This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vexorg (talk | contribs) at 03:34, 14 August 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:34, 14 August 2010 by Vexorg (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39Auto-archiving period: 21 days  |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
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.
A2: See the article entitled "Terminology of the British Isles". Great Britain is the name of the largest island that the UK encompasses, and is not generally used in source material as the name of the country. Indeed, Britain 2001, the "official reference book" of the United Kingdom produced by the Office for National Statistics for "British diplomatic posts" says in its foreword:
This view is reiterated by the Prime Minister's Office, which states:
A report submitted to the United Nations Economic and Social Council by the Permanent Committe on Geographical Names and the Ordnance Survey states:
There has been a long-standing consensus not to include Great Britain in the lead as an interchangable name of the state.
A2b: Whether Britain should be listed as an alternative name in the lead has been discussed often, most extensively in August 2007 and April 2011; and whether the alternate name Britain should be qualified with "incorrect" in June 2006, with "informally" in September 2006, or with "mistakenly" in January 2011.
A3: This is one of the most common questions raised on this talk page, but consistently, consensus goes against taking that approach. No major reputable source describes the UK in this way. However the history of the formation of the United Kingdom, supported by source material, highlights that England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are "countries within a country". Please also refer to Q4.
A4: This is the most frequent question raised by visitors to this talk page, and the issue which generates the most debate. However, as a result of a lack of a formal British constitution, and owing to a convoluted history of the formation of the United Kingdom, a variety of terms exist which are used to refer to England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Reliable and official sources support use of the word "countries":
On Misplaced Pages, the term has broadly won preference amongst the editing community (note, however, that a country is not the same as a sovereign state). Also commonplace is the phrase "constituent country, or countries", when referring to the countries as elements of the UK. This phrase, however, is not an actual term; ie Scotland is not a 'constituent country' in itself, but is one of the constituent countries of the UK. The community endeavours to achieve an atmosphere of neutrality and (for the sake of stability) compromise on the various UK naming issues. See also Countries of the United Kingdom for more details about the terms that have been used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
A5: Widespread confusion surrounds the use of the word "nation". In standard British English, and in academic language, a nation is a social group of two or more people, and not a division of land. This is also the approach taken in the nation article, and across Misplaced Pages (for example, the English people and the Québécois are described as "nations", reflecting real world practice). The term Home Nations is generally used only in sporting contexts. It is not used in any major reputable sources outside of sport, and is not the approach taken by any other encyclopedia.
A6: This view is supported by some sources, but the current consensus amongst the editing community is aligned to a greater body of work which describes both Northern Ireland and Wales as countries. However, the terms are not all mutually exclusive: a country can also be a principality or a province, and these terms are mentioned throughout Misplaced Pages as alternative names in afternotes.
A7: Northern Ireland has not had its own unique, government sanctioned flag since its government was prorogued in 1972, and abolished in 1973 under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. During official events, the British government uses the Union Flag — the flag of the United Kingdom — and this is the only flag used by the government in Northern Ireland. The consensus is to reflect this in the article with a note.
A8: Again, Misplaced Pages editors often disagree on the acceptability and suitability of various terms and phrases. This term is not favoured by a number of Misplaced Pages editors, and is currently not used in the introduction both to simplify the status quo, and also to discourage edit warring. |
Template:VA Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
 | United 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
|
|
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization: |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39Auto-archiving period: 21 days |
 Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Use of phrase "British Isles" in English Misplaced Pages - straw poll
There has been a discussion for some time at Misplaced Pages:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force on the use of the phrase "British Isles".
A straw poll has now been called on the outcome of this project, please make your views known. The proposal being polled is shown below. Please vote here.
The straw poll is issued against a background of a number of editors systematically deleting all usage of "British Isles" throughout the site. The manual of style proposal attempts to set some rules to mediate this process.
- The British Isles are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland and, by tradition, the Channel Islands. Use on Misplaced Pages may or may not include the Channel Islands.
- Use of British Isles is not prescribed in any context (i.e. there is no context in which British Isles has to be used).
- Use of British Isles is appropriate in geographic contexts and (scientific) contexts related to geography such as distribution of flora and fauna, geology, weather patterns and archeology.
- Don't mix "apples" and "pears" (e.g. if content lists states then list states, if content lists geographical units then list geographical units).
- Use of British Isles in political contexts should be avoided after 1922.
- Use of British Isles on articles that relate particularly to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland (including their geographic features) should be avoided except where the article relates more particularly to Northern Ireland.
Editors should respect verifiability and differences in terminology that appear in reliable sources where appropriate. Edit warring over use or non-use of British Isles is discouraged.
WHERE TO VOTE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesinderbyshire (talk • contribs) 06:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
No royal banner
Anywhere in this article. MrTranscript (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Parliamentary System
The system of government in the UK is a Parliamentary System NOT a Parliamentary democracy - That's why the Misplaced Pages article is called a Parliamentary System. Please stop inputting incorrect info. Thanks. Vexorg (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
"BritishWatcher (talk | contribs) (196,681 bytes) (Undid revision 375827910 by Vexorg (talk) your change is very controversial and unacceptable. take it to talk)"
What like this talk you mean? Vexorg (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- It use to say Parliamentary Democracy there, when was it agreed to change that? Do all other countries with parliamentary "systems" say that in their infoboxes? What exactly did you mean in your edit summary "not a democracy". Oh and wikipedia is not a reliable source so i really have no concern about what the specific article on parliamentary systems or democracy states.
- Yes like this talk page. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- it was corrected to parliamentary system ages ago. Where is the talk section here to consensus it to the incorrect partliamentary democracy. You should read talk pages BEFORE saying 'take it to talk' in an edit summary and simply reverting Vexorg (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- "What exactly did you mean in your edit summary "not a democracy" - Learn what a democracy is and you'll see. Vexorg (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- "it was corrected to parliamentary system ages ago." I asked where it was agreed.
- "What exactly did you mean in your edit summary "not a democracy" - Learn what a democracy is and you'll see. Vexorg (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Where is the talk section here to consensus it to the incorrect partliamentary democracy." I will locate a pointless debate that was held on this subject a year or so ago when someone attempted to demand democracy be removed.
- "You should read talk pages BEFORE saying 'take it to talk' - You should take it to the talk page and keep it there until there is consensus for your change. Not simply restore your edit.
