Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 39

Sovereign Country

I'm certain this has been debated here before and I can imagine people rolling their eyes at my wanting to reopen the discussion, but I want to do the right thing and discuss this before making what I believe would be a correct but controversial change. The opening paragraph describes the UK as a "sovereign country," a term that links to the page for sovereign state. I think "sovereign state" would be more correct than "sovereign country" but there is a 2017 note about this being the subject of editing wars in the past and I do understand why it could be controversial. My case for "sovereign state" being the correct term is as follows: the UK is four countries in a political union. Whether that union can be described more generally as a country is debatable but whether it can be described more generally as a state is undeniable. Moreover, "sovereign country" is a description that defines the UK against the EU, the US and other similar international bodies rather than a concept in its own right (which isn't ideal in an introductory paragraph) .(Angry Candy (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC))

My personal view is that the term country is most appropriate as the UK is widely described as a 'country' in most reliable sources and 'country' is the term generally used for modern sovereign states around the world in their wikipedia intros many of which have controversial histories, conflicting identities, secessionist movements and forms of or equivalents to devolved government of their own. The use of the term 'sovereign country' is clearly a compromise position in the long running battle over the matter on this talk page and tweaks to that or the surrounding description of the UK's status have often led to rows on here in the past with a consensus position for any kind of substantial change almost never being reached. Llewee (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, country is the commonterm used. It is also the commonterm used to refer to the UK by its inhabitants. That and nation. No-one here says across the state, not even in the Republic of Ireland. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

“country” often emphasizing geographical expanse, “nation” often emphasizing people, and “state” often emphasizing government.--Moxy 🍁 14:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree it should remain country, even though it seems illogical to have a country made of countries. I've never seen it referred to just as a state or initially in a description. It refers to itself as a country and it is referred by other countries and bodies as a country 1 2. However the BBC does describe the UK as both and this might be a good compromise and more accurate: 3.

Cheers, AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 16:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I prefer sovereign state because it is a term with a precise meaning in international law, whereas sovereign country is less commonly used. In fact, state originally implied sovereignty, while country did not. TFD (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I feel it should be changed to incorporate this but country should remain (to avoid misinforming). E.g 'The UK is a country and sovereign state to its constituent countries'. Another option is to change it to just 'country' which is inline with other sovereign states' pages. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 17:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@AussieWikiDan: I think your first option would be more confusing for readers, I'd prefer the second option for reasons I've explained above. Llewee (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You would be hard put to find another “country” article that prefers “state” over “country” in its lead sentence, including such highly federated states as Switzerland, Malaysia, the US, Russia, India and even Yugoslavia (and “half” countries such as North Korea). Some of these have at least, and arguably greater, national/ethnic/historical diversity in its components than the UK. The only one using “state” I found was UAE. Without wishing to be too WP:OTHERSTUFF, I fail to see why the UK is so exceptionalist it can’t be described as a country too. It’s the normal and common usage. No one calls the UK a “state” where “country” would normally be used for pretty much every other country on the planet. DeCausa (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

We had a long talk years ago about "country" or "state" and we landed on "country" in the first sentence as it is about a geo area...also so we can link island country, Transcontinental country, Nordic country etc... We do say "state" in the paragraph in the lead about government type in many articles..thus we can link Islamic state, Satellite state, Nation state. Most common is like at Estonia (first sentence in the lead....Estonia (Estonian: Eesti [ˈeːsʲti] (About this soundlisten)), officially the Republic of Estonia (Estonian: Eesti Vabariik), is a country on the eastern coast... ) - (Third paragraph in the lead.... The sovereign state of Estonia is a democratic unitary parliamentary republic divided into fifteen counties.). "Country" generally refers to a territory with certain geographic borders, while "state" refers to a form of political organization. The word "state" is similar in meaning to the word "government".--Moxy 🍁 22:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

To need to declare "sovereign" on a page about a country shows a lack of self-confidence. All European Uniin countries are, in fact, "sovereign countries" - but they've agreed to do some things together. None of their pages make the declaration "sovereign!" It's not necessary. The 2nd thing here, is the recent naming of the 4 constituent parts "countries". Yes, Scotland joined with England to make a United Kingdom, ie one country. However, these constituent provinces are traditionally known as countries. Wales was only ever a principality and vassal of England and thus the United Kingdom. How the remaining part of Ireland, the Province of Northern Ireland could ever be regarded as a country is hard to imagine. One passport:one country:one ultimate government (Westminster can override devolved legislation). No need to declare "sovereign" and there's only one country. Francis Hannaway (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You might want to read the previous discussions and research one on this which settled on the use of 'country' based on a mediated assessment of the various reliable sources. Your opionions are just that, opinions -----Snowded ^TALK 11:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Sovereign state is the usual term. I am surprised this is even being debated. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Me too, and I agree that is the correct term to use -----Snowded ^TALK 11:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Me too, generally either "country" or "sovereign state" would be the usual terms. "Sovereign country" sounds like a poor compromise, but if the term is linked to an article about the concept, maybe it's clear enough to the reader what is intended. Pelagic ( messages ) – (00:05 Thu 31, AEDT) 13:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Francish7, The point about "sovereign" is a good one - it seems to be there to make some kind of point, it isn't necessary, and isn't generally used in other articles about countries/states/nations. Including it in the lead of this article when it isn't used in similar articles seems a clear case of undue weight, particularly in the context of Brexit. As for those who find it difficult to comprehend a country that is made up of countries - well, the US is, as the name suggests, a state that is comprised of states. The USSR was a republic that was, by definition, a union of republics. This is before we get into Yugoslavia, Chechoslovakia, etc... states within states (Bavaria is another example), republics within republics, united kingdoms and generally countries within countries are neither unusual nor illogical, as some have suggested. WaggersTALK 12:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with this point about "sovereign" and undue weight too. I'd be in favour of simply going for "country" over "sovereign country." Ironically, this does not solve the original problem of wondering whether the UK (a political union between four countries) is a country! I can tell you all that, in Scotland, when people talk about "the country" or that something is "nationwide," the country or nation being referred to is Scotland and not the UK. I have a feeling that referring to the UK as a country might be politically incorrect even if Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland) remain(s) forever in the Union.(Angry Candy (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC))

I agree on removing “sovereign”. Nearly every other “country” article uses the word “country” without qualification. No reason for the UK to be different. A country whic comprises countries isn’t a difficult concept. DeCausa (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there an example of another country comprised of countries? It just seems to me that there would be a word for that. (Angry Candy (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC))

It is an extremely rare situation. The closest comparison would be Netherlands and Kingdom of the Netherlands but clearly the circumstances are very different, and those articles start off by saying country and use the term "constituent country". The accepted compromise for many years in regards to England, Wales, and Scotland has to just say country, rather than "constituent country" But this is a delicate balance. It reflects country means different things to different people, which is absolutely why the UK article needs to say sovereign country and not just country. RWB2020 (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Having the qualifier "sovereign" implies it's a new aspect to the nation's political situation. Sounds as if we just gained our independence from someone not long ago.--104.249.227.243 (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Some 'states' are sovereign such as Angola (which is described in wikipedia as a "sovereign state") and some states are not, such as New South Wales which is described in wikipedia as "a state on the east coast of Australia". Birtig (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

This topic does come up, repeatedly. Anyways, I support using "country". GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the term 'sovereign country' is here to fix issues with other articles. The most common usage of country without any qualification is to mean the UK and its peers. In fact this its exclusive meaning outside of UK articles. So Eng/Scot/Wal/NI articles get use the unadorned term "country" and thus imply that their subjects are peers of USA, France, ROI etc. It then follows that the UK article has to apply a prefix to differentiate it from its constituent parts. Most readers will have an understanding of the meaning of country that is correct when applied to the UK and wrong if applied to England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Instead of clarifying this ambiguity in the lead sentence of the articles that defy the expectations of the reader we arrogantly decide that it is the fault of the reader for not understanding the British usage of the term and then double down in this article by claiming the ambiguity is caused by everyone else's understanding of county being that of a "sovereign country". -- Eckerslike (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

How can Wikipedia be held at fault for making clear at the outset of the article that UK is an 'an independent sovereign state' (per Country) with constituent parts, given that two of those parts were separate kingdoms of the island of Britain, with a land border between them, that became united as one kingdom of Great Britain by a treaty ratified by the separate parliaments of each kingdom? This is not an exercise of exceptionalism but of clear writing suited to an online encyclopedia with inline links for ready cross-referencing. The article on The United States of America (USA) covers the point by saying '... is a country primarily located in North America, consisting of 50 states...', while Canada says '...Its ten provinces and three territories extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific ...', and Australia. six of whose constituent parts are constitutionally called 'states' begins 'Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is a sovereign country comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania, and numerous smaller islands.' Qexigator (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Conclusions so far on 'sovereign country'

Thanks for discussing this, everyone. It looks like people are content with "country" -- which I might debate further one day ;) -- but most seem to agree that "sovereign" should go and most cite the same reasons. I am going to remove "sovereign" and the link to sovereign state, leaving just "country". (Angry Candy (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC))

