idea. I am saying that it would be to the article's detriment if we had seven different templates at the bottom of the page instead of one! Rednaxela 23:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: About that comment in the front of the article telling people not to change. Please stop this. Skinnyweed 22:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The music part listing prominent bands has also started getting bigger and bigger. And we have people trying to insert their favourite football teams. Skinnyweed 22:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems to keep getting added and removed. The person removing it says something like 'remove statement unilaterally introduced without consensus)'. Skinnyweed 16:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorting through your double negative, what you are really saying is that there is no consensus to call the UK a "country". Therefore that word should not be used to describe the state. --Mais oui! 17:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha, ha! That "discussion" is merely the tip of the iceberg! This discussion has been going on on this article for a very long time, and that very new subpage is most certainly not representative of the many preceding discussions. In fact I have a very good mind to nominate that subpage for deletion, as it is clearly an attempt to "ghettoise" this debate and remove it from general view. All discussion should take place here on the Talk page. "Country" has been opposed as a definition by many Users not present at that subpage.--Mais oui! 17:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And so they should. There have been some shenanigans going on here. We should merge that subpage back into the main Talk space, here. Certain people are trying desperately to conceal the clear opposition to the use of the word "country". --Mais oui! 17:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The introduction should be reworked- it is a complete mess, and is poorly structured. Astrotrain 18:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: World record: for once I wholeheartedly agree with you! In fact I would go further and say that this whole article is sub-standard, but so much work needs to be done, one hardly knows where to begin. But I definitely think that it is thoroughly unhelpful to put authoritarian instructions at the very top of any article saying, in effect "HANDS OFF". It is redundany anyway: nothing should be introduced anyway if it is unsourced and lacking consensus. --Mais oui! 18:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of wrangling over it like children, why not state one and then write a note explaining the conflict. Skinnyweed 19:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's take this back to the subpage where we can all look at the past discussions. DJ Clayworth 19:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh and about your accusations of 'shenanigans' and recently created subpages - here is a copy of this talk page from August 2005 With a country/kingdom/state subpage. I do not know when exactly it was introduced. I agree that this might as well go back to that subpage (unless we were to make that an archive and have future debates here?) --Robdurbar 19:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: I was woundering if I should use Template:Cite web or the format used in the article?Rex the first talk | contribs 21:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any, but just make sure it's consistent. Skinnyweed 21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite 

message: I do not believe that Wales is a constituent country unlike Scotland and England.  I believe that Wales is in this category a principality and should be listed as such on here, as Northern Ireland should be a province. Enzedbrit 04:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a principality doesn't stop it being a country. All that says is that the governor is a prince in the same way that the governor of a kingdom is a king or of a duchy a duke. Naomhain 13:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Naomhains reasoning but agree that it is NOT a constituent country. What is now the UK is made up from what was once many tribal kingdoms. Many of these kingdoms were set loosely by what are now the county borders. If we are going to name every single part of the UK which was once self governing it is going to make this article very very messy because we'll basically be naming each county as a constituent country. Are we to start refering to London as the Country of the Icenee/ Kingdom of Mercia? - of course not, it hasn't been for 2000 years. To refer to Wales as a country of the Gaelic is pointless to. Scotland is a little different because for the most part of history it has been sepratist to England, however I do not feel with Wales that has been the case. Although Wales has for some periods of history been sepratist - it has never been during the UK (which lets not forget is what this article is about - not a history of the british isles but a history of the United Kingdom). Not calling it a country is NOT a derogatorry term to make the welsh or wales seem like less of place or inferior to Scotland or the rest of England. However it is done to keep this article neat and tidy and to avoid causing unessessary confussion and for encylopedic correctness. I support the removal of wales being reffered to as a constituent country. 
We could just say 'is comprised of England, Wales and Scotland' and remove the constituent countries bit? --Robdurbar 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wales

message: Would someone like to champion this as a good article? Apart from the many unsourced statements, I think it might make it 
Skinnyweed 21:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination 

message: Since the discussion here has resulted in no opinions against, I am going to make the change and call the UK a country. If you are here because you object to that, please add your comments to the this page. DJ Clayworth 17:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: II'd avoid changing it, read the archive and read the old talk pages for it. This is an extensive argument/near revert battle thats been happening since this article was made. Generally its been accepted that its a State but I couldn't care less either way. I only suggest leaving it as changing it is likely to generate some serious flak.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.151.178  (talk • contribs) 
The point is that nobody who thought  the UK should not be called a country showed up to debate the matter, despite my leaving several personal messages for people. Nobody gave any reason why country was wrong. We can't make arbitrary restrictions because 'somebody might object for some reason we don't know about'. Plus several people indicated that country was preferable to state, which in UK English has authoritatarian overtones. DJ Clayworth 20:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Country

