Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 11

Northern Ireland flag.
Why is there no flag for Northern Ireland displayed where the other flags are?

Ahsc 14:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because Northern Ireland dosen't have a flag, the Ulster banner was the flag of the Former Government of N Ireland, abolished in 1973, under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.--padraig 14:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because people with grudges and nothing better to do make it their goal in life to remove the it. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No because WP is about presenting facts, Northern Ireland never had a civic flag, the Ulster Banner was the Banner of the former government abolished 34 years ago.--padraig 17:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is the de facto flag of Northern Ireland. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a source that it is an de facto flag, as the British Government don't recognise it as such, nor does the Northern Ireland Assembly or its Executive.--padraig 19:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I can prove that it is used a lot to represent Northern Ireland at international events. The British Government doesn't recognise the flag of St George. What does that have to do with the price of fish? Biofoundationsoflanguage 07:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Its use in some sports event dosent give it de facto status, the flag would need to be used generally by the population of Northern Ireland, which in the case of the Ulster Banner isn't true as only some members of Unionist community use it and the flag is rejected by the nationalist community. Also the infoboxes in this article are for the Administrative authorities in each part of the UK, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive are the parliament and government of the area and neither of these use or recognise this flag, and under British government legisation it cannot even be flown from any government building in Northern Ireland.--padraig 08:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * England doesn't have its own assembly, so by that logic that flag shouldn't be on either? It's not flown from Government buildings in England. Some people may not like a flag, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have de facto status. Biofoundationsoflanguage 11:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Padraig is correct. Scar ian Talk  11:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Padraig has a good point, but it is just as applicable to the other three flags. I believe we should have all four of them or none at all. None is more or less official than the others. --John 21:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite right. All or none. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been recurring all over Wikipedia for at least six months. Can I suggest that we move the issue to a formal mediation request rather than arguing on dozens of disparate talk pages? — ras52 21:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Would support. --sony-youth pléigh 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added the flag with a footnote explaining the situation (although please change the wording). I hope this would be an acceptable compromise to both sides. The flag is certainly still in use, so should probably be noted; but is not the official flag and this should definitely be mentioned too. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Ulster Banner is not a de facto flag for Northern ireland, it is not recognised by either the British government or the Northern Ireland Assembly or it government the Northern Ireland Executive.--padraig 22:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed the wording, hows the new one --h2g2bob (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a link to Northern Ireland flags issue.--padraig 22:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this insistance to remove this flag at all costs, even with a fully-explaining footnote, just shows that those removing it do not actually care about representing encyclopaedic fact! Biofoundationsoflanguage 06:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's encyclopeadic fact that its not the flag of Northern Ireland.--padraig 07:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a fact that it doesn't have *official* status as a flag. Neither does the flag of England, Scotland or many other national flags. You don't recognise Northern Ireland's right to have its own identity (ie, different to Irish and/or British), that is clear. But wikipedia is not the place to push a few people's POV. Biofoundationsoflanguage 14:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Biofoundationoflanguage, When or where have I ever said that Northern Ireland dosen't exist, I said there is no such nationality as northern Irish which you and others are trying to claim, and I have yet to see a reliable source to support such a claim. But we are not discussing nationality here but the lack of a flag for Northern Ireland.  The British government does recognise the existance of the Flags of England, Scotland and Wales, it just dosen't recognise the Ulster Banner.--padraig 14:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never said there is such a nationality as Northern Irish! Because there isn't. Northern Ireland is not simply either British or Irish. Northern Ireland is separate in the same way England, Wales or Scotland are. Where's your source about what flags the British government recognises? If it really did recognise them, it would give them that 'official status' you keep rambling on about. Biofoundationsoflanguage 19:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what the British Government says about the Ulster Banner:
 * Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:


 * What legislation covers the definition of the form, shape and design, and any rules about the permitted use, of (a) the union flag; (b) the English flag (cross of St George); (c) the Scottish flag(St Andrew's saltire) (d) the Scottish royal lion flag (e) the Welsh flag (dragon); (f) the flag of Northern Ireland. [HL1099]


 * 18 Jan 2007 : Column WA181


 * Lord Davies of Oldham: (a & b) There is no legislation that governs the form, shape or size of the union flag or the English flag (St George's cross). There are no rules about the permitted use of the union flag or English flag (cross of St George) on non-government buildings, provided the flag is flown on a single vertical flagstaff and neither the flag nor the flagstaff display any advertisement additional to the design of the flag as explained under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. Government departments are restricted to flying flags on 18 fixed days a year in compliance with rules issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Consideration should also be given to flag protocol, which considers it improper to fly the union flag upside down and requires that the flag should not be defaced by text or symbols and should be treated with respect.''


 * (c & d) There is also no legislation that governs the form, shape or size of the Royal Arms of Scotland (here referred to as The Scottish royal lion flag) or the St Andrew's cross, but the design is firmly specified in the Public Register of All Arms and Bearings in Scotland. The Royal Arms of Scotland can only be used by the Sovereign or Her Great Lieutenants when acting in their official capacity. The Scottish flag(St Andrew's cross) may be flown by Scots and to represent Scotland on all occasions; however, under The Act of Lyon King of Arms Act 1672, cap. 47 individuals may not deface the flag by placing a symbol on top of the flag or use it in such a way that suggests it is his/her personal property.


 * (e) There is no specific legislation about the Welsh flag design or rules about permitted use.


 * (f) The union flag is the only official flag that represents Northern Ireland. The Flags (NI) Order 2000 empowered the Secretary of State to make the Flags Regulations (NI) 2000, which governs when and where the union flag can be flown from government buildings in Northern Ireland on specified days. The legislation does not define the form, shape or design of the union flag. Flag flying from non-governmental buildings is unregulated.


 * For all flags, consideration should also be given to flag protocol, which requires flags to be treated with respect, not to be defaced by text or symbols or flown upside down.


