Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 20

England and United Kingdom
England is very commonly used as a synonym for the United Kingdom worldwide. While this is technically incorrect, it is probably the most common name for the state used internationally, albeit informally. I think this should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion and experiences - when someone says 'England' they mean the piece of land between Wales and Scotland, they don't refer to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales by saying England, and therefore as this article is about the United Kingdom and not its Governing and Cultural nations themselves - it shouldn't be included. Thanks -- George 2001hi  (Discussion)   13:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be useful to bring forward some international sources for this one. From my own travels to the US, Europe, etc and reading, I suspect that terms like "Britain", "Great Britain", "the British Isles", etc, are all in pretty widespread use. If you are specifically thinking about the US here An Muimhneach, then I don't think you are right - in the US, my most common experience is that either "Britain" or "Great Britain" is most commonly used. It is more true though that in Europe, "England" (or rather, translations of "England") are quite widely used - but note Germany, for example, where "The Islands" (DE: "Den Inseln") is pretty widely used to refer to us lot. So it's a mixed picture and not easy to accurately summarise in a few words in the lede. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to say Great Britain is a synonym, as this is recognized by the government. It's another thing to say England; that has as much veracity as Holland does to The Netherlands, or Russia to the Soviet Union. So opening paragraph, no. (Holland is a special case, I suppose, and it's mentioned in the intro) However, it is nonetheless a common misnomer, and it's all the more evidence that this article needs a section on the name. And George2001hi, there's lots of people who will accurately say "United Kingdom" or "Britain" in all contexts except one - "The Queen of England" is an extremely common phrasing. --Golbez (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree with it having a short section on the terminology, although of course there are other articles already on these subjects. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Terminology does seem to be important. Notably, GB is the UK's official acronym europe-wise. I'm not sure what the acronyms are called exactly, but they're the ones used on numberplates. Additionally, in French Grand-bretagne seems to be as common as royame-uni, if not more so. I once saw Grand-bretagne carved into stone on a post office along with a list of other countries. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And there would be a "see also" at the top of any name section to the articles pertaining to it. But some other country articles with name sections that come to mind: East Timor, Republic of Ireland, Japan, Côte d'Ivoire, and Burma; the Netherlands lacks one, I suppose, because it links directly to Netherlands (terminology) in the lead. --Golbez (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Under no circumstances does this matter need mentioning in the introduction. A section on terminology / misused terminology perhaps, but it does not belong in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I assumed we were discussing a short new section in the main article text. The intro opening sentence has been fought over endlessly and we aren't changing that under any foreseeable circumstances. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt oppose a new section in the article, if others think its really needed but the editors original post said "I think this should be mentioned in the opening paragraph." BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. I was responding to Golbez's remarks lower down. Just to be categorically clear - there will be no change to the opening paragraph. If anyone reading this wants to know why, spend a few days browsing the archives! It's not a pretty sight. However, one way to do away with the need for a new section within the article is simply to do a see also to the excellent Terminology of the British Isles article, which explains all this far better than some new section would do here - it too has been bitterly fought over. So many battles, so little time. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Britain is just part of the UK. so anyone who refers to the UK as Britain is incorrect. that should be noted somewhere as it is mentioned people do do this in the opening paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.161.179 (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Great Britain the island is just part of the United Kingdom, but the term "Britain" is often used when talking about the whole United Kingdom, and so is Great Britain, which is our nations ISO code (GBR) and the name of the team the UK fields for the Olympics. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't tell ya, the number of times Elizabeth II has been called Queen of England, on CNN. Very annoying, when they do that. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly even the British media and Brits make the same error. There has not been a Queen of England for over 300 years. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Anne was the last (reign: 1702-07). GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know a lot of people (English) who think Her Majesty is just the monarchy of England (they're suprised when I tell them - she's the Queen of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales + the other Commonwealth countries), because they lack the knowledge that they live in the United Kingdom or what the U.K. is, which is why the say Queen of England.-- George 2001hi  (Discussion)   13:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to decades of incompetent government and education systems dominated by left wingers who hate the country. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting POV British Watcher! Reasons aside, it is a common misconception. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting and sadly an accurate one. :( BritishWatcher (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The Queen is head of the commonwealth, and international organization. However, that does not make her the queen of "all other Commonwealth countries". But this of course, you have not learned in your education system ;-) T om ea s y T C 15:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey mate - I was referring to the Commonwealth Realm countries (United Kingdom, Canada, Australia etc.), and don't insult my education (It was terrible - but I made up for it by reading books and sprawling through reference books during the Summer Holidays). -- George 2001hi   (Discussion)   20:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, "the other Commonwealth countries" are more than just the realm. But now we know at least where the imprecision is coming from. Please do not take offence, I am just nagging because you were complaining about the ignorance of many people with respect to the topic, just to make yourself a wrong statement while doing so. T om ea s y T C 20:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * She is the head of all the commonwealth realms, of which the UK is one, and England is not. Personally, I've learned buggerall about the Queen in the various education systems I've been in. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * like i said before, education systems infiltrated by the left. They are usually less keen on the monarchy so best not expect anything about that to be taught in our schools. Although considering some schools dont even seem to be able to tell kids what their country is, i guess i shouldnt be too surprised they do not have time to go onto the monarchy/government stuff. New Labour introduced compulsory Citizenship lessons for schools in England a few years back, it apparently is pretty flawed still, although it didnt stop some on the left from attacking it for promoting nationalism. sigh  BritishWatcher (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd rather be infiltrated by the left than by the right, see the outright mess the US education system is in right now. Anyway, we are drifting towards soapboxing here.