- "Learn what a democracy is and you'll see." So you do dispute the United Kingdom is a democracy, i thought that is what you implied. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have to say BritishWatcher is correct on both procedure for controversial edits and on the use of the term. Parliamentary democracy is traditionally used for Britain in contrast to Presidential democracy as per the USA. Also it is in the table under governement and "parliamentary system" tells you nothing about the nature of the government, whereas "parliamentary democracy" tells you on what authority the government rests.--SabreBD (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- This i nothing to do with a comparison with the governmental system of the USA. "parliamentary democracy" does NOT tell us what authority the government rests. I welcome your rationale to show otherwise. Furthermore British Watcher's reasoning on controversial edits is not applicable here. I simply restored a correct information. Nothing controversial about that. Vexorg (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Parliamentary Democracy/Consitutional MOnarchy can be found all over government web sites. To say in a edit summary that the UK is not a democracy is silly - in terms of the wikipedia articles it is a representative democracy. Parliamentary democracy diverts to parliamentary system which is fine, it doesn't follow that system should be used in all articles --Snowded 03:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- To call such a summary 'silly' is frankly very childish. The UK's system of government is a parliamentary system. It is not a democracy. Those of you who are under the elision it is a democracy re welcome to provide evidence of such but I know in advance you will fail. On what basis do you conclude the UK's political system is a democracy? Vexorg (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- On the basis of a range of sources which describe it as such. This for example. --Snowded 05:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- And this government website and this European Union website . I guess they could be wrong or lying. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting as well to think about how one would prove the UK is a democracy if the evidence of elections etc. is either not known or not counted? I;m also curious as to whether elision is meant or a typo for illusion. Elision is one of those interesting words than can mean wither the omission of something, or the process of joining together (and omitting things in the process)--Snowded 09:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- And this government website and this European Union website . I guess they could be wrong or lying. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- On the basis of a range of sources which describe it as such. This for example. --Snowded 05:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- To call such a summary 'silly' is frankly very childish. The UK's system of government is a parliamentary system. It is not a democracy. Those of you who are under the elision it is a democracy re welcome to provide evidence of such but I know in advance you will fail. On what basis do you conclude the UK's political system is a democracy? Vexorg (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously the UK is a "democracy" in the modern sense of that term, as applied to nation states in for example Europe, it holds up rather well in a claim to that word. In the purest historical sense, no modern state is a democracy in the original Greek sense, as we don't hold town meetings of a narrow group of aristocratic men to determine death sentences, declare war, etc with majority votes. Of course, some may regard this as a good thing. This conversation also reminds me of a line from The West Wing in which President Bartlett angrily points out that the US "is not a democracy - it's a Republic - there's a difference you know!". I guess strictly speaking, as the article (nearly) says, the UK is a constitutional monarchic parliamentary democracy with unelected elements like the House of Lords and the senior civil service within the overall system. Plus unelected spin-doctors with remarkable levels of power. (apparently). Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- so, then, it is a Parliamentary System as described in that article. - ClemMcGann (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's lots of things Clem. It's a modern constitutional monarchy. It's an Anglo-Saxon democracy. It's a representative parliamentary democracy with unelected elements. No single statement will accurately cover it. It's like a lot of things in articles about Britain, the UK, etc - it's a complicated state with a lot of different ways of looking at it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- plus an unwritten constitution. however there is an article called Parliamentary System which to my untrained eye, seems close enough. picking another term, such as parliamentary democracy really needs a definition, preferably a full article, (not a redirect). then an argument that it was one and not the other. No doubt BritishWatcher will oblige. As you say: "it's complicated" - ClemMcGann (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well the article at parliamentary system, is mostly about nations that would be considered "Parliamentary democracies", there should probably be a section defining it on that article, but that is not my concern. Australia and Canada along with others say Parliamentary democracy, This said parliamentary democracy for years until it was changed with no agreement on the talk page at some point (ive not hunted down the original change). We have government sources along with the European Union source saying the UK is a "parliamentary democracy". There are definitions of "Parliamentary democracy" on other sites, The CIA world factbook has a definition of it, sadly they fail to list the UK as one and simply call it a constitutional monarchy (but we all know the CIA aint perfect). The infobox should without doubt say parliamentary democracy which is a stronger and clearer term than just "parliamentary system". BritishWatcher (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- plus an unwritten constitution. however there is an article called Parliamentary System which to my untrained eye, seems close enough. picking another term, such as parliamentary democracy really needs a definition, preferably a full article, (not a redirect). then an argument that it was one and not the other. No doubt BritishWatcher will oblige. As you say: "it's complicated" - ClemMcGann (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's lots of things Clem. It's a modern constitutional monarchy. It's an Anglo-Saxon democracy. It's a representative parliamentary democracy with unelected elements. No single statement will accurately cover it. It's like a lot of things in articles about Britain, the UK, etc - it's a complicated state with a lot of different ways of looking at it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- so, then, it is a Parliamentary System as described in that article. - ClemMcGann (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- So just to clarify, BritishWatcher: The CIA factbook is a completely reliable source ... except when it isn't. And, purely by coincidence, it is unreliable when its 'facts' don't happen to confirm your opinion. Would that be a fair summary of your position? Daicaregos (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- From reading the article Order-in-Council it seems that the UK is a monarchy (from the example given court decisions can be overturned and parliament ignored) - so the CIA would be closest. As Jamesinderbyshire says: it's complicated - ClemMcGann (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Parliamentary democracy diverts to Parliamentary system so there is no problem with using the more accurate description here.--Snowded 12:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- So, what is the difference? - ClemMcGann (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Parliamentary democracy is the more accurate term and supported by various references. Your reading of the role of the monarch is not correct, in that the rights of the monarch are limited by the constitution and that constitution is formed by the common as well as statute law. --Snowded 14:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- parliamentary democracy is NOT The more accurate term. You appear not be very knowledgable about political systems given your above reasoning ... Snowded said above ---"Interesting as well to think about how one would prove the UK is a democracy if the evidence of elections etc. is either not known or not counted?" --- Elections are not proof of a democracy whatsoever. Plenty of non democratic political systems have or have had elections. The Soviet Union was a notable example. Vexorg (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ok ok, please tell me on what basis you are arguing the UK is not a democracy, what is it we fail to do over here that leads you to that conclusion? --Snowded 18:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- The Head of state isn't elected, but that's seperate from Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ok ok, please tell me on what basis you are arguing the UK is not a democracy, what is it we fail to do over here that leads you to that conclusion? --Snowded 18:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- parliamentary democracy is NOT The more accurate term. You appear not be very knowledgable about political systems given your above reasoning ... Snowded said above ---"Interesting as well to think about how one would prove the UK is a democracy if the evidence of elections etc. is either not known or not counted?" --- Elections are not proof of a democracy whatsoever. Plenty of non democratic political systems have or have had elections. The Soviet Union was a notable example. Vexorg (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Parliamentary democracy is the more accurate term and supported by various references. Your reading of the role of the monarch is not correct, in that the rights of the monarch are limited by the constitution and that constitution is formed by the common as well as statute law. --Snowded 14:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Didn't we talk about this before? I think this should probably go into the FAQ.--Pondle (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea --Snowded 18:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Didn't we talk about this before? I think this should probably go into the FAQ.--Pondle (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Would this be a reasonable addition to the FAQ?