message: Just by chance (following a 'new' user's edits) I came across with this statements from this article: " Many other nations regard the British Armed Forces as being the best in the world.".
Where should I start. First, "best" is a really wide concenpt, it shouldn't be used in such way. Second, there are no sources or references to it. And finally, it looks like a childish biased phrase. Perhaps it only needs to be rephrased (and sourced), but the article would probably better of wihtout it. Mariano(t/c) 07:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even as a strong believer in the high quality of the British armed forces, there is no way this phrase belongs in a neutral encyclopedia. We can probably source it if we really try, but it's best to just get rid of it. DJ Clayworth 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to kindly ask you to do it yourself. Given the fact that I'm Argentine, some people might take the edit as an offence (don't laugh, I've seen it happen). Mariano(t/c) 13:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I totally understand. There's usually someone who will take offence on most Wikipedia edits. Actually the phrase has already been removed, so it isn't a problem. DJ Clayworth 13:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks everyone. Mariano(t/c) 08:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: British soldiers probably know how to spell 'their'. DJ Clayworth 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best in the world 

message: 1801 seems a rather random date to me, i dont think its is possible to put and establishment date on the UK, the whole subject is far too debatable. obvioulsy for nations like the USA there is a clear date but even just on a political basis it is far too hard in the UK? any thoughts? 
Oh and i just read the bit about the "union jack" being incorrect, its offical name may be the union flag but saying that the word commonly accepted throughout the world is a little strong 81.107.193.131 11:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a random date, it's the year in which the 1800 Act of Union took effect, creating the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.  Prior to that date there was no United Kingdom, so it's fairly unambiguous as the date of establishment of the UK. --Ryano 11:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a valid debate about whether the UK was established in 1707 or 1801 (and there are a few people that argue that it's 1921 or 1927), but none is 'random'. Bastin 12:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was the Kingdom of Great Britain that was established in 1707, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was established in 1801. -- Arwel (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not quite as clear cut as that. Bastin is quite right, there is a  valid debate. Mucky Duck 08:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Establishment  

message: An editor added (quite validily) that the UK is one of five countries with a 'comprehensive nuclear weapons aresenal'. I changed it to 7 to include India/Pakistan; another user reverted on the grounds that their aresenal is not 'comprehensive'. I am not an expert in this area but the List of countries with nuclear weapons states that India has 75-115, and China 130. It seems a bit odd to me that 130 might be considered 'comprehensive' and 115 not. I propose changing 'one of 5 to have a comprehensive' to 'one of 7 to have a confirmed'; this removes the potentially loaded word of 'comprehensive'. --Robdurbar 22:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent change. DJ Clayworth 14:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Comprehensive' (minor point)

message: Do we have a citation for Norman French being used for official business? DJ Clayworth 13:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Norman-French is not used.  Anglo-Norman is.  Google any one of dozens of phrases used in Parliament, and you'll find many sources (for a few such phrases, see the article on the Anglo-Norman language).  However, Black Rod saying, "La reine, il veult" does not constituent enough 'official business' to justify reference in the infobox. Bastin 23:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That's what I thought. DJ Clayworth 13:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Norman French

message: "The bulldog is sometimes used as a symbol of the UK, although it is more commonly a symbol of England alone"
Really? I don't think I've ever heard or seen it used for England alone. It's a somewhat out of date symbol but for the whole of the UK (the British Bulldog), surely, and certainly more common in that usage than for England? Mucky Duck 08:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. One could argue that it normally applies to Britain rather than the whole of the UK, but not just England. I will change the article. -- Chris Q 10:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulldog 

message: Whilst historically Rugby Union was considered only really played in the north of Ireland this assessment must, in todays context, be considered wide of the mark. The main bulk of the current Irish national rugby union side is comprised of players from the Munster and Leinster provinces i.e southern Ireland. (Anonymous,  21:22, June 9, 2006)
:And? This article is the United Kingdom - where does Irish Rugby fit into that?!? /wangi 17:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Irish rugby team draws its players from the whole island of Ireland. Would seem relevant to mention that it crosses national borders or whatever... *shrug*GiollaUidir 17:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rugby Union 

message: I removed: "The UK and the Former U.S.S.R have recently been voted best 2 countries on the globe, with the U.K coming 1st and U.S.S.R 2nd.". Without a source this doesn't belong in the article. We would need to know who did the voting before we could even consider it's significance. DJ Clayworth 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voted best country