 * On topic, is it alright to create a new section about names for the UK? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea, it comes up on a regular basis so getting some referenced material would be good. And at the risk of controversy I am tempted to delete any future soapboxing -- Snowded  TALK  16:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * lol i couldnt resist. I am done now though. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats thanks to the left there in America too! lol. As for a new section for names or terminology i wouldnt oppose it (depending on what it included). Best to start a new section below about this. A small section is certainly less of a problem than the original proposal of England being added to the intro as a name for the UK. I suppose it could include some examples, like the "Queen of England" issue, also the Bank of England which represents the whole of the UK, pointing out that was founded by a Scot. Those may be of interest and helpful. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Would much more be needed than a simple link to Terminology of the British Isles? I would guard against a proliferation of explanations which would each attract their share of vandalism. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * true we should not just repeat the stuff which is basically included there. If there is to be a new section trying to go into more details about the names, it may be a valid place to include stuff about some describing the UK as a multinational state as debated about below. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This section would be more focused on the UK than the British Isles, so I think a small summary of relevant information in the Terminology article is a good idea, as Snowded said it does come up alot. Maybe using a template at the top. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the UK multinational?
An editor had added the adjective 'multinational' to the description of the UK, and provided supporting references. This was reverted without explanation so I re-added. I see no reason why this material should have been removed, but would be interested in other views. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed it. I think it's deeply confusing to have it in the very first sentence; "multinational" has a number of different meanings, and the most common interpretation is not really the one we intend here - it evokes images of a company which operates in several different countries, etc. We already explain the unusual "one country made of several countries" thing in the lead; I don't think we need to put it so prominently and in such a potentially ambiguous way. Shimgray | talk | 22:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Shimgray. The UK is described as both a multi-national state and a nation-state in various sources (This article gives a decent overview of the issue). Let's keep things as they are.--Pondle (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, multi-cultural would've been a better word. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I do think they were trying to say multi-national as in "comprised of four nations"; "multicultural" suggests something else entirely! Either way, I think it's a bit complicating matters to have it be in the first few words of the article - we should try and avoid packing as much material in at the beginning as we can, as much as is possible. Shimgray | talk | 15:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I strongly oppose the inclusion of that term in the first sentence which will complicate matters. Reliable sources describe the United Kingdom as a country and sovereign state, there is no way this "multi-national" term which means different things to different people belongs in the first sentence or in the introduction at all when we already clearly explain the UK is made up of England, Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland. The two sources provided were also totally unacceptable for the introduction. A speech by a failed former prime minister Where he says we have created "the world's most successful multinational state " and some politically correct education report for citizenship lessons in England. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand the points made with regard to including the phrase 'multinational' in the first sentence - it seems more appropriate to include it in the second paragraph so that the paragraph could then read "The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and multinational unitary state consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." That would then tie in with the rest of the sentence explaining the countries within the UK. Any thoughts? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, a quote from Gordon Brown, made while he was PM, as reported in a quality newspaper, can not be dismissed on the basis an editor may believe he 'failed'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is well put and sourced. It should be included. btw don't take too much notice. After all, "All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs." Enoch Powell, Joseph Chamberlain (Thames and Hudson, 1977), p. 151. ... as will Cameron's, sadly. Daicaregos (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see the need for the term "multi-national" which is a term that can mean different things, it is not needed as we already explain the makeup of the United Kingdom, although my primary concern was where it got inserted. The sources are also problematic. Not because he is a failed prime minister, but because we should not define a country anywhere in its introduction based on a speech or article by one of its many prime ministers. He also stated we created the worlds most successful multinational state, we couldnt include that as fact, so why should his views on the Multi-national state be included? "Multi-national" is a very problematic term, for a start we are all British Nationals, there is no such thing as "Scottish national", "English national" etc, which is one of the things the term implies to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are more than two sources that refer to the UK as a multi-national state Jack 1314 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The use of the term multi-national would confuse most readers as it normally refers to a business working in more than one sovereign nation, it is not really needed and doesnt add anything to the lead that is not already mentioned. MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Link the term here: multinational (sans hyphen), and any confusion will be settled. This is, after all an encyclopaedia. Its use will inform and educate our readers. Daicaregos (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That article is VERY different to what it said before the same IP made the changes to that article before adding it to here. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the multinational state article needs lots of work! As far as the use of the term in the second para here is concerned, I've got no 'ideological' objection - plenty of sources use the phrase - but the first sentence already states that:

"The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and unitary state consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales."

So I don't think that the addition offers much added value. BTW as far as descriptions go, I like Linda Colley's line in her well-known book Britons - "Great Britain... must be seen both as as one relatively new nation, and three much older nations - with the precise relationship between the old and new still changing and fiercely debated".--Pondle (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good quote (although she seems to have ignored Cornwall). Multinational doesn't necessarily have to be in the lead. But it should be in the article somewhere. Daicaregos (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding it as a simple statement to the lead would just make it more confusing. Of course the UK is multinational, it is rare to have a country that isn't. For the UK though, the nationalities divide up all of its people between four (or five) distinct areas. The quote above is good, smaller nations can together form a larger nation. This could be expanded slightly in the text, but I don't think the lead is the right place for it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that a suitable place for an allusion to this concept might be at the start of the section on "Devolved national administrations". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition of British Isles
Proposals have been put forward here to add various references to British Isles to this and other related articles. -- Snowded TALK  13:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo Removal and new Military section
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&curid=31717&diff=381207839&oldid=381205542

The last edit, before the photos were removed.

I'm looking whether we should add a military section about the United Kingdom, because the photos can be put somewhere else. Sir Stupidity (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Number 1 singles per capita
The article currently says "Acts from Liverpool have had more UK chart number one hit singles (54) per capita than any other city worldwide.". I'm not sure of the best formulation, but it should probably be reworded (Liverpool certainly hasn't had 54 number one hits per capita!) 138.253.48.109 (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Presumably its just 54 hits, as 54 hits per capita would be 54 per member of the population. I will take a look at the source.-- SabreBD  (talk)  11:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if the source backs it up, is the fact really notable for this article? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have clarified it by moving the number, but Frankly British Watcher has a point, I am not sure it is very notable. The British music article has been cleaned up since this section was done, perhaps we need to do a new summary that just gives the highlights.-- SabreBD  (talk)  11:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Reasoning
There is a convention agreed at the Ireland WikiProject that when the island of Ireland and the state of Ireland are talked about in the same context etc. then the state will be stated unpiped as Republic of Ireland to prevent confusion with the island of Ireland. The middle of the first paragraph states: It is an island country,[8][9] spanning an archipelago including Great Britain, the northeastern part of the island of Ireland, and many small islands. Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK with a land border[note 8] with another sovereign state, sharing it with Ireland. I think the convention applies here as both the island and state are being mentioned under the same name in the same paragraph and context and it is confusing, and so i'm making the change, with this as the reasoning if anyone wonders. Mabuska (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Island country
Encyclopædia Britannica is a tertiary source and has been known to be incorrect at times, can we possibly find a primary or secondary reliable source to support that the United Kingdom is an island country. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why - it is a country made up of a group of islands - looks like it fairly obvious to me. MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What is obvious to you may not be obvious to the reader. Such a statement should be verifiable. --Hm2k (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why? - you dont have to provide a cite for every fact in an article particularly the obvious ones. The lead should not have any citations at all as it is just a summary they should all be in the article body, which says clearly that the UK is a group of islands. MilborneOne (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really see what's wrong with the Encyclopædia Britannica as a source, but others are available. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't so long as nobody challenges it. For clarity I am challenging it. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article. --Hm2k (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In conclusion, the term "island nation" appears to be more appropriate than "island country". --Hm2k (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just FYI...Should try to avoid having references in the lead as they should be in the body of the article..You should try and avoid mentioning something in the lead that is not covered in the article. That said yes if your sneaking in a term or number  it should be cited...The  reference should go in the  Geography section as well as mention of the term..See Manual of Style (lead section)..Moxy (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with Island nation which has been added now if that resolves this. We then within the first two sentence mention the UK is a country, sovereign state and nation clearly. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer island country, as it leaves the whole nation debate out of the lead, and I see no way that Encyclopaedia Britannica is unreliable, but if everyone else is happy with island nation that's fine. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Religion