Q. What is the system of government in the United Kingdom?
A. The United Kindgom is both a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. This description is supported by a number of references. However, some sources place more weight on one of these descriptions or use an alternative term such as "Commonwealth realm".
One of the key principles of the constitution of the United Kingdom is parliamentary sovereignty. This means that Parliament is the supreme law-making authority in the UK. The Government is formed by the party or parties commanding a majority in the elected chamber of Parliament, the House of Commons. Government ministers are chosen from MPs and Lords in Parliament, but by modern convention the head of the government, the Prime Minister, always sits in the Commons.
The monarch is the UK's head of state. While she retains some formal powers, custom dictates that she follows ministerial advice. Most Royal Prerogatives - historic powers held by the monarch - are today exercised by Government ministers.
--Pondle (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I remember one of these debates from 2007. Those additions to the FAQ look good to me and maybe they'll stop us going through the same arguments again in future!Hobson (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fine with me and they would help --Snowded 01:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever is done should be clear and definitive, otherwise this debate will happen again. This started over parliamentary democracy v parliamentary system and then monarchy joined in. If you choose parliamentary democracy then there should be an article on that - not (as at present) a redirect to system. Else why not call it system? - ClemMcGann (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- As neither the House of Lords nor the monarch is elected, the system is not democratic. I understood the argument to include 'parliamentary democracy' in the infobox was based on several reliable sources noting the UK as that. Consequently, the FAC should read something like "The United Kindgom is a constitutional monarchy and is often, but not always, described as a parliamentary democracy." Daicaregos (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- The House of Lords is a review chamber and can only delay bills it can't prevent them going through against the Commons, the the role of the Monarch is bound by law and precedent - all established by various parliaments. Sorry Dai, I think you are wrong on this one --Snowded 09:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Lots of "democracies" include bits in their systems that are not democratic. One need only think for example of the huge role that US corporate lobbyists pay in shaping and controlling the Congress, the secret activities of the CIA in undermining governments and manipulating politics, the antics of Hoover's FBI in the 60s and 70s, etc. All of the Western-model democracies are hard-fought compromises between those who wish to control from an unelected basis and those who strive for accountable forms of government. The House of Lords is a much-declined legacy of what was once the controlling body, gradually losing powers over the centuries to democratic struggle. The monarchy has similarly been clipped. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- The House of Lords is a review chamber and can only delay bills it can't prevent them going through against the Commons, the the role of the Monarch is bound by law and precedent - all established by various parliaments. Sorry Dai, I think you are wrong on this one --Snowded 09:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- As neither the House of Lords nor the monarch is elected, the system is not democratic. I understood the argument to include 'parliamentary democracy' in the infobox was based on several reliable sources noting the UK as that. Consequently, the FAC should read something like "The United Kindgom is a constitutional monarchy and is often, but not always, described as a parliamentary democracy." Daicaregos (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever is done should be clear and definitive, otherwise this debate will happen again. This started over parliamentary democracy v parliamentary system and then monarchy joined in. If you choose parliamentary democracy then there should be an article on that - not (as at present) a redirect to system. Else why not call it system? - ClemMcGann (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fine with me and they would help --Snowded 01:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The Economist Intelligence Unit's definition of a democracy is a country where "government (is) based on majority rule and the consent of the governed, there are free and fair elections, minorities are protected and there is respect for basic human rights". On its definition, and that used by Freedom House, the UK is clearly a full democracy. Four of the top five countries scoring highest on the EIU Democracy Index - the Scandinavians and the Netherlands - are constitutional monarchies!--Pondle (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is impressive so many near the top of the list are monarchies. In a few years time there will be an elected second chamber too so there will be even less of a case against the UK being a "democracy". Fully support adding the above addition to the FAQ which should resolve this matter and hopefully prevent it coming up again. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Glad to see you note there is a case against the UK being a "democracy". I'll be happier when the second chamber is elected, and even happier when the head of state is also elected. Daicaregos (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- The house of lords simply makes us a less perfect democracy :), although the house of lords in recent years have actually helped defend civil liberties more than our elected commons did. I quite like the idea of having a senate, but an elected head of state? No thankyou. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- You have to cut the odd head off to get there though BW --Snowded 17:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- lol true BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Looking through this debate, no one has put forward any evidence that the UK political system is a democracy. Indeed a democracy demands equal access to power for all citizens. This is clearly not the case in the UK. I've moved it back to parliamentary system. In the unlikely event of consensus on Parliamentary system then don't link to parliamentary system. You can't have it both ways. Vexorg (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- WP:V states it is a democracy. In the UK the government is voted in by its citizens. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)And you have not participated in the discussion other to assert your position without argument at the start, and act as judge against consensus at the end. 3RR warning issued here --Snowded 04:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't be so childish with your silly patronising 3RR nonsense on my talk page Snowded - You're acting like a traffic warden giving a parking ticket for someone putting the wrong items in their recycling bin. Hilarious really. Do you know what 3RR means? It means 3 reverts in 24 hours. How many reverts have I applied in the last 24 hours? If you're going to edit Misplaced Pages at least learn how to use it. It's not difficult Vexorg (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, now we've outed your embarrassing and erroneous 3RR warning Snowded can you show us where the consensus is for this alleged democracy we live under. You've already told us that elections are proof of a democracy and obviously the Soviet Union was democracy given it had elections I await your evidence of the UK being a democracy. I won't hold my breath of course. Vexorg (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Read the 3RR policy Vexorg, the three reverts in 24 hours is not an entitlement. Your own views on if the UK is a democracy may or may not be interesting but the citation evidence says it is. You should also read the comments of other editors above and the general note which was agreed. --Snowded 05:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Extremely lame excuse to throw out 3RRs if I may say so. And... I've read the comments of other editors. The article links to Parliamentary System under the cloak of Parliamentary democracy. You have proven your lack of expertise in this field by claiming that elections are proof of democracy. Surely you must agree that articles are compiled by people that know what they are talking about. If you really have the quality of Misplaced Pages at heart then the right thing to do would be to bow out and let the political elements of this article be compiled by people who do at least have some knowledge of what a democracy actually is. Really Snowded if you want to cite the UK as being a democracy then you have to provide evidence of such. Up to now yo have failed to do so. Plenty of editors have provided evidence in this talk section to show that the UK is not a democracy. Forget the pride and put Misplaced Pages first. Vexorg (talk)
- Edit waring is disruptive and you are not exempt from the requirement to reach agreement on the talk page. If I look at the above comments I see no editors arguing your position. I do see considerable reference to sources which say the UK is a democracy. If you can come up with some reliable third party source which says the UK is a democracy then please do so. --Snowded 06:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- please learn about edit warring and compare that with the history. Your case is embarrassing. Now please provide some evidence that the UK is a democracy and I will happily condone the article citing claim that the UK is a democracy. Vexorg (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Snowded, I recommend giving up the 3RR and Edit Warring argument, as I think you may be slightly overreacting here.
