Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Geography section

Concerning the paragraph about Northern Ireland, I've added the pretext island of in front of Ireland (as is done in the intro), so as not to be confused with the Republic. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is there usage of phrases like "Ireland and Great Britain", "Rep of Ireland and the United Kingdom" etc.? The term British Isles comprises these terms, making them redundant. Also, I reverted a sentence that didn't make much sense ("the largest body of water on the island of Ireland and also the largest in the United Kingdom."). ⚡ KEYS767 ⚡ ^(talk) 16:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I considered comprising it into British Isles, but due to past experience with that term, I thought better. Ghmyrtle's version is best, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

TBH, mentioning that LN is the largest body of water in the United Kingdom, is all that's needed. I had also considered removing mentioning of the island of Ireland, but again, wasn't sure what the reaction would be as Northern Ireland is located on that island. So I merely did tweaking. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The geographical body is named, and its notability is given. In this case the notability for it is that it is the largest in the British Isles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I won't edit-war over it's inclusion/exclusion. Regrettably, there are those on the 'pedia, who will. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I am reverting again. The sentence is confusing if read in a certain way, as the terms "island of Ireland" and "United Kingdom" overlap, since Northern Ireland is in/on both. It has the potential to cause confusion by being read in the wrong way. 'British Isles' does not. If 'British Isles' is for some reason unacceptable - and I can't think of why on earth it would be - may I suggest something like:

"the largest body of water on the island of Ireland, as well as the largest in the British Isles as a whole"

This version uses two geographical terms, instead of political entities. ⚡ KEYS767 ⚡ ^(talk) 23:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I still prefer Ghmyrtle's version. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

On the article for the loch it is notable that it is the largest in the British Isles (the largest geographical unity). On this article it is notable that it is the largest in the area covered by the article This is really simple isn't it? --Snowded ^TALK 06:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

@Keys767: I can't see how the version that mentions both the island and the UK can be confusing. They do overlap, and the lake is the largest in both. What "has the potential to cause confusion by being read in the wrong way"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It could be read by some to mean that the island of Ireland and the United Kingdom are exclusive of each other, with no overlapping geographic areas. A better version would have been (something like) "the island of Ireland and also in Great Britain" as these two are exclusive of each other. Even if it wasn't confusing, it is still pointless since the phrase "...the island of Ireland and also the largest in the United Kingdom..." is made redundant by the phrase "...largest in the British Isles...", which encapsulates both. Why be needlessly verbose about it? ⚡ KEYS767 ⚡ ^(talk) 17:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

'Cuz this article is about the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

By that reasoning then, it should simply be largest in the United Kingdom, omitting Ireland altogether. ★KEYS★ ^(talk) 18:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I considered deleting Ireland, as that extra trivia was best suited for the Northern Ireland article. But figured, it would've been challenged. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Could we deal with the expression the largest body of water when coming to a form of words for the sentence as a whole. Loch Neagh is certainly the largest lake by area but the largest body of water is Loch Ness which holds nearly twice as much water as Loch Neagh. --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Why does the simplest of things seem to be so much heavy weather on this Talk page? "in United Kingdom" or "in British Isles": both will do, it doesn't really matter. BillReid makes a real point on accurate information. Body of water should change to, eg, "largest lake by area". DeCausa (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd also support a "largest lake by area" change. ⚡ KEYS767 ⚡ ^(talk) 17:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The word "country" must be defined, otherwise this statement is not-true

Trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The word "country" must be defined, otherwise this statement is not-true. "The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and unitary state. It is a country[11][12] consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.[13][note 8] It is governed by a parliamentary system with its seat of government in the capital city of London." The word "country" in this context means "independent state" on the international stage. The United Kingdom is a "country". The regional-subunits of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are not-countries. The wording above amounts to a non-truth, i.e., a falsehood. (by Magna Carta). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.226.125 (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Look up. There is considerable discussion about this. ALWAYS check the talk page before starting new threads. garik (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC) WTF? How could he/she have missed this? Never mind "checking", the whole of this Talk page is plastered with it!!! DeCausa (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC) WP:DNFTT applies here, I think. Now, which currently blocked user am I thinking of? Hmmm.... How's the armchair? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC) (ec)Ah the newly created Canadian IP whose only previous contributions have been to defend GoodDay as a " scholar, a gentleman, and a person of great patience". Per Garik, please read prior discussions. DeCausa, we get a lot of this sort of thing, its why many of sign when another IP comes along with a similar challenge --Snowded TALK 21:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC) I don't know who the IP is, but his discription of me is quite accurate. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC) (outdent) The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a country (i.e., an independent state). The Kingdom of Spain is also a country (i.e., an indepedent state). The Political divisions of Spain are not-countries. Therefore the Political divisions of the United Kingdom are not-countries. Refering to England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland as countries is thus not-true (i.e., a falshood). (by Magna Carta). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.226.125 (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC) The Canadian educational system has a lot to answer for. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Whoever the poster is, I would advise him to use standard English words such as untrue, rather than invent new formulations, such as "not-true", for which there is simply no need (or should I say, "no-need"?). ðarkuncoll 00:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC) TharkunColl, I am using Negation terminology of the Logical connective category. Similiar usage is present in law documents and parliamentary proceedings, for example "guilty" versus "not-guilty". Thus we have a "country" versus "not-country" (i.e., "true" versus "not true"). In short it eliminates wiggle room. (by Magna Carta"). Sorry, I must have misinterpreted what you wrote as a pile of wank. My apologies. ðarkuncoll 00:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Might i point out to the IP to click on the [note 8] link and read what is there. e devised the note for a reason and its obvious that there is a note in regards to that statement. Mabuska (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Mabuska only an Act of Parliament can declare England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland as independent states (or a successful war). (by Magna Carta). Well no-one here is claiming that they are independent states, and due to the ambiguity of the term "country", your arguement is heading nowhere. Is the Magna Carta even valid anymore? I suggest we just ignore this trolling. Mabuska (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC) For the single purpose of being able to progress with this article, can you folks please accept Country as a definitional source? HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Better yet, avoid altogether. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Magna Carta, did they teach you in school that England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland were regional sub-units? If so, your teachers should have been given the boot long ago. Just accept that they are countries and get over it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Jeanne Boleyn, you are one of the kind, open minded, and patient people here at Wikipedia. I am going to phrase this in the least abrupt fashion that I can, England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are regional sub-units of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is the country (i.e., the independent state), the regional sub-units (i.e., England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland) are not. (by Magna Carta). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.249.234 (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Can't see this helping to improve the article. Any objections to removing this entire trolling section from an obvious sock? Daicaregos (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Its obvious a sock, the question is whose? No clear clues from style although that last one about Jeanne has something familiar about it --Snowded TALK 18:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC) I've never heard of'em described as "regional sub-units" before. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

British Armed Forces image update

Hello, the British Armed Forces image needs updating, the image that is currently there is 4 years old and shows Land Rovers in Afghanistan, British Armed Forces no longer use Land Rovers in Afghanistan etc. --SuperDan89 (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you point us towards any more appropriate images? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Good question, I was thinking maybe three images put together into one box in order to represent the three services, one image of the HMS Daring (Royal Navy), one of the Challenger II (British Army) and one of the Eurofighter Typhoon (Royal Air Force). Here is an example using wiki images:

Feel free to delete the image as it is just an example, no infringement intended. --SuperDan89 (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the three images; however, the copyright issue needs to be sorted out first.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'm not massively familiar with image dealings on Wikipedia such as copyright etc, any help would be appreciated. The image can be deleted until the copyright/permissions can be supplied, I have the collage saved. Here are links to the three original images on Wikipedia, HMS Daring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Daring-1.jpg Challenger II: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Challenger_II.jpg Eurofighter Typhoon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eurofighter-NellisAFB-2008.jpg --SuperDan89 (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The individual images are free. You have just modified them by creating a collage. Why not just upload each image to the article, if the copyright status on the collage cannot be resolved?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have resolved the problem with the copyright of the collage. --George2001hi (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Great! I for one support its inclusion to the article, replacing the outdated tank image we've got at the moment.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I support as well, it's a nice collage.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought: would stacking the images vertically rather than horizontally fit the text better? Rangoon11 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for all the help and backing, vertical? I agree probably work better, I have upload a new one:

I'll place it in the article and see what it looks like --SuperDan89 (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Nice job, by the way, Dan!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Foreign Relations and Military

I'm not going to bother arguing whether the two sections should be combined or not. Suffice it to say I think they should be combined, and they were combined until the massive format changes. However, if editors want to have a divided section, simply taking the top paragraph and making it foreign relations and making the rest military is not acceptable. The foreign relations section currently includes information about NATO, allies, and military deployments. These should not be there if a separate military section is available. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The two policy fields are unrelated in the first place. Your argumentation favors a separation of content, right? So if there is a need to organise the parts you mentioned in a decent manner you are welcome to do so. Marthainky (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

They're obviously not unrelated considering they're written so well entwined. My argument doesn't favour either, but as it stands if there's a military section the foreign relations section shoudn't include military. If you want to split it, split it. Don't make an artificial change. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've redone the split and removed the military detail from the Foreign relations section, apart from a couple of words which I think should stay. Hope both sides in the above discussion are happy with the result. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm stuck. Do people want separate Foreign relation and Military sections or not? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The current Foreign relations section is as follows:

The United Kingdom is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, G8, G7, G20, NATO, OECD, WTO, Council of Europe, OSCE, and a member state of the European Union. The UK has placed a particular emphasis on its "Special Relationship" with the United States.[118] Britain's other close allies include European Union and NATO members, Commonwealth nations and others such as Japan. Britain's global presence and influence is further amplified through its trading relations, official development assistance and its armed forces.

The reference to 'close allies' is not a wholly, or even mainly, military one but refers also to diplomatic, trade, investment, cultural and historical links. The reference to NATO is appropriate as membership is a cornerstone of UK foreign policy. The reference to armed forces is relevant as the UK armed forces do play an important role in the UK's global influence. There is of course some overlap between the areas of foreign relations and the military but that does not mean that they should not have separate sub sections, just like in virtually every nation they have separate government departments.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A nation's governing system isn't important. Things such as NATO are clearly military. And yes, the military play's a role in the influence of most countries, regional or global. If there should be separate subsections, they actually need to be separate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, guess what, a user just added more information about military to foreign relations. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

I have noticed that there is only one female (the Queen) depicted throughout the article. Surely we could put up an image of Jane Austen or Florence Nightingale?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

How about J. K. Rowling in place of Dickens? The only available image of Jane Austen really isn't very good, and Rowling is known worldwide, lived in both England and Scotland (and within one mile of Wales!), and is a current figure. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Rowling is a good choice.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going to suggest Kelly Holmes for the Sport section as at the moment there are three rather dull photos of stadiums. The pic of her at Athens Olympics is quite good. But on reading the text, it's mainly about whether or not the Home Countries have their own teams or not (!), and so I'm not sure it would fit in. DeCausa (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but before this discussion goes any further please can someone explain why additional photos of females are essential for this article. The very concept strikes me as tokenism of the worst kind. The next inevitable is then, why no photos of any ethnic minority Britons? Why no photos of anyone from a certain area of the country? Why no photos of people of particular political positions or background? Each section should be illustrated with the most appropriate images taken on their own merits. Period. This sort of politically correct tokenism should have no place in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"...from certain areas of the country"? Jeepers, don't go into that. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I should add that I strongly oppose replacing the photo of Dickens with one of J.K. Rowling, a far less significant author in every sense apart from commercial impact over the past decade or so. It is far too soon to judge Rowling in terms of her place in the canon but I expect it to be relatively minor in 20 years time. But even today who would place her above Dickens? The one female who I can see a strong case for the inclusion of a photo of in this article is Margaret Thatcher. Not because I agree with her politics but because of the huge impact which she had on the political life of nation and in the concluding phase of the Cold War. She is undoubtedly a very major historical figure. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing special about the existing photos - they're hardly "the most appropriate images taken on their merits". The selection's quite dull generally - quite a few cliches, Wesminster Abbey etc etc. All the pics of people are of men plus the Queen. The overall impression is pretty stodgy and not one of the better selections in a country article. I think some women would break up the stodginess a bit. DeCausa (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not a TV gameshow or a tabloid newspaper. We are also not here to promote minority views or political agendas. SO WHAT that the photos are of men? You haven't addressed that point at all.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem ready for a "political correctness gone mad" type argument. Bit of a strawman. The photos are nothing special at the moment. It would just provide some variety - which is needed. DeCausa (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

'The photos are nothing special at the moment.' I don't know if you are British, but I am and I actually find that comment grossly offensive as well as utterly crass. We currently have photos of individuals and groups such as the Beatles, Shakespeare, Darwin, Newton and Hitchcock, these are not just the most significant figures in their spheres to come from the UK, but arguably from any nation. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* That's a ridiculous comment. I don't care that much so I'm going to bed. Goodnight.DeCausa (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Maggie Thatcher & Vivian Leigh are a good selection. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly support the addition of a photo of Thatcher - although as I have made clear above, not because I feel that additional photos of women are necessary per se. However I would strongly oppose replacing a photo of Hitchcock, one of the most significant and influential figures in the history of world cinema, with one of Vivien Leigh. Leigh was without a great and important actress, and a photo of her would certainly be far more attractive than one of Hitchcock, but in terms of their significance there is simply no comparison. It is like comparing the Beatles with Rod Stewart. Stewart is great, has written some classic songs and has sold a massive number of records, but the Beatles he is not. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Put her image in 'with' Hitchcock's. It doesn't have to be a trade-off. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's room (I'm not so sure myself) then yes, great choice for a second photo.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ellen Terry was also a celebrated actress. We could use her rather than Hitchcock.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We do not need any more photos, overall. They would unbalance the article. And it's important to remember that images should illustrate the text and not be there simply to look pretty, or even to suggest that X who has a picture is more "important" than Y who doesn't. It seems to me to be a good idea to refresh the images every so often, but if it is going to be contentious simply to replace one image by another on a like for like basis (well, it's upset one editor anyway) then maybe we need to go through proper processes and be prepared to spend weeks here debating the pros and cons of each. Sigh. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If I had realised that a simple suggestion to add another female would turn into a The Beatles are more famous than Rod Stewart debate, I would have kept my fingers off the keyboard. (Echoing Ghmyrtle's sigh).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect that's rather disengenuous. I'm still waiting for any justification of the addition of more photos of women, just because they are women. The above discussion moved on because absolutely no arguments were forthcoming. I also can't agree at all with Ghmyrtle's comments that images should not be chosen on the basis of the importance of the subject (which is not the same as the most famous). That should in fact be the main criteria for selection, as it is the most neutral and encyclopedic approach and the least likely to enable systemic bias and the use of this article for the promotion of political and other views. Looking at the current photos it is clear that this has in fact been the approach thus far with this article, consciously or not. Rangoon11 (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Something like this would be more obviously iconic and notable wrt modern Britain. Fmph (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am very sympathetic to Jeanne's last comment: this should not have turned into a huge debate. If simple suggestions can't be "tried out" without someone getting on their high-horse about it, this article is well and truly bogged down. It's not as though this article is an FA and "shouldn't be touched". DeCausa (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Fmph: good choice. I was going to suggest the Spice Girls replace the Beatles. DeCausa (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for including images in articles, per WP:IMAGES, include how well they illustrate the article text, the picture's copyright status, its technical quality, and so on - not "the importance of the subject". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The above comment is misleading. There is no specific policy on image choice between multiple images which could illustrate the text. We are instead left to look to wider policies of the Wikipedia project. The technical policy and limited direction which WP:IMAGES gives are all met by the existing images, and could be met by a vast number of other images. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Also Ghmyrtle's choice of Rowling is a good one as she is associated with both England and Scotland. It's a cinch that in the early 21st century more young people worldwide have read her books than Dickens'. Hopefully this last comment won't open the floodgates of a verbal tsunami.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

More tokenism! This isn't a box-ticking exercise. Photos of women. Check. Photos of ethnic minorities. Check. Photos of people from Wales. Check. Photos of people who are atheist. Check. Photos of people with red hair. Check.

This is an encyclopedia with a fundamental policy of neutrality. It isn't The Guardian or the BBC, or ideed The Telegraph or Fox News. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well we cant use Maggies photo because of this. Fmph (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a joke or at least a non-neutral comment but the only place a photo of Thatcher could go would be in the History section, which currently already has three images and would in my view be unbalanced by any more. If it went there, she would be the only individual pictured in that section, and I don't believe that would be appropriate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well-spotted. I like the idea of Rowling instead of Dickens. The literature section would then have Shakespeare and her, which shows the breadth of British literature as well as modern and old. DeCausa (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Curious comment. Shakespeare was a playwright and poet, Dickens was a novelist. Shakespeare was active in the late 16th/early 17th century, Dickens in the 19th century. They are very different from each other and their works cover a great range. Rowling only wrote her first book in 1995. A photo of her, in the context of British literature as a whole, is gross recentism. It is also a gross exaggeration of her influence on literature and her place in the British canon. Please provide some authoritive sources which show otherwise. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No. DeCausa (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

...because it's not relevant (I assume). Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

...exactly. DeCausa (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Her book sales worldwide would be a start. As for redheads we've a virtual smorgasbord including ,Sarah Ferguson, John Lydon, Geri Halliwell, and Sammy Wilson. Whom do we choose out of these?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

...or this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Vivienne Westwood by Mattia Passeri.JPG

My favourite redhead

Seeing as we're discussing fashion designers, Vivienne would be my redheaded preference.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I DEFINITELY vote for Vivienne. (Btw, is fashion mentioned in the article - isn't that a major British industry?) DeCausa (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It sure is! Didn't Mary Quant invent the miniskirt?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea. According to this Guardian article the UK fashion industry is the leading creative industry worth £21bn per year to the UK. The UK film industry grossed only £2bn in 2009. Let's change the "Cinema" section to "Creative industries", cover fashion and film together and replace the Hitchcock pic with Vivienne. Simples. DeCausa (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Covering the article with images like the Katie Price example, would be fine by me, hahahaha. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea DeCausa. I don't think fashion is covered in the article at all. A major omission. Daicaregos (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've nothing against the addition of a separate fashion section. Merging cinema with fashion in a 'creative industries' section is not the right approach though. The two areas have virtually no practical connection and 'creative industries' also takes in things like music, literature, visual arts and the media. I should note that the definition of 'fashion' used by that report (which is here for those interested:[1]) to arrive at a figure of a £37 billion GVA is exceptionally wide and includes all clothes retailing and wholesaling in the UK, plus the suppliers of all those retailers and wholesalers e.g. their accountants, lawyers etc. The actual size of the sector which is generally understood as 'fashon' - clothes design and production - is very much smaller. I should add again that I've personally got nothing against the addition of a Fashion section though.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is already way too long at 200kb+. The culture section needs to be cut back anyway - there's too much text for a country article and having read it just now I'm not sure of the value of a lot of it. In any event, to put fashion in other stuff should come out. This is straying off images - I'll open a separate thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs) 18:42, 16 March 2011

I'm astounded by the fact that - though there is, for example, French fashion - there appears to be no article on the British fashion industry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes you're right. I would be very happy to assist you if you want to start one. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I'm a bloke, not interested. Jeanne's a girl, she knows about things like that. (<<< This is a joke, OK?) Seriously, I think that Daicaregos has interests in that area and would be excellent at starting something off, if he has the time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Back to the original topic: Chipmunkdavis points out that India has a bot rotating some of the images. That's an interesting idea to (a) get more images in without taking up more space (b) in itself, make the article more interesting. DeCausa (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent idea. How do we (get someone else to) do it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have considerable reservations about this. The idea is predicated on the same group of readers continually returning to the page, rather than on new people looking each day. Of course there will be a combination of the two, but I expect that most visitors each day are new, with some infrequent returners and only a tiny number looking frequently. I am happy to be corrected if there is evidence to the contrary, but that seems the most likely and logical situation for an article like this which is of very broad interest, does not describe a current event and which gets a very large number of views per day.

For new visitors rotating images do not offer any greater interest, nor allow them to see any more images.

Regarding the India article, I have just looked at the script for that page and don't see any images which are currently being rotated. Again please correct me if I am wrong, but I see nothing in the script at present which would achieve that.

However even if India does have such an arrangement my hesitation still remains and there is no reason why this article should copy the same approach. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

See India#Society and traditions for rotating image code. It's an inserted template.

As for the other points, this article doesn't need more sections, it needs less, and if fashion is very important in the UK (I don't really know that much about fashion...) then it sounds like including it would be good.

As for the decisions for which Images to place, they should help to enhance the text, not be inserted on their own merit or to tick boxes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess this is a deceased Norwegian Blue sadly. DeCausa (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been bold - let's see if it sticks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not against the idea, but I think now that I'm looking at it in the article I'd prefer the Dickens one based purely on the quality. Photo looks grainy, and Rowling's looking out of the page with a twitchy eye or something. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's a bit of a strange photo. But I do think it makes the section look fresher and more varied (contemporary and historic together). DeCausa (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I also support the inclusion of Rowling's image.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the photo is quite awful - absolutely no comment on Rowling's appearance, but the result of what she is wearing in the photo, the lighting, framing etc - it was quite clear that this change was highly controversial and WP:BRD therefore did not justify this change having been made, even as a test. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's controversial. If I'm not mistaken you're the only one who opposes the idea. (Consensus isn't unanimity). DeCausa (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've got to say I prefer the Dickens one. It looks into the page, and isn't fuzzy. Any chance one of you chaps (or ladies) in the UK could go sit outside Rowling's house with a good camera for a couple of days? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I've yet to see a proper discussion, with a consensus reached, as to why any photo of Rowling, or any other author, should be used instead of the one of Dickens. This thread actually began because an editor said that there should be more photos of women. That argument is completely against policy and was quickly abandoned. So what, exactly, is the basis for replacing a photo of Dickens with one of a writer of children's books whose first work was only published in 1997? Rangoon11 (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The juxtaposition with Shakespeare. The two images should be considered together and is a graphic represenation of the breadth and variety of British literature: contemporary/historic, popular/high art, children's lit/adult, novel/drama, prose/poetry, female/male etc. DeCausa (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well put, De Causa. Rangoon, I was the editor who first proposed the idea about more images of the fairer sex, and you can go ahead and name me as the culprit, I don't mind.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me be clear, I would be very happy to see more pictures of women in the article, but only where it can be justified. Why can't we have Elizabeth I or Thatcher in the History section?Rangoon11 (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with Thatcher, but Elizabeth I had been dead for more than 100 years when the UK came into being, so her inclusion would be inappropriate.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

True, although the History section of the articles for many other countries go back well before the creation of the state in question e.g. United States, South Africa, India, Pakistan etc.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

A photo of Rowling would give undue weight to children's literature, which is peripheral to British literature as a whole - and indeed the literature of virtually every nation. It would give undue weight to very recent literature.