 * So ask you can see the British government recognises the flags of England, Scotland and Wales, it just dosen't legislate on there use, contrast that to the answer on Northern Ireland were the Ulster Banner is not even mentioned and it is stated the Union Flag is the only flag of Northern Ireland.--padraig 20:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Now c'mon guys you really gotta just sort this out, I don't think this - discussion (of sorts)- has led to any clear cut consensus... Thus, I believe, it would be more advantageous if the disagreement was mediated as per Ras52's suggestion. Thoughts? Scar ian Talk  20:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Education in Scotland
The article says
 * "Universal state education was introduced for the primary level in 1870 and secondary level in 1900 (except in Scotland where it was introduced in 1696, see Education in Scotland).[82]"

following the Education in Scotland link leads us to Education Act 1696 which says


 * "it allowed Church of Scotland presbyteries to set up a school, funded by a tax on the landowner ... if the landowner failed to do so. ... This law remained the basis of Scottish education until 1872, when education became the responsibility of the state."

To me this doesn't quite equate to "universal state education" but rather to Church regulated schooling (albeit it with the funding possibly coming from the landowner). Now I presume that in England and Wales at this time there were plenty of Church schools funded by the Church of England and others (although I'm sure not one in every parish). It seems to me that the implication from the sentence in this article 'that Scotland had a fully functioning state school system way in advance of the rest of Britain and that it was a secular state school system is perhaps misleading. Jooler 08:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind the rest of Britain, Scotland had a fully functioning universal primary education system way in advance of the rest of Europe. The Scottish government (and by implication its UK successor) mandated the universal school system in the 1696 act -- and also mandated that it be provided by the Kirk -- so it's not unreasonable to state that it was a state system even though the state tasked a designated NGO with making the provision rather than doing so itself. However, if you think it misleading I would have no objection to the removal of the word "state". To me the important point is that it was a "universal system", not that it was a "state system". -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to wonder on the accuracy of this whole paragraph. It seems to be a comparison of apples and oranges. The provision of education is one thing, compulsory attendance is another. Here it states that the 1833 Factory Act introduced compulsory 2 hours education for 9-13 yr olds (confirmed on the Wikipedia article) - thus there must have been schools (of one sort or another) provided to educate them which would amount to the provision of some form of "universal education" in advance of the 1870 date given above. The page states that the 1870 Elementary Education Act allowed school boards to insist on the attendance of children between the ages of five and 13, thus the compulsory attendance was in effect if the there was an established board and it had obliged itself of the right to compel a child to attend. The Scottish act of makes no mention of compulsory attendance, perhaps someone can locate information on this subject for Scottish schools. As for England and Wales - it is stated here that in England a survey of "12,000 parishes in 1816, found that 3,500 had no school, 3,000 had endowed schools of varying quality, and 5,500 had unendowed schools of even more variable quality." - a sorry state to be sure. It also states "In 1816, 875,000 of the country's 1.5m children 'attended a school of some kind for some period'. By 1835 (after the Factory Act) the figure was 1.45m out of 1.75m. If this sounds fairly impressive, it should be noted that by 1835 the average duration of school attendance was just one year." - are there any figures to compare this with the Scottish education system of the time? (as an aside does a superior Scottish education system explain the large number of Scottish engineers of the period?) Jooler 17:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the parishes in Scotland had the obligation to provide a minimal education and promising, but poor, students were offered scholarships to further education. Hence many offspring of poor families later became engineers and doctors. docboat 03:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrative subdivisions table
This table seems faintly ridiculous to me and gives unofficial terminology far too much precedence - NI as a 'province' or Scotland as a 'kingdom' is inaccurate and reflects nothing. I'd personally advocate removing the entire 'status' column there.--Breadandcheese 19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I added "status" column according to . If the explanation of the source is not correct, please delete the column. ― 韓斌 / Yes0song  (談笑  筆跡  다지모 ) 15:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Country
I was just wondering why the opening line has been recently changed from saying the UK is a country, to just saying its a Kingdom, Can someone just clarify this for me cheers. (INsalford 00:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC))