- However, I agree with Snowded that the UK is a parliamentary democracy. Democracy has different meanings in different contexts. The democracy of Ancient Greece, or democracy in its purest sense, is where the population decides on each decision through vote. However in modern times, a democracy is where the legislative government is a body that is elected by the people to make their decisions for them, so while the people do not make direct decisions, they elect the people they feel will make those decisions best. In the second sense the UK is a democracy. In the first sense there is no democratic country on earth, a position I think you'll find will be hard to argue. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- please learn about edit warring and compare that with the history. Your case is embarrassing. Now please provide some evidence that the UK is a democracy and I will happily condone the article citing claim that the UK is a democracy. Vexorg (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- No it's not in the second sense either. Elections are no proof of democracy. See my post below Vexorg (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Its a slow edit war and its covered by policy which is designed to stop people from constantly inserting material against consensus even if they do it over an extended period of time. If its not a 3rr report then its ANI if the disruption continues on the page itself. --Snowded 07:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Right and you are just as guilty. Vexorg (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Its a slow edit war and its covered by policy which is designed to stop people from constantly inserting material against consensus even if they do it over an extended period of time. If its not a 3rr report then its ANI if the disruption continues on the page itself. --Snowded 07:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don;t see you referring to a single third party source which supports your claims on the democratic status of the UK. Until you provide one there is little point in continuing to respond as there is a general admonition not to feed trolls. As to understanding edit warring you are welcome to challenge my interpretation and we will see what the community thinks.--Snowded 06:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed with Snowded that we shouldn't edit-war over this, let's discuss it properly. Vexorg, can you help - I am not clear what the exact context of your objection to the "democracy" usage is. Is your point that the UK is not democratic compared to other states, for example, in Western Europe? If this is the case, what do you regard as the main reasons why it is not a democracy? I ask as I am wondering if your objection is just to the UK being described as having a democratic system, eg, in this article only, or if your objection is to the use of the term across a lot of national articles in Misplaced Pages? As many others with quite similar systems are stated to be democracies. Please elucidate. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- No I have no prejudice against the UK. I just feel we shouldn't be labelling political systems democracies when they are not. So my feelings apply to all countries that are mislabelled democracies. Just because something is stated to be so it doesn't make it so. What's more ridiculous with this article is that the label 'Parliamentary democracy' is a hyperlnk to Parliamentary system. If 'parliamentary democracy' is so notable then why isn't there an article on it? I fear that many here have grown up to the societal indoctrination by the media and politicians that we live under a democracy. We certainly do not. A democracy is where everyone has equal access to power. Either by vote or putting one's self up for election. This is clearly not the case. The House of Lords, parties and party whips, political funding, media influence, etc,etc are all obstacles to democracy. That's why the article is called Parliemntary system and not Parliamentary democracy. I see many are still under the delusion that 'elections' mean a 'democracy' Vexorg (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, thats a political opinion, but its a fairly restricted definition of democracy compared with normal use. If you want to change article content to reflect that position they would you need reliable third party sources which made similar statements. Those would have to be weighed against the various sources which say the UK is a democracy and more specifically a parliamentary democracy. These issues are resolved from source not opinions of individual editors. --Snowded 18:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- No it's not a political opinion it's an objective opinion. What is a political opinion is a few sources that have privileged weight because they have money behind them ( mainstream media, etc ). You Snowded are the one who is hiding behind Political opinion not I. Misplaced Pages should be above politically motivated sources and worke upon objectivity. objectivity concludes that the political system of the UK is a Parliamentary system, and not not a parliamentary democracy.
The UK isn't a full democracy, but a democracy nevertheless. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Part of the issue here seems to be the linking of parliamentary democracy to parliamentary system. For this part of the discussion, I would like to propose the following solution: link this way "parliamentary democracy".
- Of course, this does not help the discussion whether the UK is a democracy at all. In this respect my opinion is pretty much Good Day's. There are different manifestations of democracy, more radical (direct) ones and less radical (representative) ones. Nevertheless, it is common and hence acceptable for Misplaced Pages to also rever to the latter as democracies. Tomeasy T C 19:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- we can say what a parliamentary system is, because there is an article. Since there is no article on "parliamentary democracy" its ambiguous. If the UK is a "parliamentary democracy" (whatever that is) then there should be an article, and it had better be different to parliamentary system, else -why invent a new term. I fail to see the point of piping parliamentary system to parliamentary democracy. If its a pipe then the are the same, if so why not say "parliamentary system"? At present, I consider "democracy" and "monarchy" not completely compatible with each other, hence I would favour "system". - ClemMcGann (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Puzzled by your logic here. We can say what a parliamentary democracy is because we can look it up in reliable sources. We dont need and article for that.--SabreBD (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- What reliable sources? Who says whether a sources is reliable or not? This is the logical fallacy of 'Appeal to authority' - It's not about the source it's about the rationale objective rationale states the the UK is not a democracy. It doesn't matter who says it, what matters is the content. Anyone who can't think for themselves and simply trusts a 'source' because of some arbitrary 'reliability' is a handicap to society IMO. As I've said before, forget about 'sources' think for yourlesves FFS and work out whether the Uk is a democracy or not. ClemMcGann is at least thinking for him/herself Vexorg (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Vexorg, while of course you can think for yourself, you can't include the product of that thinking here. If you want to think for yourself and share that with the world write a blog. As editors we can only write what our sources support. If the sources are wrong, it doesn't matter. What matters here is what we can verify. Not an argument about the issue, just about Vexorgs assertion. --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- At the risk of repeating myself and boring everyone else. If the article parliamentary system describes the situation in the UK, then say parliamentary system. Don't say something else, such as "parliamentary democracy". If, as seems to be implied by some posts here, that the UK is a "parliamentary democracy" which is described in the article parliamentary system, then rename that article.
- If the UK is a "parliamentary democracy" and that is not as described in the article parliamentary system, then their should be an article, isn't the UK important enough to deserve one?
- User:Sabrebd says that there are "reliable sources" to define "parliamentary democracy". While Michael correctly points out that "reliable sources" can be wrong. I agree. However if they can be wrong then they (probably) contradict each other. Which is another reason why (if the UK is a "parliamentary democracy") we need an article. Why use externals? Isn't wikipedia supposed to be an encyclopedia?