And as I said above, and you failed to respond to:

'Shakespeare was a playwright and poet, Dickens was a novelist. Shakespeare was active in the late 16th/early 17th century, Dickens in the 19th century. They are very different from each other and their works cover a great range. Rowling only wrote her first book in 1995. A photo of her, in the context of British literature as a whole, is gross recentism. It is also a gross exaggeration of her influence on literature and her place in the British canon. Please provide some authoritive sources which show otherwise.'Rangoon11 (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And, as I said before: no. DeCausa (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Impressive argument.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Reflective of the irrelevant question. DeCausa (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reason I made the edit was to help get rid of the absurd idea that there needs to be consensus here before every minor change to this article. That is a recipe for total sclerosis. We should also remind ourselves that, since this discussion started, we have gained one image of a Victorian gentleman - here - which gives an even better reason to replace a picture of one (19th century, male) popular novelist with another (late 20th century, female, who also has the advantage of being clearly associated with both England and Scotland). The Rowling image is not perfect, but it's a lot better than the one of J. S. Mill - which has so far not been reverted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, replacing a very long-standing image is not a minor edit. Even more so when the article in question is one of a major nation state and which gets between 25,000 and 50,000 views per day. Secondly, you are again falling back on box-ticking arguments which are not appropriate and not encyclopedic. I agree that the image of J. S. Mill is not ideal, but not because he is male or 19th century, but because the image is grainy. J. S. Mill is infinitely more deserving of an image in this article than Rowling however. If you didn't like the image of Mill why didn't you revert its addition? Rangoon11 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You continually repeat that somehow selection criteria revolves around who "is more deserving of an image". That is entirely without basis. This isn't a gallery of "the most famous Britons". The primary issue is illustration of the text. (And incidently, one would think from the overall selection of images at the moment that the text says "The UK is a backward looking country that has little going on at the moment and is obsessed with its history of greatness"...oh wait, maybe that should go in the text!) DeCausa (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The most encyclopedic way of choosing the images is based on the individual's significance and influence with regards to their respect field. This is not the same as fame, although the most significant individuals are often very famous. Images should not in my view be chosen on a cross-category article wide basis to present someone's idealised view of the UK - either as it has been, is, or should be - however well intentioned it may be.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No basis for that whatsoever, and ignores they key issues of what the text says and combined effect of images either in groups or overall. WP:IMAGES DeCausa (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no specific policy on image choice where multiple images could be chosen which would illustrate the text. We are instead left to look to wider policies of the Wikipedia project. The technical policy and limited direction which WP:IMAGES gives are all met by the existing images, and could be met by a vast number of other images. In the context of an article such as this, choosing images based on grounds such as sex or race, is completely against policy. Beyond this it would in practical sense be impossible. For example, why just one extra image of a woman, why not half of all images of women? Why shouldn't the ethnic composition of the nation be precisely reflected? But at what point in time? Why no photos of disabled people? Or children? Or Muslims? Or homosexuals? The approach which you favour requires an editorial policy to be adopted. Such an approach is not encyclopedic and neutral but unavoidably political and biased.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Strawmen all. I haven't suggested that at all. I just think the image selection shouldn't look like it was out of an encyclopedia from 1950. DeCausa (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes you're quite right, the current images do make the article look like it was written in 1950, which is why there are photos of:

• The Queen - taken in 2007
• The inside of the Scottish parliament building (opened in 2004)
• Cameron and Obama (from 2010)
• HMS Daring (launched in 2006)
• A Challenger 2 tank (in service since 1998)
• A Eurofighter (in service since 2003)
• The London skyline showing buildings such as 30 St Mary Axe (completed in 2004)
• The Airbus A380 (first flight 2005)
• Heathrow Terminal 5 (opened in 2008)
• A North Sea oil platform (development of the North Sea having started in the late 1960s/early 1970s)
• The Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital (opened in 2004)
• Hitchcock (from 1956)
• BBC Television Centre (opened in 1960)
• The Channel 4 Building (opened in 1994)
• The Beatles (from 1964)
• The new Wembley Stadium (completed in 2007)
• The Millenium Stadium (opened in 1999)
• Wimbledon Centre Court, with retractable roof (completed in 2009)
• Rangoon11 (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're being deliberately obtuse. I'm not referring to the date of the photographs but to the desire to represent a long-gone sense of Britain: the attitudes and perceptions prevalent in 1950. DeCausa (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you go back and read the core pillars of Wikipedia before continuing this discussion because this comment, as well as your previous comments about inserting images of women simply because they are women, make it very clear that you don't understand them. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion piece, a newspaper, a blog or a TV programme, and has strict policies of neutrality. The image selection in this article must have nothing to do with certain editors' attempting to push any particular 'perception' of the UK, which your comments make it very clear you are attempting to do.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I give up. Someone else can have a go at getting rid of the Colonel Blimpness. DeCausa (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been very tolerant of your repeated incivilty in this thread, but should tell you absent an apology and retraction of the above I shall be making a complaint about you tomorrow. I expect that you wouldn't dare to make such a comment if we were in the same room, please don't think it's OK to show others such a lack of basic respect just because you are hiding behind a computer and an anonymous user name. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Apology for what? "Dare" to make what comment? I'm perfectly entitled to say that I give up on this thread, I'm perfectly entitled to say that the image selection is Blimpish/50s/outmoded/backward-looking/dull or whatever else and I'm perfectly entitled to say that someone else should try to get rid of it. I'm very happy to say that to your face. What an earth are you talking about? "Complain" away to your heart's content. DeCausa (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, this proved (unsurprisingly) to be an empty "threat" as Rangoon11 failed to make any such "complaint". Although he confirmed this on his Talk page, he failed to do that here. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. And, incidentally, replacing one image by another of similar worth is a (very) minor change. "J. S. Mill is infinitely more deserving of an image in this article than Rowling." No, he isn't - there is no basis in either policy or common sense for such an assertion. "This change was highly controversial/" No it wasn't - it was opposed by one editor. "The most encyclopedic way of choosing the images is based on the individual's significance and influence with regards to their respect field." Again, simply, no. Rangoon11, please stop trying to obstruct change in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Change is not the same as improvement. A fact which was proven spectacularly by your earlier addition of the quite hideous image of Rowling. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem with previous image of J. K. Rowling was that she was facing away from the text. Awkward. Let's try her reading at Radio City Hall, New York. UK 2 US with love ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That image was also awful, as the subject was almost invisible. However we seem to have jumped a step here. I'm still waiting for a coherent case to be made as to why the (very long-standing) image of Charles Dickens should be replaced with any of Rowling. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's been given to you (and consensus is behind it), but you just happen not to like it. You can continue "to wait" if you like, but it's not relevant to which image goes in. DeCausa (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been no coherent argument at all. In fact you have twice shown exceptional incivility and refused to engage properly in discussion on this very issue. The whole premise of this thread was actually based on inserting additional images of women. That argument has never been sustained, and switches to others such as that the current images look like they are from 1950. There has been no coherent sustained argument whatsoever, and there is no consensus. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, apparently there's consensus towards a picture of a current person there, presumably Rowling, to cover the period shakespeare to present, but is there any other person we could use, with a good picture that faces into the text? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward

• J. K. Rowling images
• 
  J. K. Rowling reading at Radio City Hall, New York.
• 
  J. K. Rowling, after receiving an honorary degree from The University of Aberdeen
• 
  J. K. Rowling by André Koehne.
• J. K. Rowling at the 2011 British Academy Film Awards.
  J. K. Rowling at the 2011 British Academy Film Awards.

Those are relevant images that I've gathered so far. The question of facing could be resolved be proper placement. We might also crop British Academy Film Awards image if we're obsessive about using "left" style. Overall, agree J. K. Rowling image is better for Literature section, it would provide historical perspective of development of British literature over time. We should demonstrate that this talk page has a purpose. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should stick with Rowling, for various reasons - she is by a large margin the best known current British author worldwide, and she is associated with several different parts of the UK - born in England, lived for some years within one mile of the border with Wales, and now lives in and is associated with Scotland. The image of her in academic dress is by some degree the best one of her (though perhaps it could be cropped a little, and we could presumably consider a cropped version of the BAFTA image), and I think the fact she is looking out of the page is irrelevant - would we remove the picture of the Queen for the same reason? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Rangoon, I only made a simple suggestion about adding more female images, I didn't write a political manifesto. I think Rowling is good because she serves to show that popular British literature encompasses a time span from the 16th to 21st centuries, also as Ghmyrtle points out, she provides a neat link to both England and Scotland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The image has been of Dickens for years. It is not a case of sticking with Rowling, but removing the image of Dickens and replacing it with one of Rowling. Here is a list from The Times of the 50 greatest British writers since 1945: [2]. Guess where Rowling appears? And how many of Rowling's readers know that she was 'born in England, lived for some years within one mile of the border with Wales, and now lives in and is associated with Scotland'. I would be amazed if it were more than 0.1%. Besides, there is no justification for such geographical box-ticking, which is against fundamental policy.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The list from the Times is of no relevance whatsoever. The relevance of the England/Scotland/Wales point is that that (together with NI) is what the UK comprises. A picture of Dickens - who is only associated with England - would be more appropriate at the England article. Please stop asserting that your personal opinions are in line with "fundamental policy", and by implication that other editors here are in some way "wrong". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The 'honorary degree' image, is the best. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I like it as well. It adds a nice contemporary touch to the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

So lets be clear, images of English authors, despite the English comprising 85% of the population of the UK, should only be included in the England article. The UK article can only include photos of English people if they have some connection with Scotland and Wales (of course Northern Ireland is excluded, I wonder why...), even if the connection is merely that they lived not even in but close to the latter, even though their works do not in any way relate to the country in question and even though 99.9% of their readers are completely unaware of the connection. That is an editorial policy pure and simple, one for which there is no consensus and which is completely against fundamental policy of this project. It is not the selection of images based on their own merits, but the selection of image to pursue an editorial policy for which no consensus exists and which is completely against the principles that underpin Wikipedia, which is that it is not for the promotion of points of view. A naked attempt is being made to impose a wholly non-netural and non-encyclopedic, BBC-style editorial policy on the content selection of this article and I completely reject it. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No-one has made any of those suggestions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I confess I find all attempts to choose between individual people's faces to illustrate an article about a country invidious. If we were illustrating an article on children's literature, or on detective fiction, it would be hard enough, but with a country it's hugely problematical, and it seems unlikely that the editors of such an important page would ever agree for long. Surely, the usual thing with illustrated work about a country (whether it's an encyclopedia article or a book or a piece in the National Geographic) is to illustrate the country itself, meaning suitable maps, the most typical architecture and industry, some typical people (showing what they look like in general, but including named individuals only if they are of overwhelming importance)? Other than the head of state, it's hard to think of anyone in quite that category. I certainly agree with Jeanne Boleyn that it would be very odd to include people outside the time frame of the United Kingdom, although as you can see I am quite sceptical about using named people at all. I am afraid my view on J. K. Rowling is that she is awfully trivial in the field of English literature, unlike Dickens, who is a giant, but as you'll see from the above I wouldn't include Dickens, either. Moonraker2 (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Could I suggest that Agatha Christie would be a more appropriate individual to represent UK authors - as it says in her page, "according to the Guinness Book of World Records, Christie is the best-selling writer of books of all time". Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to accept that. Good move, Fishiehelper2. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my doubts about individuals, although I have a huge regard for Agatha Christie. To me she represents most of the things that are good about the British, including the art of understatement - despite being half-American, of course. Moonraker2 (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I am also a big fan of Christie and agree that she would be preferable to Rowling. However the choice isn't simply Christie or Rowling, but is Dickens or Christie or Rowling or A.N.Other. Dickens is a colossus by any definition - critically or commercially or in terms of cultural impact. Critical appreciation and influence cannot be ignored when looking at literature, the writing of books is not a wholly or even mainly commercial activity. The photo of Dickens is also very long-standing and has a great weight of accumulated consensus. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There is also the potential for images of fictional characters. Why not one of Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes or Robinson Crusoe?Rangoon11 (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Rowling is too recent for us to have a proper historical perspective. And her sales and œuvre are not so great, being inferior to Enid Blyton, for example. I suggest that we feature the three authors who are not only the best-selling in the UK, but also the world: William Shakespeare, Agatha Christie and Barbara Cartland. The images of the two women will not be familiar, I suppose, but this is a good thing — to educate and surprise readers with images and facts of which they were previously unaware. It would be nice to have lots of others such as Tolkien, Dickens, Conan-Doyle, Orwell &c. but we have to stop somewhere. Note that the USA article only has one picture of an author — can you guess who it is? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As discussed earlier in this thread, there are already too many images in this article (and we added J. S. Mill a few days ago). So, we should replace like with like when appropriate (for example, Christie for Dickens), but not add a third image to the Literature section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Images should be selected due to their notability and relevancy to the subject. Images should not be selected in order to fulfill a quota. I think the image of J.K. Rowling is a good example of a notable modern British author. However, I question whether it is the most notable and relevant possible image for the section and whether the image has been selected more towards satisfying a quota rather than for its notability and relevancy. I also think J.K. Rowling is unlikely to be remembered in 100 years time as a literary genius and one of the best authors in British history, unlike Charles Dickins. An image of J.K. Rowling might also be considered a WP:Vanity image. Quotas are a bad idea not only because they decrease the notability and relevancy of information contained within the article but because people will always claim the quota is over or under representative. Political views, personal opinions and political correctness in any form (including quotas) are POV, and are prohibited from Wikipedia as they detract from factual information. Futhermore, it is bad faith to change images whilst debate on those images is still ongoing.Quite vivid blur (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

A third image in the literature section is fine, just make the images smaller. Also, Christie is a better choice then Rowling. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Christie is a good substitute for Rowling. Colonel Warden, although I have not seen the USA article, may I hazard a guess that the image is of Mark Twain (America's Dickens).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just checked USA. Unlike this article, they've chosen not to go for a predictable option. Good choice - freshens up the text. (Btw, you'd get 'three for the price of one' with this pic) DeCausa (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I like this even better than Christie.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I quite like it as well - although I think he didn't execute Anne so well. DeCausa (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer not to add yet another nineteenth century image to this article. And it's a terrible portrait. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see what's wrong with Rowling. It's a colour image as well as contemporary. While I do like the Bronte image, Christie's is a blurred black and white.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bohrelyssa, 21 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The statements that you made are not all true. I have a concern that you are lieing to the viewers who are reading this article. To whome may concern Elyssa Bohr:) Bohrelyssa (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Duly noted Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

British National Anthem

I don't think the national anthem sample for the UK is that good. I don't remember drums rolling from start to finish, nor do I remember the introduction being stretched out for a minute... Does anyone have a better version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.73.169 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There's this: The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I bet CofE that is your phone ring ;-) Bjmullan (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that exact one... The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

:-) Bjmullan (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a forum but lol :-) Though i think that sound clip is a little faster than it should be. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Deputy Prime Minister

For a while we had N.Clegg in the infobox as Deputy Prime Minister. Then Conay removed it, saying the position of DPM is not noteworthy. Then Sheffno1gunner added it back, saying it was appropriate in a coalition government to list it, but immediately removed it again himself, without explanation. Dn9ahx then re-added it, saying it was a noteworthy position in a coalition. Then Rangoon11 removed it again, saying DPM is "not a constitutionally necessary or recognised position" and demanding that consensus be sought on the talk page before it is put back in.

So that is what I am doing here.

I think there is a strong case for including it in the box. DPM may not be in the Constitution, but we don't have a written constitution, we have a make-it-up-as-you-go-along constitution. It seems obvious that it is a crucial post in a coalition government (and arguably not only in a coalition: John Prescott was clearly a key figure in the Blair regime, as also Heseltine under Major). It is true that there has not always been a DPM, but surely the point is there is certainly one at the moment and a very important one whether we like it or not.

The present DPM is officially described as "the deputy head of Government" at http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ so it could hardly be argued that he is not part of the present constitution. -- Alarics (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For information - previous discussion here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems a "no brainer" to me that in a coallition govt. context, Clegg should go in. The "constitution" is a red herring. The position of "Prime Minister" wasn't formally recognized until the 20th century. That's the beauty of the British constitution: the difference between de facto and de jure is often blurred. De facto, the previous DPM's were irrelevant - they could be hired and fired by the PM. De facto, if this DPM withdraws his supporters from the govt. this govt. falls. That's the difference. DeCausa (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

COncur, noteworthy given there is a coalition, but not otherwise --Snowded ^TALK 10:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The position of Deputy Prime Minister is in itself a bauble with no specified powers. If Cameron died, Clegg would not become Prime Minister, and if Cameron wanted, he could sack Clegg. It is true that such a sacking would likely lead to the collapse of the government, but if Blair had sacked Brown as Chancellor then that also would have been the case. I understand the desire to convey to readers the current coaliation arrangement, but I'm not sure that including Clegg in the info box does so, especially as party labels are not given. Germany has a coalition government but the leaders of the junior coalition members have not been forced into the info box there. Including the Deputy Prime Minister in the info box, in my view, gives the incorrect impression that the position of Deputy Prime Minister is an important one with the governance arrangements of the UK. It is not, and Clegg could just as easily have been made Foreign Secretary. In fact, he still could. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, Brown should not have become PM when Blair retired. Can you explain why he did if the DPM does not hold some form of secondary power or entitlement?

Blah... (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Another point, when Cameron is on holiday, Clegg does not even take charge as caretaker! Rangoon11 (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Only the Head of State & Head of Government belong in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded and DeCausa. Due to the fact the ruling government is a coalition (and not the most stable one at that) the DPM deserves a mention. We could mention the parties, if that helps. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

How is the stability of the coalition relevant?Rangoon11 (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Stability is relevant to the balance of power. The government is dependent on both Cameron and Clegg (and their parties of course) for existence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth did I bother to raise this? I should have known I was wasting my time. It seems impossible to get the smallest thing agreed on this page. -- Alarics (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. It's one of the most obstructive/unconstructive Talk pages I've seen on WP. DeCausa (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What you mean is, there are people on here who disagree with you and you don't like it. Please can you remain WP:CIVIL and also relevant.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem people disagreeing with me - if I did I've certainly made a mistake editing WP! I often concur with things I don't particularly like just to keep discussions fluid if at the end of the day the point isn't that important. DeCausa (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Challenging" is the word - in part it's simply because a great many editors have this article on their watchlists, which makes it tough going to reach a consensus on anything but the most uncontentious edits. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

hmm...I'm not sure there's particularly a large number of editors who actually participate in this Talk page. All I know is that I cover a lot of the Balkan and Mid east country-related articles (highly controversial you would think) and they're a walk in the park compared to this one. DeCausa (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Most major Balkan issues have been shut down by ArbCom. Here... well, the only recent major change was the Italiano1111 restructuring. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It lacks subtlety to say "if this DPM withdraws his supporters from the govt. this govt. falls". That supposes the Liberals would all jump when told to do so, but even without all of them the Conservatives would be left in office. The Liberals would only bring them down when they saw a fighting chance of holding their seats in a few weeks' time. Until then, they would be left doing a series of ad hoc deals with a minority government, but they would not have any kind of whip hand unless their ratings shot up. This option may appeal to them in due course, but only if they hold together. Allowing for the minor parties, it might take only a handful of Liberals to cut loose and outflank all the others. The present hung parliament is quite a complex creature. Moonraker2 (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom+Crown dependencies+ Overseas territories

The Crown dependencies and Overseas territories are neither part of the United Kingdom nor sovereign. What are they part of then? Sarcelles (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

See Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. AJRG (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And what are they AND the United Kingdom part of? Sarcelles (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose 70 years ago, you would say they are part of the British Empire. But now, they are not part of anything they are simply possessions of the British crown, as is the UK I guess. There's no equivalent of an over-arching entity comprising the "mother country" and the overseas territory as is the case with the French Republic or the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for example. I think. DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As above, there is no official term for the UK, BOTs and Crown dependencies combined. The UK+Isle of Man+Channel Islands have a collective term: the British Islands.--Breadandcheese (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A very unknown and underused term as i have never heard of it until you mentioned it and it appears to be have been in existence for decades due to parliament act! Mabuska ^(talk) 12:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Monarchy of the United Kingdom maybe? Sarcelles (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really - it's certainly not in common usage that way. It refers to the institution rather tha to a territorial entity. DeCausa (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

British Islands and Overseas Territories is a term google finds. Sarcelles (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

States of the British Crown as well. Sarcelles (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom and dependent territories exists as well. Sarcelles (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As the country extends beyond the United Kingdom, a split of the article would be justified. Sarcelles (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I thought "the country" WAS the United Kingdom. What split do you mean? -- Alarics (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sarcelles, you seem somewhat confused. This article is about the United Kingdom and does not cover the overseas dependencies. They have their own articleS: British Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies. DeCausa (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As they are not independent, there should be an article on what fits into the Category:European countries. Sarcelles (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean Sarcelles? This article is on Category:European countries. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarcelles, the overseas territories are not part of the UK, are not therefore part of any European country, and are therefore not part of Category:European countries. The UK, as a European country, is part of that category and the dependencies within Europe are in Category:European dependencies. The bottom line is that everything is fine with regard to the positioning, categorisation and coverage of United Kingdom, Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories articles. There is nothing you need be concerned to change. Rather than posting what appears (with respect) to be rather random questions/statements it would probably save a lot of time and blind alleys if you would just explain in a little detail what your objective is in asking these questions and what you are trying to do. DeCausa (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said already, the Channel Islands are not independent, but are part of the same country as the UK. Hence the UK is no country. Sarcelles (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Technically, the UK don't own the Channel Islands or the IOM, they're the property of The Crown. As for a collective name for all them: how about the old term that should be brought back into usage, The British Empire! I say that because technicly the BOTs are basically the colonies but renamed to give it a less of a colonial feel. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

He's been told the same thing several times. For some reason he's not getting it (or he's disputing it, I can't tell which). Don't think there's much to be gained from this. DeCausa (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The C of E: So the category European countries should be set in British Empire article? Sarcelles (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

FFS !!! DeCausa (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No no no. That's not what I said at all. What I said was that the Crown Depedencies are not part of the UK and in a seperate issue I suggested that a collective name to be used for the UK, BOTs and CDs would be the British Empire because it still technically exists. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Got it...this is a surreal April's Fool. DeCausa (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not by me though. I go by that superstition that it's bad luck to do it after 12 o'clock. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't know what time zone Sarcelles is in! DeCausa (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

C'mon DeCausa, here's a wonderful opportunity to start fighting over what a country is again! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh joy.....DeCausa (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE, in the intro, is ok to say that England , Scotland and Wales are "countries", within the UK. but Northern Ireland is a PROVINCE and NOT a country as such. Note a province within the UK !! Utter ignorance to put anything else frankly.My own part of the world, Wales, is a country AND a Principality if we want to be correct too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.183.108 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, good job so much effort went into the footnote then! DeCausa (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

correction

The Isle of Man should be listed as a country, should it not? Also possibly Cornwall, but I am naye sure about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.35.102 (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Isle of Man is not one of the countries that comprise the United Kingdom (see Terminology of the British Isles), which is why it isn't identified as one of the countries of the United Kingdom on this article. Cornwall is often noted as a nation, but seldom a country. Cornwall is not recognised as such, for example, by any country. However, it you have any reliable sources that define Cornwall as a country, it would be interesting to see them. Daicaregos (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Having been there, I can tell you they are all on another planet let alone country! MrZoolook (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The union of England and Wales

Chipmunkdavis' comment on his recent revert claims that "Wales never signed a union treaty or anything anyway."