 * Stating that the United Kingdom is a kingdom is ridiculous. What next?  The Republic of Ireland is a republic?  I changed it back to country.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible. "Kingdom" doesn't describe the modern political entity of the UK well anyway, better to stick with country. Deus Ex 19:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Religion revisited
Most of the material in the lead paragraph was removed, without edit summary or explanation, by an anonymous editor on August 24. The material was sourced and relevant, and I don't think the secularization material should have been removed. Viewfinder 18:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the recent edits to the religion section by User:Vexorg, which remove all mention of Christianity from the lead paragraph. The calendar is still dominated by Christan festivals and Christianity retains a dominating influence, even among non-belivers and non-church goers. Any other comments? Viewfinder 20:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and to describe the UK as a Secular state is just plain wrong. I reverted. Jooler 07:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not wrong at all to describe the UK as being "today a predominantly secular state" as that is exactly what the UK is. Further there is source/citation for this. Christianity is the traditional religion for sure, and this highlighted in the Christianity section.Vexorg 21:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is completely wrong to do so! You don't seem to understand what "state" means. We have an established church in the form of the Church of England, i.e. The Church of England is part of the state and therefore the state cannot, by definition, be secular in any way shape or form! You could argue (although I wouldn't necessarily agree) that there is a predominantly secular society, but the state and the society are not the same thing! Valiant Son (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Vexorg, but I think that you are trying to impose your version as though you owned the page. Given the opposition to your version among other editors, you should have raised the issue here and allowed time for discussion before editing the article again. Viewfinder 00:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The previous version was a fair compromise between the Christian and the secular, and I cannot see any evidence that it is opposed by any other editors except Vexorg. Therefore I have restored it. Viewfinder 01:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Vexorg. Until The Church of England is dis-established, the Head of State is no longer also the Head of the Church of England, the Lords Spiritual are removed from the House of Lords, and the Prime Minister is no longer involved in Appointment of Church of England bishops, Britain cannot be described as a secular state. Far from it. What the populace practise is an entirely different matter. Jooler 01:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes your right. It could haev been worded better. Sorted.Vexorg 04:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Vexorg has heavily edited the Religion in the UK article which leads with - the UK is today a predominantly secular state with only 38%[1] of the population believing in a God. Conflating the issues of secularity and the levels of belief in God. Jooler 01:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not just the wording but the content that I am not happy about. There is room for compromise, but please can we agree on the wording here before editing the main article again. Thank you. Viewfinder 10:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What in the content are you not happy about? My edits improved the opening paragraph to reflect the current religious climate in the UK. Something which is important for a reader not familiar with the UK. Further you say opposition "among other editors". Just one ( Jooler ) who made a good point about the description of "secular state" which I subsequently improved. There seems to be a more balanced debate here .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom#Misuse_of_.27secular.27 I shall not immediately fix your hasty reversions just yet. Vexorg 17:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The debate you direct me to is about the term "secular state" and Vexorg appears to have conceded that this was not an appropriate term, so I am continuing the discussion on this page. But I still disagree with Vexorg's edits; the term "Christian" was removed from the lead paragraph, and, apart from the spelling, grammar and typographical errors (which I will not correct as that would condone the edits), the edits removed sourced, appropriate and relevant material about the state of Christianity in the UK and created pro-secular bias. I am also not sure about the term "minor theocratic aspect"; this does not sound right at all to me. Many "non-believers" in the literal sense are still Christians in the sense that they still hold with Christian values. If majority support emerges on this talk page for Vexorg's version then I will accept it, but so far it would appear that there is no support. Viewfinder 18:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I can see it looks like you have an issue with showing the current secularity of the UK. Vexorg's improvements did not water down the extent of Christianity in the UK at all, but introduced the articles to show how things are in 2007. In both this and the Religion in the UK article, even after Vexorg's edits, Christianity still takes thje starring role. As it should do, given that it's the majority religion. Vexorg's additions were appropriate IMO81.77.54.242 19:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The words "the UK has become increasingly secular" have been retained and I agree with that retention. Vexorg specifically removed Christianity from the lead paragraph. Viewfinder 19:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Vexorg specifically removed Christianity from the lead paragraph" - I can see you're specifically upset with that judging by your hasty reverts. But why is that such a problem? As 81.77.54.242 has said, Christianity is the major religion and in both wiki pages it rightly takes up the majority of copy. Your reversion simply starts the article with a description of those identifying themselves as Christian based upon a census that's nearly 7 years old. My wording and content in the opening paragraph is much more accurately descriptive as it tells the reader both of the 'theocratic aspect' of the Church of England/Monarch relationship and also tells of the prodominently secular society in the UK today. The is no 'pro-secular bias from a political point of view. It's simply a fact that UK society today is mainly secular and it's important to put that across when describing the extent of religion in the UK. Your reversion also removed some important info regarding the dynamics of religious adherence in the UK. My edits described the Christian adherency in the 2001 census and how things were changing/declining by citing the Tearfund aurvey. I put this in the Christian section becuase that's where it belongs. The opening paragraphs of the articles should talk about religion in the UK in general including secularity and breifly decribe the connection between church and state and the brioadly secular nature of society. And that's exactly what I did.Vexorg 21:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The "hasty reverts" were of controversial material similar to what you had added before and been reverted by another editor. In such situations you should seek consensus on the talk page before reinstating. Fortunately the discussion has now moved onto the talk page where your version can be considered by other editors before it is reinstated. Please allow more time for this before you reinstate your version again. Viewfinder 22:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also add that much of what I 'inserted' recently was material that was in the article many months ago that someone had deleted. While I agree this should be discussed with any interested parties, 'hasty reverts' don't help the matter either. Anyway, in view of your comments I have made some adjsutmentsm but will allow more time for comment. Thanks Vexorg 23:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, what was in the article many months ago was edited by a pro-Christian editor. I then tried to strike a fair balance which I hoped would stick. See also my opening contribution to this section. You then introduced what I considered to be pro-secular bias. I did not revert you, I raised the matter here and another editor reverted. My version then stood for another four weeks. You then reintroduced yours, when you should have taken your case to the talk page, and invited a discussion first, per WP:BRD. That is why I reverted. Still, we are on the right track now. Let us see if we get further comments from other editors. Viewfinder 01:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've left this for a few days as requested and there doesnt' appear to be any urgency from anyoen else. I've now made some edits for the reasons I've outlined above and also added a mention for Christianity in the first paragraph.Vexorg 02:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could avoid the word secular and say something like, 'Freedom of conscience in regard to matters of religion is garanteed by UK law. Christianity is the dominant religion. The sovereign remains head of the Church of England and appoints bishops and other clerical officers upon the advice of the prime minister.' I suspect that the UK is a paradoxical creature: a secular state with an established church. After all, government ministers are not obliged to be members of the C of E. Neither are the Lords Spiritual. The state does not promote the C of E to the prejudice of other Christian denominations. In fact it takes pains to avoid doing so. --Gazzster 23:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the word secular? It descrbes UK society perfectly. i.e one that is largely non-religous in the practising sense and one that is equally accepting of all faiths and non faiths. On the contrary to being a word to avoid it's the most fitting description of UK society.Vexorg 23:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think the word secular should be avoided. BTW I say this as an atheist. So no axe to grind here. Jooler 01:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no valid reason to avoid the word secular. It's the best term for the UK populace.Vexorg 21:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(Responding to Valiant Son, 5th para of this section)- Actually the C of E is not the state church. It is the established church of England and Wales; not of Scotland or Northern Ireland. There is a difference between a state church and an established church. You can talk about an established church in a secular state.--Gazzster (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Latin words are meaningless to 90% of readers
For this reason I am replacing them with english words but am being reverted. If others agree with me now is the time to say so.Abtract 22:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll find 'de facto' in any English dictionary. Now that reminds me I must update my curriculum vitae and I have to fill out this pro forma invoice. My bona fide earnings in toto make for a sorry tale. "nil desperandum". Oh I could go on ad nauseam about it. Jooler 23:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've no doubt you could and so could I but you don't answer my point. I accept that you are a clever well educated person but most readers are not. It is our duty to make wp accessible to the majority of readers not just to a minority. And you might bear in mind that rv is a tool to be used against vandals. Abtract 00:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your point is that you don't like the use of a particular word because it is Latin. But we have plenty of words in English that are borrowed from foreign languages, like restaurant and knapsack and karaoke. 'De facto' is in common usage and appropriate in this context. You will find the word in even the most concise of English dictionaries. More than that it was also wiki-linked on this page. If you want simpler language then perhaps you should be editing at UK. Also 'rv' means revert 'rvv' means revert vandalism. Jooler 01:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As for "Latin words are meaningless to 90% of readers" - well so you say. That would depend on who you surveyed, you can prove anything with statistics. Perhaps 90% of people don't even know who the Prime Minister is. But ignorance has never been a good argument for anything other than education. Your edits should be reverted but I'm past my quota of reverts. Oh and BTW please stop swapping the title around. This page is at United Kingdom as a convenience. The same as the BBC article which begins "The British Broadcasting Corporation, which is usually known as the BBC ...". There are plenty of similar examples.  Jooler 01:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The usage of a number of foreign words should not be promoted and encouraged, anyway, the main point here is that Latin is a dead language, and it is highly regarded as such in Italy. In Italy, Latin words are obsoete in every kind of speech and every kind of knowledge and such usage is also regarded as pretentious. Exceptions admitted: lawyers and trials. Doktor Who 01:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that's great for the Italians. Bravo and Amen to that I say. I repeat "de facto" can be found in any ENGLISH dictionary as can the "curriculum vitae" example above. Almost every word in English is "foreign" in one way or another. Almost all words ending ..ble and ..ion are French. This is not a "foreign" word in the sense of being alien. It is in common usage and especially in this context which was declaring (perhaps ironically given this argument) that the English language is a de facto official language rather than one ordained in statue law. Which I think falls within your exception criteria (that's Greek that is).  Jooler 01:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. 'De facto' is a bona fide (it's spreading: mea culpa) English phrase.  It performs a role that is not performed by any comparably and acceptably brief phrase.  Look up in a dictionary what the definition of 'de facto' is.  The first observation is that 'de facto' will have an entry, proving its validity in English.  The second observation is that the definition will be longer than the entry word.  Hence, the entry word ought to be used itself to avoid circumlocution.
 * Even if 'curriculum vitae' is considered 'foreign', what do we use instead? 'Résumé'?  Yeah, that sounds really English.  Bastin 01:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why we should not use English words asuch as actual, factual, present, current, effective" instead of that pretentious "de facto"? And btw, "resumé" (not curriculum vitae") is used in USA and in multinational enterprises. Doktor Who 01:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And commenting my "opinions" as ridicolous is proving that "de facto" is a term supported by pretentious ppl. :P --Doktor Who 02:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Abtract and Docktor Who should go and contribute to Simple Wikipedia where contributors are encouraged to "Use easy words and shorter sentences so people who read little English may easily read them."   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe the above users should be reminded that English is an Anglo-Saxon (that means Germanic) language, and that the usage of terms borrowed from dead languages with a different cultural background is useless, inconsistent (or incoherent, if you like this word), mis-placed and snobbish, in other words a full waste of time, energy and life. Doktor Who 02:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Er.. English is a mish-mash of foreign languages. It has Germanic structure but a large part of the vocabulary is borrowed from French (Thanks [Normans]). I think it was Victor Hugo or Alexandre Dumas or some other French author who is supposed to have picked up a book written in English one day and said "English is just French but badly pronounced". Jooler 09:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Latin may not be as prominent in school curricula now as it was when I was at school in the 1960s and 70s, but some expressions borrowed from Latin and other languages, e.g. de facto, have passed into common use in English text and I do not think that we should reject them as "pretentious". De facto and de jure are more concise, and carry clearer meanings, than any purely English expressions, and the great thing about Wikipedia, as opposed to printed encyclopedias, is that anyone who is not sure about their meaning can click on them. I don't think that such expressions are meaningless to 90% of us; I sincerely hope not. Viewfinder 02:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I would like to dare anyone that is going to use "de facto" and "de jure" in a text: I can find quickly the "all-English wording" of such sentences, and turn them into same-lenght-ones (btw, I studied for 5 years latin at highn school).--Doktor Who 02:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW Latin is a dead language in the sense that there are no native speakers, that does not mean that latin terms are extinct in usage, any lawyer, botanist, biologist, doctor or catholic priest will tell you that. Jooler 09:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your text may be more open to conflicting interpretations. "De facto" after "Language: English" imparts clearer and more specific additional information than "in fact" or suchlike. As far as I am aware there is no guideline in English Wikipedia that discourages the use of expressions borrowed from other languages. You might like to start a movement for such a guideline, but until there is one, I oppose the attempts by some of the above editors to delete borrowed expressions. Viewfinder 04:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Care must be taken not to introduce too technical terms. However de facto is one term that is commonly understood, with the precise meaning of "not legally recognised, but in fact". Here in Australia the word is widely used in common speech, mostly in reference to someone's partner where no marriage contract exists. As in "meet my de facto". --Michael Johnson 04:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the Simple English Wikipedia was created for this precise reason, there is no need to "dumb down" the language here. aliasd·U·T 06:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * However this suggests that English is preferable to Latin where possible. Abtract 07:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It also suggests we should not alter pre-existant Latin terms in an article. Probably for the reason that it sparks edit wars and lost time in discussion such as this case. aliasd·U·T 08:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sadly this is a misreading ... it refers specifically to changing initials to the full Latin phrase and vice versa. It clearly states that "articles will be more easily understood if English phrases are used"Abtract 10:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, along last 20 years I have read magazines and books (also at a university level) in English, met native speakers from almost everywhere: I can witness that only this site (and its Army of Google bombers) shows such obsession for the over-use of Latin terms. Doktor Who 10:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with keeping Latin terms in the text. It may not be from English, and you could find English synonymous phrases, but these would not have the concise meaning that de facto does. Anyone who knows what it means can instantly gather the situation with de facto, but saying something like 'in practice' could be applied to several situations. Anyway, replacing an English phrase derived from Latin to another English phrase is pointless if the new phrase was derived from a French or Germanic word. Almost all English words are derived from something else, most don't just pop into existence - for example, the word 'Abstract' is from the Latin 'abstractus' meaning to draw away. I don't think it is right to pick word usage on etymology - you pick a word to use because it means what you want to say. If you want a simpler synonym, than that is what Simple English is for. Rossenglish 10:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, please read again my previous comments. Pretending to ignore my arguments will not help your lack of logic and consistency. I have nothing else to say. --Doktor Who 11:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * De facto is used in every other situation where something is not in law but in practice; country, politics, law and language articles use it where needed, as is shown on de facto: What links here. Perhaps the issue should be discussed somewhere with a broader influence, like WikiProject Countries or WP:MOS, because if the consensus does swing towards removing the wording, then the UK article shouldn't be the odd one out. But if no other article would change, then the UK article shouldn't either. Rossenglish 12:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For starters, when used in an English context, de facto is an English loanword. All the same as if one would use café, or should we remove that from articles too? After all, French might also be meaningless to 90% of readers. --  Chris B •  Talk  •  Contribs  12:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly! (referring to the above).  Bennelliott •  Talk  •  Contribs  12:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * re this argument, am happy with the status quo and willing to let this RIP. aliasd·U·T 13:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Abtract - de jure/de facto for the regional langugages: these qualifications are unnecessary because there is no suggestion that the regional langugages are "official", just that they are "recognised". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This bizarre discussion seems to be spiralling into ever more bizarre realms. As others have noted: de facto and de jure are English words, of a Latin origin. Just as is doctor, which is exactly the same as the Latin word for teacher.Likewise senator is an English word which is exactly the same in Latin. The English apostle = L., apostolus, etc, etc. If we wished to use purist English words we would have to use pre-Norman English. Th words in question are used in all standard English texts. It is ridiculous to suggest that the terms should be dummied down for the sake of those who might not be able to understand them. In that casem, we should have to substitute countless words in Wikipedia: evolution, episcopal, DNA, Quantum theory,, organic, cranial, etc, etc, etc.--Gazzster 11:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely de facto or de jure (my bet) must be correct for welsh irish etc? Abtract 15:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * De jure and de facto (usually italicised to indicate that they are another language, no?) are widely understood phrases. Replacing them would be a nonsensical dumbing down - and an insulting dumming down at that. Why stop there and let's just make this the Simple English Wikipedia all together? They should however be italicised as they are not actual English, but a Latin phrase. See the same phrases being used in French, German, Spanish, ... hell, even Irish. --sony-youth pléigh 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is obviously right, what's next, remove all words with more than 5 characters? :-) MarkThomas 16:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheeky sod ;-) -- Asterion talk 19:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those latin words are commonly used (see the 'succession boxes' of articles about royal pretenders. GoodDay 20:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm no linguist, but I am puzzled. I would guess that around 90% of modern English words are imported, whether from Greek, Latin, German, French or whatever. If we ban them what do we have left? Thunderbird2 21:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Abtract. You have either had some kind of Damascene Conversion and now believe that 90% of people DO understand Latin, or are trying to make a point re: WP:Point. In either case the section you are editing is "recognised regional languages" and de jure is redundant in this context. Jooler 22:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In what way is it redundant?Abtract 23:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the very fact that it is recognised means it has a basis in law. Jooler 01:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes - to the editors above, we've moved on from the to-Latin-or-not-to-Latin debate. Abtract does seem to now be (disruptively) making a WP:POINT by first adding de jure and then de facto to the regional languages bit, when it does not require it.  (behaviour along the lines of: "if you're going to insist that Latin words are OK, then I'm bloody well going to add them everywhere")  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * All this bickering would have been avoided, if those 'regional languages' hadn't been applied in the first place. Mentioning the UK official language only, wasn't so bad (when I look back). 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's intersting to learn that I am being disruptive ... I would have preferred someone to explain how de facto is helpful in explaining the status of English but de jure is disruptive in explaining the status of Welsh. Abtract 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If 'de facto' is used, then 'de jure' must be used. One neccesitates the other. GoodDay 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To repeat my original statement, these qualifications are unnecessary because there is no suggestion that the regional langugages are "official", just that they are "recognised". The de facto qualification for English is important because whilst English is used for all official purposes, there is no law stating that it has to be used.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Howabout this, remove the 'regional languages' and you remove the dispute. Let's go back to listing only the Official Language - English. GoodDay 00:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * official and recognised is bandying with words ... I could equally say that there is no suggestion that English is "recognised" so de facto is not needed. The simply fact remains that if it is helpful to note that english is the official language de facto, then it must be useful to note that welsh is a recognised language de jure. Abtract 00:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait a sec, you're willing to remove 'de jure' from the other regional languages, as long as it's kept next to Welsh? GoodDay 00:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I used Welsh as an example ... de jure applies to all the languages gaining recognition by law, whether uk law, european law or any other applicable law. Abtract 00:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The de facto/de jure distinction is an important one for an official language, because its official status may be enshrined in law (e.g. French in France), or not (e.g. English in the UK or USA). A language can be recognised (and hence protected) without being official (in the sense that it's not used for government purposes) but how can a state recognise a language without doing so in legislation somewhere?  How would that recognition manifest itself?  Please supply an example of a de facto recognised language (which would be a reason for writing that English regional languages are recognised de jure.)   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive my laziness for not reviewing all of the discussion. What's the consensus on this topic? Whatever it is, we should abide by it. GoodDay 00:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My tuppence worth: it seems to me that the "de jure" claim is cited here and that these minority and regional languages do have some official status as such. But the repetition of the words "de jure" is untidy. How about this? (de jure) Irish Gaelic, Ulster Scots, Scots, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, Cornish. But please can we try to get consensus here before editing the main article infobox again. Viewfinder 00:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me.Abtract 00:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, again, if an example can be supplied of a "recognised" language that is recognised de facto then the de jure qualification is warranted. Otherwise the fact that it is recognised at all makes it superfluous.  Either that or get rid of the regional bit altogether like Goodday suggested (Spain doesn't have it).   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a bit of a paradox here. English is not enshrined in law as the principal language, but the other languages are enshrined in law as regional and minority languages. I will give the matter some more thought. Viewfinder 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Howabout, describing English as the majority language; the rest as minority languages? GoodDay 00:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How about... leaving it the way it was before Abtract decided to disrupt the page, when it was stable and made perfect sense. 'Official (de facto), recognised (no qualification required) Jooler 01:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On re-examining the present version, I find it to be clear enough; if we cannot achieve consensus on anything different then it should stand. But I don't agree with any implication that Abtract has been editing other than in good faith. Viewfinder 02:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You might very well think that but, Abtract has edited and ignored the consensus on several issues on this page as can be seen from this talk page and attempted to edit WP:Lead section away from the consensus and towards his own view as expressed on this page. Jooler 02:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Jooler.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Abtract and myself accepted a compromise concerning 'languages' weeks ago. In my opinon, we should go back to it (remove the 'de facto' & 'de jure' descirptives). GoodDay 18:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour

 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157133791&oldid=157109634 - misleading edit summary (actually an edit against WP guidelines).
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=prev&oldid=157114359 - misleading edit summary (actually an edit against WP guidelines).
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&diff=prev&oldid=157032846 - misleading edit summary (actually an edit against WP guidelines).
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BBC&diff=prev&oldid=155125446 - edit against WP guidelines
 * 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ALead_section&diff=155183158&oldid=154385084 - edit of WP:guideline without consensus, in support of view view expressed on Talk:United Kingdom
 * 6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Lead_section&diff=prev&oldid=157113610 - repeat of edit of WP:guideline without consensus.
 * 7) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Lead_section&diff=prev&oldid=157033808 - repeat of edit of WP:guideline without consensus.
 * 8) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=154021522 - edit against guideline for article lead.
 * 9) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155103156 - another against guideline for article lead.
 * 10) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155115864 - repeat of edit against guideline for article lead.
 * 11) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155090200 - removal of 'de facto'
 * 12) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155094338 - repeat removal of 'de facto'
 * 13) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155095242 - another removal of 'de facto'
 * 14) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155102166 - yet another removal of 'de facto'
 * 15) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155116219 - and yet another removal of 'de facto'
 * 16) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155061783 - Erroneous description of the UK as a Secular state
 * Note that the edits to Tony Blair, BBC, United States and Margaret Thatcher were only made after I pointed them out as pages that followed the Wikipedia guideline. Jooler 12:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that the edits to Tony Blair, BBC, United States and Margaret Thatcher were only made after I pointed them out as pages that followed the Wikipedia guideline. Jooler 12:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that this long accusatory edit was made by someone himself blocked several times. I just hope this diatribe against an editor who is clearly acting in good faith is not simply an attempt to get his own back against someone (anyone). I will let others decide if I have been disruptive or simply bold. I have certainly always been polite Abtract 15:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not about me so I will ignore any further references to to my record except to say that close examination will show that nearly all of those blocks were overturned. Jooler 15:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing 'guidelines' to suite oneself (without being backed by a consensus) is certainly bold. The problem is, such an action causes negative reactions from other Wikipedians. It's not a good way to help ones arguments. GoodDay 18:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * After reporting the above - we now have:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157224515&oldid=157221207 - change of lead against consensus.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ALead_section&diff=157172986&oldid=157136589 - change of guideline without consensus.
 * Jooler 20:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * and still he continues:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=prev&oldid=157226644 - repeat of change of lead against consensus. Jooler 20:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He's gotten out of hand now, at United States article. GoodDay 22:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I got a little carried away. Abtract 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment above about first line
"Oh and BTW please stop swapping the title around. This page is at United Kingdom as a convenience. The same as the BBC article which begins "The British Broadcasting Corporation, which is usually known as the BBC ...". There are plenty of similar examples." - this is a copy of Jooler's statement above