I have reverted the change, to restore the previously long standing wording in the article. I strongly oppose the removal of the word sovereign from the introduction. This has been the settled wording for the article for years, it was a compromise that was reached, and has been stable up until a few days ago when this debate started and was now already been changed without enough debate. One of the reasons why we need to say sovereign country there is to help distinguish between England, Scotland and Wales which articles openly start by saying country too. Having sovereign country there was an intentional balancing act. reflecting difference between the different parts of the UK. Such a change should not be snuck through in the space of a few days when people are distracted with christmas after years of stability. To inform the reader, and to provide more information, especially as later in the introduction it makes clear the UK is made up of four countries, it is vital that there is a distinction made. RWB2020 (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

And lets be clear this has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit. The reason and need for the long standing compromise is to reflect complex makeup of the United Kingdom itself. Its not in any way implying other EU countries are not sovereign, and it actually links to the page listing sovereign states of which every EU country is listed. This is about the fundamental importance of making clear in the article the UK is both a country, and sovereign. Whilst England, Scotland and Wales, are countries but not sovereign states. If this compromise is undone, it will have wider ramifications for other articles and result in needing to make distinctions on those other pages. People settled on just saying country for England, Scotland, and Wales rather than other things used such as "Constituent country" in the past. But for this current balance to be maintained the UK article must clearly state the UK is a sovereign country. RWB2020 (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Amazing, it actually lasted 4-days. Well, back to giving the UK special treatment, again. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, the UK is different from other countries as it is a union of other countries. Birtig (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

No it isn't. The 'other' countries-in-question are not independent (no matter what you call them), but rather make up an 'independent' country called the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This is why it should be like every other country..... people have convoluted ideas as stated above. We have a source saying it's special and should be different from evey other country page? Bad revert has left us with a big talk from nothing because of one editor? Give it a few days see if someone else has a good reason over the guess work above.--Moxy 🍁 18:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I restored wording that has existed for over 3 years on this article, wording that had been agreed to after very long discussions and a reasonable compromise reached that took into account all factors. There has been no new argument to justify the change that was made to that long standing wording. Some of the comments seemed to believe the word sovereign was there in relation to Brexit, when it has absolutely nothing to do with that. And the original reason this conversation started this time round was because the person disputes the idea the UK is even a country, when all sources clearly show it is one. This is exactly why we should just keep the long standing wording. Otherwise it opens up a whole can of worms with regards to use of country both for the UK, and indeed for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The reason why the UK article is different to other country articles is because there is no other country on wikipedia that that has its internal parts described as countries in the way the United Kingdom's are. There is also special treatment for British citizens too, who on almost every article are merely described as English or Scottish etc, rather than the legal nationality British as is the case for citizens of other country. The article wording reflects the complex nature of the United Kingdom, and removing sovereign leads to even more confusion for readers. it is totally unnecessary to remove it. RWB2020 (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Save the E/W/S/NI & anything related to it - conversation for another day. We're concentrating on the United Kingdom, which is a country. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a country, and its a sovereign state. Which is why the compromise of using sovereign country was agreed and has been relatively stable for over 3 years. And this issue does relate to E/W/S/NI because in the very same introduction it points out the UK is made up of four countries. This is confusing to many people as its so rare. which is why a clear distinction is needed between the different status of the United Kingdom, compared to that of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Sovereign country is clear. RWB2020 (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I've a solution to it, but I no longer bother bringing it up. One can only take so much personal attacks, etc. Anyways, I'm sticking with supporting "country" for the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Ive Restoring stable version that has been stable for over 3 years until last week again. This article needs to clearly state that the United Kingdom is a country and that it is sovereign, unlike England/Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland which are countries but not sovereign. A distinction is needed. I restored wording that has existed for over 3 years that had been stable until an editor showed up even implying the UK is not even a country. Yet apparently restoring the stable version is deemed "hostile" by him. The reason for concern about the recent change has not been addressed, so i have restored the stable wording again until that is dealt with. To change this wording that has existed for over 3 years and has implications for other parts of the article, and other articles, should not happen in the space of just a few days, especially over the Christmas period when less people will be about. If this wording was fine for over 3 years, why must it suddenly change now? and after just several days debate over a Christmas period? RWB2020 (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Why did you start a new discussion, when this is connected to the previous discussion? GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok ill move it up to the end of the last section. I started new section just to make clear that id restored the previous wording again, and he didnt respond on the talk page at all, just claimed in edit summary i was being hostile for restoring stable wording that has existed over 3 years. RWB2020 (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@RWB2020: A large group of editors debated the issue in a discussion promoted on talk pages of relevant wikiprojects and agreed a new consensus you have decided to walk all over that and change it based on you're own opinions. Therefore I am going to revert your change to the consensus position if you wish to change it please discuss it on the talk page before hand. Llewee (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe the above discussion came to a consensus decision. And certainly not one to over turn something that has been an agreed compromise in the article for over 3 years in the space of several days. There was defence of keeping country which was initially being questioned by the editor too. That does not mean that sovereign should have been removed. Also a couple of the responses seemed to imply this was related to Brexit and about vs the EU. When it has nothing to do with that. None of the comments in the above discussion address the problem that a distinction needs to be made between the UK as a country, and England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as countries. One is sovereign, the others are not. RWB2020 (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You don't believe it because there was no consensus. If you disagreed as did I to the original proposal, and we didn't agree to a compromise then there is no consensus for any changes especially with a very short discussion with limited input. Editors should respect the process and stop trying to enforce their preferred version with dubious claims of consensus especially when there is none. If GoodDay and Llewee believe otherwise then request outside input from a neutral party or a RfC to see if there is a consensus. If not then stop edit-warring over it. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't been edit warring. PS - I have a solution though, but folks will have to come to my talkpage for it. I'm not getting bullied here over it, like I have been in the past. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Also i note you say "A large group of editors debated the issue in a discussion promoted on talk pages of relevant wikiprojects and agreed a new consensus". I did not know that this had been advertised on other wikiprojects, though its worth noting that you advertised on those pages on the 20th, and he changed the article on the 21st. 1 day in the run up to christmas is hardly giving people plenty of time to respond to a debate to change a consensus that has existed for over 3 years. And without all views being clearly expressed and clear reasons why the compromise position was reached in the first place years ago. If consensus really has changed then im prepared to accept it, but i really think the originally wording should stand until its clear that is the case. This needs more discussion. RWB2020 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Too short a time given for input from other people. Why always the rush? Sometimes days or even weeks should be given to ensure you get good enough input. Making a change after a day is just underhand and undermines the whole argument for a change and the process of how to go about it. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I have changed my mind on this topic and believe it should not be reverted from RWB2020's edit. However, I would like to see maybe a clickable note added which would explain more details on this particular usage of sovereign country. So to avoid people confusing the usage with Brexit etc. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 14:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

A clickable note is a good suggestion. Also is the tendency on articles not to use the national dialect of English? I.e. American articles use American English whilst articles on the UK use British English and Irish articles use Irish English. The term country to refer to a state is British English and the same for Irish English. The use of the term sovereign does help to differentiate it from its component countries. Yes, the whole nomenclature is a stupid mess, the result of decades and centuries, but it is what it is and until there is an actual consensus here to ignore that and follow international standard, then it should remain the way it is. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Another suggestion is why not just state that the UK "is a country and sovereign state". Would that not sort the whole thing out? Mabuska ^(talk) 14:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I too would support a clickable note after sovereign country clearly explaining the term and why its used. Providing people with that additional information is always a good thing as the UK has such a complex history and current makeup confuses some people, especially if it can help make clear its nothing to do with Brexit. I think "Sovereign country" works better than just saying both country and sovereign state separately and when this was discussed previously some were against saying both things. sovereign country always seemed a good combination and compromise that covers both issues clearly and links to appropriate sovereign states page. RWB2020 (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I would also be concerned about changing the wording of the introduction after 3 years of stability. If there is a sudden change now then theres a bigger risk of attempts to remove country, or remove sovereign state in the months ahead. Just clarifying everything in a cicknote instead of changing the wording would keep the long standing consensus for the wording and build on it, rather than fundamentally alter it, and risk further alterations to it in the near future and less stability. RWB2020 (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I oppose the click-note idea or anything that may appear to give the UK special treatment, in this matter. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The word sovereign has become synonymous with dictatorship because of its usage by totalitarian regimes..."Sovereignty in the sense of supreme authority" Sovereignty has thus become a “contested academic concept. --Moxy 🍁 15:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I would disregard that notion as it fails WP:WEIGHT and is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. One article does not make the term synonymous with one thing or another. You'd need a majority of reliable academic sources to prove such. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the problem we have here....zero research just POV and dismal of sources [1], [2], [3],--Moxy 🍁 15:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Unless you are saying that the UK is not a sovereign country/state/nation/politcal unit then sources aren't needed for things that are as clear as the sky is blue. The same for the UK being a country as that is what it is commonly referred to as in British and Irish English. Indeed the Wikipedia article on Country makes it clear in its lede "A country may be an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state,". The UK is a country that is an independant sovereign state. Though due to ambiguity (the "or part of alarger state" bit) it makes sense to quantity the usage in this article by stating sovereign before it. You might also need to change that article to reflect the fringe view your giving undue weight to here that sovereign refers to totalitarian regimes.

:::I agree on removing “sovereign”. Nearly every other “country” article uses the word “country” without qualification. No reason for the UK to be different. A country whic comprises countries isn’t a difficult concept. @DeCausa: - "Nearly every other"? Do you have exact figuires to prove which is more common? As the above point I made shows, country can mean more than one thing and stating sovereign helps quantify it. All articles stand on their own merit and have their own unique circumstances and whilst standardisation across the board is good, Wikipedia is flexible enough to allow for variations based on discussions at those articles talk pages. SO the UK article can be different if it is agreed to be such, whether outright or via compromise.