This needs correcting: the Welsh Henry Tudor took the English crown by conquest from Richard III. His son Henry VIII oversaw the legal union of England and Wales with the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542. AJRG (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Correction noted. Out of curiosity, were these signed by the Welsh government or just imposed by the English government? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. His claim to the throne was through his mother as a descendant of the Plantagenets. He was the Lancastrian candidate in the context of the Wars of the Roses - it wasn't a "welsh conquest" of England. The Laws in Wales Act just effectively confirmed the annexure of Wales by England - Wales was incorporated into the Kingdom of England. I think to call it a "union" would be misleading. DeCausa (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Henry's claim to the throne was by conquest, not succession. His army at the Battle of Bosworth Field was around 5,000 strong, mainly recruits picked up in Wales together with 1,800 French mercenaries and fewer than a thousand Englishmen. Richard III died surrounded by Welsh spearmen. AJRG (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No, his claim to the throne was as the last surviving Lancastrian heir. He made it good by a succesful rebellion. DeCausa (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Edward IV had eliminated all the Lancastrians with a plausible claim to the throne. I agree that Henry Tudor inherited their political and (at the last possible moment) military support, but he claimed the crown by right of conquest. AJRG (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course not! he never claimed that. Why do you think that? To do so would have (a) acknowledged that he wasn't the rightful King and (b) would give him no leverage bfore Bosworth to attract support. DeCausa (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

(a) See the explanation here.

(b) He was financed by the Bretons and the French, and emphasized his Welsh heritage. AJRG (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

As suspected, no reliable sources: (a) If you're going to give Wikipedia as a source, well there's this and this; and your (b).... so what? DeCausa (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

(a) See, for example, here.

(b) He had attracted very little support, as the failure of Buckingham's rebellion (ostensibly in his name) had already demonstrated. AJRG (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

In the political sense, there was no Wales. Welsh territory had already been annexed by the English Crown, particularly under Edward I. The Laws in Wales Acts just incorporated those territories into the English kingdom.--SabreBD (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I would normally agree, but wasn't it the Welsh Language Act (sometime in the 50's, not sure when) that repealed that to a point? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It was the Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284, issued by Edward I after he conquered the Principality of Wales, that annexed it to England, though Wales retained separate legal arrangements, as did the Welsh Marches which were governed by the Marcher lords. What Henry VIII's legislation did was to introduce the English legal and administrative system into Wales, giving it representation in Parliament for example, and also abolished the Marcher lordships. Henry Tudor's ancestry, by the way, was by no means wholly Welsh. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Dynastic marriage was common. King John's daughter Joan married Llewellyn the Great... AJRG (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

John Davies notes, in fact, that the main purpose of the Laws in Wales Acts was not so much to bring the Principality into England, but to bring the Marches in. The Principality had been more or less brought into line already. The Marches, by contrast, had been under the semi-independent control of Norman lords since before 1282, and this was causing more trouble than the Principality. As for Henry Tudor taking the throne: this certainly can't be seen as a conquest of England by a Welsh king. He was born in Wales, but to English parents. The Welsh ancestry came from his paternal grandfather, Owain ap Tudur ap Maredudd. Now, Owain might have had royal ancestry in Wales, but the furthest this got him was employment as a page at the court of Henry V. He did well at Agincourt and got close to the King. At some point after Henry V died, Owain married his widow in secret. It's not clear whether their son Edmund was born before or after the marriage. In any case, this was hardly a dynastic marriage. It meant, however, that the descendants of the marriage had some claim to the throne. Now, the War of the Roses was essentially a bloody dispute among nobles with a claim to the throne of England about which of them should have it. Henry Tudor, whose claim derived from his grandmother Catherine of Valois (Henry V's widow) won. His son, whether because of his Welsh ancestry, or because the Marcher Lords were a pain, passed acts to bring Welsh law in line with English law, essentially making Wales a part of England (although it was obviously never seen as entirely that). garik (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Henry VII's claim to the throne did not derive from his grammy Catherine (she was only a Queen consort). Henry VII's claim to the throne, was directly from Edward III's fourth son John. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. My mistake. The point, anyway, is that to call it a conquest of England by a Welshman is misleading. He was recognised in England as an English noble, who happened to have been born in Wales. If he conquered England, then so did Edward IV. It just happened that Henry's win put an end to the dynastic war. garik (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Edward was born in France, certainly, but so were many of the Plantagenet dynasty. He was the victor in a civil war started by his late father, so "conquest" would not be an appropriate description. Henry, by contrast, led a Welsh rebellion that culminated in the death of the English King (at the hand of another Welshman, Rhys ap Thomas) and was hailed by the Welsh bards as a conquering hero. AJRG (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Henry did not lead a welsh rebellion, he was just the last act of the Wars of the Roses, that may or may not have been romanticized but under no circumstances could it be called a Welsh rebellion, and I doubt Henry wore a daffodil on March 1st. --Snowded ^TALK 15:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

See Rees, David (1985). The Son of Prophecy: Henry Tudor's Road to Bosworth. London: Black Raven Press. ISBN 0-85159-005-5. AJRG (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I should add that when I say, "If [Henry] conquered England, then so did Edward IV", that has nothing to do with Edward IV being born in France. I might as well have said, if Henry conquered England, then so did Henry IV. Henry VII was indeed born in Wales, and he did indeed have many Welshmen behind him when he defeated Richard III, and he did indeed make much play of his Welsh ancestry. After all, he used the red dragon flag (alongside the flag of St George) and he called his first son Arthur. There were also quite a few Welsh people who liked the idea of casting his rise to power as a reinstatement of Old British power in the island. That's all fine, and not to be disputed. However, it's still misleading to cast his taking of power as a conquest for Wales, except in some Romantic sense. First, Wales was not a state or a unified kingdom at the time: it was a mixed bag of territories, all more or less already semi-annexed to England or Norman lords. Second, Henry, before becoming king, was primarily the Earl of Richmond, not Prince of Wales, or lord of a Welsh kingdom (and his descent from Rhys was too indirect for him to really even claim much of such a thing). So while he had strong connections with Wales, the land of his birth, this was really the story of a member of the English aristocracy with a claim to the throne of England taking that throne by force (of course, marrying Elizabeth of York helped smooth things over a bit too). garik (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have a copy of The Son of Prophecy to hand, but I have to say the title doesn't imply that it's the most balanced account. I would recommend John Davies's History of Wales (or, if you're a Welsh speaker, the original Hanes Cymru) as a pretty reliable source. garik (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"A hundred years and more after the battle of Bosworth, the spokesmen for the Welsh gentry - John Wynn and George Owen in particular - portrayed Henry's victory as the greatest blessing ever experienced by the Welsh people. That view was reiterated by historians until the recent past, and the coming of the Tudors was seen as the climax, often as the conclusion, of the history of Wales - 'the long struggle over, the victory won' to quote Owen Rhoscomyl (1912). [...] With a descendant of Wyrion Eden wearing the crown of England, it was possible to believe that the prophecies of the vaticinatory poets had been fulfilled; to Dafydd Llwyd of Mathafarn, the most enthusiastic composer of canu brud, Henry Tudor had won the battle lost by Cadwaladr." - John Davies History of Wales page 213 AJRG (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

But that doesn't contradict my point. No one's denying that Henry's accession to the throne was seen for centuries (by some) as a great victory for Wales. But that doesn't mean that his success can be referred to as a conquest of England for Wales, except in rather Romantic terms. Note the words "That view was reiterated by historians until the recent past". This is not the view of modern historians, and it's not John Davies's view either. All he's saying in the quotation you give is that his victory was seen for a long time by Welsh people as a victory for them. That doesn't mean that Wales conquered England. I don't have this book to hand either, but I recall that John Davies goes on to point out that this Welsh triumphalism is indeed rather misleading, and that the triumph for the Welsh has been overstated. garik (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC) edited by garik (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As John Davies writes on the BBC website (and this is a good summary of what I remember his point being in History of Wales; it may even be taken straight from that book):

Older Welsh tradition claimed that Bosworth was a Welsh victory and that the accession of Henry VII represented the fulfilment of the prophecies of Welsh seers since the time of Merlin. It is unlikely, however, that Henry VII interpreted his victory in such a way. It was not a matter of the Tudors identifying themselves with Wales, but rather of the Welsh identifying themselves with the Tudors. Indeed, it may be doubted whether Elizabeth I had more interest in the cradle of her line at Penmynydd in Anglesey than Elizabeth II has on the cradle of hers at Saxe-Coburg.

garik (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC) edited by garik (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's worth quoting more, from the same site:

The Plantagenet kings were frequent visitors to Wales. Stuart kings were less frequent visitors and Hanoverian kings even less so, but visits by members of the Windsor dynasty have been legion. In this regard, the outstanding exceptions were the Tudor monarchs, not one of whom set foot in Wales.

Tudor enthusiasts among Welsh historians delighted in portraying Henry VII’s court as a place where the Welsh were held in high regard, but there was little advantage in the king vaunting his Welsh connections in London, where love of things Welsh was hardly rampant. By descent, Henry VII was a quarter Welsh, a quarter French and half English, and it was his English blood that gave him a claim to the throne of England.

The Welsh connections of the king received almost as much attention in the court of the Yorkist, Edward IV, as they did in that of Henry VII. Indeed, the historian, David Powel, claimed in 1584 that Henry VIII inherited England from his father, heir to John of Gaunt and Edward III, and Wales from his mother, heiress to the Mortimers and Llywelyn the Great.

garik (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Good points all, and very helpful. The Tudors had no fear of a Welsh rebellion because the Welsh gentry were successfully pursuing their ambitions at home or at court. Modern scholars rightly pay much attention to the (formerly neglected) lot of ordinary people, none of whom were consulted on any of the Acts of Union... AJRG (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course ordinary people weren't consulted - it was a time of the ruling elite and upper and middle class Mabuska ^(talk) 10:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Could people please try to add new comments to the end of this section, rather than in the middle? You can quote the editor you're responding to to make it clear what your comment relates to. Sticking it in before other past comments just makes the whole discussion hard to follow. garik (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Modern scholars rightly pay much attention to the (formerly neglected) lot of ordinary people, none of whom were consulted on any of the Acts of Union..." I fail to see what this has to do with this discussion, or with the quotations from Davies, anyway. The point is that to paint Henry VII's accession to the throne as a conquest of England for Wales is misleading. garik (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Today's perspective on history tends to create distance from a time when leaders concluded treaties on their own authority. For a modern example of the accession of Henry VII painted as a conquest, see here. AJRG (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave others here to debate whether his taking the throne can be cast as a conquest in any sense or not. My point, proud Welshman though I am, is that it's misleading to cast it as a Welsh conquest of England in anything but a romantic sense. Perhaps that's not what you're claiming. Perhaps you're happy with casting it as a conquest of England by a member of the English aristocracy. In which case, I'll leave it to others to debate whether conquest is the right term or not. garik (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It bears comparison with William the Bastard's accession following the death in battle of Harold Godwinson. AJRG (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In certain respects, yes, but not in others. It's reasonable and standard to see the events of 1066 as a Norman conquest of England. It's neither very standard nor very reasonable to see the events of 1485 as a Welsh conquest of England. garik (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

See the chapter A Tudor Conqueror in Tudor Wales, edited by Trevor Herbert and Gareth Elwyn Jones, University of Wales Press, ISBN 0-7083-0971-2 AJRG (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And what do they say? garik (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The existence of the chapter title in a UWP textbook, without needing a question mark, refutes your claim... AJRG (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Reread what I wrote. I think I was very clear. I made no claim as to whether it's appropriate to refer to this as a conquest of England by a member of the English aristocracy. I said quite clearly that I'll leave this debate to others. I made no claim that "Tudor conquest" was misleading. Again, I leave this to others. I claim something different: that "Welsh conquest" is misleading. A Welsh conquest of England and a Tudor conquest of England are not the same thing. garik (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

With Welsh from the mountains and Lancastrians from the Marches frothing around him, Henry clove his way through Bosworth field. When he left it Richard lay among the few hundred dead and the Welsh conqueror ascended the bereft throne as Henry VII. (Geoffrey Wakeford, The heir apparent: an authentic study of the life and training of H.R.H. Charles Prince of Wales, Hale, 1969)

And Watkin Davies added: "It was as much a Welsh conquest of England as the expedition of 1066 was a Norman Conquest of England." Such a claim might be regarded in some quarters as being excessive, and suggesting the possibility that even historians cannot always be free from an element of bias, but the irrefutable fact remains that Hastings and Bosworth placed a new dynasty - the one Norman and the other Welsh - on the throne. (Cylchgrawn llyfrgell genedlaethol cymru. The National Library of Wales journal, Volume 21, Page 53)

AJRG (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What's the point of the above discussion? I can't see that it has a relevance to this article. It all began because someone wanted to change the article to say the UK was a "union" of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Absent a source explicitly supporting that change I don't see any point in discussing this further (and the all the above is at best just synthesis in relation to such a change). I suggest the thread is dropped unless there's a proposal to change the article in some other way - so far not expressed. DeCausa (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree, enough is enough --Snowded ^TALK 21:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

See here, here, here and here. AJRG (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting as this is, if there are any proposals to amend this article, they should be made - explicitly. Daicaregos (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a very good point, and I apologise for letting myself get carried away with the discussion. As for what should be done with the article, I think some mention of Wales should be made in the History section. Currently the article reads:

The kingdoms of England and Scotland, together with the kingdom of Ireland, had already been in a personal union as a result of the Union of the Crowns in 1603, when James VI, King of Scots inherited the Kingdoms of England and Ireland and moved his court from Edinburgh to London. However, until 1707, all three remained separate political entities and retained their separate political institutions.

To the end of this, we could add something like: "Wales had been united with England rather earlier. The Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284 put much of the territory of Wales under the rule of the English king, although the Welsh Marches remained under the control of the Marcher Lords. The Laws in Wales Acts 1534-1542 brought the Marches into line with the rest of Wales and completed the annexation of Wales to England." garik (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I would stress the words "something like". garik (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Annexation would be the wrong word. It represents one strand of modern opinion, certainly, but a very recent one. The union of Wales and England would be a more neutral description. Otherwise, I support the proposed wording. AJRG (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The proposed wording uses "union" rather like Linklater users "civilised" in Private Angelo. The Statute of Rhuddlan imposed terms at the end of the conquest, a word which is by no means "one strand of modern opinion". Annexed is more neutral. --Snowded ^TALK 05:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Mainstream historiography is clear: conquest followed by annexation. Anything else is sub-fringe. DeCausa (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources? I agree that the Statute of Rhuddlan was an annexation, but only of part of modern Wales. Both Henry VII and Henry VIII were Welshmen by the standard required under Welsh law, so to talk about the Laws in Wales Acts as a Welshman annexing the rest of Wales seems a very strange description. AJRG (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Henry VIII Welsh? He was born in Greenwich, his mother was English and all his grandparents were English-born except Edward IV who was born in France! DeCausa (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No sources, then. Welsh law was different from English law... AJRG (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The Statute of Rhuddlan in effect reversed the Treaty of Montgomery which defined Wales at that time, boundaries change so talking about modern Wales is not appropriate. Otherwise I see no sources from you AJRG, I see a lot of statements and interpretation but no sources to support your perspective. I am with DeCausa on this, lets make a simple addition and cease this nonsense. --Snowded ^TALK 22:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse my butting into a pleasant debate (unlike most on WP!), but in the debate between "united" and "annexed", you might be interested in the actual words used in the Laws in Wales Act, which show that you are both right:

'ALBEIT the Dominion, Principality and Country of Wales justly and righteously is, and ever hath been incorporated, annexed, united and subject to and under the Imperial Crown of this Realm, as a very Member and Joint of the same...

(5) ... That his said Country or Dominion of Wales shall be, stand and continue for ever from henceforth incorporated, united and annexed to and with this his Realm of England

(6) and that all and singular Person and Persons, born and to be born in the said Principality, Country or Dominion of Wales, shall have, enjoy and inherit all and singular Freedoms, Liberties, Rights, Privileges and Laws within this Realm, and other King's Dominions, as other the King's Subjects naturally born within the same have, enjoy and inherit.

The Act's preamble is (to summarise it rather crudely) "My Welsh subjects have been treated with inequality and subjected to bad laws, and out of love for them I will sort it out..." Howard Alexander (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it certainly is a killer blow to the Wales conquered England nonsense. We do however need to remember that the Tudors were masters of PR !--Snowded ^TALK 22:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, you have very strident opinions but neither you nor De Causa have presented sources to back your point of view. AJRG (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't provided by either deCausa or Snowded, but Howard Alexander gave us the actual wording of the Laws in Wales Act, which uses both "annexed" and "united", and claims (falsely) that it had "ever" been thus. You yourself, on the other hand, have provided three sources above that put "Act of Union" in inverted commas and point out that the title "Act of Union" wasn't used until the twentieth century. As for whether annexation is an appropriate term: as I understand the term, it refers, as the Wikipedia article puts it, to the "the de jure incorporation of some territory into another geo-political entity". As we see in the three BBC pages you cite, particularly this one (there are other citations given in the Welsh Law article), the Laws in Wales Acts meant the official abandonment of Welsh law and its replacement with English law in Wales. That smells like annexation to me. garik (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's worth adding that united versus annexed is a false dichotomy. An annexation is a type of union. The OED defines it as "the act or process of joining to or uniting" although "esp. of attaching as an additional privilege, possession, or territorial dependency; appropriation." The point is that "annexation" seems clearly an accurate term, and a more specific one (therefore preferable) than union. If Wales had been left its law, as Scotland was later, or if the law of England was changed as dramatically as the law of Wales, then annexation might be a more questionable term. But this seems so clearly to have been a case in which two territories became one, but in which one territory was clearly subordinate to the other, and where the harmonisation of laws was principally in one direction. I don't see how that's not an annexation. garik (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Asking for a source is a bit like asking for a source that the Normans conquered England...but if you insist here's a couple - one for Edward I and one for Henry VIII. Take your pick who did the annexing. DeCausa (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. My understanding of the text of the 1535 Act that Howard kindly provided is that (in keeping with the Tudors' Arthurian PR) it evokes the former, pre-Saxon, unity of Britain. AJRG (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have little doubt that's what they were going for. The Normans found this an attractive image too, and liked to paint themselves as saving noble ancient Briton from the dirty Germanic invaders. This is partly why there was such a development of the Arthurian myth in Norman Britain. And the Tudors' partly Welsh ancestry was a nice tie-in for the dynasty. Nevertheless, the wording of the Act is also clearly false (though its writers might have believed it). England and Wales had almost certainly never been united previously under one imperial crown, except that of the Roman Emperor (which was hardly the "imperial crown of this realm"). In any case, all this is somewhat beside the point. As argued above, this union walked, swam, and quacked like an annexation, and there are plenty of sources to support that term. And it's worth adding, incidentally, as John Davies argues, that "annexation" need not imply a negative result for the Welsh. Wales lost almost all its last vestiges of independence, but the Welsh gained the status and rights of Englishmen, which was actually an improvement. garik (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I can help with the "imperial crown" reference:

AT the time that the emperor Constantine left Britain for Gaul, as related in the preceding Book, he left behind representatives, and among these was Maximus, a stout man, to govern the island. He took with him a goodly part of British youth, he took their chief men, on whose virtue, loyalty and steadfastness he had most pinned his hopes. And accompanied by these men he passed through Gaul and sought Italy, everywhere victorious as he went. Meanwhile for a while Britain imagined it had gained its liberty, because it had Constantine, a British ruler, as emperor of all the world, and it it was most blessed in honor, dignity and authority, and so did not unwillingly acquiesce to this condition. Even if it had once burned with hatred against the Romans, now this had changed, because by both the will of God and the kindness of so great a ruler it enjoyed peace and had made a beginning towards supreme honor such as would endure with their posterity. And yet rule did not long endure in Constantine’s dynasty, so quickly does human power fail us. But the glory of this rule could not fail, since even now English kings, in the manner of their ancestors, employ the imperial diadem as a gift bestowed on them by the Emperor Constantine. (Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia, Book 3)