I'm surprised and puzzled because there is no mention of Neopaganism in the Religion section, especially since the linked Main article (Religion in the United Kingdom) links to another main article entitled Neopaganism in the United Kingdom The Lesser Merlin (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately an article such as this can only summarise the contents of more detailed articles such as Religion in the United Kingdom. Although I don't know the figures, I'd guess that the number of people following neopaganism in the UK is too small to be considered significant enough to mention here, though there's obviously more space to do so in the main religion in the UK article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand you. This article lists "0.43% Jewish, 0.37% Sikh" and later says "560,000 Hindus, 340,000 Sikhs with about 150,000 practising Buddhism" whereas the linked main article (Religion in the United Kingdom) says "An estimated 250,000 (0.4%)[42] to 1 million (around 2%)[43] Britons adhere to various forms of Neopaganism". How does this fit with your guess that "the number of people following neopaganism in the UK is too small to be considered significant enough to mention"? The Lesser Merlin (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The census figures for 2001, on which this section is largely based, indicate that there were only 32,000 Pagans, and 7,000 Wiccans. There are other estimates, but they are only estimates. The article reflects the way the government has viewed the figures, stopping when it reached the smaller religions.-- SabreBD  (talk)  14:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article on Neopaganism in the United Kingdom seems to give a more realistic assessment of numbers, ranging from 40,000 to 250,000 depending on the type of survey and - probably - the questions asked. For consistency, an overall article like this one should use a consistent source which in this case is the Census, giving a figure at the lower end of the estimates.  The text of the Religion in the United Kingdom article needs to be modified to bring it into line with the Neopaganism article, in my view.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead
"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland...is a country[7][8], nation state[9] and sovereign state[citation needed]..." Really? Country, Nation-state, and Sovereign State? Are those three all really needed in the title? Besides the fact that country and sovereign state, and to a lesser extent nation-state, are in most cases synonymous, having all three in a row like that serves not to inform but to confuse. Additionally, why on earth is a citation needed for the UK being a sovereign state?!? Seems WP:COMMONSENSE. I recommend cutting it down to just sovereign state (without the of course). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It does seem to go on a bit and doesn't need to say any more than sovereign state. btw, country and sovereign state are not synonymous. Although I don't agree with citing ourselves, some of our articles are quite good. Country states: "Usually, but not always, a country coincides with a sovereign territory and is associated with a state, nation or government." (my emphasis). Daicaregos (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly support removing nation state and keeping sovereign state there. The issue of the country is dependent on that second sentence. Ive been prepared to support the present wording with the first sentence saying just sovereign state, but it has been because the second sentence states straight away it is also a country (an island country). But that has now been tagged a original research. So id support removal of country, provided the second sentence continues to say country. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good god, what a mess. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * With reference to what? Excess spacing, poor formatting ... What? Daicaregos (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry i meant the introduction now with those tags and several terms in the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They are needed as they define what the United Kingdom is. There is no or little evidence to say they are synonymous and to exclude one description is to say it is not one of those. However, if it had to be more concise, I would remove "sovereign state" as there is currently no reliable source to support that definition. --Hm2k (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is sovereign, and it is a state. It is a sovereign state. Id be prepared to support country in the first sentence though, but sovereign state is a term used throughout wikipedia to describe sovereign countries, rather than just "countries" which includes many non sovereign nations, including those in the UK which is why sovereign state is an important term to use for the UK. It is superior to country which can mean anything these days.   BritishWatcher (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem with the Island country term too? can that original research tag be removed? or do we need to remove the term because the UK is more than one island? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See Talk:United_Kingdom. Also note that removing tags may be considered disruptive is the issue is not resolved. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding them against consensus could be too. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