Is there an example of another country comprised of countries? It just seems to me that there would be a word for that. @Angry candy: It all depends on what terms are used in the corresponding language of those states. In all technicality Spain is a country made up of other countries such as the Basque, Galicia, Catalonia, the once Muslim kingdom of Grenada etc. France is also a country made up of other countries, some formerly sovereign, others not. The same with Russia, China, India and many other countries.

And speaking of Grenada, the island of same name in the Carribean is described as a "sovereign country". It doesn't seem to have suffered the same problem as this article? Why is this one so different for if its alright for other countries? Mabuska ^(talk) 19:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to point out, I have no strong view on the matter. If a consensus arrives for removing "sovereign" or keeping it or whatever I'm easy and couldn't care less. I will however be the Devil's Advocate to point out the holes in arguments given that dont really hold up to scrutiny. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

99 percent of country articles just use country in the first sentrance with political wording later in the lead. This was a decision made ten years ago. As qualifiers in the first sentence leads to confusion as you can see here.......look at the archive..... is why we get questioned about when the country because sovereign and who did it become sovereign from. I have always wondered if this was attempt to diminish the country's position to our readers..... has Israel once had this problem..Moxy 🍁 16:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Mabuska, you pinged me with a question in relation to an old post of mine. Answer: no. DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It was only 8 days ago that you made it and I've only just joined the discussion, but thanks for the response. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

RFC, perhaps?

@Angry candy:, it appears as though you may have to open an RFC on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I know you love to earnestly flog dead horses GoodDay on matters such as these, but why is there a need for a RfC? They raised the issue to see if there would be agreement for their edit before they made it. That was the right thing and commendable thing to do. There is no agreement however and no evidence has been provided to overtturn the long holding and long discussed agreement currently in place. If they want to proceed further then I'm sure they could decide themselves if they want to start a RfC on the matter rather than being pushed into it. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the decision is his. Not mine & certainly not yours. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Never said it was mine, and said it was entirely the opening editors right. I'm not the one who created a subsection solely to get and highlight ones own view across and try to influence the opening editors way forward. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

(see above) I'm glad you have no "strong views" on the matter ;) GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Considering this has already been advertised on numerous wikiprojects of relevance over a week ago now, im not sure how a RFC is going to take this matter much further, and if there was to be one then effort would have to go into making sure it is neutrally worded, because this entire discussion this time round has been framed from an extremely one sided viewpoint and also which is most unhelpful been set into the context of Brexit when it had absolutely nothing to do with Brexit at all. There is no need for an RFC, certainly not at this time when some will try to frame it in that way.

Just to make clear my views on these matters. I strongly oppose any change to the status quo which has been stable for over 3 years and should not be changed. There has been absolutely nothing in recent weeks months or even years, that means suddenly the wording used before should now be changed. If it was appropriate 3 years ago, why wouldnt it be now?

Im prepared to support a compromise of a wikinote being added after sovereign country if that helps to address concerns about the purpose and meaning of the wording used, because of a concern its related to Brexit some seemed to have. But there is no reason at all to change the wording of the opening sentence, and to do so will lead to this introduction being unstable for months because once a change is made, others will want the change to go even further, with people seeking to remove country, or seeking to remove sovereign state if that was put. And it won't just be about the first sentence of this article. It will be about if its appropriate to just refer to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland just as countries without qualification, if the UK is only being described as a country too this creates a problem. The status quo should just be maintained on all these matters, they were stable for years until a few weeks ago! Until one editor who seems to dispute the idea the UK is even a country wanted to change it. RWB2020 (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Good point made here....was stable for a decade before the change 3 years ago.... since then the article has been changed and reverted back many times and has had multiple discussions. Really have to ask the question if it this really is a stable version compared to other countries and compared to before the change. Why does it keep coming up now....perhaps because it's the odd ball. Getting odd comments here....stuff about Brexit or that people claim it's not a country.....no one mention any of this here.--Moxy 🍁 17:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Point 1: The whole argument about "other articles don't do this" is a red herring. As already stated each article on Wikipedia is unique and is beset with its own set of unique circumstances that may make it tackle a certain manual of style differently than the majority of other articles. Wikipedia allows that flexibility.

Point 2: Having explained that I must ask to those that are aghast at the current wording/compromise or whatever in place... how is what is there wrong? Is the UK not sovereign? Is the UK not a country? If it is neither then certainly "sovereign country" needs removed from the article. If it is indeed sovereign and a country then it is not incorrect or lies. It is only a matter of wording that reflects Point 1.

Yeah country on its own sounds better and I wasn't part of the discussion/compromise three years ago as far as I can remember, however if it is what was agreed then so be it, there have been no convincing arguments provided by anyone since to convince editors to overturn it. Until there is, this is simply endless dead horse flogging. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Having said that, seeing as "sovereign country" is wikilinked to "Sovereign state", I don't understand how a compromise of simply stating country and wikilinking it to that article has never been agreed? Seems a simple solution. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

We may or may not like it, but this topic will always come up, until the intro is changed so that the UK is no longer given what appears to be special treatment. Aside from my personal solution, the only other way out is to adopt new descriptions across Wikipedia. UK, Canada, Sweden etc, could use "constitutional monarchy", where's USA, Brazil, Russia etc, could use "republic", for examples. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

What your suggesting already happens in the 3rd paragraph of country articles as per the normal layout described at the project page (here it's the second paragraph}. Many countries have been around much longer then their current political situation..... and maybe referred to as a country long before it's legal independence. As seen in 99 percent of articles and our FA's the first sentence emphasizing geographical expanse (Country). Second paragraph usually deals with nation of people (Nation) and the third talks about forms of government and political systems..be it sovereign state, tolerance state or Islamic state etc... All that said Australia has the same wording as here but does not have the same problem with many talks and edits that are reverted.... perhaps cuz its sovereignty is new? I would argue that it was a country long before its sovereignty as with Canada and adding the word sovereignty gives the impression that they dont have a long history as a country or nation of people. In the opinion of H. V. Evatt of the High Court of Australia, "sovereignty is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question that does not arise at all.".--Moxy 🍁 00:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

My first choice is still "country". The monarchy/republic was a secondary suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Australia has been sovereign since at least 1931 with the passing of a Statute of Westminster, which gave all autonomous British Dominions legislative independence so it is not that new compared to many countries in the world today. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

They only just grew out of saying they were young in their anthem this year! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose RfC Not sure whether we are now in mountain or molehill territory, fairway or long grass, gazing at a navel or a pinhead, a pinpoint or talking point. Over more than ten years editing some of these articles, I have become satisfied that, of the two (country or state), in this sort of context 'country' works better. Such is the English language that, while there is some overlap and often the two are interchangeable as near-synonyms, each has a distinct set of linguistic assoications, including etymologies and current usage in specialist contexts and in more everyday forms of expression.

In my view, the reasoning in the opening paragraph at the top of the section (15:17, 18 December 2020) is shown to go off the mark from the false premise declared axiomatically thus:

My case for "sovereign state" being the correct term is as follows: the UK is four countries in a political union.

While we may agree that the UK is four countries in a political union it does not follow that there is a correct term for it. Compare, for example, the wording of the current version of United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020: "The Act seeks to ensure the functioning of the UK internal market with provisions to prevent internal trade barriers among the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom,,,". In support of that wording it was mentioned that "the UK is a unitary sovereign state (country), comprising four constituent parts, of which one part was/is the kingdom of England, that includes another part, the principality of Wales, another part was/is the kingdom of Scotland that on the union with England (and Wales) formed Great Britain, and the fourth part is Northern Ireland that is 'variously described as a country, province, or region, which is part of the United Kingdom' (per Northern Ireland). Qexigator (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Opposed to a process that may fix the longstanding edit wars because your afraid of the out come?--Moxy 🍁 19:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Things have been stable for over 3 years, its only been in the last few weeks when the introduction was fundamentally changed without consensus that this problem occurred again. RWB2020 (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

? It's one of the most reverted edits here and has come up many times.--Moxy 🍁 22:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The situation has been far more stable these past 3 years than the problems caused by the previous wording. Several discussions that have led to no change, and a few random edits that have had to be reverted over the last few years is pretty stable considering the fact we are talking about the very first sentence of a major article. And this is part of a wider issue with regards how England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are described too, which has been relatively stable in recent years as well. As stated before, if the UK is suddenly not referred to as sovereign then there would have to be another clear distinction made with England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which others object to. And if the UK is no longer referred to as country in the first sentence then that creates even more problems on this article, and other articles too. All of which is why it is best to maintain the status quo, and nothing has changed or been said in those past 3 years to justify or need a change to be made. RWB2020 (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It's never going to end, barring the breakup of the UK. We all know what the hold up is & that's the tragedy. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

A plea for compromise

Hi everyone (especially @Mabuska:, @RWB2020: and @GoodDay:). I have read the comments here and would like to put forward an additional thought accompanied by a motion for peaceful compromise. I acknowledge and respect that previous discussions arrived at "sovereign country" as a way to distinguish the country of the UK against the countries of Scotland/England/Wales/NI. It is, however, unencyclopedic to make this distinction in the opening sentence: the purpose of the opening sentence is to define the item being discussed (in this case the UK) not against its own components but against other items in the world (in this case other international entities). It needs to be big-endian (starting with the world or universe), not little-endian (starting with itself). Trust me, I'm a librarian.