AJRG (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and edited the article. garik (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've amended/shortened the edit and moved its position. Firstly, its disproportionately long/detailed compared to the rest of the "pre-UK" history. That level of detail is probably better suited to the Kingdom of England article. I've therefore shortened it, with piped links to tyhe relevant articles. Secondly, it doesn't fit the sections sequencing. As the article is about the UK, it begins with 1707, and then there is a brief "look back" to the earlier period - so I moved it there. DeCausa (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

For completeness, added something similar for Ireland. DeCausa (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Better. AJRG (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I did wonder if it might be a bit long. That said, if this section should be about the formation of the United Kingdom, then that wasn't formed until 1800, and we don't get to it till the end of the first paragraph. Before that, the section spends rather a lot of time talking about the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain, which has its own article. This is why I didn't feel too bad adding the Wales bit in chronological order, and giving it a little more space. garik (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Funny you should say that. It starts in 1707 because there are a number of editors here who think that the "United Kingdom" began with the 1707 Act of Union. This results (mainly) from a misinterpretation of the use of the phrase "united Kingdom" in the 1707 Act and a statement on a government website (I think from memory). It's incorrect, IMO. That whole para is a bit confused and needs sorting out anyway. DeCausa (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to underline the point. DeCausa's memory is correct. It based on an error in a government website and a misinterpretation of the adjective use of united in the 1707 act. It really should be changed, and I would support that, but cant face the argument. I also support the adjustment to the Wales section.--SabreBD (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

History section

Other countries' history sections cover the entirety of the territory's history not just the period since the foundation of the state, see eg Germany, Italy, Spain, United States etc. Why is the UK different? I was thinking of having at go at expanding it, but before I do (because it's quite a lot of work) I thought it best to check views here. DeCausa (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a high level summary linking to the other articles that cover different histories prior to "incorporation". Less overlapping contradictions that way and it keeps the article at a reasonable size --Snowded ^TALK 15:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Support proposal - for a long while it has struck me that the History section of this article is both too short and too narrow in scope. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

But please, as short as possible! -- Alarics (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked at this when I rewrote the history section a little while back. There are related two problems. First, that the name UK did not clearly emerge until the 18th century and so it is difficult to incorporate previous history into the article. In contrast the term Germany or France denote an area and people, even if the current political units are actually relatively recent. The second problem is that the current UK is made up of (at least) four major units (England, Scotland, Wales and part of Ireland), which cannot be treated as part of the same unit before they were incorporated into England, Great Britain and the what became the UK. This means that any history section would be long and very complicated. As a result I have to go along with Snowded's suggestion of a high level summary and agree with Alarics, the shorter the better.--SabreBD (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed re complexity - but not insuperable. I would say that the pre-unification histories of Germany, Italy and Spain, for instance, were (at least) equally diverse and complex. DeCausa (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I was thinking of. But I'm not clear from Snowded, Alarics and Sabrebd's comments whether you are saying: yes that's a good idea; or, just... if you have to do it, do it this way. If the latter, I won't bother. DeCausa (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Its a good idea, if you do it briefly without creating controversy much kudos flows your way! --Snowded ^TALK 20:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Be certain to treat England & Scotland on equal terms when dealing with the 1707 Act of Union & events leading up to it. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There was no 'history of the United Kingdom' before the creation of the United Kingdom! And by the way GoodDay, I think you mean "the 1707 Acts of Union" don't you? 217.44.32.79 (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 217.44.32.79. The logic of casting back before the creation of the United Kingdom (in 1801, not 1707) is that what is needed is the history of the geographical area, but that is not the way history and geography work. For instance, the whole of Ireland was part of the UK from its creation until 1922. The 'geographical' approach ends up with people believing that Henry VIII of England was a king of the United Kingdom and that Southern Ireland was never part of it. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really - if it is written carefully. Every other Wikipedia country article covers the whole history of the territory that ultimately became the modern state. I gave some examples above. The question that would need to be answered is why the UK should be different to every other Wikipedia country article. DeCausa (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear. I am in favour as long as it is brief.--SabreBD (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There is already an article History of the formation of the United Kingdom and articles about the History of England, History of Scotland etc - all that is needed is fot the United Kingdom article to point readers to those articles if they are looking for information prior to the creation of the United Kingdom. By the way, Moonraker2, I am of the view that the creation of the United Kingdom goes back to 1707 with the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain which was a new state that united the kingdoms of England and Scotland.) 217.44.32.79 (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll say again: no other Wikipedia country article (certainly none of the major ones) begins with the formation of the state. The Tuscany, Lombardy etc articles have history sections but the Italy article history section still pre-dates unification. The Bavaria, Prussia etc articles have history sections but the Germany article history section still pre-dates unification. The list goes on. Please explain why the UK should be different. DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to briefly note here that, as well as expansion of the section, I feel that the existing content needs work in order to give proper weight to events and topics. Currently, in my view, the treatment of the Irish 'troubles' is excessively long, whilst detail on the First World War, Second World War and Empire (and decolonisation) are all too short. Certain things are also not mentioned at all which in my view should be, such as the Falklands War, Iraq War, Afghanistan War and the UK's role in the Cold War. Some of these things are touched on in other sections but only in passing and that should not, in my view, preclude their inclusion in the History section. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

agreed. DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The troubles section can definitely be shortened. If the information prior to the current section is kept to a paragraph, it should be doable. I can't imagine the Ireland issue will cause that much of a problem, especially as we cover the independence of the south later on in the paragraph. I second Snowded's kudos if this can be done. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Geography and history of a place can not be separated nor is it desirable. It is obvious to me that we have left out a significant part of history before the formation of the UK. So please expand and introduce proper sections. Marthainky (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll put a sandbox link here in the next couple of days (hopefully). DeCausa (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have an idea to shorten the section: make it a list of countries the UK hasn't been at war with, or in. Daicaregos (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

These maps suck

There isn't one map detailing the different countries bordering the U.K. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Very funny. garik (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border is linked from the third sentence of the opening paragraph. I doubt whether it needs a map in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Other than Ireland, which Ghmyrtle has just discussed, which countries should have maps shown on this article? Daicaregos (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your complaint. There's only one country that borders the UK. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Er, I think garik's got it...not funny "humour". DeCausa (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Britain is NOT the UK

Why was my edit undone clarifying that point? MrZoolook (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Because this point has been discussed ad nauseum on this Talk page and the text which you changed is very long-standing. A name - any name - does not need to be a scientifically accurate description of its subject to be so. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

To labour the point, isn't the idea behind an encyclopaedia to present factual data only rather then opinion? And factually, the two terms identify different entities. MrZoolook (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

With respect, you are missing the point. A name does not need to be a scientifically accurate description of its subject. What makes a name a name, particularly a common name, is useage. And it is very clear that Britain is used exceedingly frequently as a name for the United Kingdom, just as America is used as a name for the United States. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rangoon. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

And me. This UK Government site says: "'Britain' is used informally, usually meaning the United Kingdom." Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not one to present myself as a paragon of virtue, one thing I DO pride myself on is not selling myself or my country down the river without a paddle... The same cannot be said for the string of governments we have had to endure! Notwithstanding my personal opinion on those governments (and this one for that matter), I respectfully withdraw from the debate having been shown an example of what Rangoon was talking about (America = USA). I can't fault the reasoning I guess, but I am still not entirely happy that there is no attempt to educate readers the differences between the two terms. MrZoolook (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

But there IS no difference between the two terms, as regards their meaning. "Britain" (unlike "Great Britain") means the United Kingdom. This is a long-standing and unambiguous usage. It is even used informally by government. The heading of this section is wrong. Britain IS the UK. -- Alarics (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to MrZoolook, I don't think, with respect, any of the above answers his point. MrZoolook: Wikipedia isn't about defining the "truth" - see WP:Truth. It's a summation of the sources (to the the extent that they are compliant with WP:RS etc and don't infringe WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV etc.) It doesn't really matter, in the context of Wikipedia, whether it is right or wrong the only question is whether it is a reflection of the sources. Although WP:NPOV is one of Wikipedia's "five pillars", I often think that WP:OR is really the touchstone of Wikipedia. With regard to your specific point, "Britain" meaning UK is supported by reliable sources. That's it: doesn't matter whether they are "right" or "wrong". Hope that clarifies, if not satisfies. DeCausa (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, not everything on Wikipedia is based on truth, just look at the Londonderry article, it can't even be called its proper official name. Away from that Britain is a loose term for the UK, Great Britain refers to the main island of the UK as that is its name. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

We do need to be clear just what we mean by truth here though. It is completely true that the United Kingdom is commonly known as Britain. That Britain is not a scientifically accurate name for the United Kingdom is also true, since it implies the exclusion of Northern Ireland (just as the name America implies the inclusion of all those other countries in the continent which do not form part of the United States). But one can think of innumerable names which do not accurately describe their subjects. There is no linguistic rule that names need to be accurate descriptions of their subjects. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Great Britain excludes Northern Ireland. UK = Britain = ((GB = Eng+Scot+Wales) + NI). Britain is the UK. Per the Guardian Style Guide "Britain, UK: These terms are synonymous: Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." But I'm Bwitish (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No-one argued that GB included NI. I made it clear, and Rangoon said "Britain" not GB. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for anyone to object here. Britain is used as a name for the United Kingdom. It's always been a flexible term. Just because there's an island called Great Britain doesn't mean that's somehow problematic. --Breadandcheese (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Britain is used for the United Kingdom, just like British is used for the people of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Basics @Youtube: Before the debate goes any further... Sodacan (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

We didn't say Great Britain though. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I know, but we need to be clear about the difference between geographical and political/national (or even racial) adjectives (just in case). But I agree with you, Britain and UK is synonymous, the former is however a more geographical (as people who inhibit the British Isles or just GB) and the latter national (as political construct of the several united kingdoms). Sodacan (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"Informally"

Perhaps there is a case to changing the intro text to "commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or informally Britain"? I think both "UK" or "United Kingdom" are much more formal than "Britain". The UK government website even says "informally" when discussing "Britain". 86.171.183.252 (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I would support that suggestion, given that is the wording the UK government uses here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree - and better reflects the sources and usage. Also, I've been looking at some history sources recently and it's quite common (actually usual practice) for historians to refer to the island of Great Britain as "Britain" prior to the Union of the Crowns - particularly Pre-history, Roman and sub-Roman periods and sometimes in the the middle ages. Thereafter, Great Britain becomes more common as a geographical description. DeCausa (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. "Informally" makes it sound as if "Britain" is confined to colloquial or conversational use. I think when the government website says "Britain" is an informal usage, all they mean is that it is not the full official title. (And neither incidentally is "the United Kingdom".) But it has been used for decades in quite formal contexts such as articles in the Times, the Queen's Speech, government statements, etc. See e.g. this official website of the FCO, which lists "British Embassies", not "UK Embassies"; and this official tourist office website which is called "Visit Britain", not "Visit the UK". In my view, "Commonly known as", as the lead currently has it, is the correct formulation, and "informally" would be misleading. -- Alarics (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the UK government site says "'Britain' is used informally...." It's hard to argue that the government doesn't mean what it says. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I would rather go by the way the government (and responsible media) actually uses the word, rather than what some civil servant has written on one web page. In practice, "Britain" and "the United Kingdom" are used interchangeably (see e.g. this Queen's Speech); they are both "informal" in the sense that they are both a short form for the U K of G B and N I. I don't think the lead should draw a distinction between them. -- Alarics (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's synthesis at best, and also original research. The above are excellent reliable sources which are on point and saying that it is used "informally". I don't see how it can not go into the artle. DeCausa (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Both the UK and Britain are informal terms, The correct title is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (Source UK passports, as to which is more official, the UK is a more official term. Citations, the names of Government Departments, such as the UK border force. Wahmae (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Image of John Stuart Mill

The image of John Stuart Mill in the Philiosophy section suddenly seems to have got a lot bigger but I can't see any reason in the script or article history, does anyone know why?

The increased size has also made apparent just how grainy the image is. I personally have nothing against an image of Mill per se but do think that the exisiting image of him is not good enough quality for this article. How would others feel about (1) replacing the image, and (2) using one of the three below instead?

Images

• 
  Jeremy Bentham by Henry William Pickersgill
• 
  Adam Smith
• Bertrand Russell]
  Bertrand Russell]

Rangoon11 (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't find the JS Mill photo particularly bad, but it's nice to have periodic rotation - how about Russell to give a more "modern" feel and then in a while one of the others. Nice choice of photos. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No consensus on name of United Kingdom

Hi, The first line of the page does not satisfy some standards at all. In spite of that the edits are reverted -[[3]].

The reason given is: "I am not, under no circumstances is that going there. Take it to talk" which is against wiki-Collaberation policy [| here]. It is unacceptable by any standards.

Please mention standards for presenting the first line in the current version - "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland[note 7] (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain[7]) is a ...".

This does not satisfy this criteria ISO_3166-1#Officially_assigned_code_elements codes for Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(countries) and how is this acceptable? Please explain..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 09:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Did someone change the history of the page? Please let me know asap if something is going on of which others are unaware of!.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 10:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You'd do well to spell out precisely what your objection is here. Including 'multinational' - assuming we accept that Britain is - would be to go beyond the concise description expected in a Lead section, reduce a complicated issue to a single word and add a further descriptive term which is no more pertinent to the article's subject than countless others could be. --Breadandcheese (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Which line is not understood? Why this aversion to discuss that the first line is not as per usual standards mentioned ISO_3166-1#Officially_assigned_code_elements codes for Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(countries)? So how is the line acceptable despite not conforming to the clearly stated standards?

Another issue is that someone called User:BritishWatcher reverted edits right after I made the chages, which I am fine with and agreed to talk to the page. Though the reversions are now absent from the history of the page, like someone deleted a record or something, though I am not sure how exactly and therefore curious to know. But that is a side note..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 10:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way you are free to revert my changes till this discussion is done..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 10:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand what point you are trying to make but can I just say that I rather admire your lengthy signature? That said, is the point you are making that Gordon Brown described the UK as multinational? Or some other point? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Also see [4] where this point was discussed at length not long ago. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I guess that stands for the name of the article and consensus, if it is so. I have no enthusiasm for disputing what is accepted and done with consensus..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 11:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking

I think the article currently suffers from a bit of overlinking, which decreases readability. I understand that their are many thing that needs to be linked, as this article functions as sort of a portal. I think at least some piped terms such as foremost power and some general things such as Germany, France, and popular culture could be unlinked. What do you think? Cheers. 02:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)P. S. Burton (talk)

There is a lot of linking of common words as well, such as "food" and "golf". Some terms are repeatedly linked; terms should only be linked once in the lead and once (or possibly twice, in a long article such as this) in the body of the article. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Etymology section removed

Hi, I would like to know if it is okay to ignore entire Etymology section on the grounds that substance in it is already mentioned in history section - as per this edits here; the point being is Etymology section (Etymology#Types_of_word_origins) an option only if origins are mentioned in the history section or whether the Etymology section itself is optional and avoidable. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talkpage. I am not against having an etymology section in principle, but I reverted change because it seemed to replicate information already given (and much debated). I am also not sure that the etymology of Britain is relevant to this article since it is about the United Kingdom and Britain is (arguably) only a popular alternative. It also would be a good idea to wait for while before adding any new sections as this article is undergoing a copyedit process.--SabreBD (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that we are talking here about the plain English words "United" and "Kingdom", so "Etymology" may not be the perfect title for a section, even if it is what is suggested in MOS. But, a brief section explaining the terminology - that it arose because of the union of existing countries into a single kingdom, etc., with a link to Britain (name) - might be helpful, pretty much along the same lines as United States#Etymology. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

We once had consensus for a "Name" section I believe, but the usual happen and it never went through. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree and been thinking along the same lines. I said in a thread above (History section) that I was going to post a sandbox proposed revision of the history section. I've nearly finished it and will post it later today - and I've included a section on the name. DeCausa (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

That's great. Look forward to following the link/posting.--SabreBD (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I knew that my changes would be reverted. But I think this is a bit obvious and therefore adds more flair to the page. But if I start with one line, there would be hairsplitting on one line each so I made some collections and added all I thought is necessary in a very short but substantial manner. Hope this helps. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 13:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Current copy editing

I am very concerned about the present copy editing of this article, which appears to me to be going well beyond mere copy editing to changing the emphasis in the text. There are also many 'correct' ways of writing things, and a number of the changes appear to me to have actually made the text read worse. To give a few examples of the former (I should add that I was not responsible for any of the original text in question, and so am in no way trying to preserve my own work):

• Existing: 'The United Kingdom was one of the three main Allies of World War II. Following the defeat of its European allies in the first year of the war, the United Kingdom continued the fight against Germany, which took form in these years with the Battle of Britain.'
• New: 'The United Kingdom was one of the three main Allies of World War II. Following the defeat of its European allies in the first year of the war, the United Kingdom continued to fight the Axis Powers in the Battle of Britain. '

• Existing: ' As a result of a shortage of workers, initial postwar policy was to bring in workers from Germany, Poland and throughout Europe. '
• New: 'To offset a shortage of workers, the UK initially imported workers from throughout Western Europe.'

• Existing: 'Although the new postwar limits of Britain's political role were confirmed by the Suez Crisis of 1956, the international spread of the English language meant the continuing influence of its literature and culture, while from the 1960s its popular culture also found influence abroad.'
• New: 'Although the Suez Crisis of 1956 confirmed Britain's reduced status, the rapid spread of the English language sustained the influence of traditional British literature and culture, while from the 1960s The Beatles and others carried its popular culture around the world'

• Exisiting: 'Beside Russia, France and (after 1917) the USA, the British were one of the major powers opposing Germany and its allies in World War I (1914–18).'
• New: 'The UK joined Russia, France and the United States as the major powers opposing the Central Powers in World War I (1914–18).'

If this is what 'copy-editing' means then I am strongly against an article as sensitive as this one, where text has been developed over a long period through a process of considerable discussion and development, being subjected to such a process. At a minimum I feel that the work should be done only on one section at a time, so that it can be more easily reverted and discussed as necessary.Rangoon11 (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

How does the GCE work, does the community have a choice about what articles get selected and how do we register dissidence? I don't see much wrong with some of the above, but I do agree there are problems. Why for example did the Beatles suddenly get included? And the "shortage of workers" sentence is not a revision but a change and indeed is incorrect. I suppose one point is that we can just go in and change this when finished but if so it's a bit of a waste of time. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If there's a copyedit someone disagrees with, they are perfectly in their right to revert it, as long as they provide an edit summary explaining of course. Obviously a manual revert, rather than a blanket one, would be best. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the offputting thing is the sentence in the GCE tag that says "as a courtesy, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed" - maybe this tag should first be removed and a message left with the Guild. I've tried asking one of the main recent editors about it on their talk page but no response yet. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's the guild that should be contacted, but rather the individual editor. If no edits occur for an hour or so, I believe that the tag can then be removed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I was the editor who requested the copy edit from the GOCE, as they have done well with other articles I have written recently. I felt they would be able to help with the push to improve this article, but, as has been highlighted, some of the meaning of sentences has been changed to the detriment of the article. I think for now, however, that we should watch how things pan out, and make the changes back to the original where they are due - particuarly with the sentences that have been highlighted here. I'd also like to say sorry if my request has caused any disruption, as that was the least of my intentions. Harrison49 (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't think an apology for the request is needed Harrison49, we're just a bit puzzled by the process - do you know why meanings are being altered, is that considered a valid part of copyediting sometimes? Or is it just a mistaken idea of what the process entails? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that not everyone will be aware what the changes do to the emphasis of the sentences to which Rangoon11 is pointing, so a brief summary: Britain didn't just fight the Axis in the Battle of Britain, but elsewhere too; we have gone from all of Europe, specifically including Poland, to just Western Europe; the Beatles and other (bands?) really not the only means of spreading culture; Britain joining the USA as an opponent of the Central Powers in WWI implies that the US were already a ally, but they were of course the last major ally to join. I am assuming there is no intent to change meaning here, but this is really does make quite a difference to the sense of these passages. I assume that the copy editor is not really familiar with the topic, but if so it would be fine if they were just careful not to avoid changing the meaning of sentences.--SabreBD (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting works to ensure prose is correct and consistent throughout an article, and that it follows the correct style and layout. The changes made to this article seem to be a mistake, as they have actually in some cases rewritten history. I think it is best to stop the copy edit for now, and I will contact the editor involved to ask this. Harrison49 (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks Harrison49. Again, no objection to copyediting as such.--SabreBD (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Since six hours have elapsed with no further edits, I have removed the template asking people to refrain from editing while the GOCE process was under way. I would support Rangoon11 if he/she were now to revert the specific changes he/she has indicated above. On the wider issue, I note from the talk page of the GOCE editor who has made these changes that this is not the first time other editors have raised with him/her the issue of (no doubt inadvertently and in good faith) subtly altering meanings. -- Alarics (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am the editor in question. My intentions were good, but the results were sloppy. I apologize for the disruption and appreciate the civility of your responses. I desist... Lfstevens (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No one doubts your good intentions and I for one appreciate the grace of your comment here, as well as your desire to improve this article. In my view with an article such as this if any copy editing is going to be done - however skilled the copy editor - it should be one section at a time, so that it is possible for the changes to be properly reviewed, discussed and reverted as necessary. I have now reverted all of the recent copy edit changes as it was simply too complicated a job to try to pick through the changes which I felt were appropriate and those which I disagreed with (either because I felt that the prior emphasis was more accurate or simply because I thought the prior wording was better or fitted the rest of the text more neatly), although in my view - I accept that these are by no means wholly objective issues - the great majority fell into the former categories. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am going to attempt the requested copy edit now, and will do the lead section as an example. Please let me know if you want me to continue or to stop. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I am going to take this copy-edit on. There are a few steps I would like the involved editors to go through first though, in case something needs reverting and is only spotted once I have started, so that we can all agree on a starting point. Can everyone restore the edits/undo/revert to a good starting copy? I realise this may be as it was on 01-05-2011, or at some point afterwards with the good edits left in.

