Talk:United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:UK)
Former good articleUnited Kingdom was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 3, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 22, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 30, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 11, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 3, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 22, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
March 6, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
September 24, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2024[edit]

update first minster post for northern irealand Saltcoats123 (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saltcoats123: What do you want changed? Read the instructions in the template which you inserted:

"Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

Bazza 7 (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2024[edit]

Under "History - Postwar 20th Century" it is stated that the UK was a founding member of today's EU. It was not. The UK was not a signatory of the Treaty of Rome and therefore not a founding member of the EEC (present-day EU). In fact, its request to join the bloc was vetoed by France, twice. Please correct this mistake. Pandrej01 (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. It doesn't say it was founding member of the EEC which came into being in 1957. It says it was a founding member of the European Union which was a different entity (albeit a successor) that came into being in 1993 and which the UK was a founding member. It doesn't seem to be incorrect. DeCausa (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Book[edit]

The Orchard Pavilion by Arthur Christopher Benson.1914 1st edition. Leather bound and Gold embossed. Printed by Ballantyne,Hanson &Co. Edinburgh. Darlene Mumford (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox content[edit]

QUestion was asked, consensus was settled. Subsequent discussion not needed, this is not a discussion forum. WaggersTALK 11:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.


Do we really need to list England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland in the infobox? Most (if not all) other independent countries (sovereign states) don't seem to list their components in their infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about Britain and Northern Ireland?Halbared (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Halbared, Britain? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay, how many other countries have countries as components? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Denmark and the Netherlands are both listed at Constituent country as having constituent countries, and they're not included in the respective infoboxes. WaggersTALK 10:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So not many of the 200ish sovereign states then.
To put that into context here then, what we are saying is, given that two of the three sovereign states that have constituent countries don't list them in their infobox, why do we list them in this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong but there's no practical difference between a "country" in this context and a "state". The Country article pretty much says as much. There are LOTS of sovereign states (or countries) that are comprised of constituent states, which may or may not be nation states. I can't pretend I've looked at all 200 sovereign state articles but of the ones I have looked at where I know they have constituent states, they don't list them in the infobox. WaggersTALK 12:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If 'state' and 'country' are synonymous, I wonder why it sounds so wrong to say "the United States of America is a federation of 50 countries". So I guess there is a difference. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A (n independent) sovereign state is not the same thing as a (constituent) U. S. state, just like how a (constituent) UK "country" is not the same thing as a (sovereign) "country". This isn't hard to understand but everyone thinks it's hilarious to say "BUT WALES IS A COUNTRY" when we're talking about sovereign states like Zambia or Paraguay. The primary administrative divisions in the UK are their "countries" (but sometimes Northern Ireland is just a "province"?) so they are equivalent to Alabama or Nebraska. They're not special just because 130 years ago, the British decided they get to compete with multiple teams in soccer tournaments. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be very careful here, as you are going to rustle a few feathers. You are referring to countries are regions or “parts” which is not the case. Yes, they are not independent, sovereign countries, but there legal standing remains as countries part of a wider sovereign country. Please, be careful, and be more considerate to the complex and delicate history of the UK, its formation and its predecessor countries. Goodreg3 (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are they not "parts" in the UK? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the fact that Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland complete as separate teams in football tournaments has nothing to do with it. If you think that is the main component in which it boils down to, I urge you to research the history of the article you are passing sweeping comments about before you upset most of its population. Goodreg3 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. There's an obvious reason why the USA article doesn't list all 50 states, but equally Canada's infobox doesn't list its provinces, Australia's doesn't list its constituent states. I agree, for consistency there doesn't seem a particularly good reason why there should be an exception for the UK. WaggersTALK 09:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are often abused: most can be reduced by a quarter or so. This one is no different. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the field being used is one for membership in international organisations. CMD (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably that should list things like NATO, which are currently not in the InfoBox because this has stolen their place. I think that makes the case for ditching the constituent country list even more compelling.... and I'm not seeing any objections so far. WaggersTALK 14:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree. I never before noticed that it was shoehorned in by misusing that parameter. Seems have been added in 2017 here. DeCausa (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CMD, @Waggers, @DeCausa, that field's documentation supports the way it is used in this article. The example is for the EU, showing the member countries as a list in the membership field.
As the UK has four member countries, that field is being correctly used, and the membership_type field is being used correctly too - to label the members as 'Countries'. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it matter, what parts of an independent country is called? Scotland, Ontario, Tasmania, etc etc. No matter what you call'em, each are a component of an independent country. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay, it doesn't - does it? The template provides a field for them and one that allows the editor to label them as whatever they are. So you could legitimately add a (collapsed) list of its 50 states to the USA article, and label the field as "states". You could add the cantons, and label them as such, to the Switzerland article if you so desierd. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I just don't agree with you. IMHO, Wales, Northern Ireland, England & Scotland should be deleted from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay, Fair enough, but IMHO, given the history and levels of devolution of the four constituent countries, there is a good reason to include them in it somehow (but per below, not using those apparently inappropriate fields). -- DeFacto (talk). 11:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So instead of making one edit to bring the UK infobox in line with ALL the other countries of the world, you're suggesting we change ALL the others to match the UK infobox? It's a no from me. WaggersTALK 09:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am so tired of UK exceptionalism. "But we call them 'countries', so that's the same thing as being actual sovereign states!" when they don't even have a federalist form of government. This is a ridiculous proposal and there is no need to add (e.g.) 50 states, a federal district, and over a dozen territories to the infobox to the United States. The infobox is for a brief overview of the most likely things that someone will want to know, not some exhaustive listing of minutiae. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf, no, the UK is a sovereign country but none of its four constituent countries are. As many British people don't identify as British, but as English, Irish/Northern Irish, Scottish, or Welsh, it makes sense to clarify in the infobox the relationship of those four counties to the UK. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of African peoples identify with their ethnic group, tribe, linguistic minority, religious affiliation, etc. over their sovereign state citizenship, too. But only the UK gets this special treatment because they have 3.5 "countries" (and sometimes a province ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ but also overseas territories and Crown dependencies, etc.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact is that the 50 US states have never been countries, and in the case of England and Scotland, independent, sovereign countries. They are still legally defined as countries, albeit not sovereign ones. They are not regions and never have been or never will be. Perhaps our international friends should read up on the history of the UK, its politics and constitution first before being offended by “UK exceptionalism”. Goodreg3 (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of Texas, Vermont Republic, Hawaiian Kingdom, Republic of the Floridas, California Republic. DeCausa (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The major difference there is that a good number of those examples were unrecognised, short lived breakaway states, so hardly comparable to recognised, historic independent sovereign kingdoms. Goodness gracious me….. Goodreg3 (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You made the exclusion "never been countries". So there are recognition and time period requirements as well it seems? Over what period (and recognised by whom) were Wales and Northern Ireland "recognised, historic independent sovereign kingdoms"? DeCausa (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do your research. I’m not saying that there is a particular period of time which a country has to be in existence for it to be considered a country, but unrecognised breakaway states, never has or never will be, recognised internationally as a country, is hardly comparable to a country like Scotland that was an independent kingdom since the 800s-1707. The argument just doesn’t stack up. Research the Treaty of Union, there were many allowances permitted that retained separate and distinct Scottish and English elements that existed in their respective kingdoms, one of which was retaining the status as countries (within the union state of the UK) and not merely becoming regions. Goodreg3 (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you don't know the answers to my questions I'll give them to you. Northern Ireland has never been an independent sovereign entity, whether or not as a kingdom. Wales is a little more debateable. I would say the only time, or at least the time where the case is most arguable, for when Wales was an "independent sovereign kingdom" was 1055 to 1063. The Republic of Texas was an independent sovereign state for 2 years longer than that and was recognised by the United States. Oh, and there is no provision of the Treaty of Union that specifies that Scotland should remain a "country". By the way, I have no problem with describing England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland as countries. DeCausa (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When did I say I didn’t know the answers to your questions? I know that NI wasn’t a country before, instead, it was part of Ireland before Ireland joined GB in 1800. I do hope that this discussion between other users is not an attempt to describe them as anything but countries, as, like it or not, that’s what they are. Goodreg3 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you don't seem to understand is that there is no absolute rationale for them to be called countries. It is solely custom, practice and tradition. Just like it is custom, practice and tradition not to call Texas a country. There's nothing inherent in it: Northern Ireland is a good example of that. DeCausa (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the multiple U.S. states that were independent, remind me when there was a "Republic of Northern Ireland". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Waggers, I'm not sure what you mean by "bring the UK infobox in line" with other countries. France apparently has France-only content. So why disregard key UK facts because other countries don't have a similar regard for constituent competing countries/nationalities? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would urge you to correctly use the correct defined terms for what you describe as “components”, as you are going to strike a few feathers here which I presume is not your intention. Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland (controversially albeit, however) are countries whether you like it or not. They are not regions as you would suggest. Your comments over the past appear to be very anti-devolution and against the truth that each of the four UK countries are indeed countries and legally defined as such. Remember, you can’t make edits based on your personal assumptions and views alone. Goodreg3 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where are they "legally defined" as countries? DeCausa (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.gov.scot/publications/building-new-scotland-independent-scotland-eu/pages/7/#:~:text=Scotland%20is%20a%20country%20within,of%20political%20union%20with%20England.
https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/archive/pdf/en/iso_3166-2_newsletter_ii-3_2011-12-13.pdf Goodreg3 (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.wales.com/about/how-wales-governed Goodreg3 (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://e-justice.europa.eu/340/EN/which_country_s_law_applies?SCOTLAND&member=1 Goodreg3 (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Webpages published by the Welsh or Scottish governments or the EU or indeed an ISO standard are not "legal" definitions. There is no statute, secondary legislation or case law in the United Kingdom that defines them as "countries". DeCausa (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that it’s a close as legal definitions as one could get, considering the UK does not have a written legal constitution. If they were not countries, legally, they could not be described as such by trusted organisations such as the Scottish or Welsh Governments, the EU or indeed the International Organization for Standardization, which is really the only organisation in which can recognise or define a country as such. Goodreg3 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what to say to that. Extraordinary. DeCausa (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s agree then that the feeling is mutual on both sides about some of your claims too, and leave it at that. Goodreg3 (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto, the template documentation is precisely the opposite of what you have claimed. If you look, it says This infobox template is used to generate an infobox for the right-hand side of two specific types of article: on a country or territory, or on a geopolitical organisation. It then gives the syntax, separately, for Infobox Country and Infobox Geopolitical organisation. The "Membership" parameter, not surprisingly, is only given for the geopolitical organisation. It is omitted from Infobox country. As one would expect, the EU infobox begins Infobox geopolitical organisation. That's why it's there. The "Membership" parameter has been wrongly inserted in the Infobox country in this article. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading the doc more thoroughly, I hadn't spotted that distinction. That helps us decide though if that template isn't for countries. I support removal of that nested template. Perhaps we need to add some extra UK params for it though, similar to the 'France-specific parameters'. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok on that basis (and as no one in this thread is any longer supporting its inclusion) I've taken it out. If there is a need for a 'UK-specific' template then that's a whole other discussion. I personally don't see a need for it. DeCausa (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Dependencies. Why?[edit]