I'd like to offer a compromise based on the page for the USA. The USA is described as "a country primarily located in North America, consisting of 50 states." So could we settle on "a country located off the north­western coast of the European mainland, consisting of four component nations" (let's call this compromise 1 going forward) OR go with a slightly bolder "a political union of four countries located off the north­western coast of the European mainland." (let's call this compromise 2 going forward). I respectfully welcome your thoughts. (Angry Candy (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC))

I strongly oppose those changes proposed, both suggestions are problematic, the second being totally unacceptable and demonstrates exactly why we have to be extremely careful about any change to this introduction because that is the final destination some may seek to push. That second proposal blatantly would result in the article undermining the fact the UK is a country if it is not clearly stated in the first sentence. There is absolutely no need to change the first sentence of this article from the wording that has existed for over 3 years.

The American example simply does not help us in this case as those 50 states are not described as countries. Also nobody disputes the USA is a country, and yet you yourself have seemed to question if the UK is a country. This is why the article must clearly state it to avoid such unacceptable fringe views.

The fact that England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are described as countries is why we must distinguish the UK from those four component parts, and saying sovereign country does just that. It offers a clear factual distinction between the meaning of the UK as a country, and the meaning of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

It is worth noting there is not a single standard sentence for every country on wikipedia. Many country articles include a word before country. Be that New Zealand as an Island country, Russia as a transcontinental country, Afghanistan as a landlocked country, and Australia as a sovereign country. So the claim made by some in the discussion before about the UK being treated as a special case, is also inaccurate.

For all the of the reasons i have stated before and will continue to state, i strongly oppose changing the status quo which has been stable for over 3 years. The only reasonable compromise would be the wikinote explaining the meaning after. But apart from that, there is just no need for any change at all. RWB2020 (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @RWB2020:. Thank you for commenting here; you argued against my "Compromise 2" sufficiently as far as I'm concerned and I agree with you that it is not the right direction to take. But you didn't really tackle what I'm saying with Compromise 1. Ultimately, my problem with "sovereign country" is that it caught my eye as uniquely odd: the history of how it was arrived at does not justify how strange it is. After a little more thought and, later, reading the comments generated by my question on this talk page, I am convinced that it is unencylopedic (in the way I describe above), displays undue weight on Britain's sovereignty, and is potentially NPOV (in that it could be seen to suggest triumphalism in the context of Brexit - and I don't believe that is your intention). I restate (because you didn't address it) the point that the opening line of a Wikipedia page should define a thing not against its component parts but against everything else in the world. It should essentially answer the question "what is the UK?" The consensus answer seems to be that it is a country. Its sovereign nature is strange to mention at this point. It would be like describing James Stewart on Wikipedia as "a human actor" in that it goes without saying and is not relevant at this point in the description: we do not need to distinguish the UK here against England or Scotland or Wales, but rather against things that aren't the UK: "things" like Germany, the Rings of Saturn and pineapples. (Angry Candy (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC))

@Angry candy: your visits are so infrequent. Given the emotionalism around this topic, perhaps that is the better practice for all of us. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

As i explained, there are many wikipedia articles that have a word before saying country, so this is not unique, including the fact the Australia article says sovereign country and has done for years too. The fact the Australia article has said it for years, along with the debates that took place at the time years ago on this page leading to the stable compromise, all show this is nothing at all to do with Brexit. As i said, im prepared to support a wikinote explaining this is nothing to do with Brexit, though i dont think its necessary. You accept that the UK Is a sovereign state, so i fail to see how use of the word sovereign is in any way not neutral, especially as we link to the sovereign state page anyway.

You say we have to define a thing not against its component parts but about everything else in the world. The problem is without the clear distinction being made by saying sovereign country, it puts England, Wales, Scotland and to a lesser degree Northern Ireland, as equal in status in terms of being a country as the UK, and indeed Germany and others. When that is clearly not the case. The introduction of this article must make clear the UK is sovereign (unlike England/Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland), and must clearly say the UK is country. The current wording that was stable for over 3 years does just that and there is no justification for changing it. RWB2020 (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@RWB2020: (and CC: @GoodDay:). You just keep restating the status-quo rather than defending it meaningfully or engaging with my motion. You have said again that we need to define the UK against its component nations, which is precisely what I have suggested is wrong with the current description: this is not how an encyclopedia entry should begin. I think this might have to go to an RFC after all. I am trying to avoid an edit war with you through reasonable discussion but you're not arguing for the status-quo beyond restating it and saying that it's been that way for three years; and I just know you'll revert my edit if I go ahead and make what I see as the correct change. It being that way for three years doesn't mean its correct now (or indeed that it ever was). And saying again that "without the clear distinction being made by saying sovereign country, it puts England, Wales, Scotland and to a lesser degree Northern Ireland, as equal in status in terms of being a country as the UK" is irrelevant: that is precisely the status-quo position I am challenging. Moreover, my compromise 1 DOES make that distinction, does it not? Yes, it uses the word "country" and ditches "sovereign" (in service to removing the problems of its being unencyclopedic, lending undue weight to sovereignty, and being potentially NPOV) but it also explains the country's relationship to its component nations with elegant, apolitical, encyclopedic brevity. Please accept my compromise 1 or suggest a meaningful halfway measure between it and the current iteration else there will be an edit war between us or an RFC. (Angry Candy (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC))

But your compromise 1 does not make the distinction, thats the point. It simply says country, which is exactly what England, Wales and Scotland are described as as well. That is why it is helpful to say sovereign country, which distinguishes it from England, Wales and Scotland which are countries, but not sovereign. Again a RFC is not necessary considering this was advertised on quite a few wikiprojects by another editor weeks ago, leading to the additional input into the debate already. And if a RFC is used, it must be neutrally worded setting out clearly the reasons for the current compromise, and without misleading others on the entire reason for the article wording in the first place. This has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, and it is wrong for anyone to peddle that myth. RWB2020 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It really, really does make that distinction despite not even needing to. That one word or variations of it is not the only way the sentence can make the distinction. (Angry Candy (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC))

You have absolutely no consensus for the wording you just tried to insert into the article. Please do not fundamentally change the introduction until there is consensus. Your proposed wording does not solve the problem at all, it makes the situation even worse for reasons explained before. It is in no way a reasonable compromise. RWB2020 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

For the last time, the main thrust of my motion is that this distinction is not important in the opening sentence. I don't know how many times I have to say that. To try and satisfy you though (not because I think you're right but because I want to avoid an edit war), why don't we use "constituent countries" in my compromise 1 instead of "component nations"? That does make the distinction but in a less troublesome way than the sovereign nation. (Angry Candy (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC))

I also dont accept that either of your two suggested compromises were in any way a reasonable compromise at all, infact they are even worse than your original alteration that was problematic too. I believe a reasonable compromise is what some others have suggested, a wikinote explaining the meaning behind the wording to make clear the purpose of it, and what it does and doesnt mean, especially if making it clear this is not about brexit is needed though i am not convinced even that is necessary. The fact that the Australia article for years has also said Sovereign country really does highlight this has nothing to do with Brexit, as does the long debates on this issue over the years here. RWB2020 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The comparison/precedent of the Australia example isn't relevant and if you think it's relevant I refer to you the hundreds of other examples of sovereign countries whose sovereignty is not referred to on the first line of their page. (Angry Candy (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC))

I have a compromise. But, I'm not going to mention it here, because I'm always attacked for it. GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that is uncivil on here and I think we are having a healthy, sometimes heated, debate. It is a complex area so we all need to expect disagreement. Please make sure you share your views though. Let's move on and think about a wikinote which could be added after 'sovereign country'. Does anyone have suggestions? AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 05:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not a 'compromise' for the reasons stated above (10:53, 31 December 2020) and I wholly concur with RWB2020 21:15, 1 January 2021, and point out that Library classification has next to no relevance to arrangement of encyclopedia contents such as Wikipedia. Qexigator (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

In regards to compromise 1: It does not solve anything as you'd still be stuck with the for and against adding sovereign before country. Compromise 2: The wording sounds like four countries—as in sovereign states—in a political union such as the EU or militarily like NATO for example. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Compromise 1 is a proposal to remove the word "sovereign". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry candy (talk • contribs)

It may still take awhile yet, but eventually my compromise will be adopted. Unless, the UK ceases to exist before then, in their post-EU years. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe if somebody else proposed it it might find more traction...? Mabuska ^(talk) 23:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that would help. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That would be your dream come true! Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

You are not 'attacked' for it GoodDay, but a lot of us loose patience with your persistent refusal to accept the result of a previous extensive mediated process where we based the naming on a search of the various references. That was part of settling the British Isles dispute, the Irish naming dispute and built on the Derry naming dispute. When we find such resolutions they should be respected and only challenged if the reference base changes, not just by an editor pushing a private obsession which is disruptive, to to mention random comments to incite others on talk pages - for which you were previously sanctioned and topic banned. There is a whole article on this which can be linked if anyone is confused by it. -----Snowded ^TALK 07:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

=== Proposal === Please see non-contentious proposal below for adding 7 words to second sentence. Qexigator (talk) Qexigator (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for clarity on exact reasoning for tonight's reversion (in the interests of reaching consensus)