Once we are all happy that the article is in a good state (Particularly sentences such as the one that seems to have at some point read that Britain was then only fighting the Axis powers in the BofB?!?) by the time I get back from work tomorrow I will then start on the copyedit.

I appreciate this matter has dragged on but we really need to establish common ground so that I can copy-edit with the least disruption to both the article and any subsequent edits I make.

I have added the GOCEeffort tag so that all readers and GOCE members will be aware that the article copy-edit is in once again in progress. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Chaosdruid. I will stop. I would like to point out that there are references in the material in the note-group so you will need a more elaborate system to pull these citations out from the note group and into the reference group. Please see the material at User:Diannaa/My Templates#Ref Group Notes. An example that uses this system is Indiana class battleship. I can do this conversion when the article is not busy. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ready to copyedit

Can some of the regular page editors, in particular those in this thread, please sign off on whether the article is ready to go (at a good copy prior to any recent problematic copy-edits)? I will leave it another 24 hours to see if anyone does change anything or signs here as no-one appears to have, so far.

OK well, as no-one seems to have replied, I will go ahead and copyedit the page later today. Aiming to start around 14:00 UTC, though depending on when I get back from work. Chaosdruid (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Per my comments above, I for one would be grateful if you could just ce one section of the article at a time, to make it easier for other editors to review the changes. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

That is how I always edit articles over 2,000 words. Normally I edit from one level 2 header to the next level two header - I would only do each separate level 3 or 4 headed section if they are rather large. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit May 2011

During the copyedit a few things came to light which may need attention (I have removed bulleted "vote" style headers, this detracts from the bullet points which are possible problems to fix.):

Lead

• "It is a country in its own right and consists of four smaller countries:" - This was reverted by an editor to read:

"It is a country in its own right and consists of four countries:" with the summary "redundant". I fail to see how the second example is more clear than the first. Including smaller IMO gives more clarity - though I would welcome the editor explaining why they think it is more clear without it :¬)

"Smaller" is redundant because you could not have a country that consists of four larger countries. They must by definition be smaller, so there is no need to say so. -- Alarics (talk) 05:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed "smaller" from the "four smaller countries" - I consider "smaller" to be redundant here, as any parts forming a greater whole would have to be smaller. Daicaregos (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Points taken, the issue for me was the use of country and countries in such a small sentence which read as if the sentence had been chopped up from a longer previous version. I note the discussion below and am sure you will all find the best way to deal with it.

Geography

• Rivers (para3) - The main rivers are given followed by a sentence that lists the principal rivers. Should the three main rivers be repeated? Perhaps "The other principal rivers are..."
• "The topography of Scotland is distinguished by the Highland Boundary Fault" (para 4) - could this be better put by using "demarked" or similar instead of distinguished?

Climate

• "Summers are warmest in the south east of England, being closest to the European mainland, and coolest in the north." - It would be better to give an explanation as to why being close to the European mainland causes the hotter south-east summers.
• "Snowfall can occur in winter" - has it ever NOT snowed in the UK during winter? I would agree that snowfall in spring can or cannot occur though.

Administrative divisions

• "On 13 March 2008 the executive agreed on proposals to..." (para3) - What executive? It is not mentioned earlier in the para, nor can I see any mention of it in the section.
• Moved NI para to the end of the section, most of the other sections follow the order: England, Scotland, Wales, NI.

Politics

• "The UK has a parliamentary government based on the Westminster system that has been emulated around the world" (para 2) - The UK parliamentary system is the basis for the Westminster system, rather than being based on it. I suggest "The UK has a parliamentary government that has been emulated around the world using the Westminster system". If one looks at the article on the Westminster system it clearly states "modelled after the politics of the United Kingdom".
• "It is the ultimate legislative authority" (para 2) - What is? The previous two sentences talk of "two houses" and "royal assent". I would imagine that this refers to the UK parliament but it is unclear and could do with clarifying.

Government

• "and the Liberal Democrats, who won between them 622 out of 650 seats available" - This reads as if the Liberal Democrats won the 622 seats. I have split the sentence.

Devolved national administrations

• "can vote, sometimes decisively, on matters affecting England that are handled by devolved legislatures for their own constituencies." - Unsure whether this adequately explains the point. They can vote on matters affecting England although their own constituencies are not affected by these votes due to their devolved legislatures.
• "the assembly can now legislate" (para3) - which one? Welsh or National?

Law and Criminal justice

• "The Scots legal system is unique in having three possible verdicts for a criminal trial: "guilty", "not guilty" and "not proven"" - Is this entirely correct? There is the option in English law of the jury saying the law is wrong (Jury nullification I believe) which would give English trials three possible outcomes also.

Transport

• Surfaced vs paved - the Road surface article says "Road surface (British English) or pavement (American English)..."
• Miles vs. Kilometres - why do the conversions have kilometres first? The linked article Transport in the United Kingdom has "X miles (Y km)", as I would expect in an article on the UK?
• "There are 394,428 kilometres (245,086 mi) of paved roads running throughout the UK, with a motorway network of 3,519 kilometres (2,187 mi). There are a further 213,750 kilometres (132,818 mi) of paved roads." - this is a little confusing as it seems to read that there are another 213,750 in addition to the 394,428.
• "In that period the three largest airports" - is this correct? This appears to refer to area or size rather than volume of traffic, if it is referring to traffic volume it should state so "In that period the three most used airports were..." or similar.

Education

• "the provision of Welsh-medium..." (para4)- If this refers to the Welsh language it could perhaps be made more clear. At present it seems to refer to a medium level of education.

Healthcare

• "which is 0.5 percentage points below..." and "about one percentage point below..."- Is this not the same as "which is 0.5% below..." and "about 1% below..."?

Literature

• "'British literature' refers to literature associated with the United Kingdom" - I think it needs clarifying somewhat as "associated" is a vague term (without wishing to attract accusations of pedantry) and an American book on London could be seen as UK literature by this definition.

Music

• ", Spice Girls, ..." - I thought they were more commonly called "the Spice Girls"? (I have always heard them on Radio 1, for example, referred to as "[the new track] by the Spice Girls" rather than "[the new track] by Spice Girls")
• "Acts from Liverpool have had more UK chart number one hit singles per capita (54) than any other city worldwide." - This would mean that there have been 23,862,000 (441,900 x 54) hits from Liverpool!?! It is possible that either the per capita should be removed, or that the sentence should read "...one hit singles sales per capita..."

Sport

• Cricket - I have changed it to read "Cricket was invented in England." - After reading the linked main and other Wiki articles as well as several other sources, there is no mention of any other country claiming its invention.

General notes

• There is a mix of {{ndash}}, &ndash and —. These should be ratified into one preferred method.

• Official government positions, such as member of parliament or prime minister, are only capitalised under certain circumstances - Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Titles_of_people.
  See also: User:Chaosdruid/usefullinks/GOCEconv § MoS_for_capitalisation_of_political_titles, and User:Chaosdruid/usefullinks/MOSconv § Capitalization_of_.22Congress.22.2C_.22Parliament.22.2C_etc.

• • I appreciate that there may be some issue over the use of commas:

"One, two and three" were the most prevalent and I have unified them. It is also the British style.

There are a couple of "The somethings, One, Two and three, were blah blah". This is grammatically correct when all three terms are incidental to the sentence.

"On 1 Month Year, this happened" is incorrect. It should read "On 1 Month Year this happened"

For further info on these matters, and many others, feel free to have a look at the tabs from User:Chaosdruid/usefullinks. There are a lot of MoS and GOCE links which you may find useful

There is no need to be so dogmatic about commas. It is wrong to say that the comma in "On 1 Month Year, this happened" is incorrect. What is the case is that the comma may be unnecessary, depending on the context. I think it depends on what words the "this happened" clause starts with. If it starts with a "the", the comma is certainly redundant because it is obvious to the reader that what follows is the subject, but it doesn't do any actual harm. It is all a matter of what assists instant comprehension. As for "One, two and three", a comma is indeed redundant after "two" but if the elements in the sentence are much longer, and especially where an element itself contains an "and" (for instance because it is itself a list nested in the larger list), a comma is desirable. Each case should be judged on its merits. -- Alarics (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Except that this is a copyedit, one part of which is to fix punctuation errors and being grammatically correct, as well as following MoS, is important.

In the case of "Date," the comma is not being used to join two separate but related points in a sentence, as the date is the specific time that the next few words occurred, and is therefore redundant.

In case you had not noticed the last point you raised is the second bullet point (where I talk about that very example and say it is correct).

I am looking at each individual sentence, this is a copyedit not some AWB pass, nor am I running any scripts. I am spending a great deal of time on this as I want to be proud of an article on my own country - and especially want it to be grammatically correct as it will obviously be used as a reference for many students and school-children, thus perhaps being "so dogmatic" about commas is merely getting punctuation right?

• Several sections seem to have used differing orders of listing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It may be that some were done alphabetically, "England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales", whereas others were ordered as "England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland" - seemingly by number, size or perceptions of importance. I have unified them to follow the structure from the lead and first two sections: "England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland".

• An editor has reverted my edit from "- and the BG Group" to "and BG Group", I do not consider that their edit is correct. In normal English we would not leave the word "the" out, in American grammar they do. As this is an English article I think it should be put back to my edit but I will leave it to the normal editors to decide which should be used.

Sorry but you're wrong - please take a look at their website ([5]). The reference is to BG Group plc as a (UK registered) corporate entity, which is one single thing - that single entity does own a group of subsidiary companies but is not itself a group. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No I am not, my opinion is my opinion - how can it be wrong? Moreover if it is singular then the "the" is even more appropriate. I have already given my opinion and have stated that I leave it up to the editors to decide. There is no need to continue defending your argument by saying that I am wrong as it will be consensus that decides the outcome. As it stands, without the "the", my opinion is that the sentence is left wanting. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are both right. If the reference is meant to be to the holding company of the Group it should be without a doubt without the "The". This is the Companies House search result which is the ultimate authority for company names. It's definitely "BG Group plc". However, if the reference is to the whole group of companies not specifically the holding company, then normal practice is to include the "The". It's not clear which it's meant to be. On the one hand, omitting the "plc" suggests it's the whole group. On the other hand, the pipe link is to BG Group plc - suggesting the holding company. DeCausa (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Finished. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm ... The German Language Wikipedia seems More Accurate

Ironic ...

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vereinigtes_K%C3%B6nigreich#Geschichte

seems more accurate than

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom

I have to chuckle. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The German language article's section headed Geschichte does have some problems which we should perhaps correct. "...für rund 350 Jahre von den Römern besetzt" could be "rund 360 Jahre". "Die keltische Urbevölkerung wurde in die westlichen Randgebiete verdrängt" is an old-fashioned view of the matter. The consensus now is that most Britons stayed where they were and became anglicized. "1066 eroberten französisierte Normannen aus der Normandie die Insel und prägten sie für die folgenden Jahrhunderte." The Normans initially conquered only England, and not even the whole of what we now think of as England. "...mit dem Königreich Irland, das von 1169 bis 1603 mehr und mehr unter englische Kontrolle geraten war." Isn't 1603 an odd date to choose, here, as the process was a continuing one, rather culminating in Oliver Cromwell? Moonraker2 (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Moonraker2. I have been studying on my own all of the 53 living Indo-European Languages and some of the dead ones (i.e., Old English, Old Norse, Latin, Ancient Greek, and Sanskrit). If you want to go to the German Language page and argue in German ... Looss! ... be my guest. I would be most entertained to watch. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Kein schlechter Gedanke :-) The german article obviously needs some correction. Adornix (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Official langauge

I reverted an editor's changing of the status of english (in the infobox) as the UK official language. I'm not certain if I was correct in doing this. PS: the editor has since restored his edit. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

History section - proposal for changes

In this thread, I said I would propose an expansion of the current section to cover the pre-UK period. It’s taken me so long that that thread has now been archived! Nevertheless here is a sandbox of my suggested text (plus a diff against the current version). As I said in that earlier thread, I don’t see why the UK should be any different from every other country article and cover the territory’s history prior to the state’s foundation/unification. (See, for instance, Germany, Italy, Spain, United States. ) I’ve tried to keep it very short and in fact it represents two new paragraphs (the first two) plus most of the third paragraph, but together they replace the old first paragraph. So I don’t think the net effect is to add a huge amount of text.

However, there seems to me to be some obvious omissions which should be corrected for the post-Union period, and I’ve also added those. These include, in particular, an expanded 19th century paragraph, and paragraphs on the Atlee and Thatcher “revolutions”, which I really think need to be covered. On the other hand I've taken out some text eg I think the paragraph on Northern Ireland was far to long. I’ve also added a separate etymology section as I’ve always found the way the name issue was covered previously was rather confusing. DeCausa (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on whether to include pre-Union period

See also: Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 23 § History section

I am happy with the Etymology and Since the Acts of Union sections. Frankly, I am unhappy about the history section going back into prehistory, because we have other articles to deal with the period before the creation of the United Kingdom. I should much rather each article dealt with its own topic, with links between them as necessary. Moonraker2 (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

But almost every Wikipedia country article does that. Why would the UK article be out of step with that? Random examples: Italy#History goes back before 1861; and there's also Tuscany#History and History of Tuscany. Germany#History goes back before 1871 and there's also Bavaria#History andHistory of Bavaria. It's the normal pattern, and all country articles begin in pre-history. I don't think the UK article should be unique. (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Italy and Tuscany aren't the best examples, as they existed in early forms under the Roman Empire. Germany identifies itself with the Holy Roman Empire, which was the "first Reich" in the numbering which led to the third. The UK was plainly created in 1801 (and even those in denial on that matter date it from 1707). In principle there is no harm at all in a short section headed "before the creation of the United Kingdom" or some such, but in my view its main purpose should be connectivity with other articles. The more it expands, the more the tendency for it to compete with the real article for the period. The logic of that applies to Bavaria, too, although that is another medieval entity. Moonraker2 (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Italy didn't exist as a state under the Roman empire, and HRE is pushing it since it included Italy and is famously "not an Empire, or Holy or Roman". But in any event there is a very full article on the Holy Roman Empire (in fact series of articles) which surely goes against your argument? That would mean the Germany article should start post-HRE (and I don't understand your comment about Bavaria) Spain is another example.... In fact, I think every single WP country article covers the history prior to the founding of the state and covers predecessor states, and often begins with the first human habitants. The overlap with other articles in this way is the way it is supposed to work per WP:Summary style. DeCausa (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa is indeed correct that the United Kingdom is currently an anomaly in the way its history articles are arranged. For another country with a clear starting point, Canada, in which about half of its history section predates Canada. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Would I be right in thinking that one issue for consideration here might be that some might reasonably argue that articles about the histories of England, Scotland, Wales, etc., have in some way a priority over articles about the UK? There is a case that, unlike Canada for example, it is the articles about the UK's constituent countries which should hold the main content - hence, perhaps, the anomaly. Unlike elsewhere, those countries continue to exist as countries (not sovereign states, of course). Obviously I'm aware that raising this issue might open up a new can of worms (so in that sense I apologise for doing it), but it's worth taking into account. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think they still hold the"main content" - after all this is very short compared to the "consituent country" history articles. A second point is that there are "UK-wide" themes that won't necessarily be as clear in the individual country articles eg the Insular Celts, the Norman influence across the whole of the BI, the expansionism of the English monarchs accross the whole BI, the breadth of the Reformation, and the BI-nature of the "English" civil war, and which also go to explain to some extent the UK today (not just the constituent parts). DeCausa (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason that the history sections of the UK and its constituent countries would be organised differently from Canada and its constituent provinces and territories. Whether something is called a country, a state, a sovereign state, a province, a region, or a continent, it deserves a comprehensive covering of its entire history. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't particularly suggesting it be organised differently. What I was suggesting was that, where there are existing lengthy articles on aspects of each of the constituent countries, there is a need to make the best use of links and "see also" headings here, rather than having lengthy sections of text which overlap unnecessarily with - and may either duplicate, or be at variance with - those in other articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed (with Chipmunkdavis). The History section of this article is currently far shorter than those of peer nations, and anomalous in starting at the formation of the state. I strongly support the addition of the proposed new text. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

GHMyrtle, I don't believe two and a half paragraphs are lengthy. Also, I don't think readers who want an overview of "British history" find it convenient that prior to the eighteenth century they have to look at four different articles in parallel, each of which really are lengthy. DeCausa (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really arguing against that - I was simply pointing out (particularly to editors who may come from elsewhere in the world, or forget) that the UK is not simply "one country" in quite the same sense that other countries are. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Country is just a word. The current discussion has nothing to do with whether a country should have a certain amount of history, and how much should be given to other countries. The discussion is about whether this history section of the United Kingdom includes the period before it was fully established. I say that it does. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments on draft text

Hmmm, it's trending slightly too long for me, but I think in general it's good. The prose with the many brackets feels unwieldy in some places too, but that's minor. I like the Etymology section a lot, and perhaps it could be further adjusted to perhaps explain the term "Britain" and "Great Britain" etc slightly more since that issue keeps arising. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I thought the length would get that sort of feedback. But to be honest it's comparable in length to most of the other major country articles. IMHO the section is too short given its significance, but I suspect that's a minority view. DeCausa (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I usually object much more strongly to length, and to be honest, it's longer than the majority of the highest rated country articles. On the other hand, most of the higher rated articles are of countries with less of a written history, and due to this I wouldn't object to this article's section being slightly longer. Perhaps ask ChaosDruid if they would give it a look over as well, or if we put it in we could be making some of their work pointless. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I really like it. It deals well with the etymology (although we can consider including something brief - if that is possible - on "Britain") and with the very long pre-history of the UK. Not surprisingly I see a few typos and consistency tidy-ups (damn we just had this copyedited) and there is my largely private beef on templates resulting in a US style of footnotes, but apart from that my only issue are the very short paragraphs towards the end, which look a bit untidy and are discouraged at FA status. I can see some of this might be resolved but its easier to edit than describe. Good work, its a big improvement over the current coverage and I hope we can post it soon.--SabreBD (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

To me, the Etymology section would be clearer if the chronology ran forward, rather than backward. The brief sentences in the History section about the legislation setting up the UK could also, more logically, be included in the previous section to reduce duplication, although I recognise that would raise the issue of whether the section contents would then go beyond simply "Etymology". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your point but I think it would mix up history and the name issue, and I think it would have to result it being repeated again in the history section to make the flow of the "story" coherent. DeCausa (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not very sure what to do about this. Shall i do a bold edit and see waht happens? DeCausa (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

FAQ says that the United Kingdom is a country NOT a "Sovereign state"

Q1: Is the United Kingdom a "country"? A1: Reliable sources support the view that the United Kingdom is a single country. This view is shared with other major reputable encyclopedias. There has been a long-standing consensus to describe the UK in this way.Chaosname 10:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The UK is a country; it is also a sovereign state. There's no need for FAQ to say that it's a sovereign state, because that is unquestionable and presumably unquestioned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FAQ does not say the United Kingdom is a country NOT a "Sovereign state". It just says it's a country. Country and sovereign state are not synonyms. But neither are they mutually exclusive. A territory may be a country but not be a sovereign state. And a territory may be a country and a sovereign state. Daicaregos (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What i meant was that in the entry should say that United kingdom of great britain is a country not (United Kingdom of great britain is a sovereign state)Chaosname 11:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you read the extremely long discussion higher up this page, all about the wording of the introductory paragraphs, and then reconsider your position. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The UK is a country. England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland are constituent countries. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Is 'constituent' an adjective in the above statement? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Fishiehelper2 England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are de facto Administrative divisions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

e/c lol! I wonder where "constituent country" is used on Wikipedia? There are plenty of sources for it and the UK 'countries', but it's one of those terms that is only used in certain circumstances - ie when it needs to be. Nobody uses it without very-specificaly referencing the UK - ie nobody says "Scotland is a constituent country (full stop)."! It is only used to clarify in situations like this very article. Except on Wikipedia, where it isn't allowed to be used. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

So the answer to the question is? Let me repeat it: Is 'constituent' as used in the phrase 'constituent country' an adjective? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course "constituent" is an adjective here. "country" is 'noun modifier' in this use of "constituent country" - but noun modifiers are still nouns, they just modify another noun (in this case, the UK). A noun modifier is a noun that is part of something else: they don't have values attatched to them though. In the UK we happen to have countries that are part of a single subsuming country.

"constituent country/ies (of the UK)" is basically another way of putting "UK country" (noun/noun modifier) - the two nouns just happen in this case to be different occurences of the same value: a country.

• Scotland is a constituent (adj).. country (nm).. of the UK (n).

• Scotland isn't a "constituent country" full-stop (ie without the "of the UK").

• The UK countries are "constituent countries".. but always of the UK.

Just look at how the sources use it: "constituent counties" and "united Kingdom" Google search, and "constituent countries" and "uk" Google search.