- Nonetheless, given that there is a monarch and since an 'order in council' can be made, albeit on advice, I am yet to be persuaded that the UK is a democracy. Read the article Constitutional monarchy and consider it. - ClemMcGann (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Do not worry we are long past the point of people repeating themselves and boring everyone. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a parliamentary democracy, just like Canada, Australia and most countries on the article at Parliamentary system are. Should that article highlight most "parliamentary systems" are "parliamentary democracies"? Yes, that is a matter for there which you and Vexorg can raise if you wish. It would not really make sense to have a separate article for parliamentary democracy, which would contain most of the information currently on Parliamentary system, and there is no point creating a whole new article for non democratic parliamentary systems.
- Thankfully we do not have to convince you that the United Kingdom is a democracy, you can think this is a dictatorship as far as im concerned. Reliable sources describe this as a parliamentary democracy. That is all that matters. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Focusing on issues like "Orders in Council" is facile. All modern democratic states have emergency and "work-around" protocols that enable an elected government to speedily pass certain laws or regulations, or take actions, without full recourse to the parliament. I don't doubt the same is also true of Ireland, although I am no expert on Irish governmental matters. Beyond that we only have purist arguments about what exactly "democracy" means. Since no modern state has a democracy in the Athenian sense, then we are back to generally accepted meanings of the term. Huge numbers of sourced usages exist describing the states in question as "democracies". We then go to terms. Sometimes it's called a representative democracy, sometimes a parliamentary democracy, sometimes a parliamentary system and so on. I do agree actually that there is scope for us to decide exactly which term to use here, as loads of sources will be available for any, plus of course buckets of sources critiquing each. I also think there is some merit in the argument that the linked article is called "Parliamentary System" and we should therefore use that. So it's not quite clear-cut. The arguments based on a POV that Britain is not a democracy are pointless, but there is a valid naming/description argument here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- The fact these two editors are disputing if the UK is a democracy or not highlights the need to say democracy in the infobox. Parliamentary Democracy has been a redirect for many years, other country infoboxes use the term Parliamentary democracy. "Parliamentary Democracy" is a valid and commonly used term, it does not have its own article because it would be pointless to have two separate articles one covering parliamentary democracies, and one covering non democracies that have a parliamentary system, it makes sense to have just one on the system. That Parliamentary system article should have a section or explaination in the introduction that many are described as parliamentary democracies, we have a huge pack of sources to justify that, but it is a matter for that article, it is not our problem here. There may be a case for all country articles just saying "parliamentary system", i think that too would be unhelpful, but under no circumstances should this article infobox be changed to appease those who refuse to even accept the United Kingdom happens to be a democracy. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a case of "appeasing" anyone BW. It doesn't matter if the motives for suggesting a change are not to our liking, if the change is correct for other reasons. It's down to the best term for the article and what the norms are in WP. I tend to dislike the term "parliamentary democracy" myself a bit nowadays, for any national article in WP, not because I don't think Britain is democratic in the usual sense of that term but because it isn't always all that precise, as this debate indicates. Personally I think "Representative Parliamentary System" is a bit better but Britain has a complex set-up, so it's a difficult one. You can see from past discussions at Parliamentary System that there is a lot of debate on how exactly to put this. I certainly don't agree though with scrubbing the word "democracy" because someone doesn't happen to think the UK is a democracy compared to? Ireland? The US? Or because it has a constitutional monarch or a Privy Council. These points are minor ones. What is less clear is the precise way it should be described cross-Misplaced Pages. The Parliamentary System article has a map showing the UK included on it. That's also what the link points to. That bit of the argument has merit. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- The fact these two editors are disputing if the UK is a democracy or not highlights the need to say democracy in the infobox. Parliamentary Democracy has been a redirect for many years, other country infoboxes use the term Parliamentary democracy. "Parliamentary Democracy" is a valid and commonly used term, it does not have its own article because it would be pointless to have two separate articles one covering parliamentary democracies, and one covering non democracies that have a parliamentary system, it makes sense to have just one on the system. That Parliamentary system article should have a section or explaination in the introduction that many are described as parliamentary democracies, we have a huge pack of sources to justify that, but it is a matter for that article, it is not our problem here. There may be a case for all country articles just saying "parliamentary system", i think that too would be unhelpful, but under no circumstances should this article infobox be changed to appease those who refuse to even accept the United Kingdom happens to be a democracy. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Focusing on issues like "Orders in Council" is facile. All modern democratic states have emergency and "work-around" protocols that enable an elected government to speedily pass certain laws or regulations, or take actions, without full recourse to the parliament. I don't doubt the same is also true of Ireland, although I am no expert on Irish governmental matters. Beyond that we only have purist arguments about what exactly "democracy" means. Since no modern state has a democracy in the Athenian sense, then we are back to generally accepted meanings of the term. Huge numbers of sourced usages exist describing the states in question as "democracies". We then go to terms. Sometimes it's called a representative democracy, sometimes a parliamentary democracy, sometimes a parliamentary system and so on. I do agree actually that there is scope for us to decide exactly which term to use here, as loads of sources will be available for any, plus of course buckets of sources critiquing each. I also think there is some merit in the argument that the linked article is called "Parliamentary System" and we should therefore use that. So it's not quite clear-cut. The arguments based on a POV that Britain is not a democracy are pointless, but there is a valid naming/description argument here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Reasons to say Parliamentary Democracy:
1) It was the stable wording for years on this article before someone removed it with no debate on this talk page, that sadly was overlooked at the time.
2) Parliamentary democracy is more precise than parliamentary system - It tells the reader both that the UK is a democracy and it has a parliamentary system. Thats easier than saying, its a democracy, its a parliamentary system and its a constitutional monarchy.
3) Other country articles do exactly the same thing like Australia, Canada, Belgium , Spain.
4) The United Kingdom government describes itself as a Parliamentary democracy.
5) International sources like the Commonwealth and European union describe the United Kingdom as a parliamentary democracy.
6) Parliamentary democracy is a term widely used, a quick google search finds more "parliamentary democracy" results than "parliamentary system"
7) There is simply no better way of describing the United Kingdom, something like ""Representative Parliamentary System" must be very rare when talking about the UK, having anything that is not commonly known/used in the infobox will make this article more unstable than it is at present when we have to deal with the democracy deniers every year or two.
8) Just because wikipedia (the source of all knowledge in the universe) can not be bothered to have an article on parliamentary democracy or a section on it at parliamentary system does not make the term any less valid. It simply reflects one of wikipedias many flaws.