Hi @RWB2020:. The wording I tried to introduce this evening (and which you reverted, citing no consensus) was "[the UK] is a country located off the north­western coast of the European mainland and consisting of four component countries." I say this makes the distinction you've been concerned about, i.e. the distinction between Sco/Eng/Wal/NI as countries and the UK as a country. The distinction is clearly present in the word "component" and it is also the main thrust of the entire second clause. You said on your reversion, however, that it does not make the distinction. Overlooking my assertion that the first sentence doesn't need to make this distinction at all and also setting aside all the arguments I have made against using the word "sovereign" for a moment, could you explain very simply now how my wording fails to make the distinction? You need to argue this convincingly (or indeed at all) if there is ever to be a consensus. Please don't just restate your position again because we all understand it: please answer the question as to how my wording here does not make the distinction you're concerned about. Thanks. (Angry Candy (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC))

The reason for the revert is you had absolutely no consensus for this completely new wording. You have introduced a new phrase "four component countries" which has never been agreed to at all on this talk page, clearly goes entirely against consensus, and it is unnecessary to even mention this point in that first sentence because we deal with it in detail in the second paragraph about the UK being made up of four countries in a way that has been agreed and that is clear. I have explained in detail above the reasons why the changes you are proposing are inappropriate and why we should stick with the status quo which has been stable for over 3 years, you simply refuse to accept them and continue to demand changes that have no consensus. There was also a discussion a few sections down under the proposal to add 7 words section, where i set out reasons why im against such changes. RWB2020 (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I demand nothing. I request reasoned debate concerning my motion (which is itself a compromise intended to address your central concern of "country" differentiation while resolving the problems I have identified and communicated here). I was the one who began this discussion, not presuming to make such a prominent change before coming to this talk page. In coming to this talk page I was given some immediate votes of confidence followed by a lengthy and unproductive conversation with you. It is true that consensus has not yet been arrived at, but the main barrier in reaching it has been your own gate-keeping efforts. Your contributions to the discussion, aside from blocking the change seemingly against all arguments, has been (1) to re-state the status-quo on the "sovereign country" solution, (2) to re-tell the story of how it was arrived at, (3) to cite Australia as an unconvincing and outweighed precedent, and (4) to assure us that Brexit has nothing to do with this (overlooking or not understanding that my claim is not that Brexit played a part in how the solution was arrived at, merely that the current wording could now be read as triumphalist and therefore non-NPOV in the context of Brexit). Your four main contributions are not true arguments (let alone convincing ones) in favour of the current wording, nor do they adequately address the specific problems I have levelled against the current wording. After a break/recess (I will need to educate myself on the process of RFC and other dispute resolution processes as I have never been involved in one) I will invite others to discuss my motion versus (if you persist in it) your defense of the status-quo. (Angry Candy (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)) (cc: @GoodDay:)

I've already stated my support for using "country" in the intro for the UK. Will continue to watch. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see any legitimate justification from changing the terminology of "sovereign country" to something else. The term "country" is long-standing so I don't understand the need for a change. Alssa1 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The editor who began this entire discussion, has apparently lost interest & moved on. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

So many low-stamina editors these days. Alssa1 (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Theocracy

The United Kingdom is a theocracy as the United Kingdom monarchy is the head of state and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, with their powers being appointed to them by “god” after their coronation.

(“The divine right of kings”), is an ancient practice still recognised and used by the U.K during the coronation ceremony.

ChefBear01 (talk)

References

Er, are you wanting the article to say that the UK is a theocracy? A few problems with that: (1) you’ll need to provide reliable source(s) to support that view. The source you cited does not say that or anything like it. (I’m not sure it qualifies as a reliable source anyway. It looks like a WP:BLOG). (2) Having an established church is not the same thing as a theocracy and even if anyone currently thought that the Queen ‘rules’ by virtue of the ‘divine right of kings’ (which they don’t) that still wouldn’t be the same as a theocracy. (3) It’s nonsense. DeCausa (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The only person I have seen refer to the UK as a theocracy is Polly Toynbee [4]. But I don't think that one journalist's opinion carries enough weight to include because it would be WP:UNDUE. As said above, having a State Church is not the same as a theocracy. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose bishops in the legislature could point in that direction but as there’s only 26 of them she’s pushing the “rule by” part of the meaning of the word. DeCausa (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No experts have ever claimed that putting the church under the control of the sovereign was theocracy. That was standard in most countries before the First World War and even continued in Communist ruled countries. Even the U.S. had state established churches in the decades following independence. TFD (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The church exists in every part of the U.K.

The Church of England is as it says on the tin only "of England". It has no authority in any other country in the UK. None of the other countries have an Established Church, the Church of Scotland was confirmed in 1929 as never an Established Church, the Church in Wales was disestablished in 1914, the Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1869.

Legislature (Bishops)

Executive (Head of State is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and is appointed in a Christian ceremony)

Judicial Ecclesiastical court (A christian court) ChefBear01 (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If you are saying that the fact that the church exists in every part of the UK means that it runs the country, then the same argument could surely be made for the railways or the Post Office, which are equally (if not more) ubiquitous. Britmax (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

GDP ranking

The GDP ranking indicated on this page is overrated. It is mentioned that the UK's ranking is fifth but no source is supporting such information.

Actually, many sources indicate rather a ranking in the 6th positions : https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/united-kingdom http://statisticstimes.com/economy/projected-world-gdp-ranking.php https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphael Azur (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

UK was briefly 6th, behind India, in 2019, but 2020 and likely 2021 sees the two countries swapped back to the UK being 5th and India 6th. Of course in the longer term India will permanently overtake the UK. David (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, do you have a source for this? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the source used on the rankings page of Wikipedia... List of countries by GDP (nominal)#cite note-GDP IMF-1 David (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I can see the 2020 IMF data. I am a little on the fence about this, but since it is the most recent data avaliable (at least on Wikipedia from the seemingly gold standard trio of the IMF, World Bank and UN), then I agree that we should put the UK at 5. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

'United Kingdom' redirects here?

I've noticed that the page has a hatnote which says that the title 'United Kingdom' redirects here, despite the fact this is the page for the United Kingdom and is titled as such - I think it'd be preferable and more accurate to use Template:Other uses with a link to the United Kingdom disambiguation page? Fixing26 (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems someone has fixed this since, cheers. Fixing26 (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

pars pro toto reference

The reference to this was reference was removed by an editor in the opening;

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or , by the pars pro toto, Britain...

The United Kingdom is the made up of both Britain and Northern Ireland. Referring to the country as "Britain" (or eg. Netherlands as "Holland", Bosnia Herzegovina as "Bosnia" etc.) is the definition of pars pro toto. It links to an important qualifying article. I think this should be reinstated in the opening. Thoughts?

Bbx118 21:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

No. A Latin tag in the first sentence is just clutter. It’s a point of detail for somewhere in the article, not the lead, certainly not the first sentence. in fact I thought it was in the article but doesn’t seem to be there anymore. I wouldn’t object to it being in the Etymology section (sourced of course). DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bbx118: I was the editor who removed it, for the reason DeCausa and states. If you looked at my edit summary, you'll see "unintelligible addition: WP:COMMONALITY; it's not needed to qualify the common name". For the lead, it's off-topic: it suffices to say that the UK is also known as Britain. The fact that you are having to explain what this obscure Latin phrase means suggests that it should also not appear verbatim in the Etymology: we should not expect readers to have to click on jargon. By all means add an English explanation, with references, in the Etymology section which links to pars pro toto, although you may have trouble doing that as "Britain" is an imprecise term. And please sign your contributions with four tildes (~~~~) so your details appear correctly. Bazza (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Strongly oppose including that phrase in the opening sentence for reasons stated above. There is a very clear note after the word Britain which explains its use. The introduction is stable and does not need to be changed. RWB2020 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The phrase ("pars pro toto") is used in other country articles (eg. Bosnia and Herzegovina) but, granted, it is as a link, with the phrase "informally known as" or something similar as the text.

Bbx118Bbx118 21:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the change you made to that section. The current version has a paragraph that first explains the conventional meaning of Great Britain along with its use, and then the next paragraph goes on to explain the use of Britain. Your change to that section blurred the situation by combining it into a single large paragraph that was less clear and blurred meaning / usage. It did not improve the section nor did it make it clearer for the reader to understand the differences. RWB2020 (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

202.176.126.113 (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Nothing requested. DeCausa (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2021

is a "multicultural" sovereign country Swf-85 (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Lord Chancellor

The Lord Chancellor is constitutionally a position higher than that of the British Prime Minister. Here, in Wikipedia, we always add people of high positions (whether they have actual power or not) to the Infobox, like the Japanese Emperor who does not have any real political power, but is constitutionally the highest office. I think we should add the Lord Chancellor's office to the infobox. The Lord Chancellor does have historical importance, constitutional importance and is a high ranking office with influential powers. GucciNuzayer (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It’s not a “constitutionally higher position”. You’ve misunderstood what “higher” means in the context of the Great Officers of State. This is just the archaic Order of Precedence, which has no actual (or indeed now constitutional) significance. It’s used for royal events and is determined by the monarch for such pressing issues as to who has to curtsey to who when they enter a room, who goes first in a procession etc. The LC is basically nowadays just the UK’s Minister of Justice. So, going into the infobox? Absolutely not. DeCausa (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with DeCausa - listing it in the infobox would mislead readers as to its real importance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Ever since the constitutional vandalism that was the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Lord Chancellor's role has been greatly diminished and now given current precedence seems to put the holder at the level of the Justice Minister, it would be UNDUE and a little misleading to include in the infobox. Yes, they rank higher than the PM in order of precedence but that is as DeCausa says, mostly for ceremonial events. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