You could even pipelink each word to their respective articles, like with the 'Sovereign country' example above (though I do personally find doing this a bit extreme, but 'needs must' if this is the best way forwards). Perhaps this common usage could be better described in the constituent country article. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

imo it's best described as four countries within one nation (aka sovereign state). Governments and boundaries come and go, but countries are more permanent concepts encompassing a much longer history. "There will always be an an England" - and Scotland and Wales and Ireland (Northern or otherwise) - and the UK is only the current sovereign state. Some conflate the definitions of 'country' and 'nation', but the point is that one exists on a more permanent basis than the other. I think we can all agree that the UK is the current 'sovereign state' and go from there. England, Wales and Scotland have been sovereign states in the past, and they're clearly considered separate and unique countries (in the sense of area and people). Northern Ireland might be considered its own country, or part of Ireland. Is that the real issue here? Flatterworld (talk)

It is a country in its own right and consists of four smaller countries:

Discussion closed – see Talk:United_Kingdom#Edits by AgadaUrbanit DeCausa and Ghmyrtle made this morning (28 May 2011) DeCausa (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Discussion resolved – see Talk:United_Kingdom#Edits by AgadaUrbanit DeCausa and Ghmyrtle made this morning (28 May 2011) DeCausa (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC) "In its own right" sounds rather odd. Would it not be better if we simply had the first sentence of the article say.... "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a country and sovereign state off the north-western coast of continental Europe" That way the sentence about consisting of four countries would no longer need to state the United Kingdom is a country. At present that is the first place where the UK is called a country in the article, where as this is a rather important bit of information that should be in the first sentence. The fact there is a FAQ on this page pointing out the UK is a country highlights this. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC) I agree. AJRG (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC) The first sentence saying "is a country and sovereign state" would be tautologous to many who view the page. Instead, why not change the second sentence to say "An island country, it spans an archipelago..." which would be better prose. (Although now that I think of it, "spans" would be wrong as not the whole archipelago is part of the UK.) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC) That second sentence should state its in the British Isles rather than just an unnammed archipelago, im sure at some point it did but it must of got removed during the crusades. I think the wording should clearly just state it is a country rather than with a description like "island country" which some may dispute because the UK is made up of more than 1 island. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Why not change the second sentence of the second para here to read simply: "It consists of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." (The word "smaller" in the current text is certainly redundant.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC) I am fine with that change, provided country is added to the first sentence of the article. At present that second paragraph is the first place we mention the fact the UK is a country. Its disturbing such an important bit of information is hidden where it is now instead of a more primary position in the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Instead of changing the first sentence, how about changing "It spans..." in the second sentence to "The country spans...."? No need for linking the word - the United States article uses the word "country" several times without linking it, and it is equally unnecessary here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Agreed that would work well. Then your wording for the second paragraph suggested above would also be good. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Actually - "It consists of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales" still fails to properly explain the situation clearly. Considering most country articles state when a country was formed/gained independence could that not be mentioned somewhere, explaining the date of formation and that leading on to how today it consists of 4 countries? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Because the term 'country' is politically controversial in relation to Northern Ireland, I would prefer to avoid that by the very straightforward "The United Kingdom consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland", following the order used elsewhjere in relation to the four jurisdictions. But I am aware that several editors are determined to use Wikipedia to assert that Northern Ireland is a country, and don't like neutral terminology... Brocach (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Haven't we been over all that many times before? I thought the consensus after a great deal of argument was for "a country consisting of four countries", the source for which is, or was, the Downing Street website, IIRC. -- Alarics (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC) I wouldn't consider Northern Ireland to be a country but, what do the sources say? This encyclopedia is based on reliable sources, therefore it matters not a jot what you, I, or the guy next door thinks. If the sources say it is a country then we have to reflect what the sources say. Carson101 (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Sources don't dictate how we write each word on wikipedia. We don't need to say the UK consists of countries if we can just list what is consists of. Anyway, support Ghmyrtle's suggestion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC) "...is a country, consisting of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". Country is already mentioned for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, on their respective articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC) I would be ok with that. The following sentences on this article go on to mention devolved national governments / capitals, which highlight their status anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC) How does mentioning devolved national governments / capitals highlight their status as countries? Daicaregos (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC) It highlights their status as nations, by having national governments / capitals of their own. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC) In other words: it doesn't. I agree with you that "It is a country in its own right" sounds daft. Until this unilateral edit (3 May) which was lost in the traffic, it said The United Kingdom is a unitary state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London. It is a country consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. There was no need to change that text which summed it all up admirably. Daicaregos (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC) "It is a country consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales" would be less cumbersome & would read better. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Their status as what? Anyway, that's not the diff at fault. The change which caused this is the one which shifted that information from the first to the second paragraph, whichever one that was. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Seems to have happened here. Daicaregos (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Seems so. I should be reverted. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Feel free to self-revert... AJRG (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC) The vast majority of that change has already been reverted by others. Anyway, the wording there is just "country consisting of four countries", which isn't what caused the current issues, and calls each countries, which apparently is what everyone here wants. If other editors are okay with me selectively self-reverting a change I made over half a year ago while discussion on the topic is ongoing on the talkpage, I'll do it. Two issues here: 1) Wording. 2) Location. My self-revert would fix 2, not 1 (as that was changed by someone else). I would like you to implement my suggestion, while you're selective reverting. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Not this again! I've always thought "a country consisting of four countries" is pretty cumbersome. How about opening with this: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland[note 7] (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or informally Britain) is a sovereign state[10][11] off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country spans an archipelago..." Then second sentence of second para begins: "It consists of four countries...." Wouldn't that satisfy all opinions? DeCausa (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Oh, GHMyrtle already suggested that! I missed it...but I support it! DeCausa (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC) The second paragraph of the pre-Chipmunkdavis re-write began "The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and unitary state consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." Shall we go with that? Daicaregos (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Why do we need to mention 'country' at all, where England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland are concerned? Merely say "consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Not that I care myself, but some apparently do, where would the UK being descibed as a country come in in theBack to the Future version? Doesn't the GH Myrtle proposal satisfy everyone? And, GD, for gawd's sake stop...that boat has well and truly sailed. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC) I have no problem with the UK being called a country (which it obviously is). I propose that the text "It spans an archipelago that includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands." be amended to "The country is part of an archipelago that includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands.". Daicaregos (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Fully support that proposal. "The country is part of an archipelago that......." and "The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and unitary state consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." That wording sounds a lot better BritishWatcher (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Actually yes. The juxtaposition of "unitary state" and "four countries" resolves any ambiguity that "four countries" implies a federal union. Perhaps link to unitary state as well, just to be clear. DeCausa (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC) It's back to the pre-Chipmunkdavis rewrite, sort of, I suppose. Does that cover all the issues? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC) WHat the heck is with the current version? i strongly oppose that introduction and am reverting to an older version now. It is totally unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC) Ive partially restored the lead to what it said before, although i have changed the "It spans an..." to "The country is part of..." as mentioned above. The proposal was meant to be about changing "The United Kingdom is a unitary state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London. It is a country in its own right[14][15] and consists of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales" in the second paragraph to start off saying.... "'The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and unitary state consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." I did not think the proposal was to have that wording in the first sentence of the first paragraph, its not right. The first sentence must point out the UK is a sovereign state (i still think it should say country too) in Europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC) I think it was just a misunderstanding as to what you were accepting - I certainly had the same impression as Daicaregos. If that's not acceptable what about the GH Myrtle suggestion above, which amounts to leaving the lead as it now is and the second para then opening: "The United Kingdom is a unitary state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London. It consists of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales...." ?????? DeCausa (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC) It wasn't me. My only change was the country spans an archipelago → the country is part of an archipelago, which was supported above. Daicaregos (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC) One of the copyediting suggestions by Chaosdruid was to amend the order, for consistency, to "England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland" - which I would support. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of a footnote to try and 'balance' status of NI