I don't understand "convenience" in this context. The article is about the United Kingdon so the first line should start "the United Kingdom is .... " - this is the wp way.Abtract 01:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No the article is about United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as opposed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or even other uses. United Kingdom is the short form and BBC is the short form of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The articles should begin with the long form names Look up any bio and you will see (or should see) the article open with the full name (e.g. Tony Blair) THAT is the WP way. Jooler 01:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * look here to see that the opposite is true.Abtract 07:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes and look there where it points to Lead_section as the main article on the policy and gives this very page as an example of using the long form. Jooler 09:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The relevant sentence in WP:Manual of style says "The first (and only the first) appearance of the title is in boldface, including its abbreviation in parentheses, if given."
 * The long form (UKoGBaNI) should be given in bold, then the abbreviation(s) should be bolded in brackets afterwards. Rossenglish 12:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In which case the article should have the title of the long form. Abtract 05:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I notice a very sensible edit to change the name to the long form has been reverted ... how can this have been wrong?Abtract 15:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This must be some strange usage of the word 'sensible' that I've not come across before. No. Like previous examples BBC, Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher, United States etc. articles are posited at their common unambiguous names where possible, or where that name is overwhelmingly associated. Jooler 22:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've also just noticed your attempt to change Lead_section (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ALead_section&diff=155183158&oldid=154385084) to your way of thinking without discussion. Jooler 22:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion is not required before an edit ... wp would take a long time to improve if it were. Abtract 23:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That page is in the WP namespace, not article namespace. Please see Category:Wikipedia guidelines "Guidelines are a set of rules and recommendations that are supported by consensus" You cannot change policy on your own without discussion. Jooler 01:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nationality
Can someone answer a UK-related question for me? I've noticed an anonymous user whose only contributions seem to be changing the nationality of people and companies from "British" to "English", and instances of the Union flag to the English flag. Which is correct?  Mi re ma re  18:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to be a consensus among British(/English) people themselves. Personally I consider myself British, just like my passport says - but I have friends who are adamantly English. I believe British companies can either register in Scotland, or register with Companies House in 'England & Wales' (which actually is in Wales). Dmn € &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 18:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You could take a look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles). I would have to insist that a company that operates throughout the UK is British, regardless of birthplace or HQ. People in my view should be British per the reasons I've outlined at the Manual of Style talk page. Jza84 18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a very debatable question. People are unquestionably British citizens, but in nationality terms, people can be described as "British", "English", "Welsh", "Scottish" or "Irish"/"Northern Irish". Neither is really correct, and neither is really incorrect either!  Some people do feel strongly about such terms - someone from the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland or members of the Scottish National Party or Plaid Cymru would never describe themselves as "British". Fingerpuppet 18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It should stay at British; the anon-user who keeps changing to English may be doing so via political PoV (as suggested above). GoodDay 14:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys, I thought it was probably something like that too. Anyway, I left a note on the user's talk page requesting that such changes should be explained in the edit summary, else they are likely to be reverted (as many of them were). Cheers,  Mi re ma re  17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought it worth flagging up here that the anon user is still active and making the sort of edits noted back in September. He or she sometimes puts phrases like "as per consensus" in edit summaries but as far as I am aware this is a bluff because there is no official consensus at present (the Manual of Style proposal referred to by Jza84 having bitten the dust through lack of consensus).
 * My view is that "British" should be used for specific references to nationality because if you look at the passport of someone who is described as English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish the wording in the nationality section is "British Citizen". I have no objection to also describing people as English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish in the body of an article if the subject clearly identifies themself as such. But those descriptions should not be imposed purely because someone was born in England, Scotland or Wales. Such descriptions are not always straightforward as many people have linkages to more than one of the constituent countries of the UK. I have a friend who was born in Wales to Welsh parents but grew up in Cornwall and who considers himself very definitely Cornish and definitely not Welsh. In addition these types of description sometimes get mixed up with all kinds of ethnic descriptions (eg. Black British, British Asian, Glasgow Asian etc...I've even come across Somali Welsh) - all of whom might easily be British citizens. It surely has to come down to trying to use a bit of judgement and balance up all the factors and do the best job in each particular case.22:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