WHilst the issue of the Island country is under debate, could we have agreement to remove "nation state". That is not needed for sure, lets leave country and sovereign state there, which does flow ok but the nation state bit is overkill. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy for "nation state" to me removed from the lead, but since it is still true, it should be placed elsewhere in the article. --Hm2k (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. The ideal situation here would be to find one that covers all 3. --Hm2k (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is only necessary to spend time finding sources if anyone challenges the statement. Are you actually challenging the truth of any of the statements, or are you questioning them for the sake of argument?  David Biddulph (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am challenging the clarity and verifiability of the statement. Although it may be obvious to you, it may not be to the readers. --Hm2k (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If a reader honestly doesn't find it obvious, they can challenge it, but with the number of these that you are challenging, could you please clarify whether you genuinely don't find the statement obvious (perhaps because English isn't your native language?) or whether you are being deliberately awkward? David Biddulph (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok so we can remove nation state again for the time being and see about adding it somewhere else in the article . Saying country and sovereign state isnt too bad, but all 3 terms is problematic. What exactly is the problem with the island country bit. I dont mind losing that term from the intro if others agree, as long as country remains in the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To remove nation state from the lead would imply the UK is not a nation state. It is a nation state as per the reliable source provided. Also, I've outlined my concern with "Island country" separately above. See Talk:United_Kingdom. --Hm2k (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not imply it is not one, we simply do not need 3 terms in the first sentence. I support keeping country and sovereign state there, i think that looks good, but no need for the nation state bit which we could mention somewhere else in the article if needed, but its not the main description of the UK. Country / Sovereign state are far better. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have to support BritishWatcher's idea the lead is far to complicated and the lead should just summarise the basic facts. It does not need to include every definition just a simple introduction for the casual reader. If they want to know more they read the body of the article - is that not the purpose of the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All that remains to do is to place details that the UK is a nation state somewhere in the article. The lead is complicated and it isn't concise, but that is due to the nature of the topic, the UK is many things. --Hm2k (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not needed as most people would be just happy with country and sovereign state and understand, the concept of nation state came about long after the United Kingdom was established and would seem an alien term. MilborneOne (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, some would argue that the UK is not a nation state at all but rather a multi-national state. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont mind nation state being mentioned somewhere appropriate in the article although i dont think its really needed. I do worry about overloading the article with different "state terms", we already have sovereign state and unitary state which are needed, and as you say there are others too. Just because theres a nation state article doesnt mean we need it. I must admit though, i do think that first sentence is better now it says country and sovereign state. these are the two primary terms. I am not concerned about the island country sentence now, although something has to be done quickly to get rid of that tag in the introduction of this important article. I dont mind if its reworded to avoid "island country" but this needs dealing with, we cant have a tag in the intro for too long. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Although if we do need to include nation state somewhere, id suggest the first sentence of the history section which currently says : "The United Kingdom was created out of the existing historic kingdoms of England(including Wales), Ireland and Scotland." That could be reworded to say the UK became a nation state out of the existing historic kingdoms... BritishWatcher (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Nation_state section makes for interesting reading. To me, the reason why it is important is that the Wiktionary describes a country as a "nation state". Thus, in the name of clarity, it should be said somewhere in the article that the United Kingdom is a nation state. --Hm2k (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note Daicargos, that I said "in most cases". I had hoped that would be enough for you.
 * In my opinion WP:COMMONSENSE says that citations for island country and sovereign state were unnecessary, but oh well, since sources have been found. Saying the UK is a nation-state leads to a large argument, and is probably not clear cut enough for a simple statement in the lead. I like BW's suggestion of adding to the history section. Do we still need both country and sovereign state? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign state
There is currently no reliable source to say that the United Kingdom is a sovereign state, further more an article written for the telegraph in December 2009 that states "At midnight last night, the United Kingdom ceased to be a sovereign state". It should probably be removed from the lead. --Hm2k (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please raise this matter at List of sovereign states or sovereign state. You are seeking to undermine a term used on wikipedia for a couple of years now and one that has been very stable. The introduction is now a mess with your additions and tags. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Hm2K, that article is an opinion piece, and not reliable to assert the bogus claim that the UK isn't a sovereign state. I'm also of the opinion that we don't need to use all three terms in the lead, since it could confuse readers.   ~DC  Let's Vent 17:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Took me a while to realise it is the same POV debate we had at Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 19.-- SabreBD  (talk)  17:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Britain itself ceased to be an old-fashioned sovereign state". The nature of these definitions is confusing, which is why we need reliable sources to support the statements. --Hm2k (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you unable to distinguish factual news articles from opinion pieces? Read the subtitle of that link "EU membership has led to deep constitutional changes in the UK. But it would be wrong to say that we have been robbed of our sovereignty, says Philip Johnston. Our government has been an accomplice all the way."  ~DC  Let's Vent 18:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of the lead of sovereign state reads as follows:
 * "A sovereign state is a state with a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states."
 * Isn't that self-evident for the UK? I agree with the comment above that the intro is a mess with the recent edits;  it was much clearer before, and the new material adds nothing of value (and the idea of adding an OR tag to the ref to EB seems obscure in the extreme).  If the community feels that it's of value to go into some of these esoteric points they could do so in the later sections on politics and geography, but not in the 1st para of the lede please.  David Biddulph (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Daniel Hannan is a well-known polemicist with a highly polarised view of Britain's membership of the EU - statements by him can be included in articles but we cannot treat them as unchallenged facts and references to what he says are not reliable quality sources as to proven fact, they are opinion. All the major official sources verify that the UK is and continues to be a UN-recognised sovereign state, regardless of what Mr Hannan or UKIP choose to say about it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, anyone may question an uncited claim by inserting a tag. --Hm2k (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Consensus describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. There is no single definition of what consensus means on Wikipedia, but in articles consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability." ~DC  Let's Vent 18:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So you can't provide a single reliable source then? --Hm2k (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't need to if there is a consensus that it is a sovereign state, which is this case here. ~DC Let's Vent 19:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If nobody can provide even a single reliable source, it's not exactly a very good consensus is it? --Hm2k (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of the lead of sovereign state reads as follows:
 * "A sovereign state is a state with a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states."
 * Isn't that self-evident for the UK? I agree with the comment above that the intro is a mess with the recent edits;  it was much clearer before, and the new material adds nothing of value (and the idea of adding an OR tag to the ref to EB seems obscure in the extreme).  If the community feels that it's of value to go into some of these esoteric points they could do so in the later sections on politics and geography, but not in the 1st para of the lede please.  David Biddulph (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You will find your answer at Citation_needed. --Hm2k (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, people disagree with you adding Cite needed, and now on this talkpage people are agreeing it's unnecessary. Did I miss something?  ~DC  Let's Vent 19:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A reliable source should be provided, otherwise the result will be no consensus. --Hm2k (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There appears to be consensus to keep the sovereign state there and that no citation tag is needed. The UK is without doubt a sovereign state. If you have a problem with the term sovereign state please raise it at sovereign state or list of sovereign states. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We *are* discussing the matter on the article's talk page, which is what Citation_needed says. As DC says above, there is a consensus.  All of the rest of us realise that this falls pretty well into the "Paris is the capital of France" category and not open to reasonable argument, but if you want an RS, why not try HM Government?
 * "United Kingdom