Discussion closed – see Talk:United_Kingdom#Edits by AgadaUrbanit DeCausa and Ghmyrtle made this morning (28 May 2011) DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Discussion resolved – see Talk:United_Kingdom#Edits by AgadaUrbanit DeCausa and Ghmyrtle made this morning (28 May 2011) DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Re this revert by revert by Ghmyrtle, who referred to the fact this footnote's content was "agreed at talk page", I'd really like to know where tbh. Because it's complete garbage. Using footnotes rather than main text links to refer readers other Wikipedia articles for more information for understanding POV disputes? WTF? Using footnotes to deliver the NPOV balancing info rather than simple explanatory text? Since when did that become good practice? Using footnote claims in the present tense tied to a single 1991 reference to use the lede of this article to suggest to readers that somehow referring to NI as a country might reveal you as a terrorist? Since when did this sort of flagrant coatracking of footnotes fly as how we deal with NPOV? I'd like some answers, directly, or I'll be reverting, on the basis that 'see talk page' is not a legitimate defence of such flagrant violations of the MoS or NPOV. MickMacNee (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC) There was lengthy discussion here in February and March, here, leading to this change, subsequently slightly amended to match the agreed wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Previous consensus Mick, you need to get agreement here to any reversion. Please tone the language down a bit --Snowded TALK 14:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC) And you're seriously arguing that's a valid consensus? A discussion in which an inexperienced user suggested that on the whole 'country' issue, "a footnote explaining the debate and the alternatives", could be used. This was on the premise that the way we decide article content is what best diffuses disputes between editors arguing from different POVs (seriously?). And after nobody raised any of the policy points I have above (and infact, nobody appears to have mentioned a single policy or guideline at all, least of all WP:FOOTNOTE), there was a 'vote' (again, seriously?) on various versions, and the unanimous winner was shoehorned into this article? I think my language describing that sort of process coming to this sort of content change introducing this sort of coatrack is spot on. I invite either of you to prove this utter nonsense of an approach to NPOV would get consensus at somewhere like VPP. I'll repeat, it's garbage. MickMacNee (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC) If you think it was not valid then you discuss it here, and ideally with less invective --Snowded TALK 15:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC) (e/c) On the basis of this explanation, I removed it again pending a proper consensus emerging. As far as I'm concerned, this material is wholly devious and disingenuous, and rather than solving a dispute, it sends some very disturbing messages to readers. If people want to show me I'm wrong, if people here think this footnote is justified in actual policy and is what would result from a cluefull discussion, they should attempt to have it ratified as a sensible approach at a venue like the village pump or NPOVN, as something that does not contravene core policies like NPOV or is not a coatrack. As it is just a footnote, nobody here can plausibly claim that the silence from people simply not noticing it is sufficient. If people don't want to do this, if you Snowded, want to show that you really aren't capable of doing anything but what you've just done and re-inserted it on the basis of that above 'consensus', and templating me, then I think that shows exactly what's supporting this material - general cluelessness about policy and a general disregard for some pretty core policy principles. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC) A group of editors agreed it was a sensible way forward Mick. I can't see how it breaks NPOV and I'm not just taking your word for it, try explaining why in more temperate language. --Snowded TALK 15:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC) A (very small by comparison to other issues of equivalent seriousness) group who never once mentioned a single policy in their discussions. A group acting on the suggestion of someone with barely 4 months editting experience to use a footnote as a solution to a long standing dispute over NPOV. Seriousy? This is the sort of logic you are going to edit war and template others in support of? As for the policy, read WP:COATRACK. The use in a footnote in the lede of a single reference dating from 7 years before the Good Friday Agreement which settled a number of important issues as regards the territorial status of NI as a way to present to readers of the UK article a present tense assertion that calling NI a country may reveal your political preferences? It's an outrageously deceptive attempt at coatracking. Of all the things that might need further explanation in this lede, this is chosen as the important one? Hell no. Footnotes are for explanatory material not considered important enough to include in main text. Balancing detail for NPOV is not that. It's absurd to describe the whole 'is NI a country' issue as something you can try and balance in a footnote. I hesitate to ask if any of this is even dealt with in this actual article. It's certainly discussed at lenght in the NI article. As such, it's equally absurd to squirrel away other terms for NI in a footnote, and they don't even have any supporting references. As for Wikipedia using footnotes to refer readers to other Wikipedia articles as psuedo-references for that sort of POV material? Do I really even have to expand on what's wong with that from a policy standpooint? Actually, maybe I probably do. MickMacNee (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Have a look at the previous discussion. A fair number of experienced editors were involved in it and like many things on these pages it was a compromise given that various different words can be supported by sources. There were in fact multiple references, but was was used, others could have been. Its always been the case by the way (and this is referenced) that what you call Northern Ireland is a part of political preference. Again if you check the various previous discussions you will see references to that. --Snowded TALK 16:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Whenever I hear anyone describe something as a 'compromise' solution on Wikipedia, alarm bells ring, not least when it occurs on the talk page of the disputed article with no evident attempt at solicitation of outside clue whatsoever. You do not decide what is and is not adequately balanced wording based on what a few editors agree on a talk page will not cause them to further dispute it, not least if while doing so, they fail to mention a single policy. And whatever was agreed at the time, I'm telling you now it's wholly disputed, and I'm telling you in policy, why. Directing me to the discussion you've already directed to me before which I've already commented on, does nothing. Either you can justify this footnote in policy, or you can't. Readers who see that footnote are not required to come see the alleged references it was drafted using, way back when. And don't insult me further by directing me to the page where they are located, as if I didn't already know where it is and wasn't around when it was being constructed. At the time I was under the impression that was to be used in article text, not to vaguely support dodgy coatracked footnotes. MickMacNee (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Compromises are part of getting things done on controversial articles. Also its not unreasonable to ask you to read a prior discussion. If you have ideas on how to improve it then propose them --Snowded TALK 16:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Consensus is how you get things done. And not the kind you think it is, but proper, cluefull discussions with reference to actual policies. A 'compromise' solution without that occuring only results in the sort of clueless outcome where say, a fringe view and a majority view are presented as equals as the 'NPOV', just because the 'discussion' only happened to have 3 editors speaking up for each side (that's an abstract example, before you start over thinking it as regards this issue). Anyway, I'm done here with you. You seem to be in the mood for not listening in between reverts today Snowded, I'm not going to start repeating things like the fact I did read and infact have responded to the contents of the prior discussion that was referred to to justify this 'compromise', and requests to go read it again are not going to make up for your lack of ability to justify this coat racked mess. From a policy perspective it's garbage, end of story. If you want to prove otherwise, you've been given more than enough opportunity by now to show you're willing to do that. The request to come talk it out with you on the talk page looks like nothing but a way of wasting my time and securing the content as is, by boring me into submission and getting me to blow my brains out rather than having to explain the concept of what goes into a cluefully argued consensus position for what must be the fourth time by now. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC) And my suggested impovement was the removal of the offending content. If it's a violation, then removal is an improvement. Again, that's another common fallacy from the less than cluefull camp on Wikipedia - that if you see a violation, you must 'improve' it (i.e. change or rearrange the text), rather than remove it. People wouldn't argue that if they saw a libel in a BLP, so why argue it in an article which has an obvious POV issue? If you want suggestions for improvement as to how to do this same thing in regular text, then read the advice contained in the relevant policies and guidelines, starting with NPOV and MoS. One thing you definitely won't find in them, is a suggestion to use footnotes for balancing perceived POV wording. If you want to say you would, then please provide evidence (and no, not of the form of directing me to another flawed 'compromise' achieved in another flawed way at another flawed article, that's what brought me to this garbage in the first place to find out how on Earth this was being held up as an example of good practice elsewhere). As already said, but what seems to need endless repeating, seeing as the prior discussion justifying this footnote never even got into such complex or heady issues as 'what are footnotes for', let alone what role they do and do not play in NPOV etc, directing me to the past discussion is not going to help in that regard. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC) (outdent) I am not disagreeing with the content, but I find the format (link to subpage), shall we say, "unusual" at best. Suppose I print this — link gone, refs gone, no information. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Using a link to another WP article as source? That is a no go I think. If "the United Kingdom Government refers to the four parts as 'countries' constantly" as someone claimed in the above mentioned discussion and if this claim applies to referring to Northern Ireland as "country" too, there clearly are many good reliable sources at hand? Why not using them? And the link to a talk-subpage looks like a wikilink to an article. "Unusual" is friendly for that. What unexperienced user is to understand that? Adornix (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC) MickMacNee: You haven't raised any serious policy points. The footnote gives extra information on the text. This solution had the support of pretty much all the regular editors and is the product of consensus after a very lengthy debate. You have no consensus to change it - although, of course it's open to you to try to gain consensus for you view. DeCausa (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC) This is a high profile article, one of the highest. As such, failing to adhere to a core policy like NPOV from just the 2nd paragraph is not a serious policy point? Coatracking is not a a serious policy point? Whoever told you this, is wrong. And whoever told you that a defacto consensus exists wherever something has simply been discussed by the regulars (might not have to look far on that one), irrespective of the content of that discussion, is also flat wrong. As far as the status of regular editors and the content of articles, well, FAs aside, they have none, as without their regular input and care having guided it to something like FA status, they frankly haven't demonstrated they know anything yet, and certainly haven't shown they can write decent NPOV stuff. It frankly doesn't matter if the people in that discussion considered themselves subject experts, or whether it was their first ever input on the article, what matters is what they said (and in this case, what they failed to say as regards any policy or guideline). And pro tip: for forming a consensus on long running POV disputes, it's more often than not better to get input from experienced non-regulars than the entrenched regulars. Fresh eyes and all that. And if you think that in Wikipedia terms that was a long discussion with many participants, you are again, flat wrong. If anything, the fact it went on so long with the same few people who never once mentioned a policy, never once seemed to solicit cluefull outside opinion from the likes of VPP on what is a pretty major issue, is only a sure fire sign that it was pretty much wasted effort as far as being a proper consensus goes. It might satisfy the likes of Snowded, enough for him to edit war to sustain it, but he's still struggling with the concept of to template or not to template. And reading the contributor list and comparing it to the few people in that vote, I'd say you're even over-egging that pudding tbh. If you want to get into the whole experience issue, then bearing in mind you are talking to a guy with over four years edit time under his belt, can I ask you, as an editor of just four months experience at the time, on what basis did you make the footnote suggestion in the first place? What policy or guideline did you read, or even good advice from an editor with a reputation for decent writing, did you receive, that remotely suggested to you that the way we deal with hot button terms in article ledes as regards NPOV is not to deal with it in main text, but to hang a footnote off it, containing a mixture of referenced material albeit with issues in of itself, material bizarrly referenced to wikipedia articles as pseudo references (someone already agrees on that score in the first few posts, so maybe you need to wind your claims about me having no conensus back just a tiny bit), and material referenced to nothing at all, pure assertion, but nonetheless making rather grand claims about what unspecified people use as alternate names for NI. And I'm talking specifically here about the stuff I removed, the stuff included ostensibly to balance a POV term, rather than the stuff I left, which is legitimate factual explanatory detail which while required, would nonethless be an unneeded distraction to include in the main text. If the difference is lost on you, there is no consensus here as there is no real understanidng of the basic issue. And on your own specific example draft, which kicked off this whole process which bizarrly ended in a vote of all things even though the discussion hadn't even been that long and didn't even involve that many people compared to some of the things which really do become so intractible, busy and long, a vote is the only way to settle it. As regards your own first draft, what possible policy or guideline or person could have made you think that on the UK article, the thing to be hanging off of a footnote in the lede is Sinn Fain of all people's views on the status of bits of the UK? Ye Gods. If I am reading this article as an SNP supporter or even a Cornish nationalist and happen to follow the footnote, by now I'm all ready hopping mad at being told that this is what Wikipedia believes is the balanced way to present the UK, and I haven't even finished the supposed summary. Per WP:LEDE, am I now expecting to find nothing in the main article about either of these issues, but a hefty chunk about the terminology of NI. As above, I doubt it, as this is what that part of the MoS would suggest follows from that sort of a lede, but such a guideline was not a part of the rationale for the footnote that I can see at all. As that reader, even though I might have no clue whatsoever about policy, I might even try and bring my rage to the talk page, to try and see what I can end up with in one of Snowdeds 'compromise' solutions on behalf of the peoples of the far north or south west, especially as it seems I don't need that many like minded people to participate and get a footnote at least. After all, it's not a major part of the article is it? What harm can it do?. A lot. As referred to above, it would never pass an WP:FAR for a start with this sort of obvious coatrack in it. For me to accept that I have to get a change in consensus to remove this coatrack would be to give the original discussion and the reverters who are sustaining it in the article despite it being disputed with what are infact serious policy points, a legitimacy that they simply do not have, not in policy or in clue. No, if anything, I'm as likely to raise it as an improper UK article only behavioural issue than go to a venue like VPP and get a consensus for what I already know - that the content is garbage from a policy perspective, and the discussion that led up to it was, and I'm being kind here, less than ideal. No, the only way this material is being backed by a consensus, one that I would need to thange, is if you suspend all notions of what consensus actually is. MickMacNee (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC) tl;dr. DeCausa (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Same as DeCausa. If anything MickMacNee you need consensus to remove an outcome that was consensed upon by several editors, and not just a few. You just can't downtrod over something because you disagree with it regardless of everyone elses efforts to reach a compromise. If you want to have it removed then you need to follow WP:BRD. You removed content that was discussed and in place for several months so you did the bold, you were reverted, so you need to discuss properly and preferably with far less words. Mabuska (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC) You're talking nonsense frankly. An agreement between editors to do something which breaks policy, is no agreement at all. It's certainly not a consensus - you cannot by definition have a consensus that goes against policy. You can no more do that, than have a group of fan boys at their favourite BLP decide that they want to include some salacious detail or other that violates a BLP criteria. It's still a policy violation. And you cannot defend content that is being challenged simply on the basis that you agree with it. If you don't put anything in terms of policy behind that, it's worthless jawing, and again, it's certainly not part of consensus. You want it, you should be able to justify it here and now, rather than pretending you don't have to just because it was discussed before, with some equally weightless points. And it doesn't matter if it lasted for months - it was hidden away in a footnote. There's been BLP violations gone unnoticed in articles for years in some cases. Anyway, on BRD in general - for the 'D' stage in this case, well, you can see what sense I'm getting out of people here by pandering to their empty ideas of discussion. The initial proposer of the footnote refuses to say anything - he claims my post was too long to read. Well, he's either lying or he really is that lazy, but either way he's lost the right to even have an opinion going forward. The original reverter maybe? Surely if BRD is the cycle here, they'd be discussing the content, showing where I'm wrong in the above criticism with some policies. Nope, nothing yet. Who next? Snowded. Well, he messed me around a bit telling me to read a discussion I'd already read and commented on, but on the issue at hand, he hasn't said anything of substance. He's claimed there's more than just the 1991 ref, but rather than justifying the content, that only goes to show how stupid it is to try and balance things using footnotes - no references, no value to the article. The place for text supported by muliple references is main text. This is not rocket science. These aren't complex concepts. Then there's you. You've said nothing of my complaints here, yet you are trying to claim elsewhere that this footnote solution has consensus support. Can you really not see the flaw with that approach? No, I'm not going to be pissed around here, if I don't see anyone actually attempting to justify this in terms of policy, it's going. If people revert again, it will be a behavioural issue, there'll be no hiding behind BRD then. Whatever people think the previous discussion shows (and I've made my views on it more than clear based on some not so hard to understand concepts), it's not inviolate, and it's conclusions are being challenged here and now. And let's not forget, of the new people commenting, neither is actively supporting it, and all have agreed with me on it's absurd linking and pseudo referencing of Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Please try to cut down on the one mass block statements Mick and the comemnting on editors, i think your putting editors off altogether leaving just you yourself argueing your point. I'm not even reading your recent comments due to the poor formatting and verbosity of it, and it would appear no-one else is either - however by looking closer at your opening statement which is far shorter i think i can finally figure out what your on about. If the content of the footnote is such a problem for you then why not propose a rewording? If you don't like a 1991 source being used in present tense then why not suggest changing the tense of content of the footnote as such: "With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used has been stated in the past as being "controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences."[17]". Is that not a less verbose, less disruptive and easier going way of handling the issue rather than ranting and making threats of making chages regardless of other editors? If a wikilink to a sub-page of a talk-page, which is simply a list of sources a no-no, then its a no-no, however it is in the form of a article, just in the wrong namespace. If it was possible to be created as an actual article would it meet your criteria Mick for wikilinking? RA has already removed it anyways. In fact if you wish we can cram every single reference for country into the footnote which to be honest is overkill and rediculous but if it needs to be done. Personally i would rather not have the footnote, however compromises were made by all for the greater good of the article, whether you see it or not. Mabuska (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC) I do not propose rewording it because it is the use of a footnote to do what it is trying to do that is objectionable and a basic violation. And it's the nature of how those compromises arose that needs examining. More below, in handy bullet points. MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Mick: I did actually read the last essay and noticed you called me a liar. That of course is a gross breach of WP:NPA. But aside from that it's a strange accusation: the "lie" supposedly is that I did read your post but said I didn't. I'm not sure why you would think I would lie about that. A quick glance over it reveals that it is an incoherent rant with poor grammar, formatting etc. Because of that, it is largely unintelligible. I would say that length and incoherence strongly suggests that I was telling the truth. Why don't you go and have a lie down? I'm sure you'll feel better for it. DeCausa (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC) You stated clearly it was too long so you never read it. And I think you'd lie about having not read it if you had, just so you wouldn't have to address the points made in it. Thus far, I think I was pretty correct. MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Reboot Right. Well, to satisfy the 'formatting' concerns, and to see if there really is some discussion about to break out here, here is a selection of suggested starting points, in handy bullet point form: On what policy or guideline basis did DeCausa originally suggest a footnote being used to perform POV balancing in mini article form, rather than for simple detail explanation which would never go in main text? Why did nobody in the ensuing discussion actually refer to any policy or guideline that would support this, but rather just bumbled on as if it was assumed to be normal practice? If it was such a clueful discussion, how come it swiftly turned into and concluded as a vote on footnote versions, which is discouraged precisely because it allows people to ingore the issue of whether we would ever even use a footnote for balancing terms On what grounds are 'the regulars' in that debate being held up as experienced in NPOV writing or in the nuances of the MoS? (not that the purpose of footnotes is really a nuance) Why did nobody solicit experienced outside opinions if they thought this was an ongoing issue of an intractable nature that input from 'the regulars' wasn't solving? If the above two issues were ever acknowledged during the debate, why was nobody experienced & independent sought out to close the discussion, stating its conclusions, as is often simply normal for issue finalising debates like this? If this was supposedly some sort of compromise, who are we compromising between? Fighting editors who weren't referring to policy in that debate, clueless readers not aware that the lede is not the whole article, or some actual true conflicts in the directions of core policy in this specific case? If this apparent solution to acheiving balance using footnotes is so cluefull, why is nobody willing to defend it at all now using existing policy from 'first principles'? Who here who supports it is willing to claim that the footnote would not be a barrier to this article becoming an FA, i.e. cleared for being written in accordance with NPOV & the MoS? As far as any further nit-picking of my writing style goes, I will not be tolerating any further pretences of there being an existing, well argued, defended, or even defensible consensus, or that I am required to discuss anything here in order to get this article to comply with NPOV, a core policy, if we don't start to see some substantive progress on the above points. MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Wouldn't we make more progress if you were to suggest how the substance of the footnote could best be incorporated into the main text of the article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC) OK. If I can try and answer one of Mick's points - Why did nobody solicit experienced outside opinions if they thought this was an ongoing issue of an intractable nature that input from 'the regulars' wasn't solving? - many of us have at many times over the years asked for outside opinions on various aspects of British/Irish disputes (of which this is just another flavour) and the reaction is most often of one of two varieties A previously uninvolved editor/admin pays a visit, makes some points, stays a couple of weeks/months, and eventually disappears into the ether fed up with the dispute and the behaviour, or No one comes along, because they are all fed up of the stinking mess. Either way we've all been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. Now we are here, and most of us are trying to work out a consensus (like WP:NPOV, another equally core policy) that will be neutral, but will also create a climate for consensual editing as we move along. And for Mick to tar many of us with ignoring a core policy (NPOV) is a bad faith breach of yet another equally core policy. There is more than one core policy. And pretending that only one - WP:NPOV - trumps all the others, is not moving us onwards. Even the above reboot section is looking backwards not forwards. There may well be some good lessons to be learned from much of what Mick says, but pointing fingers won't get us any further forward. I'm not clear what Mick's preferred solution actually is. Perhaps he'd prefer to add a little bit about his view forwards? Fmph (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC) The solution is to have my edit stand, or for someone to come up with a better justification for it not to than the rather weak assertions that the past discussion represents a consensus, for all the reasons above (and no, WP:CON doesn't override NPOV at all, and the page is explicit on that score). And I am not clear why I need to suggest the way forward once it is removed. There are many possible solutions, indeed there is even a question mark over whether it's an issue that needs explaining in the lede of the UK article at all. If you actually read NPOV it does not demand every controversial concept is explained in every possible place, and certainly not in footnotes. Many people for example continually complain that Barack Obama's article calls him an African American, as they think he's mixed race. They claim it's an issue of great importance that needs addresssing, and they can always get a few people to agree on that score on the talk page. Just like here, it's an issue that has been given proper NPOV treatment in main text, and is explained for editors in a talk page FAQ. Unlike here however, what you won't see occurring at the Barack Obama page is experienced editors pandering to their wishes by hanging footnotes off of the lede of that article, with points and counter points. That's an extreme example with less weight to the actual objections than here, but it's a parallel nonetheless. Infact, take a look at the lede of that article - not a footnote in sight on the lede, and certianly not one that attempts to explain some issue of NPOV. Because, and here's the issue, it's not the done thing on decent articles. MickMacNee (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC) @Mick - you say that the solution is to let your edit stand. To help me out (and others I'm sure) perhaps you could tell me, either as a diff link or by a direct quote of words, what that edit consists of. Because I don't know. You headed this subsection Reboot, added 9 bullet points, but not one was related to the actual edit you would like made to the article. You do talk a lot of sense sometimes, but your core message often gets lost in the invective and lack of focus of your posts. And btw, I never said that CONSENSUS trumps NPOV. But neither does NPOV trump CONSENSUS. Fmph (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC) The disputed diff was given in the very first line of the initial section. The reboot with bullet points was a response to the rather silly claims that the only reason nobody was bothering to justify the reverts was that they couldn't/wouldn't read my blocks of text. MickMacNee (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Oh, and you are of course completely wrong on this issue - there is no situation on the pedia where anyone could ever rightfully state: 'I choose to ignore NPOV here because that is the consensus'. Either the claim of consensus is false, either due to crap argumentation or some basic misunderstanding of what consensus even is (for example, believing it's a vote, or a simple discussion between interested parties), or, there has actually been a proper debate which has concluded by a proper consensus that the NPOV policy is wrong in some situation, and thus needs changing to reflect the new consensus (as policies are the site wide expression of consensus). For all the nonsense claims that this is an IAR (i.e. ignore NPOV or MoS) situation, I see not one person preparing to go over to the VPP to lay out exactly what they intend to change in these policies to start allowing the use of footnotes in this way. We might of course get the usual claim that the NI situation is totally unique, but this is of course, complete bollocks. Wikipedia has thousands of similar instances like this - is Gibraltar 'British' was one such example that came to mind recently - does anyone here see a footnote in that lede clarifying this description? Do they hell. Because it's not how we do it. MickMacNee (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC) OK, so rather than GHMs revert, the edit you made was this one. Well personally, either of them would do for me. The lede itself is way too overlinked, so the footnote actually disappears into the link clutter and can't be seen anyway, so it makes no real difference which version we have. BTW, I've never said that we should ignore NPOV. Neither has anyone else in this discussion. Its just that our opinion of what is and what is not NPOV may be different. As with your edit, i dont believe it makes the lede anymore NPOV than it was, mainly because it cant be seen amongst the link clutter and crap already there. One persons NPOV fails consensus IMHO. Fmph (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Differing opinions of what a policy supports are all well and good, it's whats behind them that counts. You're correct on the invisibility issue, but you know why? Because that's actually discouraged in the specific wording of NPOV. See the section below with the wordings. That's why I have questioned the lack of anyone doing the same in the past discussion, and why nobody sought outside verification of the cluefullness of their opinions if they were based on something like NPOV (which was barely even mentioned), rather than simply being opinions for opinions sake. MickMacNee (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC) I concur with FMPH's comment. The whole thing is overblown nonsense (which appears to be overspill from the usual at the Northern Ireland Talk page). As far as I can see, MickMacNee has dressed up his objection to the footnote on policy because he doesn't like the concept of saying that "NI is a country" is controversial. That's clear from this edit. So when he says he didn't propose wording, that's not true. He did. To answer his first bullet point (and I find it amusing that he seems to see me as some sort of eminence grise behind all this evil) the purpose of the footnote is not to "balance POV". The reason for it was there was a constant drip of editors, mainly IPs, contradicting why E/W/S and particularly NI are called countries. The footnote simply gives the background as to why the text is written as it. It's not a big deal now, but it was a big deal to get it agreed amongst so many differing opinions. I actually dropped out of the discussion at quite an early stage because I was so frustrated with the difficulties of that process. All credit, and I take my hat off to, all those other editors who saw it through to the end. To storm in now using intemperate language about this because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not going to get a good reception. DeCausa (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC) And this would be the time where you explain what policy or guideline recommends using a footnote to explain the background behind a controversial term in a lede, in order to stop IP or inexperienced editor complaints (who, as such, you can be pretty certain don't know anything about writing from the NPOV or what footnotes are for). You're damn right I don't like it - but that's not WP:IDON'TLIKEIT (which is about Afd arguments btw, not content issues), my objection is grounded in the very real fact that it breaks policy. Just like I don't like vandals and just like I don't like people who insert libel in BLPs. MickMacNee (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Please specify the policy which you claim has been broken...I mean cite the actual para/sentence in the relevant policy. You haven't done so so far and I think that would clarify matters greatly. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)(edit conflict)Does there need to be policies for a universal agreement between all editors (of different hues) who decided to join the debate? That is a facade your hiding behind Mick to try to defend your stance. The fact your oppossed to the footnote altogether shows how uncollaborative and disruptive an editor you are. You talk of NPOV and such, however are intent on pushing your POV on the issue using anything at your disposal and hiding behind the need for policy's - wiki-lawyering by any chance? Heres a policy for you that backs it up: ignore everything if it helps improve Wikipedia. This is an improvement to help stop disruption in the lede by allowing a reader to quickly see a footnote explaining the issues around the term country. Its not my preferred solution however its worked to a degree - thats far better than anything you've tried to suggest so far. Your only paving the way for more argueing again from the same old editors who were sufficed by the footnote. Is that not disruptive and trolling? "On what grounds are 'the regulars' in that debate being held up as experienced in NPOV writing or in the nuances of the MoS? " - on what grounds are you being held up as an experienced editor in NPOV writing? Whilst i share your views in most things, i have to admit in the past i've seen your comemnts as more disruptive and POV-pushing than the opposite. If we are to take lessons on NPOV from anyone Mick, it definately wouldn't be from you. Mabuska (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Please, just stop talking utter rubbish like this Mabuska, it doesn't persuade me one bit, because it's nonsense. IDONTLIKEIT? For a start, that's a goddam essay about goddam Afd arguments. But the essence is the same - don't complain about something without a policy based rationale. If you want to keep insisting I don't have a policy based rationale, after all I've written so far, then it's you who's trolling here. And I'm not going to ignore those sorts of provocations for very long if they continue, so if you want to carry on like this, you'd better start getting some diffs together to defend your accusations of me. And you really want to claim IAR here? Well, read above for my reply to Fmph, because as a sustainable justification for this footnote, that is also complete nonsense. MickMacNee (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Maybe if you were a little less provocative and firebrand yourself Mick, others might follow suit. Mabuska (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Well, well. I've learned something new today. I never realised that WP:AGF was not a policy, but merely a behaviour guideline. So I was wrong about that above. Fmph (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Treating other Wikipedians with respect and civility (including assuming good faith) is beyond policy. It is one of the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates. It sits side-by-side with NPOV and ignore all rules. --RA (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC) The 'what policy' issue Note: this section was moved as a refactoring of threads MickMacNee (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC) In response to DeCausa, where he said up above "Please specify the policy which you claim has been broken...I mean cite the actual para/sentence in the relevant policy. You haven't done so so far and I think that would clarify matters greatly", to wit, the answer: WP:STRUCTURE (NPOV): "Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints". The disputed part of the footnoted content is most certainly not sufficient for readers to assess the material in the way that this section demands. It is too short, too vague, and insufficiently referenced, to be anything but open to improper interpretation WP:FOOTNOTES (MoS): "Wikipedia footnotes serve two purposes: to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article ...