 * "British Citizen"? Actually never noticed that. Interesting construction. My passport says "Irish", not "Irish Citizen." Canadian passports say "Canadian", not "Canadian Citizen." Australian passports say "Australian", not "Australian citizen." South African passports say "South African", not "South African Citizen." German passports say "Deutsch", not "Deutscher Bürger." etc. etc. etc.
 * So even passports don't describe people as "British" rather than "English", "Scottish", "Welsh", etc.? Hmmmm ... --sony-youth pléigh 23:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just curious. I wander are there such things as English, Scottish, Northern Irisih and/or Welsh passports? GoodDay 23:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No; but there is such a thing as English, Scottish, Welsh, etc. nationality, which is what we are discussing here. This is well documented (see books), and the common way of describing the nationality of someone from the UK. Remember also that many people whose passport describes them as being "British" in some way do not come from the United Kingdom. They may be from the Isle of Man, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, or one of many other places. Would you describe Dwayne Leverock as "British" (as his passport does) or Bermudian (as is reality)? --sony-youth pléigh 01:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, Sony-youth, you spring back again on my watch list re: nationality! Firstly yes, Dwayne Leverock is British, and I would describe him so- being of exotic heritage doesn't negate him from this country's (and it is a country) nationality law. "Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person, and affords the person the protection of the state.", and WP:MOSFLAG states clearly that we use upper "sovereign" nationality on articles on Wikipedia. Scottishness, Englishness, Northern Irishness and Welshness have no universal criteria for inclusion, have no basis in law, have no codified definition. Can you provide a source as to what point somebody officially becomes Scottish? If I'm arrested in Wales, do I need to go to the English embassy? If I decide to identify as African, does that make me African? If I'm of Asian heritage, but have a British passport, am I not British? Is anybody ever British? Can you tell us by British nationality is well documented in (these books)? In what circumstances should we use "British" on wikipedia and why? What body regulates the use of Scottish nationality and how does it decide its criteria? Is the Britons article a complete evil POV lie? Do you deny that people don't identify with being British? Do you deny non-Britons don't identify British? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, Jza84, you spring back citing half-digested portions of Wikipedia articles (read further to where it describes ENG/SCO/WEL as examples of nationalities) in answer to my published sources. As for your questions (at least those that were grammatically intelligible and not meant facetiously), they are difficult, as you know, and there is of course no easy definition for English/Scottish/Welsh/etc. In that respect, I completely understand the attraction to blanket "British" labels. However, blanket labeling all UK citizens as "British" does not represent reality. (Just as describing Dwayne Leverock as British rather than Bermudian is a break from reality.)
 * As the editor who contributed most to the Briton article in its current form (it was in a very sad state when I found it), I would hardly describe it as an evil POV lie!! But, yet again you spring to ill-concieved assumptions about me. Still, I should count myself lucky not to be described as an IRA terrorist by you on this occasion, eh? (Apology still unforthcoming? Though so.) --sony-youth pléigh 02:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sony, stop using oxymorons.(Sarah777 02:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC))
 * I am not arguing for "blanket" use of the term "British" - only that it is perfectly acceptable to use it where it is factually correct (and, if needs be, where that can be backed up by citations if the case becomes contentious). I argue strongly against the blanket labelling of people as English if they just happen to be born in England (and Welsh if they happen to be born in Wales etc). Nationality in the UK is not that simple, as I think most people here have realised.
 * The question of Dwayne Leverock seems a bit of a red herring in this instance. As a Bermudan his formal nationality status is presumably "British Overseas Territories citizen" but it is perfectly reasonable to describe him as a Bermudan - which appears to be the description he would use. But that isn't relevant to the question of English, Welsh and Scots as England Wales and Scotland are integral parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not overseas territories that act very much as independent countries (eg. in economic matters, administration, control of residence rights etc.).
 * It seems to me that User:Sony-youth has a particular perspective on things which has something to do with issues related to Ireland but I cannot work out exactly what his or her point is. I can understand that British nationality in an Irish context can be a very sensitive question that is not necessarily solved by looking at people's current formal legal status. Obviously there are people in northern Ireland who are technically British citizens but who regard themselves as Irish. My personal inclination is to respect their wishes. I think we need to separate issues of English, Welsh and Scottish nationality from the subject of unionism in the northern Irish context (which has it's own specific, distinctive and problematic history).
 * I have no desire to impose the description "British" on someone who genuinely resents it and who has made absolutely clear that they wish to be described only as English, Welsh, Scottish or whatever. But I also argue that in the absence of the above situation it is perfectly reasonable to describe someone as having British nationality if they fall into the classes of people entitled to a passport that says "British Citizen".
 * Circusandmagicfan 08:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