Term used most frequently for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the modern sovereign state comprising England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. "
 * David Biddulph (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic. That is a suitable reliable source. Well done. --Hm2k (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Telegraph link is an opinion piece and fails reliability criteria as a source for Wikipedia. If you use that to justify removing "sovereign state" from this article then you'll have to remove it from every country that forms part of the EU, and i can see a lot of argueing agsinst such an idotic and stupid change. Mabuska (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did you feel the need to resort to name calling? If it is indeed not a reliable source, then there won't be any arguments will there? --Hm2k (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say yes its a Sovereign state as per its meaning and as reflected in the international court system. ..However i have been reading the news in the past few year and have seen this argument...EU: is Britain still a sovereign state? at-midnight-last-night-the-united-kingdom-ceased-to-be-a-sovereign-state/..Moxy (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this for a source? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Think you linked the wrong page or somthing..Moxy (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The link works for me. Anyway, I see that another suitable source has been provided above in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)That link goes to a page in a book saying the UK is a sovereign state. Anyway the best source which justifies its usage is HM Government one above. So no new sources are needed for this, only other thing outstanding is this island country issue which needs a source apparently. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this the most pointless, bizarre and pettifogging WP talk page thread ever started? As pointed out, we don't need a source for simple statements of the blindingly obvious and universally accepted, especially in the lead section.  N-HH   talk / edits  14:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Importance rating of White British article
Opinions would be welcome at Talk:White British on the importance rating of the White British article. There is a dispute about whether the article should qualify as of "top" importance on WikiProject United Kingdom. I've raised this at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board but thought that we might get more of a response from posting here. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

British Lions
Can someone with editor rights please add a sentance to the Rugby Union section mentioning the British Lions tours every 4 years. It would seem entirely appropriate given the amount of times that the "4 home countries" vs. "whole UK" idea is mentioned during the sport section and indeed throughout the entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.8.104.65 (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Migration
I amended the wording of the opening paragraph for clarity.

It should also be noted that, as some of the information in the bbc ref is simply a regurgitation of unsourced and skewed speculation, it should not be heavily relied upon in the place of actual scholarly work. It also makes numerous simplistic mistakes.

As a quick example: In reference to the first paragraph were it states categorically that 'black legionaires' manned Hadrians wall....