We have a whole subsection in the Politics section on a dozen and a half peripheral (mostly) island territories that are not part of the UK. The level of coverage in this article (4 paragraphs and a very large and intrusive map - by far the largest map in the article) is a mystery. Their total population (BOTs and CDs combined) is only c. half a million and, in any case, we have full coverage in Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. It's out of scope of this article and, for such a minor part of British governance, has far too much detail for WP:BALASP and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. In fact, it gives the impression of some sort of residual 1970s-style post-imperial angst.

I suggest deleting the Dependencies section and replacing it with this additional 5th paragraph in the beginning of the Politics section:

Although not part of the United Kingdom, the three Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man and 14 British Overseas Territories across the globe are subject to the sovereignty of the British Crown. The Crown exercises its responsibilities in relation to the Crown Dependencies through the British government's Home Office and for the British Overseas Territories through the Foreign Office.[1]

References

  1. ^ Palan, Rolen (2015). "The second British Empire and the re-emergence of global finance". In Palan, Rolen; Halperin, Sandra (eds.). Legacies of Empire: Imperial Roots of the Contemporary Global Order. Cambridge University Press. p. 48. ISBN 978-1-107-10946-9.

Any support for this? DeCausa (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support the proposal. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support any concision here. Clearly an area undue at this level, and as can be seen by the latest sentence a magnet for cruft. CMD (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another support. I think it's very important that they're mentioned, but a passing mention with appropriate wikilinks is sufficient. WaggersTALK 11:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would lend my support to this. I have always felt the dependencies section is rather large and somewhat intrusive, not least because of that large map. Goodreg3 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. I've gone ahead and made the change. I added in 'mainly/'principally' in relation to the Home and Foreign Office involvement (per the source) as other departments are also involved. DeCausa (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2024[edit]

Under the transport sub-section of the economy section, the sentence about the Elizabeth line:

"It was Europe's largest construction project at the time and will bring in an estimated £42 billion to the UK economy."

should have a wording change as the predicted income is speculative. I suggest changing to:

"It was Europe's largest construction project at the time and is estimated to bring in £42 billion to the UK economy." Wind Orange (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done HansVonStuttgart (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin divisions/Devolved governments sections[edit]

Does the current structure make sense? I'd imagine if you're not British (or even if you are) you'd be left quite confused by it. We have Scot/NI/Welsh local govt. covered in both sections. In terms of hierarchy it goes from top (UK) level in the previous section to lowest level (local govt) then middle (devolved) level but that "middle" level only tells you about 3 countries. You have to guess what the situation in England is.

It seems to me more logical for there to be an Admin divisions section which (1) starts off with the historical paragraph as now albeit expanded to say that the UK pre-1998 was highly centralized. (2) Then talk about how Devolution developed in general terms. (3) then have sections on each of the 4 countries (with heading for each) which covers not only the devolved institutions but also local government. In the England section it would explicitly cover how the UK institutions effectively continue to cover England - with something about the West Lothian question issues. I was going to go ahead and WP:BEBOLD but I know that some might have issue with not having a specific section on Devolution. I'll press on unless there are objections. DeCausa (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly sounds more logical. I don't think we need to go into too much detail about local government structures as that's handled in the appropriate country articles and doesn't have much bearing on the UK as a whole. Just pointing out that the four countries each have different local government structures is probably all we need to say here, with links to the relevant articles for details. WaggersTALK 11:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. As an aside, the article seems often to be written as though WP:SUMMARYSTYLE doesn't exist. There are dozens of relevant sub-articles. It could be (at least) half the size but has always suffered from drive-by pet add-ons. DeCausa (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 April 2024[edit]

Wikipedia constantly lies and is full of chronic misinformation. Out of respect for all those that you, Wikipedia, have been disrespecting world wide, I request you delete all pages with statements about the English language being American, and International English being the English language. English is from England. Not America. English is not International English, it is English! Call the American language what it is. American. Never call the UK a country! The UK is four different countries united! Stop being one of the most disrespectful, lying website's in the internet, full of chronic misinformation. 

I am tired of correcting your pages and having my words replaced with lies! Name7528798543 (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kahastok talk 09:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom&oldid=1218905489"