Parliamentary democracy should remain in this article for the above reasons. If people honestly want to debate this more widely, involving editors from every article that presently says parliamentary democracy, along with the parliamentary system article itself then i will happily join in such a debate, but it will be a waste of everyones time. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your point 8 may well be the crux of the problem. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well we can raise this over on the parliamentary system article and see if others there think "parliamentary democracy" should be mentioned more clearly, considering it redirects to that page, although i fear if we do that right now it will simply lead to all of the editors involved in the dispute here carrying on the same thing there. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Parliamentary system is a wider term than parliamentary democracy. That said the article only describes democracies so there might be an argument to rename it. Its very normal to have a pipelink to an article with a different name on Misplaced Pages so I can't see how it is a problem here.--Snowded 11:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because things arent complicated enough, if editors are going to go and put democracy right on Misplaced Pages, it might be helpful to also be aware of Representative democracy. Not very well sourced, but then about as well as Parliamentary system. Interestingly it talks about the UK quite a lot.--SabreBD (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I do not understand why that section on the UK is even needed on that article, listing those limited and random proposals seems odd. I am tempted to go over to that article with my delete button at the ready but i will resist the temptation. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Probably wise, but it does at least show the extent of debate, or confusion, elsewhere on Misplaced Pages.--SabreBD (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- And its that 'extent of confusion elsewhere on wikipedia' which creates the necessity of an article to define 'parliamentary democracy' or whatever term you wish to use. The article did say 'parliamentary system', and we have an article titled parliamentary system. Now its changed to "parliamentary democracy" - an ill-defined term. I have read the reasons advanced by User:BritishWatcher, they are fine and good - but on a talk page they will be lost on forgotten.
- This issue (or one very similar) came up before, unless we nail it to the mast, this time, we will repeat this discussion. The one sentence of BW with which I differ concerns the flaws in wikipedia. It seems (just seems) that BW is content to extend these flaws. Would it not be better to limit them; to address them? If wikipedia is an encyclopedia then we need clarity. - ClemMcGann (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Parliamentary democracy diverts to Parliamentary system so there really isn't a problem. As it stands the use of Parliamentary democracy conforms with reliable sources. I suggest this discussion moves to Parliamentary system --Snowded 16:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the divert is ok then why not say 'system' and forget the divert. Alternatively rename the 'system' article. Lets not introduce further flaws into wp - ClemMcGann (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really see it as a flaw in Misplaced Pages to be honest. the UK is based on the sources a Parliamentary Democracy, that pipelinks to a wikipedia article called Parliamentary system which describes how such a system works and makes some reference to democracy. So what? If you want to raise a change on Parliamentary system then I will happily take part however--Snowded 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
@Jamesinderbyshire: Please use the forum here to make your point and not other country articles . Tomeasy T C 20:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, as they are unconnected issues. See the discussions at Talk:Norway#Infobox:_Constitutional_Monarchy and Talk:Netherlands#Infobox:_Constitutional_Monarchy for those topics - they are about two different mistakes in the government-type sections of the infoboxes I just noticed when researching for this discussion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- In the absence of any reliable sources the use of the word "mistake" is strictly normative and has no "truth" value. Arnoutf (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Consensus
Do I observe correctly that the discussion here might have come to an end, and the opposition to "Unitary parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy" has died out in view of the man sources that describe the UK as such? Tomeasy T C 18:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- After all this discussion no one has yet to provide any evidence of democracy in the UK. The only decent argument here is by Clem who says that if the link re-directs to 'system' then what's wrong with calling it a system. I fear people are putting political views over accuracy. Vexorg (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Clearly Vexorg is unlikely to be convinced that Britain is a democracy, but there clearly is no consensus for a change from parliamentary democracy in the box.--SabreBD (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well Vexorg, we have this reliable source, which should be added to the infobox.
- Isn't the basis of evidences and arguments brought by so many strong enough to call it consensus, even if one editor is not convinced? This discussion has been long and deep, we should try to conclude it with solid result we can refer to in the future. Tomeasy T C 09:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- One editor not using sources cannot prevent a consensus, I think its over and we need the note at the head of the talk page as previously suggested so we don't have to keep coming back to this. I'm not wild about the democratic structure of the UK either, but this is not the place for personal opinions or advocacy --Snowded 09:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Snowed sums it all up for me. Lets put the note on the talk page and move on.--SabreBD (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Not sure about the word "unitary" as this is a bit technical for the average reader and not commonly used in the UK, but yes, this is basically correct. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a case of personal opinions snowded Snowded it's about obnjective conclusions. You are welcome to not think for yourself and instead prefer to allow a government with politician subjectivity to want you to think we are a democracy to provide a source that we are a democracy. The idea of an encyclopaedia is to provide information that aligns with facts, not with whichever political power had the most force. People like Snowded who are under the delusion that the UK is a democracy are respectfully allowed to hold that position of course,but the fact they always fauil to back that view up with evidence says it all. So Snowded let's put wikipieda's 'reliable source policy aside for a minute, let's see your rationale for the UK being under a political system described as a democracy. No, I didn't think so. think for yourself. Vexorg (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- For my part, I don't see what source you have presented to support an accurate view of what "democracy" means from you Vexorg, so that we can use that as a starting point to compare what a range of sources say the UK is. In the absence of a supportable alternate view of how you see democracy, we have to go with the norms and common usages, as with anything in Misplaced Pages, not the views of editors. Of course, there is lots and lots of published material about the nature of UK democracy, perceived failings, strengths, etc - material on that could probably fill a whole article. Just using phrases like we are all "under a delusion that the UK is a democracy" are not going to make progress - you need to get more accurate. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I think its now time to stop feeding this editor until they produce something other than their own opinion --Snowded 10:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- now there's a substanceless paragraph of personal attack drivel of hot air if I ever heard one. What is really hypocritical is that Snowded complains with "something other than their own opinion" and yet is happy to accept sources which are nothing more than someone else's 'own opinion' - Snowded you should really try and think for yourself. if you can master that skill you will see that the UK is not a democracy. however if you want to take the easy route and simply believe those who are pushing a misinformed or politically biased viewpoint then that is your prerogative. I challenge you Snowded to show the UK is a democracy. If you can successfully do this I will have no problem in conceding to describing the UK as a democracy in this article as a democracy. I won't hold my breath. Snowded I would recommend the Misplaced Pages article Appeal to authority as a guide to your logical failings. :) Vexorg (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Overlapping Picture.
I noticed that the picture of D.C meeting B.O is overlapping with the text (armed forces section). I tried to change this but failed (does the br function work here?). --109.79.106.227 (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC) (TheEnigmaticMan logged out).
- Fixed it. It's because pictures from the previous section overlapped into that one. Personally I think there are too many pictures. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Sandwiching of pictures
The addition of some recent illustrations has led to some sandwiching of text between pictures, something the manual of style directs us to avoid (see MOS:IMAGES). I think most of these can be sorted out, although its possible that some must simply go (in which case will may have to choose one image), but I am flagging this up here so that editors understand what is going on and also because layout looks different depending on displays, so editors can keep an eye out for any problems that are created.--SabreBD (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I apologize, I think one of those was my fault, in my previous edit. I'll list images I think should be removed to make space, after that others can be rearranged.