 * "It seems to me that User:Sony-youth has a particular perspective on things which has something to do with issues related to Ireland but I cannot work out exactly what his or her point is ." - Neither can I! I didn't mention Ireland once! Through my nationality has been thrown back at me several times by Jza84 as some kind of counter argument in the past.
 * In any case, for the most part I agree with you. This spat is in relation to some who believe that "British" is the only valid description for a UK national that we can use on Wikipedia, and that repeatedly point to passports as the evidence for this. I pointed out that even passports don't describe people as "British", but as "British Citizens" (in contrast to international practice), and, when asked (facetiously, I presume) if English/Scottish/Welsh passports exist, I pointed to published sources that show that English, Scottish and Welsh are valid and common descriptions of a person's nationality whether passports exist for them or not.
 * The example of Dwayne Leverock was to underline the fallacy of the "passports only" argument. In the case of Leverock, his passport describes him as a "British Overseas Territories Citizen". In the case of a UK national, it is "British Citizen". Much of a muchness. If passports are what demonstrate that all UK nationals should be called British, then so too do they prove that Leverock should be called British. That's clearly bonkers, but my point is against the argument, not against calling anyone British, which is a demonstrably valid term, just as are English, Scottish and Welsh.
 * To be clear, I'm not in favour of blanket labelling in relation to the UK under any circumstances - be that blanket labeling as British or blanket labeling as English/Scottish/Welsh. I think that most people are of this perspective also. The fact that an Irishman makes these points clearly attracts suspicion from some quarters. (And at times abuse.) That's unfortunate, but hardly good reason for me not to make them. --sony-youth pléigh 11:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We do seem to be broadly in agreement (and I apologise if the reference to an Irish point of view came out sounding hostile). I'm not arguing that passports are the be-all-and-end-all in defining nationality - just that they are useful evidence of the formal national/international legal position. I'd agree that the wording can be cumbersome and archaic at times but some distinctions are significant. Although "British Overseas Territories citizen" and "British citizen" both contain the word British their practical implications differ. Also, it seems more likely that an overseas territories citizen would describe themselves as something other than British. However this is a digression from the real point I was making which was that passports and other official documents use the word "British" within nationality descriptions but not "English", "Welsh", and "Scottish". I think the terms "English", "Welsh" and "Scottish" refer to a different sort of nationality that is more akin to ethnicity than to the type of formal nationality that refers to some legally useful affiliation to a state that is recognised as a sovereign power through international bodies such as the UN. I'm open to debate though. Circusandmagicfan 18:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