In fact, there is also a Ministerial ranking which would be the only constitutionally relevant seniority list (and the significance of even that seems debatable). It’s set by the PM every time he does a re-shuffle. On that the Lord Chancellor is currently No.6. It’s only significance (apart from the PM managing political jostling in his party) seems to be who chairs the cabinet when the PM is not there. DeCausa (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. GucciNuzayer (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Capital

I always thought Westminster was the capital and London the largest city. Atleast add an explanatory note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:396d:79f9:9be:239d:f111:6d5 (talk • contribs)

Westminster is a district of London. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course, it’s also the City of Westminster. Historically, that’s the seat of the legislature, judiciary, executive and monarchy. Equally, the adjacent City of London was the most important city economically. Both are part of metropolitan London/Greater London. AFAIK, there’s no statutory designation of “London” as the capital but it’s clearly WP:BLUE that “London” is the capital. Out of interest I had a look for any source claimIng Westminster as the capital and couldn’t find any. DeCausa (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Although I don't know of any legal basis for this, the overspill from the city has always been referred to as London, and new place names such as Westminster came later. England's administration did in fact sit in the City before it moved to Westminster over a thousand years ago. TFD (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Population Update

The 2020 population figures have been released by the ONS: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2020

Can somebody please update the population figure? (67,081,000)

They are only estimates, so best to wait for 2011 census results. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tony Holkham: I assume you mean 2021. Keith D (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Race and class

A reader on twitter was surprised that there is no mention of racism or class in this main article. I found Racism in the United Kingdom and Social class in the United Kingdom, but the reader (rightfully) pointed out that there's no way to get to either of those articles from this article, not even from the United Kingdom articles portal. To the editors familiar with this article and the subject area, is there an appropriate way to incorporate mentions/wikilinks to those two articles? Schazjmd (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and listed them in Template:United Kingdom topics. Schazjmd (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Official religion/s

Does the current enthusiastic novice editor have a point about noting the C of E as being England's official religion in the infobx? It would appear to have a similar if not better claim to English being noted there as the official UK language. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

No. This article is about the United Kingdom, so anything in the infobox should be data about that entity. And WP doesn't deal with "claims", it deals with reliable sources of which none have been given for the assertion made. (One of the references the editor gives for his assertion is Britannica, which makes no mention of an "official" religion. The other is the British Council which states that "Christianity" is the "official religion".) Bazza (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The size of England + Wales does warrent mention I think. Not referenced? Surely the monarch as defender of the faith is good enough, not to mention the crowning formalities of the monarch? That would appear to be de jure and de facto, whereas the Enlish language can only muster de facto. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It is, of course, well sourced that the CoE is the “established church” in England (not Wales, where it was dis-established in 1920). And the article already covers this (with source) in the appropariate place. Does that equate to “official religion”? - I doubt that that would be so easily sourced, and, as it puts it on the same plane as Shia Islam in Iran, could be misleading as a bare statement without further explanation. In any event, it’s not something for the Infobox because (a) as noted above, it’s not the “official religion” or established church of “the UK” and (b) there’s no parameter in the Infobox template for it (in contrast, “official language” has a parameter in the template). The religion parameter is for the demographic distribution of religions not legal or constitutional status. I think the most that could/should be done would be a footnote in the manner of the Denmark article for the Church of Greenland’s state church status. I don’t see the need though. The Infobox is not the place to cram every piece of information that someone has a bee in their bonnet about. Where do you stop? There are WP:RS describing the Church of Scotland as Scotland’s National Church. Someone will think that should be included next. That’s the problem with wandering off the template parameters. (Btw, I doubt that the ‘enthusiastic novice editor’ will be back by the looks of things.) DeCausa (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

You could always just have Church of England (England), Church of Scotland (Scotland) with a note explaining national church for Scotland as a compromise. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

“I won’t let you remove it”

@Localhost83:: Your edit summary here appears to be a threat to edit war your change. Perhaps you would like to discuss it here rather than edit war. DeCausa (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with you @DeCausa “I won’t let you change it” is not an argument to keeping something such as Anglicism as national religion of England if you believe it’s necessary you have to an argument here and we have wider talk to see what to do. Black roses124 (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about the outdent I know it can be annoying Black roses124 (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion is set out below. It seems that you've missed it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems that I have I apologize my mistake, where is the discussion? Black roses124 (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead paragraph on formation of the union

As per comments in edit history by Roger 8 Roger and Jr8825 I have changed this paragraph again, instead of removing details on the union I've expanded it to provide an introduction, rather than just jumping straight into the details without explaining why (until you get to the end of a long run-on sentence!), and reworded the paragraph to remove the ambiguous 'union' pipelinks. Also added a link to the article on the annexation of Wales for completeness. Hope this is closer to something we can all agree on? I had to do something to kill those pipelinks it was hurting my eyes! JeffUK (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

When was the UK first refered to as the UK? Was GB ever called the 'UK of GB'? If not until after 1801 why should we not take that date as the start of the state? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the 'date when the united kingdom was formed' is one of those many things that's blurred because of the lack of a written constitution (being inconsiderate toward future Wikipedia editors); I like the approach of describing how we got where we are today and leaving the reader to understand that it's complicated! JeffUK (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Was member of European Union unnecessary

Is it really necessary to I say the UK was a member of European Union and the European economic community in the paragraph were its listing the organizations the UK is apart of. Might as well include was a member of the League of Nations and all the other organizations the UK was previously a member of I think it’s best to just move on no longer include them. Black roses124 (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. MOS:LEAD suggests that half a century's membership of, and resignation from, an organisation which directly shaped and directed the country's economy, society, and foreign relations, more so than any others in that list, is probably worth a passing mention here. Bazza (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Black roses124. It's probably undue weight for the lead and per MOS:LEAD should be omitted from the lead as is not one of the more important aspects of the article when compared to everything else covered in it. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Quite frankly the whole list should go. Arbitrary jumble of organisations, some of which aren't even mentioned in this article's 100kB of prose. CMD (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree organization spam.--Moxy- 10:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bazza. Not to mention the EEC/EU in the context of the UK's international relationships would be absolutely bizarre. The EU is not just an "organisation" comparable with the League of Nations. It is a much bigger deal than that. Its lawmaking powers and procedures make it absolutely central to the governance and functioning of its member states. Having joined it and now left it is a fundamentally important fact about the UK. -- Alarics (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Former EU membership is important because the UK is going through a transition process where it is still negotiating the separation agreement. The Northern Irish border problem for example is a result of leaving the EU. TFD (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The whole paragraph should go. It does not belong in the lead. Mention of the EU would have been warrented in the lead when the UK was a member, but it isn't a member now. No other group the UK is a member now carries as much weight as the EU did. Its current EU connection is not relevant enough either.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by Bazza, Alarics & TFD, EU/EEC membership had a major economic, social (e.g. Erasmus, EU social funding) and political (CJEU membership, "hollowing out"/multi-level governance with pan-European policy formation & EU funds for devolved regions) impact on the UK. Leaving the EU has been the primary issue of debate in the country for the last 5 years, much has been said about the creation of a new political cleavage (remainers vs. brexiters) and the implications are still being felt (logistics disruption, NI backstop disagreements, future relationship discussions etc.); euroscepticism/pro-EU sentiment have been an important features of British politics for decades. Plenty of evidence to support it being notable enough for the lead. The same can't be said for some of the other organisations listed there though, and they should probably be removed, particularly the WTO, Interpol & UN (not many countries aren't members, security council seat is mention in the above para.) and possibly the Council of Europe, G7/G10/G20. Jr8825 • Talk 11:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Not necessary in the lead, as not current, and is covered in History section. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The whole of the third paragraph (The union between the Kingdom of England (which included Wales) and the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707 to form the Kingdom of Great Britain, followed by their union in 1801 with the Kingdom of Ireland, created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Most of Ireland seceded from the UK in 1922, leaving the present formulation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which formally adopted the name in 1927 to reflect the change.} is not current and is covered in the History section. Should it also be removed? Bazza (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

No, obviously not. The formation of the Union as it currently is has been an important historical process, whereas (IMO) Britain's membership of the EU and its predecessors may well, over the same sorts of timescales, become a footnote in history. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a bit WP:CRYSTAL - we don't know. At the moment, the recently-changed, and still changing, relationship to the EU is an extremely important part of any understanding of what the UK is. The reference in the lede should remain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. A very significant part of the UK’s legal structure is EU-derived. The current single sentence is appropriate for such a very significant influence on the current UK. As and when and if that diminishes it can be revisited. Presently, it’s not happened. DeCausa (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Assuming that the UK is the first country to leave the European Union. This discussion could set the precedent for how to handle other countries intros if/when they leave the EU. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's relevant and will remain so on the basis that part of the UK is effectively still part of the EU single market for goods, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. (https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/eu-exit-and-northern-ireland-protocol) JeffUK (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

JeffUK, the UK is not "effectively still part of the EU single market for goods", only Northern Ireland has some claim to be that, and only for agri-food. Anyway, their single market is only a very small part of what the EU is. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, that’s not what JeffUK said. He said “part of the UK”. DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Oops, yes, I misread it, sorry. I've struck out my mistaken rebuttal. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