- History: Picture of the plane, it seems less important than the others (not to say the battle of Britain isn't important)
- Government and Politics: Royal Standard, we already have the queen, the standard seems unnecessary.
- Local Government subsection: Remove manchester hall, caption is about architecture anyway
- Foreign relations and armed forces: Aircraft Carrier and Missile. That leaves the section with a picture for foreign relations and a picture for armed forces (although personally I'd prefer two different sections for both of those).
- Geography: The 4 countries picture, that's more politics anyway.
- Healthcare: The Norwich hospital, other hospital looks better in my opinion, and section is too short to have two.
- Sports: Cardiff stadium, This one is tricky as I don't want to be seen as disliking wales, but it is the smallest stadium. I mean, there's no Belfast stadium there.
- Culture: Robert Burns, the other two are more famous, especially at an international level.
- Thoughts? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. I will bear these points in mind. Some of these are likely to be very contentious (or have already been the subject of a lot of debate). I am on my wide screen pc now so I am going to see what changes I have to make, bearing in mind the above and then offer anything for discussion here that I think will be contentious.--SabreBD (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- This now done and most (not quite all) of the problems are dealt with. In the end I implemented the list that Cipmunkdavis gave pretty exactly as it seemed the most logical way of doing this. There were some invidious decisions to make here, but they cannot always be avoided . There are a couple of places where there is perhaps room for a picture (Population, sport and print), but that doesn't mean we have to have one. Otherwise (unless text expands) its one in and one out, so we should probably generally ask editors to bring any proposed changes here first.--SabreBD (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just as an addendum. It strikes me we could work the Millennium Stadium pic back in if the rugby union section were a bit more substantial (which it justifiably could be). I will put it on my (long) to do list, but I won't be devastated if someone gets there before me.--SabreBD (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I did! Sorry it was the obvious thing to do and it is the Welsh national game. I generally updated the section as well. I removed the Rugby League picture, it could go back in if that section was expanded a bit. However if its a choice then Union has the larger support.
- Its a good call in my opinion. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if you know. If you find that an image is interfering or clashing badly with the next editable section below, you can add {{clear}} at the end of the text to ensure the next section starts 'after' the bottom of the image. Its liberal use can often make an article less visually messy.
- Also, where an article naturally attracts a lot of iconic images, some of the images can be accommodated in a tidy fashion by placing them in an image gallery. Template:Image gallery Use <center> before and after, to place galleries on the centre line of the page if you think they look better like that. --Aspro (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I did know, not really the problem here, but its useful to remind everyone. The point about the gallery is a very good one too and I should have thought of that. Are there any objections to gallery at the foot of the page? It would help deal with some of the representational issues. I would add that I would prefer images, even in a gallery, to be illustrative of the text - as this prevents the creation of a tourist brochure or special interests filling it up.--SabreBD (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Gallery is a good idea but I wouldn't remove everything from the main text --Snowded 18:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I did know, not really the problem here, but its useful to remind everyone. The point about the gallery is a very good one too and I should have thought of that. Are there any objections to gallery at the foot of the page? It would help deal with some of the representational issues. I would add that I would prefer images, even in a gallery, to be illustrative of the text - as this prevents the creation of a tourist brochure or special interests filling it up.--SabreBD (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, it looks good now. I was thinking of adding the deleted images for a start.--SabreBD (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- This now set up. This is less disruptive than having too many pics in the text, but I urge regular editors to scrutinise new additions or it may get out of hand.--SabreBD (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I personally don't like the idea of it simply because it could rapidly get out of hand. How many pictures relate to the UK? No doubt millions. I think that each picture added should have to fit a defined part of the article, and there has to be a justified reason for its importance to the UK as a whole. (Just as basic criterion) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- This now set up. This is less disruptive than having too many pics in the text, but I urge regular editors to scrutinise new additions or it may get out of hand.--SabreBD (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. Pictures need to be illustrative of the text.--SabreBD (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Gallery abuse is a good point. So will place this note/plea before the gallery template. <!---BEFORE ADDING MORE images to this gallery, PLEASE discuss on talk page_Thanks--->. Please rephrase if you can think of something more
threateningsuitable. Also, I think images might look more orderly if grouped by similarity and in temporal (or date) order in the gallery. So I will move the spitfire image down to be with the two other military images. This seems a more natural arrangement to me. The section headings display OK on my MacBook, but the headings of Transport, Sport, Cricket, Media and Internet are displaced from the margin by the images above on my SyncMaster Screen when running in Firefox. Therefore, I will add some {{clear}} templates to correct this. --Aspro (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Gallery abuse is a good point. So will place this note/plea before the gallery template. <!---BEFORE ADDING MORE images to this gallery, PLEASE discuss on talk page_Thanks--->. Please rephrase if you can think of something more
- I dislike clears because I don't like the large white spaces left. I feel a picture should only be placed if it fits in the section. It all fits on mine, don't know what's different about yours. I agree with organizing it by category. Maybe it should be rearranged in the order of the text? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- They were in the order of the text: the spitfire was near the top because it comes from the history section. Clears can be problematic because different displays rearrange the text accordingly. Its best to test major changes on a wide and a narrow screen. The hidden note is a good idea and probably about as threatening as it can reasonably be.--SabreBD (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- The pictures are not in the same order now. For example, Robert Burns is third. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I can revert it back if they cause more problems than they solve but the only way to find out was to try it. It was on my widest ratio screen that I had the problem. Will wait to see what others report back. I would have thought that by the time the reader gets down to the gallery they will have lost track of what order the textural information was in. People process images and written information in different parts of the brains. It just seems easier to me to assimilate and appreciate pictorial information when its grouped together. Have a think about it and if you still think its better as it was I'll revert it back.--Aspro (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Economy
From the opening sentences of the Economy section - "The UK has a limited regulated free market economy". Is "limited" meant to be a technical term here? It presumably means "partially regulated"? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
England and United Kingdom