message: Congratulations to all the editors so far for producing a concise, interesting summary of an enormously broad topic. --Doradus 15:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well done 

message: Why do Britian and the United States have roads that work opposite each other?Cameron Nedland 18:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried asking this at Wikipedia:Reference desk? DJ Clayworth 18:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Random Answer: forty minutes later. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sorry.Cameron Nedland 14:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll save you the time. In very little detail, back in the day people would walk past each other on roads on the right hand side of each other. It was because their right arm was their sword arm and should the other try to rob them they could respond quickly. This meant they were 'driving on the left' effectivley by having their stronger sword arm (the right) facing into the roaf) However when Napolean came about he was left handed and so all of france walked on the left hand side of the road. It appears the United States adopted it due to its distaste for all things British and (at that time) its abundant francophilia. It stuck and now I believe some 75% of the world drives on the right whilst the remaining 25% (mostly former British empire nations) drive on the left. Hope that helps. --WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Question 

message: The music section mention to much credible music. It's all rock and indie. Although people might not like it music has other sides and the likes of Take That, Spice Girls, Girls Aload, Robbie William, etc have had major success in recent years. Jimmmmmmmmm 00:06 30 June 2006
:Oh yes, and the 1980s? Everybody forgot that wonderful decade?--Doktor Who 22:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: Well done on the article. =) Does anyone think of adding something new? (IIIV 14:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any ideas? I think at the moment its quite a healthy sized article, nice and colourful as well as concise. I suppose a section could be added under transport to explain the driving on the left but I rather feel thats not that important as to warrant being on the nations main page. --WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well done 

message: People really need to learn that sport is a culture activity, and doesn't deserve it's own section. It is always the structure of a Wikipedia article when your talking about cities or countries. Jackp 11:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People really need to learn that "People really need to learn" could be interpreted as an incivil phrase in a community. The JPStalk to me 11:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We could also mention "when you're talking about cities". I don't think we need to make this a hard and fast rule. Whatever gets us good sized sections. DJ Clayworth 16:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sport 

message: There was no mention in the football section of its origins.  While football is often claimed as being invented in China I focussed on the origins of Association Football rules, which started in the UK, in Cambridge.  The UK has a rich sporting history, discussion of which would certainly not be complete without (albeit brief) mention given to rowing and the continuous international success the UK enjoys.  I entered a small paragraph for this purpose.  Although the media are woefully guilty of under-reporting our successes on the water it would be fitting to see more contributed on this sport.  Adam. London. 15/7/06
:Sorry but I removed this section.  It belongs in the article on football, where there is already a history section - Football_%28soccer%29#History_and_development. Gsd2000 11:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sport 

message: O.K., so the last census (2001) stated that Britain was 92.1% `White' and in 2004 it seems to have a 12.8 % ethnic minority (approximation)(now 87.2% white).  Bare in mind that these statistics are based on people's own self-perception in identity. In Britain, most British I have met consider `White' to mean native British or Northern European origin or appearance and may consider a darker Southern European as a `Mediterranean' or `Latin'. Chinese are a separate category from `Asian' and there is no category for Middle Easterners, some of whom may tick that they are `White' if they are fair skinned. What would the approximate `White' Native British population be and are other Europeans generally included in that category? Can anyone give information?
:Does it matter? People are people.--Shtove 01:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Europeans are normally included in the 'Other White' category, many middle-eastern people often put themselves in the 'Other Other' category. In England, approx 95.68% of White people (86.99% of the total population) are White British (90.92% of the total population are White). In Wales, approx 98.07% of White people (95.99% of the total population) are White British (97.88% of the total population are White). I don't have the tables for the other parts of the UK to hand, source: census table ks06. The 92.1% figure you quote includes non-British. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ETHNIC MINORITIES - Need Information. 

message: It is well-written, informative, appropriately illustrated with licensed images, well-referenced and interesting. I'm saying this is a Good Article. Well done to all the contributors :) EuroSong talk 08:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article

message: Someone has, over the last week, changed the article to claim foundation at the original act of union between Scotland and England/Wales in 1707. It now says that it was founded in 1707, becomign the UK of GB and Ireland in 1801. I'm not an expert in this area so I'm not sure what's correct. Indeed, this was discussed briefly furhter up the page However, I suggest we:
*a) sort this out once and for all, as it gets habitually edited every few months or so
*b) leave some note or footnote explaining the foundation date
--Robdurbar 20:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foundation date etc.