This is recentism creaping in. Why not include in the lead Henry VIII's split from Rome? Far greater long term effects than leaving the EU. Perhaps we should put down the newspaper and draw a time line of Britain since 1066, or even 1801 if you want to be pedantic. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger: I don't think it's recentism. EEC/EU membership is documented by RS as having played an important role in the history of the UK as it currently exists today. The UK is a relatively recent phenomenon. Imagine, for argument's sake, that Scotland becomes independent in the next 10 years and this is split into articles about the Kingdom of England and Wales (a successor state) and the United Kingdom, a sovereign country which existed between 1801 and 2030 – the assertion that EU membership had an important impact on that state during its timeframe is much more obvious. That hypothetical historical state, which was significantly affected by joining and leaving the EU, is the country which currently exists today, which this article is about. We do mention Henry VIII's split from Rome in the lead... of Kingdom of England, the state which existed from 927–1707. Jr8825 • Talk 01:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

We would have mentioned Henry VIII's split from Rome if we were writing this article in the mid-1500s, since it had significant political implications that played out over the following centuries. We would have mentioned WWII had we been editing immediately following the war. Recentism refers to current events that receive news coverage but have no long term significance. But articles are supposed to provide greater weight to the current state of the subject. All the information (except "formation") in the info-box is current: monarch, prime minister, population, etc. That information was different in the past and will be different in the future. TFD (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting thought, will the break from EU, eventually cause Scottish independence & Irish re-unification. Are these possibilities a reason, to mention the UK's past membership, in the article lead? GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: There’s no way of telling if it will maybe I guess who knows? complicated geopolitical, societal and economic impacts such as secession is almost impossible to predict. Black roses124 (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Map in climate section

I can see why my placing of the image in the climate section, above the section title in the syntax, may not adhere to the guidance at MOS:IMAGE (though I can't locate a passage that states this so would be interested to be directed to the section in question). My reason was to allow the image to sit a little higher than it is currently, with the top of the image level with the bottom of the words in the section immediately above, utilising that inviting white space between the sections, rather than dropping down quite so much into the politics section below. Is there a way of getting it to sit a little higher without contravening MOS:IMAGE? It might well display differently to others but, to my eyes looks better-placed visually. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGELOCATION ="Do not place an image at the end of the previous section as this will not be visible in the appropriate section on mobile devices."--Moxy- 23:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Is there a satisfactory way to get it to sit a little higher? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Its location looks appropriate. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay:, if your comment above is as you say responding to Moxy rather than to counter my inquiring about having the image sit higher, can you confirm that you are thus stating that the location in my edit looks appropriate to you? Appropriate for viewing on a mobile device, despite what Moxy said? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have/use a mobile. But your re-location of those other images is appropriate. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm more confused if you're now bringing in the other images. Which image were you referring to in your initial comment "Its location looks appropriate" and in whose edit? Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Your movement of the images from the right side to the left side of the page. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Your initial comment "Its location looks appropriate" referred to the movement of the images from the right side to the left side of the page? These are not the image under discussion. Per above, it's the Köppen map, in the climate section. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, cool. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Your evasive, rambling posts make no sense whatsoever and certainly haven't contributed to the issue at hand but I guess that's to be expected. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Genetics material needs updating

There was previously some discussion at Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 29#Ethnic groups section and GA and Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles/Archive 2#Leslie, S. et al. Nature (plus some other places) about Stephen Oppenheimer's work on the UK population's genetic history now being considered out of date, but the section United Kingdom#Ethnic groups still gives prominence to his work. I've tagged it as in need of an update, although another approach might just be to remove that paragraph given the tenuous relationship between genetics and ethnicity. Pinging CelticBrain, who's done some work to update Genetic history of the British Isles. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Given the complexity of the topic and how easily it can get ‘out of date’, I’d favour reducing it down to a minimal reference with a link to Genetic history of the British Isles where, it looks like, it will get more specialist attention. DeCausa (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd think one or two short paras (as opposed to the current five) should be a sufficient summary anyway for a long, broad article such as this. Jr8825 • Talk 14:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd be fine with shortening this down to a few sentences about how many of the different groups that migrated to Britain over the centuries have left a genetic imprint on the modern-day population, and then linking to the Genetic history of the British Isles page. CelticBrain (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is there a template for Authority Control at the bottom of this article?

It doesn't seem relevant to me. What am I missing? 90.195.37.193 (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Naming the Prime Minister before the table of contents

It came into my mind that the current Prime Minister could be named as the head of goverment along with the Queen Elizabeth II as a head of state before the table of content. As the article is protected, there's probably a good reason why it's not that way - maybe the Prime Minister is a secondary role in the main politics scene in the United Kingdom, as an argument behind keeping that segment that way. Just a suggestion we could discuss. GaboLoretto (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I've only just noticed that the Prime Minister ins't mentioned in the lede! If The Queen is mentioned in the lede, then I think that the Prime Minister should be; they are, after all, the most powerful figure in the country. It was me who rewrote the subsection on government a couple of weeks ago, so I don't mind putting something short together. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps after 1952 it could read ", and her principal advisor is the Prime Minister, who is the head of government and chairs the Cabinet." All that information is now in the article, so sources shouldn't be required if it's included in the lede. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

If you're referring to the politics section of this article? Elizabeth II's image should be above Boris Johnson's image. Not side-by-side. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that GaboLoretto was referring to the lede rather than the politics section, but why do you object to The Queen and the Prime Minister being shown side-by-side in the politics section? Is it for seniority-related reasons? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

They're not co-heads of state. Liz gets precedence over BoJo. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

But the how we orrient the multiple images here usually has nothing to do with the power which indivdual has more power.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixing size within a multiple image template goes against the principle of WP:IMGSIZE, although not explicitly addressed there. CMD (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above two comments. Plus, The Queen is to the left (first, when reading from left to right) of the Prime Minister, so in that way precedence is arguably shown? Thanks. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Possibly a good idea but would need to keep it short, the lead is already in excess of MOS:LEADLENGTH. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmm good point. Perhaps we could remove "Their capitals are London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, respectively." from that paragraph? It seems quite redundant for the lede section to me (United States doesn't include state capitals in its lede, for instance). If we were then to insert simply ", and her principal advisor is the Prime Minister, who is the head of government.", that would only then be a net gain of five letters for such an important piece of information. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The UK capitals are more important than US state ones, since they're separate countries (well, excepting NI). Jr8825 • Talk 17:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with you on that front. We shouldn't be giving Cardiff, Edinburgh & Belfast any special treatment. London is the UK's capital & that's enough for the lead. Indeed, for the most part, the only reason why England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are mentioned in the article's lead, is because there's only four of them. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I was specifically addressing their relevance against US state capitals there. I think it's nice information to include in the lead alongside the sentence on devolution (since they're the seats of the devolved governments/used to refer to them – e.g. "Belfast" as a reference to the NI Executive), but if space constraints mean their inclusion comes at the expense of something more important I'm not especially fussed on keeping them. Jr8825 • Talk 18:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree. It's useful information to include, but perhaps not suited to a lede which is already subject to space constraints and which could include more pertinent information (about the Prime Minister). FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The Queen has become a symbol of the UK and has been reigning since 1952, whereas BoJo only became PM in 2019. Peter Ormond 💬 17:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Jr8825 • Talk 18:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Good point. But I think that mentioning the most powerful office in the UK (of Prime Minister) is worth doing, even if we don't mention Boris Johnson by name. Indeed, my suggested edit wouldn't (though rereading GaboLoretto's initial comment, this seems to be what they are suggesting). My suggestion would follow the precedent of Canada and New Zealand (but not Australia). FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as it's now been over two weeks and there appears to be a consensus to make the edits that I have suggested above, I will make them. Please let me know on here if any editors disagree. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

No need to name anyone one person 2 times in the lead....its why there is an infobox. FA dont do this normally ....that is reapeat content 2 times. Should drop one mention of names as undue in this summary article covering thousands of years and give better links.

The United Kingdom is a unitary parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy in the Westminster tradition. The country's head of government is the prime minister —who holds office by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the elected House of Commons . The monarch who serves as head of state is also Head of the British Armed Forces. Moxy- 22:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not sure what you mean - the Prime Minister isn't mentioned twice in the lede. This new 14 word clause is the Prime Minister's only mention in the lede. Are you saying that you'd like to change the wording? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@FollowTheTortoise: You claim consensus above for your change, and have made it (with only a minimal wait for the disagreement you invited above). I'm struggling to find the consensus in the discussion above, and have reverted the change. Bazza (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah! We seem to have crossed wires, so please ignore my message on your talk page and thank you for commenting here. With the fact that the entire discussion before yesterday took place over only two days, I think that almost three weeks is long enough to leave the discussion open to comments. And I'm not really sure what disagreement you're talking about. If you could point that out, that would be very useful. It is clear to me that Wikipedia:Consensus is easily met here as all legitimate concerns of editors were incorporated, with the added bonus that no editors dissented from my suggested edits. I hope that that makes sense. Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The disagreement I referred to was your words "Please let me know on here if any editors disagree." above. WP:CONSENSUS states "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change." and "Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated." There are several opinions above that your change is not needed, either because the specific information is not suitable for the lead, or because it will make the lead too long. The discussion above was messy and went off-topic (for which reason I did not participate), but I still cannot find any firm support for including what I interpret as a detailed piece of information about the country's constitutional set-up in what is already an overlong lead. Bazza (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's quite annoying that the discussion got messy and included items that would probably have been suited to a different section, but nobody said that the suggested information wasn't suitable for the lede and, in the context of length, it was simply said that we would need to keep any new edit short.