There is no actual evidence to support its 'black legionaires' claim. I looked up where it has been taken from, and it is from a book by the communist activist and non-historian Peter Fryer. Fryer even concedes in the book the bbc article takes from that 'no remains have been positively identified' and that some bones proportions 'suggest' that they are those of black men... On this non source the bbc has boldly stated its 'black legionaires' as a fact. His assertions are based on nothing more than conjecture (the part of that book can be read here http://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=dM-jTIyDK47KjAfq5qm-DA&ct=book-thumbnail&id=J8rVeu2go8IC&dq=Staying+Power%3A+The+History+of+Black+People+in+Britain+%281984%29.&q=legionaires#v=onepage&q=roman&f=false)

Africa province was demographically dominated by Punic and 'Libyan' (not to be confused with modern Libya) peoples, before it was colonised by Roman settlers. The Sahara desert was as much a barrier to human travel back then as it is today and then some, back then they did not have the benefit of our technological mastery of travel. Apart from nomadic wandering, a minuscule amount of sub-saharan people ever lived in Africa province. Northern Africa above the sahara to this day is a different world from sub-saharan Africa in terms of demographics and ethnic makeup. Soldiers from the province did indeed serve in the army, as auxillaries for certain, and perhaps in the one legion that was stationed there (it is entirely in keeping with what we know of recruitment that the legion stationed there would have take local Roman citizens over time). The article however seems to be assuming that the Roman Africa (Roman province) = black people.

I note of course that this is wisely not referenced in this wikipedia entry and only bring it up to illuminate the danger of using as a source a page that uses such a skewed view, twists it into something else, and presents it as a proven fact. It is also guilty of imposing modern notions of colour and race onto the ancient world.

Additionally, it is not 'legionaires', as that is a French term for a member of the French Foreign Legion (among other things), it is legionaries.. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of extra sources to address your concerns about the BBC source. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Long article
A country article should give an overview of that article, not mention every aspect of that country. The article as it stands seems to me to do the second. The most obvious point is that the table of contents is longer than my computer screen. Obviously that's not the case for all monitors, but it's still shocking. Before even bothering to cut out content, I think that the sections on the article need rearranging.

Main sections Subsections I won't get into what I think about every subsection now, but I reckon plenty of them are unnecessary. Case in point:
 * Law and criminal justice Is this really so notable that it needs mentioning on the main page? And if it is, is it so notable that it not only has its own main section, but subsections? I think it should be under the Government and Politics section at any rate.
 * Education, Healthcare, Transport Once again, are these really such notable topics that they deserve their own main sections on the UK page? Under demography if nothing else.
 * Sports Sports are important yes, but important enough to get its own large section with long subsections devoted to particular sports? This I think should be under culture.
 * the one subsection of Geography, Cities and conurbations. The subsection is about 3 lines long, and all useful information is given in the table anyway. In fact, the information given here is probably better suited to Demography anyway.
 * the Media subsection of culture. Once again i question notability, but even more, this subsection has subsections. The internet subsubsection seems especially pointless. As the Media text is currently just a line, saying how English gives the UK media an international dimension (itself no doubt POVishly written, and of course, uncited), current subsections could all be summarized just under that (assuming the section is notable enough to keep).

Those are just some initial thoughts I have about improving the article formatwise. There is also too much information in my opinion in some sections, which could be cut down. Thoughts? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I made some of the changes, rearranging a few sections. I also removed a couple of clears which seems extraneous, especially with the rearranging. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a bit hard to see exactly what changes you made in detail, but I am generally in favour of the principle. I think there may be more pruning and tidying that can be done along these lines, after all these sections are meant to be summaries with links that interested parties can pursue elsewhere.-- SabreBD  (talk)  06:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So far I've just shuffled sections around, but I agree that sections here are more than summaries. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Transport
There is one sole subsection of economy, transport. I think it should be removed, it's not particularly notable as a whole, and the parts that are notable (such as Heathrow) can simply be included in the main body of text. Would it be in order to move the whole section down to the main economy article? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that Heathrow is worth mentioning elsewhere, but as far as I am concerned the rest really can go.-- SabreBD  (talk)  15:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph tidy
Looking through the article I was a bit surprised at how messy the paragraphs had become with a lot of lonely sentences (discouraged by the FA guidelines and frankly space consuming and untidy). I will try to have a look and see what can be grouped, but I give fair waring that some unsourced material may have to go if it cannot be fitted into a context.-- SabreBD  (talk)  06:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am holding off on this until Chipmunkdavis has finished considering the summaries, there is not much point in tidying and then removing material.-- SabreBD  (talk)  15:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't hold off, for a start if you wait for me to finish summarizing the article (assuming I can) it could take weeks. Secondly, if you're condensing lonely sentences and removing unsourced material, that's a lot of summarizing done anyway. Thirdly, if you tidy it up, it would be easier for others to look at and work on. I've tried rearranging material myself when editing, shuffling and combining paragraphs etc. Of course, not all unsourced material should go, I've just gone through sports, and a huge amount is unsourced. I can't see it being particularly hard to source if the materials are available, so I might chuck around some tags later. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you have actually dealt with most of them, which is fine, but I will give it another run through.-- SabreBD  (talk)  11:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of British Isles
Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Motto
This article doesn't mention the motto of the UK which is "Dieu et mon droit" [sic] (according to the German Wikipedia). I'm not sure whether this is still correct. Could someone find out whether the motto needs to be added to the English version or whether it needs to be removed from the German version? -- 79.234.22.43 (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, Dieu et mon droit is the motto of the monarch, rather than that of the state. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe some comic recently suggested that the motto of the United Kingdom is "mustn't grumble". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Pictures in history section
[Copied from my talkpage.-- SabreBD  (talk)  01:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)]