On a slight side issue, it's my understanding that everyone born on the island of Ireland automatically becomes a citizen of the Republic - hence anyone born in Northern Ireland automatically has both British and Irish citizenship. Is this the case? Fingerpuppet 11:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, to flip what Circus said around: "Obviously there are people in Northern Ireland who are technically Irish citizens but who regard themselves as British. My personal inclination is to respect their wishes." Though, strictly speaking, no-one is "automatically" any citizenship (except in rare cases - Morocco springs to mind). Citizenship is normally a right that is free to be asserted as forcing citizenship on people can create problems e.g. many countries to allow dual citizenship, so if citizenship was "forced" a person might lose their 'actual' (or desired) citizenship --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth pléigh 11:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was unaware the Republic of Ireland grants citizenship to everyone born on the island of Ireland. I stand enlightened on that one. Clearly this makes it even more of a question of respecting individual choice when it comes to describing nationality.Circusandmagicfan 17:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan


 * I'm just writing that I've acknowledged the disscussion, but as there were no answers to my questions, just silly personalised comments with no citation, I see there is no scope to accomodate Sony's point of veiw here or elsewhere I expect a simillar soapboxing comment, again with no answers to my scholarly concerns or attempts to engage with him. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How about Jza84 and Sony-youth take their argument to their talk pages and stop cluttering up this page? Lurker (said · done) 12:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, I have a right to comment here. Sony-youth does too. I welcome him to share ideas, but I just don't think they have credibility. And Lurker, discussion and debate is a fundamental process of furthering articles - this is not nor will ever be personal. My concern is that if Sony had his way, The UK would be a "union of four countries", Northern Ireland would be a politically enforced province, everybody would be described as English/Scotish/Welsh etc freely with no regulation, consensus, criteria applied, and the adjective "British" would be a redirect page to the faux-nationality law of Englishness, Scottishness and Welshness and Irishness. I've raised raised questions, and concerns, but had no answers on how to go forwards.


 * Perhaps your comments which discuss nothing about content, would be the ones better served on user pages, where they don't clutter talk pages? -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Where ever did I say any such thing? Still, it's nice not to be called names by you, even if you really aren't interested what anyone really has to say. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth pléigh 13:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Jza84- it is clear the debate between the two of you has become personal, with comments like "if sony had his way" and not about the article. Personal stuff belongs in user space, nopt article talk space. Lurker (said · done) 14:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right. (In fact, personal stuff doesn't even belong in userspace; personal comments don't improve articles, and even userspace is there to facilitate the smooth running of Wikipedia, not bitter bickering).  To go further, this thread doesn't belong here at all - the original post made by User:Miremare was not about the content of the United Kingdom article but about other articles related to the UK - as such it belongs on a project page or the WP:UKWNB. Waggers 14:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Have to agree. Incidentally, I did acknowledge your questions, Jza84 - they are difficult (as you know). They were discussed at the failed UK MOS, where no consensus was reached. They are being discussed again at the biographies MOS. There it has been grinding on for a long time again, I don't know if it will end in any consensus this time around either. Maybe that would be a best place for this discussion, rather than here or our talk pages. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth pléigh 14:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)