If I might summarise the relevant discussion:

• It was GaboLoretto who first suggested adding the Prime Minister to the lede. They may also have suggested adding Boris Johnson by name, but I'm not sure whether they meant this. I agreed that we should add information about the office Prime Minister and suggested an edit.
• Spy-cicle then said that it is possibly a good idea, but that we would need to keep any new edit short. I made a suggestion to remove Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast from the lede, which would see a net gain of only five letters. GoodDay agreed that these three capitals shouldn't be included in the lede.
• Jr8825 took issue with my assertion that Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast were like US state capitals, but clarified that they were specifically talking about my comparison and that "...it's nice information to include... but if space constraints mean their inclusion comes at the expense of something more important I'm not especially fussed on keeping them."
• Finally Peter Ormond said that The Queen is important both as a symbol of the UK and because she has reigned for so long (as opposed to Boris Johnson), to which Jr8825 agreed. I don't think that this was an editor suggesting that my edit wasn't suitable for the lede (for one thing, it was a reply to GaboLorett's initial comment, not mine) and I actually agree that we shouldn't add Boris Johnson by name. At the time, I replied by saying that my edit wouldn't add Boris Johnson by name, but the office of Prime Minister. I also added that this would follow the precedent of Canada and New Zealand, but not Australia.

On the subject of finding a consensus, therefore, all legitimate concerns of editors were incorporated and no editors objected to my suggested edit. However, I am wary of the fact that a "[c]onsensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated" and while it is clear to me that a consensus was found, so we can cover all of our bases, I would be happy to 'refind' a consensus. To make sure that this is done properly, how do you think it would be best to go about this? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Should follow FA examples like Canada or Australia that only have this in the lead one time.....in the infobox.Moxy- 12:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Definite article in the first sentence

Moved from #Ordering of names in the first sentence

A related change I am requesting: if the official title of the sovereign state is the first mentioned and it's at the start of the sentence, the definite article 'the' should not precede the name if it is not part thereof, as in the case of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. See this UN list of UN members' official names: -- only one has the definite article as part of the official name (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). Common use has added the definite article to 'UK' and 'United Kingdom' but it is not part of the official state title. For further evidence, check any British citizen's passport cover. 86.165.52.193 (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be common practice to put "the" in front of "UK" and "United Kingdom" when they are nouns in prose: for example, [5], [6], [7], [8]. Bazza (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Repetition and unnecessary additions

It is necessary to repeat information that is in the infobox, such as the definition of the the UK which is mentioned twice.

It is also necessary to mention the Crown Dependencies, as they do not form part of the UK and have separate articles would it not be better to add them to the see also section. ChefBear01 (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarify: Which paragraph(s) are you pointing to? GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a unitary parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy.[note 11][18][19]

(This is in the infobox)

The monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, has reigned since 1952.[20] (This is in the infobox)

The capital and largest city is London, a global city and financial centre with an urban area population of 10.3 million.[21] (This is in the infobox, I also don’t see the relevance of referencing the population as the London article has that information)

The United Kingdom consists of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.[22] (This is in the infobox)

Their capitals are London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, respectively. Other than England, the constituent countries have their own devolved governments, each with varying powers.[23][24][25] (This has its own article and section in this article under government)

(It is in the infobox and repeated)

It's usually the standard across many sovereign state articles, to have similar info in both the article opening & infobox. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Would it not be clearer to use hyperlinks and templates to link to associated articles either within sections(such as see also) or use templates at the top of article where more information on that specific topic could be found if someone wishes to know more, leaving this article short, clean and to the point of the article. Ex: hyperlink to the London page in the infobox where someone could then find out the population of London, as this article isn’t about London specially or use the

Main article: template

to link to devolution where an article exists that full covers topic. ChefBear01 (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of this information could be trimmed. While it's significant that the UK has devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and NI, we don't need to know where their capitals are. And how is London the capital of England, since it isn't devolved? TFD (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

London is the capital of both the UK & England, even though England doesn't have its own parliament & first minister. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Edinburgh and Cardiff were considered capitals of Scotland and Wales prior to devolution - in other words, it’s unrelated to having devolved government. Hence, London can be and is considered the capital of England as well as of the UK. But, yes, having the capitals in the lead could be trimmed. DeCausa (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

That's original research. Cardiff was declared the capital of Wales in 1955.[9] There had been no capital before its incorporation into England. Edinburgh had been the capital of Scotland before the union and continued to be considered the capital since some aspects of government, such as the courts, remained there. While an argument could be made that London remained the capital of England and Wales after the union, it would be a stretch to say that the naming of Cardiff as the Welsh capital in 1955 made London the capital of England (excluding Wales.) Incidentally, Truro is considered to be the capital of Cornwall, although Cornwall had been incorporated into England long before Wales. TFD (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Why not save ourselves a headache & delete all four constituent country capitals. PS - Imagine listing all 13 provincial/territorial capitals at Canada & all 56 states/district/territories capitals at United States? -- GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the necessity of listing the capitals in the lede either but please spare us from taking the latest opportunity to make the spurious comparison between provinces, states and the UK countries (promoting, of course, your dodgy "constituent..." prefix for the latter into the bargain). Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't read, what you don't like. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

PS: Read over the section being discussed. You may see something there, you won't like. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

"Don't read, what you don't like." Well that's telling. My point is that, despite the productive work you doubtless do, you're always clutching an agenda and any edit of yours has to be read with that borne in mind. It's tiresome. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Read up part of the section that's being discussed. "Other then Egland, the constituent countries have their own devolved government, each with varying powers." GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

PS: Look around the 'pedia & you'll see the terminology being used in a few British articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

TFD, a bit more googling should put you straight on that. Saying London isn’t the capital of England or that Edinburgh wasn’t the capital of Scotland in, say, 1990 is not a serious point. DeCausa (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide me with at source that says London is the capital of England excluding Wales. TFD (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite certain, if you were to put London in the capital section of Wales' infobox, with Cardiff, as though they were Wales' co-capitals? You'd likely be reverted. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Really?? DeCausa (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

IOW you have no sources, just OR. I didn't say btw that London was the capital of Wales, but that "an argument could be made that London remained the capital of England and Wales." That's [England and Wales], not [England] and [Wales]. So for example, the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) is in London. Under the Wales and Berwick Act 1746, the term England includes Wales, although it is sometimes referred to as England and Wales. TFD (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

You’re rambling. Source I gave you is that London is capital of England. Nothing to do with Wales. DeCausa (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Your sources says, "England does not have a formal government or constitution, and a specifically English role in contemporary government and politics is hard to identify in any formal sense, for these operate on a nationwide British basis." It calls London the "Leading city."[10] New York City is the leading city of the State of New York, but not the capital. TFD (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

yes it does. read it again. “while London, the country’s capital, emerged as one of the world’s preeminent cities”. DeCausa (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

TFD, What exactly are you arguing about? England doesn't have a capital? GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa, that's pretty ambiguous, considering London was the country's capital when it emerged as one of the world's preeminent cities. Anyway, I normally don't use EB as a source for constitutional law. GoodDay, it would not appear to have a capital, since it is governed by the government of the UK and has no devolved government. You would have to show some sort of order, such as was done for Wales, that established London as the capital of England or alternatively that it continued to be the capital of England, district from it's evolving role as capital of England and Wales, Great Britain and the UK. TFD (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

This debate is getting off of the topic it's suppose to be about. If you want to delete London as England's capital? You should bring that discussion over to England's talkpage. Side note: Your contribs history shows, you are still around 10% on main space, while over 67% on talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. It’s not a constitutional law question - there’s no “order” making London capital of the UK. And in fact there’s no “order” making Cardiff capital of Wales. It wasn’t a statutory instrument, it was just an answer to a parliamentary question by a junior minister in the ‘50s - which actually has no legal consequence whatsoever. It’s just been picked up by whoever was editing Capital of Wales as a useful peg to cite, which presumably you’ve then picked up on. In the UK, “capital” of the home countries is a question of historical recognition, not law. Which is why your belief that London is not the capital of England would be risible to almost all British people. But this is all completely pointless because across multiple Wikipedia articles consensus is London is the capital of England, Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland etc etc and nothing to do with the legal position and that’s not going to change any time soon. Going back to the point, those capitals could well be omitted from the lead of this article. Good night (UK time). DeCausa (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I will set up a new discussion thread. Incidentally, when a junior minister, in this case the Secretary of State for Wales, the Home Secretary answers a question in parliament, he is speaking on behalf of the government. According to Regional Development Agencies and Business Change (Routedge 2017), "In 1954, Cardiff was designated capital of Wales."[11] I imagine the Secretary of State of WalesHome Secretary has the power to chose a city as the capital, since a capital is where administration is centered. In any case, reliable sources accept his decision.TFD (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep on googling, you still don’t know how a city could be made a capital. Secondary sources? You seem to have tripped up on WP:PRIMARY so far (twice) and SYNTHing from a primary source is not how to work it out. OED is a good primer. Of course a minister is “speaking on behalf of the government”. But so what? Just so you know, the government in the UK does not ‘make law’ unless it is secondary legislation (statutory instrument, order-in-council etc) which a parliamentary answer isn’t. Look forward to seeing the output of your efforts in the (UK’s) morning. DeCausa (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)