(and to act as references)". The disputed part of the footnoted content is most certainly not the sort of material that would not normally be included in standard text, if at all Taken together, as both a core content policy and the most relevant stylistic guideline, it shows that the site wide consensus view is that in a decent article, material ostensibly included to balance a POV would never be considered of such low relevance that it can be dealt with in a footnote, as to place it in standard text would just be distracting to the reader MickMacNee (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Is that enough to be getting on with? I do not want you to be misled into thinking that these are the only parts of policy that support me, these are just the ones that I found first, and believe are enough as a starting point. I won't be so dramatic as to ask you to come up with in return a line and paragraph that would support the use of a footnote in this way (and it's not like I haven't asked already), but I hope you might understand my skepticism if you can't, particularly when you have already described my concerns as "overblown nonsense", and you are after all, still restoring the content on the claim that there was a long debate on the issue, which surely must have covered these key points of policy, to be held up by you as a valid consenus? Valid enough to edit war to maintain. MickMacNee (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC) If you paid any attention to WP:CIVIL it would be a lot easier to work with you and to take your wider comments on policy seriously. In respect of the above, avoiding detailed explanations of the varying constitutional positions in the main text and putting them in a footnote and a reference to an article with a wider discussion seems entirely compliant with the above policies. Whether it is the best way forwards, and whether some of the suggestions above have merit will be a lot easier to explore if you come down of your high horse, stop accusing editors who simply implemented WP:BRD of edit warring and generally stop behaving like a spoilt child whose view of the world has not bee accepted without question. Now that probably breaks WP:CIVIL but I am not even in the same league as you in that regard, but you seem incapable of listening to reasoned argument. --Snowded TALK 12:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC) (side show, see below for the main reply)Discussing what is and is not CIVIL with you is never productive, and always a distraction. It seems to be your favoured way of ignoring others completely (which is ironically, a violation of CIVIL itself), so I'll dwell on it just the once here. It was edit warring, from your restoration here onwards. If you don't understand the principle, or get how you weren't engaged in BRD at that point having pointed me to a consensus I'd already commented on, don't claim you do in the face of opposition and continue to lecture others who do (which is again, ironically, a violation of CIVIL itself). You think I'm wrong, you know where to go. But as ever, there will be nothing of the sort. It seems to always be enough for you in to just poison the well with these suggestions of malfeasance toward opponents, but strangely it's never enough for you to act on them (I don't think I even need to clarify whether that's inCIVIL behaviour or not) bar of course templating the person you're accusing. The policy itself advises you in the face of perceived incivility to either act on it, or ignore. Pick one. Either will do. Option number three, the poison pill, doesn't make this 'D' phase discussion go any better, or conclude any faster. MickMacNee (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Sorry Mick, I forgot, I am of course the only one who has ever had a problem with you in this respect, shame on me --Snowded TALK 13:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Indeed you are not alone, and others have got varying mileage depending on the merits of their specific complaints, if they have ever chosen option 1. You're just the sole editor who stands out to me as having consistently been the most patronising and even hypocritical about your claims, and by far the most persistent in the devious art of poisoning while avoiding options 1 or 2 like the plague, in response to percieved incivility. I hope that explains the special place you hold in my heart, and why I will always find time to point out the above at least once whenever it crops up in a new discussion area, as it most surely does each time. MickMacNee (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC) As for your assertion that using a footnote here is "entirely compliant" with the above, please explain further so I can have some clue as to how you even come to that conclusion. Please explain it at all infact, as currently, it's just an argument by assertion (which is again, ironically, a mild form of inCIVILity, but no, now we're definitely flogging the horse on that score). MickMacNee (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC) But all you've done is assert eg "The disputed part of the footnoted content is most certainly not the sort of material that would not normally be included in standard text, if at all". That doesn't mean anything. In fact, I have taken the last 30 minutes to read everything you've written on this page and you've actually said nothing of substance. My conclusion is that your input is frivolous and disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC) It's not 'all I've done' at all. What the hell are you looking for in your request above if you think the above response is "nothing of substance"? An actual policy page that would state something like 'in the field of defining UK countries, it would not be appropriate to explain that issue in a footnote, as that is not the sort of material that would be considered insignificant enough not to include in main text'. I mean seriously, WTF? MickMacNee (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC) You have your opinion, you've provided nothing to support it, and as far as I can tell no one else agrees with you opinin. I think that's about it really. Take a break and chill. DeCausa (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Not at all. For a start, if you think I'm really talking bollocks and want to mess me around even more than you already have with requests to see policies that you then magically can't understand or are prepared to dismiss out of hand anyway, I haven't even gone to get outside opinions on this yet from the people who can understand what I'm on about. No, as far as you being able to make claims about who supports what yet, we are very much still at the stage of finding out how the people who came up with this content did so, and you're blind if you can't / won't see the others who have already disagreed with parts of it (you reverted one of them, remember?). And where you've actually justified your opinion on the matter in any policy or any cluefull argument beyond 'I think it's fine', I really cannot see. You can see my logic and argument, and you can disagree with it all you want, but don't take the piss and pretend you've put anything behind that disagreement, or given any satisfatory explanation of your views I can cross examine in return apart from these idiotic suggestions that I chill in the face of what increasingly looks like a determined wind up. As I almost said before until I saw this request for policies and took it in good faith and replied, if you want to take the piss, that's fine, I'll simply seek your removal as a barrier to those who are here to discuss the matter in the proper fashion. MickMacNee (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC) "Seek my removal"! If you can conduct yourself in a more appropriate and civil way, stop the bluster, be more coherent, and succinctly point out your arguments, then you will be taken more seriously. As it is, you haven't got to that stage yet. DeCausa (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC) There's only so long that you can try and blame me for your lack of substantive input here. You don't want to take other people seriously, that's fine, but don't pretend it's their fault. MickMacNee (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Please, "other people" and "their"? It only applies to you. Your vague unsubtantiated generalised policy objections have gathered no support whatsoever. Just asserting that it's non-compliant with policy doesn't do it. I'm waiting for a coherent explanation of what policies have been breached and how. You seem incapable of providing that explanation in a coherent manner, or at all. When/if you do, I'll take a look at it. Until that time comes, there's not much to say. DeCausa (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Your not saying anything I haven't responded to before above. It's getting tedious now. I'm not interested in playing your games anymore. You want to play the fool, go ahead, the discussion can and will proceed without you, whether you suddenly remember where you left your own arguments or your reading glasses or not. It may or may not yet see the involvement of outside people who will understand what I'm on about, because I'm not a moron and I do know how to articulate an argument within policy, and have done so many times on several topics before, so if it does, just try and stay out the way and not piss them around the way you've done to me. MickMacNee (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC) I look forward to reading the posts of these "outside people" who will explain what you are trying to say. DeCausa (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC) GoodDay's suggestion Note: this section header was introduced & the thread moved as a refactoring of threads MickMacNee (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Replace the sentence with "United Kingdom is a country, consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". This version doesn't require a footnote. This article is about the UK. The descriptive 'country' is handled in the intros of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. -- GoodDay (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC) I supported this in the past and still do. However it probably won't get the consensus of the Welsh and Scottish nationalists as it robs their parts of the "country" status. Mabuska (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC) I support and agree...but GD, for God's sake, stopping repeating it over and over again. It's NEVER EVER going to happen. DeCausa (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC) He did stick to his word for 21 hours, which must be a personal best. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC) How about if we said something like... "The United Kingdom is a country, consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales which are sometimes described as countries of the United Kingdom" or "The United Kingdom is a country, consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Waleswhich are often described as the countries of the United Kingdom." BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC) I think thats a little bloated looking. The simpler the better. A section detailing each different terminology can then be provided in the article if one isn't already. However i still query whether certain editors will agree to it as they haven't before hence the compromise of a footenote (theres your compromise Mick). We would also need a consensus for change. Mick and his lone oppositon to the need for the footntoe in its entirety doesn't equal a consensus for change. Mabuska (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Well here's a theory Mabuska - if you've no grounds on which to say what another editor would or would not support, or does or does not believe, how about you leave such speculation out of your posts altogether? I for example don't recall ever even discussing a terminology section, let alone disagreeing on it. While not as obvious, this sort of nonsense is a mild form of the trolling you accused me of above, so as advised, let's have no more of it. And to repeat myself, a 'compromise' is invalid if it breaks core policy, has no identifiable support based in policy (not to labour the invalidity of IAR again), and is held up as a consensus implemented solution by those who came up with it, when their consensus forming discussion didn't even incoporate such basic elements of consensus forming like y'know, mentioning any particular policy or guidelines that might be relevant, or featuring an independent summary & closure by someone in the know about such policies, but rather just comprised a 'discussion' between interested parties who happened to be around at the time (or worse, the so called 'regulars'), and infact incoprorated elements such as voting, which are actively discouraged as part of the process of forming a consensus. So as ever, I will dispute until shown otherwise, that there's even a valid consensus on this footnote that I would be beholden to 'change'. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC) This is preceicely the problem. These totemistic words that mean everything to some. Where discussion becomes more about maintaining (or removing) these cherished totems rather than writing about the topic. Here's a new guideline: avoid totem words. Words like "country" (or "province" in the case of Northern Ireland, for that matter) cannot be used definitively without breaking NPOV. It is not our place to say, definitively, Northern Ireland, for example, is a "country" - or that that is the correct appelation for it or any other part of the UK. We can be bold in our editing, but we must be neutral in what we write. Wikipedia is not the place to pursue the truth or to right the wrongs of the past. That makes for bland, unsatisifying statements for those for whom these things matter. --RA (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC) if we say England, Wales and Scotland are a country, which wikipedia does, then Northern Ireland must be described as a country too. They are either all countries or none of them are. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC) We don't have to say the England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are countries, in this article. It's not a have to situation. Describing the UK as a country without giving E/W/S/NI a descriptive, isn't crime. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC) The rationale given for depriving readers of the notable fact that England, Scotland and Wales are countries is that the descriptive 'country' is handled in the intros of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. A similar rationale could apply to 90% of this article, yet that information is included here. That is because it is relevant and notable. That England, Scotland and Wales are verifiably countries is also relevant and notable. It should be noted in this article. Daicaregos (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC) There's nothing undisputable about "United Kingdom is a country, which consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". If editors can't accept that sentence (at this time), then settle on the compromise - constituent country for the 4 non-sovereign entities. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Ghmyrtle's suggestion How about (in para 2): "The United Kingdom consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is a unitary sovereign state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London. There are three devolved national administrations, each with varying powers, situated in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh; the capitals of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland respectively..." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC) I would support that. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC) I'm open to a range of solutions, provided we don't attempt to ignore the issue and pretend it doesn't exist. The multi-country nature of the UK is near unique and is significant. The above suggestion on its own does not provide that information, but it could be part of a composite. --Snowded TALK 12:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC) My proposal is short, sweet & the least problematic. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC) We know you think that GoodDay, you've said it a thousand times here and on multiple talk pages. I agree its short but there the agreement stops. We need a form of words either in this sentence or in close conjunction with it that deals with the multi-country issue and we probably need a agreement on implications of what is agreed here for other articles --Snowded TALK 13:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC) I could support Ghmyrtle's 12:22, 20 May 2011 version. If nobody here can come up with a policy based rationale for a footnote, or a suitable treatment of the issue in standard text in the lede, then this form of 'avoiding' words in the lede, combined with further explanation in the main body, is indeed, how we would do NPOV. MickMacNee (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC) tentatively I agree but how does it differ from the GD formula? Are we saying we can get away without mentioning the C-word at all? (which I'd be in favour of). And what about Snowded's comment, what does that translate into? (Btw, Mick you didn't answer the question in my earlier post). DeCausa (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Mick just noticed your answer. Concur with Snowded's response already made. There's no significant policy issue. DeCausa (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Let's keep the discussion of what you see as a significant policy issue in the relevant section. And yes, in the version I support, avoiding the 'c word' is what I refer to. GoodDay's version would still lead to people thinking that hanging a footnote off the word 'country' was how policy mandates we deal with people asking how the UK can be a country if it also contains four countries, and if people can't see how wrong it is to pander to those complaints with a footnote, removing it is the next best policy mandated approach. MickMacNee (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Well done GHM. I'll go with that. But we still need to clean up lots of links from the lede. It's way overlinked. Fmph (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Snowded's point is important. We don't want to brush complex - and important - things under the carpet. At the same time, we don't need to repeat them at every opportunity. Words like these, which are complex (and, in some cases, challenged), need space to be properly explained. The footnote does that but at the same time, if there is a simpler way to say the same thing (or no need to say it at all), then go with the simpler way. The opportunity to use these terms will come later, if it is really necessary to do so at all. Also, just so we are all clear, Mick, there is nothing wrong with using a footnote "to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article" (WP:FOOTNOTE). That is exactly how it is being used in this article. --RA (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC) If you check #The 'what policy' issue section you'll see there's no need to tell me this, and why I think it's basically wrong. If you've come up with any new ways to show how you're rather wide definition of distracting material has suddenly become the accepted one in the last 6 months since the last time you tried and failed to make this point, then please add them in that section. MickMacNee (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC) OK moving forward and taking into account that everyone other than Mick is happy with using footnotes. I realise this is a major deficiency of understanding on our parts for which doubtless we will be suitably and rightly admonished, at length. We go with Ghmyrtle's suggestion with the pipelinks to the articles concerned The long standing agreement to use "country which is a part of" in the ledes of at least three of those articles (Wales, Scotland, England) is affirmed, that means someone clicking through will get to the country statement on the first line The qualified position on Northern Ireland is accepted or modified (in discussion on that page) but does not loose "country" We then add an agreed wording on "countries" as this is a near unique for the UK into the politics or government sections which includes much of the current footnote wording but expanded As an alternative to that, we keep a footnote. I'm not wild about them but than can be useful. In this case I would prefer a proper section and would prevail on Ghmyrtle to draft something as he is about the most neutral editor here. I know we can't mandate other editors, but it is reasonable to ask for agreement from the editors involved here as there is a substantial overlap. Now once I have worked through daughter's anthropology essay I intend to make it to Cardiff to catch up on St Fagins folk museum with the camera and then show Celtic Solidarity from 1700 onwards against the evil midlanders so I will not be online again until tomorrow. Doubtless other editors have other things to do this weekend as well so I suggest we aim to try and reach conclusions on this over the weekend, but don't do anything precipitate until there is a clear consensus. We may of course have to cross check the Welsh wikipedia as well as the German, and maybe we should throw in a few others while we are at it --Snowded TALK 09:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Don't rely on me to do anything for several days, please. I'm more than happy for others to move this forward in my (temporary, I hope) absence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I'm happy with all of that - quite an elegant solution. In getting rid of the footnote, it might make more sense for it to be in the Geography section - Admin. Divisions for instance, or even its own subsection in Geography: "Countries". DeCausa (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC) That England, Scotland and Wales are countries which, with Northern Ireland, comprise the UK is notable. Introducing this article without noting that, fails to provide readers with information to help them understand the subject. Unless and until an improvement to the existing text is agreed, no change should be made to the Introduction. No-one could refute that England, Scotland and Wales are verifiably countries. That they are should be noted in the Lead. Daicaregos (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I agree with Daicaregos. The introduction must describe all four as countries. Following that we can add the ambiguous and controversial position of Northern Ireland (How some people describe it as a region, province, etc.).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC) As Daicaregos says, there is no denying that they are verifiably countries. I see no reason why they should not be described as such in the introduction. Carson101 (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Since this article is about the UK, it's only the UK which would need description as a country. There's nothing disputable about saying the United Kingdom "...consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". It's a factual sentence, which noboday can 'again' can ever dispute. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC) As with GoodDay's proposal i support Ghmyrtle's. However Northern Ireland musn't be alone in special treatment if any is giving, there are some who describe the other parts of the UK as other things than countrys. Mabuska (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Wales is sometimes incorrectly described as a Principality (see multiple references and discussion). I'm not aware of any others and none had any significance last time we looked at it. If the goal of some editors is to open up that, then we are not going to make progress. --Snowded TALK 12:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Not a Principality? Is there not a present day Prince of Wales? ... ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC) ... who has no constitutional role in Wales. Even if it were a principality, which it isn't, that would not preclude Wales from being a country (e.g. Monaco) Daicaregos (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC) The Grand Duchy of Luxemburg has a Grand Duke as its Head-of-State, the Principality of Monaco has Prince as its Head-of-State, the Principality of Andorra is not a mono-archy, it is a di-archy. It has two Co-Heads-of-State. The Head-of-State of Spain and the Head-of-State of France. Who is the Head-of-State of Wales? ... ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC) You appear to be confusing the words 'country' and 'state'. They are not synonymous. As has been noted above several times, no-one here is claiming that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are states. Daicaregos (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I am not confusing the terms country and independent state. That would be known in Logic as Equivocation. I am explicitly fighting against any possible instance of Equivocation on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland page. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC) It appears straight forward to me according to CIA sources using Ghmyrtle British English. Please do not edit war. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I performed a revert, of WP:LAME edit introducing format error in the infobox. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC) A different proposal from GoodDay My two-cents (or two-pence), what is written below by GoodDay, "...Replace the sentence with "United Kingdom is a country, consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". This version doesn't require a footnote. This article is about the UK. The descriptive 'country' is handled in the intros of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. -- GoodDay (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC) ..." sounds to me like the most reasonable compromise. I support GoodDays suggestion. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC) And how, exactly, is that a compromise? Daicaregos (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Hello Daicaregos. It is nice to hear from you indeed. The text below, "United Kingdom is a country, consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". please tell me what you don't like about it. I sincerely want to know, and I promise to be respectful, and polite. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Its not a compromise, its a different proposal which I would reject. However I have split it --Snowded TALK 12:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC) It's an undisputable sentence. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Hello GoodDay. I completely support your suggested text of "...United Kingdom is a country, consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales..." it sums it up quite well. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC) The problem is that GoodDay's proposal fails to state that England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are countries. The reader is left wondering what they are. An encyclopedia's job is to provide adequate information not condense it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC) It is entirely normal and correct for the lede to summarise the full article text. That is its purpose. So, terms used - or words not fully explained - in the lede are more fully explained in the article text, as well as being linked to specific articles. That happens in most articles - nothing special about this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC) WP:LEAD says the introduction should be "a summary of its most important aspects". That England, Scotland and Wales are countries is an important aspect of the United Kingdom and should be noted in the Lead. Daicaregos (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC) That may well be considered by some/many/most as an important aspect of the article. However, as you rightly quoted, the required test is whether it is one of the most important aspects. Again, its a matter of opinion. Personally, I don't 'get' the importance of it at all. Fmph (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC) E/NI/S/W are constituent countries (i.e. countries within a country). GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Deja vu: let's return to 'sanity' The above sub-threads (with near agreements and then falling through) was the background before we ended up with the footnote. It's not perfect, it has problems but it does a reasonable job and it had broad consensus support. This whole thing has only re-opened because MickMacNee burst in here with some unsubstantiated and somewhat wild objections which no one actually has said they agree with. My suggestion is ignore him, retain the existing compromise and let everyone go back to doing something more constructive. The alternative, IMHO, is the endless debate that we had before. And frankly, for what purpose? DeCausa (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Or, those who insist on referring to England, Scotland, and Wales (at least) as "countries" - using that word and only that word specifically in the lede of this article, even though it is a word that has more than one meaning, and its use in relation to the fourth part of the UK presents some difficulty, and the terminology can be clarified in the article text itself as well as being linked to other explanatory articles - reconsider their position. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Or, those who insist on not referring to England, Scotland, and Wales (at least) as "countries", reconsider their position. Daicaregos (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC) This is what I mean! Hence...status quo ante bellum DeCausa (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC) NickMacNee has argued for the status quo ante ante bellum ... I support that (i.e., ante ante bellum). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Regrettfully, this whole 'description' & 'footnote' dispute, will continue to flair up; thanks to a few inflexiable editors. These editors refuse to accept my 'undisputable' proposal & certainly won't accept the reasonable compromise - constituent country. It's up to them, at this point. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Hello DeCausa. I support completely the positions expressed by MickMacNee (talk), and I am personally grateful that he took the time and effort to express them. In my opinion ... MickMacNee (talk) is actually returning the United Kingdom page to sanity .... ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I dont think the footnote is needed either we are discussing the lead which is a summary of the main body of the article. So keep it simple like Ghmyrtle suggestion you have the whole article to explain and raise the various points of view and provide an explanation. Lead=Summary=Simple. MilborneOne (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Exactly. And this compromise has wide supportfrom both sides of the argument. Fmph (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Would it help matters if all uses of the ambiguous word "country" were removed from the lede, including the first and third paras? Thus, the UK would be referred to as a "sovereign state" (or "state", or "the UK", or "it", in context) rather than a "country". "The UK consists of E, S, W, and NI." That doesn't meet everyone's aspirations, but would be clearer than the current wording. The questions of terminology (the footnote, in effect), could then be included in the main article text as explanation. I do partly accept Mick MacNee's basic point that footnotes do impede the legibility of the article to some extent, though I don't see it as critical. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Needless to say I think DeCausa's opening post is pure rubbish. He doesn't get it, he never will get it. If he thinks I'm a moron, and don't know what I'm talking about as I near my 5th year as an editor, that's his look out. He's been accommodated more than enough by now as far as I'm concerned, I'm not repeating anything else just for his benefit. I'm still willing to give the other original people who came up with the footnote 'consensus' a chance to properly defend it, I urge everybody else to just read and re-read what I've said above and make any request for clarification or counter point they feel is needed, to persuade me that I don't need to take the next step of actively seeking outside confirmation from other editors at a venue like VPP of what I already know and haven't really been refuted on, not least by DeCausa and his misty reading glasses - that it's not supported in policy and it would never appear on a decent article, and the reason for that is that the original discussion which came up with it was of poor quality and not independently reviewed. There's no place on Wikipedia for 'compromises' which produce poor quality articles, and there's ultimately no safety in numbers for people who will illogically argue that that's what a proper consensus actually is. MickMacNee (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I have never said, and do not think, that you are a "moron". I am unclear why you have read my comments in that way. I think you have a very great problem in expressing yourself in an appropriate and coherent way which gets your message across. The issue you have is about lucidity and civility. DeCausa (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Why are any editors, opposing my proposal? The sentence I propose is certainly undisputable & needs no footnote. Holy smokers, it's either that proposal or the compromise - constituent countries. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC) The word "country" is ambiguous in relation to both the UK constitution, and common usage within the UK. It's unacceptable and unclear to use the word in a way that assumes only one meaning. It is also confusing to readers to use the word with more than one meaning in the same section (the "countries within a country" approach). Other terms like "constituent country" are not in widespread common use and need some explanation that is inappropriate for a lede. The terminology can be explained through a footnote, but if that is unacceptable it would be best to avoid the use of the word "country" in the lede at all, in my opinion, and explain the terminology (as briefly as possible) in the article text itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC) If everyone casts their mind up to DeCausa's rewrite of Etymology+History, we could explain terminology within the Etymology section. Same sort of topic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC) well, the main issue now seems to be whether "countries" gets mentioned in the lead or not; and footnote v incorporation in text now appears to be secondary...I think, but I'm starting to loose track (and the will to live). DeCausa (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Ghmyrtle's proposal above does not use the word country anywhere. I suggested accepting that if we have agreement that this will not be used as a pretext to then change other articles. We've been distracted by GoodDay's repetitious insertions and Armchair being, well Armchair. Both editors are acting to type and we should all have learnt to ignore it by now. Three editors were concerned at the loss of "country", my response to that would be (i) the pipelinks go to articles where the country status was clear and (ii) if we put a new section called Countries (as DeCausa I think suggested) then things are clear. With that and the existing consensus on "country which is a part of ..." we would have a stable and defendable position. --Snowded TALK 21:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC) If you wish these discussions to continue flairing up, so be it. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Using the legal definitions contained in Black's Law Dictionary for a Sovereign State and a non-Sovereign State one may write the following two statements show below, (i). the United States of America is a Sovereign State composed of 50 non-Sovereign States, (ii). the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Sovereign State composed of 4 non-Sovereign States of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. In this vein-of-thought ... why not use statement (ii). for the lede of the United Kingdom article? It would satisfy all concerned. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Just forget about the word "state" whether non-sovereign or not. England, Wales, NI, and Scotland are NEVER referred to as "states" in any shape of form (although for completness, I should say there were some derogatory terms for NI's pre-1972 constitutional arrangements: "Protestant state", "six-county statelet" etc). You are confused and introducing an irrelevance - and explains a lot of your posts on this page (which were puzzling). To use the word "state" or "non-sovereign state" is either (a) an americanism or (b), and this is of course related, relevant only to a federal system (e.g. States of Germany, States of Nigeria), which the UK is not. You will not find any sources that use the word state in this context. The focus is entirely on the word "country" and only "country". And by the way, you misleadingly pipelinked non-Sovereign State to Non-sovereign nation, which makes me wonder whether you are really confused or just being disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Hello DeCausa. With regards to the above (re-stated here below), Using the legal definitions contained in Black's Law Dictionary for a Sovereign State and a non-Sovereign State one may write the following two statements show below, (i). the United States of America is a Sovereign State composed of 50 non-Sovereign States, (ii). the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Sovereign State composed of 4 non-Sovereign States of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. In this vein-of-thought ... why not use statement (ii). for the lede of the United Kingdom article? It would satisfy all concerned. I own a copy (i.e., that is the actual book ... yes a book!) of Black's Law Dictionary, and yes I am capable of reading it, understanding it, and attempting to present exerpts of its meaning here. In Black's Law Dictionary the legat term Sovereign State is specifically there to mean the United States of America, and the legal term non-Sovereign State is specifically there to mean each State of the US that it is sub-divided into. Statement (i). is completely equivalent to Statement (ii). There is explicitly no attempt here in my post of any mis-leading or mis-direction. DeCausa please consult the non-Sovereign State entry in Black's Law Dictionary. You will find it most illuminating indeed. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC) The United kingdom is a country and always have just look at any other encyclopediaChaosname (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC) How important is the "country" issue? As far as I can tell, the main issue now boils down to whether the reference to E/W/S/NI being countries should be in the lead (Daicaregos and Jeanne) or whether it should come out per the "GhMyrtle proposal" and have its own section explaining it in the main body of the article (most others, I think). Daicaregos' view expressed above is, I believe, that this is such an important aspect of the United Kingdom that it should be noted in the Lead. But, IMHO, this is primarily a semantic issue. There is no generally agreed meaning of the word "country" (eg see this Economist article and the widely differing dictionary definitions: OED; Merriam-Webster; Macquarie). It's entirely up in the air what it means and what its significance is. To add to that, giving significance to the word "country" appears to be a parochial UK issue. For example, the equivalents in other languages, the German "Land" and romance "Pays", "pais" etc are used, without controversy, for all sorts of territories that have nothing to do with "nationhood" (for want of a better word) as well as non-sovereign "countries" and sovereign states. Other words carry the implications that we seem to be attaching to country - particularly "nation" e.g. the disputed use of the word for Catalonia. Even in the anglophone world, it's "nation" not "country" which is important (e.g. this CBC article about Quebec). I think what is missing from those that want to keep it into the lead is some evidence of why it is so important given that the word "country" doesn't have any agreed meaning (which is a different question to evidence of usage). DeCausa (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Hello DeCausa. Here is a summary of some of the meanings of the English Word Parochial http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parochial+ ... Please clarify your meaning when you classify this as a "...parochial issue of the UK ...". If it so "parochial" ... why do you bother participating on this talkpage? Perhaps it is not so parochial as you make out to be, eh? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC) WTF are you talking about? DeCausa (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Hello DeCausa. I am specifically asking "what did you mean by using the word parochial? What is the context? Why did you invole the word parochial? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Because I was talking about parochial schools and the education they provide, why do you think. DeCausa (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC) So you are saying this a Religious School issue? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC) I've watched this debate with interest and have managed to resist the temptation to respond...but can do so no longer! Imho, the fact that the United Kingdom is a union of other countries is a key characteristic. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC) I think this whole debate, and the underlying use of the word "country" here in Wikipedia and in the real world (or at least the real UK) is about the recognition of "national identities" in the four "countries". The use of "country" seems to me to be just code for that. But there's nothing wrong with explaining in the article that there are 4 (at least) "national identities" - and I'd even support that going into the lead because that is a significant aspect of the UK. It just seems to me that the whole issue is hidden by this use of the word "country" where not everyone in the English-speaking world has the same undrstanding not just of its meaning but also of its signifcance. DeCausa (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)I I have to admit I love Welsh music and Single malt Scotch is definitely the best. We do need to describe in details how parts of UK are special and also each and every country uniqueness and special charm. There is plenty of space for it in the body. The lede country term discussion though is not constructive and in its semantic deepness it became a focus of endless POV loops on this talk page. This discussion makes it difficult to come up with a concise summarizing description of what is relatively a trivial fact. Generally any article lede should be KISS clear. From other hand editors might want to discuss even in more details the apparent paradox of "countries within country". Oh well, c'est la vie! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC) "United Kingdon is a country, that consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales" would go perfectly in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC) I find DeCausa quite persuasive on why it isn't actually important and doesn't mean very much. I particularly don't like calling England a country as if it were commensurable in every way with Scotland and Wales, which it's not. I don't want to have to define myself as English when in fact I am just "British, but not Scottish or Welsh". -- Alarics (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Don't get me wrong, I think the broader question of "national identity" is important, should be covered and is omitted at the moment. What you've just said nicely feeds into a couple of pieces I've just been reading (particularly the tables) here and here, which could form the basis of a "national identity" section. To me, use of the word "country" in the UK is just a minor footnote (not literally!) to that much more important issue. DeCausa (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC) I'm not clear from Fishiehelper2's response why he/she thinks that the specific word "country" is helpful or necessary, when (to some readers) it is ambiguous. Does a wording like "The UK consists of England, Scotland, Wales and NI" not convey the same (or more) essential information, to the extent that is necessary for the lead, more succinctly and clearly? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC) I agree with Ghmyrtle. Why complicate it with ambiguous terms when we can keep it simple and avoid the problems? Mabuska (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC) When people successfully manage to remove the word "country" from the first sentence of the Wales or Scotland article then perhaps they can come back here and then make the case that the term country does not really matter and is not needed in the introduction. If you can get it removed from those two articles, ill support not mentioning country in the introduction of this article. (not that that is going to ever happen) if it is justified to say country there it absolutely is for the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.