England is very commonly used as a synonym for the United Kingdom worldwide. While this is technically incorrect, it is probably the most common name for the state used internationally, albeit informally. I think this should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- In my opinion and experiences - when someone says 'England' they mean the piece of land between Wales and Scotland, they don't refer to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales by saying England, and therefore as this article is about the United Kingdom and not its Governing and Cultural nations themselves - it shouldn't be included.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 13:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)- It would be useful to bring forward some international sources for this one. From my own travels to the US, Europe, etc and reading, I suspect that terms like "Britain", "Great Britain", "the British Isles", etc, are all in pretty widespread use. If you are specifically thinking about the US here An Muimhneach, then I don't think you are right - in the US, my most common experience is that either "Britain" or "Great Britain" is most commonly used. It is more true though that in Europe, "England" (or rather, translations of "England") are quite widely used - but note Germany, for example, where "The Islands" (DE: "Den Inseln") is pretty widely used to refer to us lot. So it's a mixed picture and not easy to accurately summarise in a few words in the lede. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's one thing to say Great Britain is a synonym, as this is recognized by the government. It's another thing to say England; that has as much veracity as Holland does to The Netherlands, or Russia to the Soviet Union. So opening paragraph, no. (Holland is a special case, I suppose, and it's mentioned in the intro) However, it is nonetheless a common misnomer, and it's all the more evidence that this article needs a section on the name. And George2001hi, there's lots of people who will accurately say "United Kingdom" or "Britain" in all contexts except one - "The Queen of England" is an extremely common phrasing. --Golbez (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would agree with it having a short section on the terminology, although of course there are other articles already on these subjects. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Terminology does seem to be important. Notably, GB is the UK's official acronym europe-wise. I'm not sure what the acronyms are called exactly, but they're the ones used on numberplates. Additionally, in French Grand-bretagne seems to be as common as royame-uni, if not more so. I once saw Grand-bretagne carved into stone on a post office along with a list of other countries. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- And there would be a "see also" at the top of any name section to the articles pertaining to it. But some other country articles with name sections that come to mind: East Timor, Republic of Ireland, Japan, Côte d'Ivoire, and Burma; the Netherlands lacks one, I suppose, because it links directly to Netherlands (terminology) in the lead. --Golbez (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would agree with it having a short section on the terminology, although of course there are other articles already on these subjects. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Under no circumstances does this matter need mentioning in the introduction. A section on terminology / misused terminology perhaps, but it does not belong in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- I assumed we were discussing a short new section in the main article text. The intro opening sentence has been fought over endlessly and we aren't changing that under any foreseeable circumstances. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldnt oppose a new section in the article, if others think its really needed but the editors original post said "I think this should be mentioned in the opening paragraph." BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh yes. I was responding to Golbez's remarks lower down. Just to be categorically clear - there will be no change to the opening paragraph. If anyone reading this wants to know why, spend a few days browsing the archives! It's not a pretty sight. However, one way to do away with the need for a new section within the article is simply to do a see also to the excellent Terminology of the British Isles article, which explains all this far better than some new section would do here - it too has been bitterly fought over. So many battles, so little time. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldnt oppose a new section in the article, if others think its really needed but the editors original post said "I think this should be mentioned in the opening paragraph." BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Britain is just part of the UK. so anyone who refers to the UK as Britain is incorrect. that should be noted somewhere as it is mentioned people do do this in the opening paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.161.179 (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Great Britain the island is just part of the United Kingdom, but the term "Britain" is often used when talking about the whole United Kingdom, and so is Great Britain, which is our nations ISO code (GBR) and the name of the team the UK fields for the Olympics. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can't tell ya, the number of times Elizabeth II has been called Queen of England, on CNN. Very annoying, when they do that. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sadly even the British media and Brits make the same error. There has not been a Queen of England for over 300 years. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, Anne was the last (reign: 1702-07). GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sadly even the British media and Brits make the same error. There has not been a Queen of England for over 300 years. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Question about U.K. related article
There's a statement by a Tory MP referring to T-shirts of Adolf Hitler, Osama bin Laden, and Che Guevera being legal to wear in the U.K. Is this in fact true? Would I really be able to walk around with those shirts in public without being arrested? 129.120.4.2 (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- You would be able to walk around with those shirts without being arrested, of course tasteless shirts do not hide the face which is the problem with the burka, so the things are very different. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- But wouldn't a shirt with a glowing picture of Hitler violate the "Incitement to racial hatred" law? 129.120.4.2 (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- As well as "Incitement to religious hatred", since Judaism is a religion. 129.120.4.2 (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's nothing specific in British law banning depictions of Hitler in public places. Incitement to racial/religious hatred would be at the discretion of an individual police officer. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, like much legislation introduced by the previous labour government its definitions are extremely vague and dangerous which opens up the ability for a huge amount of abuse or mistakes by the Criminal Justice System as they "interpret" the legislation. There is no way an image of any individual like Hitler could violate those laws, unless maybe if it shows Hitler carrying out an act of violence against a religious group and someone judges that to be "encouraging" others to copy that act, but even that would probably be unlikely to secure a successful prosecution. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I presume if neo-Nazis put up a large portrait of Adolf outside a synagogue, the authorities might well act. I can't speak to your assumptions about vague and dangerous definitions BW, but both ACPO and the CPS have issued detailed guidance on them, so police and prosecutors are supposed to be guided by those. For example . Was there something relevant to a Misplaced Pages article arising from this discussion? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- It would undoubtedly constitute a breach of the peace. --Breadandcheese (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- That too is dependent on a point of view though. If an portrait outside of a synagogue could be deemed to be a breach of the peace then i can think of many other distasteful things that for some reason we tolerate that could fall foul of the same rules. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Guidelines written by unaccountable individuals which could be changed without a change in the law by the lawmakers we elect. One can easily see where some people might have different views on what constitutes "abusive" or "insulting" compared to "threatening". According to that page, 2 of which are fine, but one is a crime if it is intentionally aimed at stirring up religious hatred which again depends heavily on ones point of view, something that makes it rather dangerous in relation to free speech. But anyway, the debate was relevant to clarify the position on something mentioned in the debate on a burka ban in the UK article. I am not sure if we have clarified the position, but it is an interesting debate none the less. lol BritishWatcher (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- It would undoubtedly constitute a breach of the peace. --Breadandcheese (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I presume if neo-Nazis put up a large portrait of Adolf outside a synagogue, the authorities might well act. I can't speak to your assumptions about vague and dangerous definitions BW, but both ACPO and the CPS have issued detailed guidance on them, so police and prosecutors are supposed to be guided by those. For example . Was there something relevant to a Misplaced Pages article arising from this discussion? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, like much legislation introduced by the previous labour government its definitions are extremely vague and dangerous which opens up the ability for a huge amount of abuse or mistakes by the Criminal Justice System as they "interpret" the legislation. There is no way an image of any individual like Hitler could violate those laws, unless maybe if it shows Hitler carrying out an act of violence against a religious group and someone judges that to be "encouraging" others to copy that act, but even that would probably be unlikely to secure a successful prosecution. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's nothing specific in British law banning depictions of Hitler in public places. Incitement to racial/religious hatred would be at the discretion of an individual police officer. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Former good article nominees
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class United Kingdom articles
- Top-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- Top-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- B-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- B-Class UK geography articles
- Top-importance UK geography articles
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English