Hi, I see that you just removed an image that I added to the above article of Churchill at Yalta because of 'sandwiching'. I would be grateful if you could explain what you mean by this. Thanks.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. The MOS discourages placing text between two images at MOS:IMAGES. They can be down the left or right or left, in the case of the UK article they are alternated and that is also my preference, but as changes are made to text the alternation is usually not changed creating some odd patterns. My edit also tried to put the alternation back into the images so that the pattern is clear, but the article is so big that doing it all at once takes a long time, so I think I may have undone your last two edits, apologies for that but you can probably redo those more easily than I can, as you actually know what you were doing. Hope that helps.-- SabreBD  (talk)  00:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I must confess that I wasn't aware of that guidance (many articles breach it). Is there any way that we could reintroduce the image that I added of Churchill at Yalta by moving the WW1 image up? I think that the Yalta image serves a number of purposes including referencing the Second World War (arguably the most important single event in the history of the nation), providing a visual bridge into the post-war era and showing a picture of Churchill, probably the most important British Prime Minister?Rangoon11 (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I take your point about the Yalta picture. I have had a quick go at seeing how it looks with all four pictures in, but I have to say it is very crowded and doesn't look very good and this is on my widest screen (on a narrow screen it will probably look a lot worse). I don't have time to resolve this tonight, but will see if I can come up with something tomorrow. Also this discussion is really more suitable for the article talkpage so I am copying this conversation there - so that other editors can comment. One solution would be to sacrifice one of the other pictures in the section, but we really need a consensus on that sort of change.-- SabreBD  (talk)  01:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It won't fit, especially considering different browser sizes. 3 images is already pushing it. This article had a large problem with picture numbers before, best not to go back there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. In which case it is fair to ask editors if they wish to replace one of the existing images in order to fit it in and if so which one. For myself I have been pretty happy with the existing images and would be reluctant to lose one, but if there is widepread consensus I am happy to go along with a justified change.-- SabreBD  (talk)  07:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

5 world maps ?
It seems this country article pulls to much references on maps. Specifically 5 world maps seem not apropriate considering the overall appearance of the UK article. Italiano111 (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The maps all have a relationship to the text. They seem appropriate to me. It is probably inevitable that an article about a state that had a world empire is going to have some world maps.-- SabreBD  (talk)  14:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You said it: HAD a world empire (50 years ago). This is the year 2010. Italiano111 (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep I have a calender. It still has overseas territories, immigration from the empire and elsewhere and influence through language elsewhere, etc. Also, this article includes history, even as long ago as 50 years.-- SabreBD  (talk)  18:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

A map in the Migration section has been removed. It contained almost the same information as the table in Ethnic groups. Please avoid duplicated content in the future. Thanks Italiano111 (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You proposed changes here. Only I replied and I was against it. Then you did it anyway. Please avoid major changes without getting consensus in future please.-- SabreBD  (talk)  00:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to note that the map in the migration secton does not display the same data as the ethnic groups table. The map shows the birthplace of British residents, the table their ethnicity. These are different things. That said, I might be persuaded to support removal of the map. At the very least, it is out of date as more recent estimates are now available (see Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Being out of date is a reasonable argument for removal and it would be useful if other editors can comment on that point. In the meantime it might be useful to explore whether a more up to date alternative is available. This might be difficult as we are almost as fare away from a UK census as we can be be.-- SabreBD  (talk)  07:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The map is based on ONS estimates rather than the census, and the estimates for 2009 are available here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As a Brit, I agree that the number of world maps in the article does seem excessive, especially given that most if not all of the matters covered by them are linked to other articles. The USA article, in comparison, contains no world maps.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The France article, probably a better parallel, has 3, and rather more than this one of Europe. Given the UKs greater historic relationships 5 might not be inappropriate, but their individual relevance is what is really significant. I think that if there are arguments for keeping the immigration map we should use the data that Cordless Larry points to above and make it an updated one. However, as a more general point I am actually in line with the opinion expressed elsewhere on this page, this article is just too long and these sections should be short summaries pointing to the major articles. If they are shorter there will be less room for pictures, so some will have to go. Perhaps we should think about the text here first and then worry about tables and pictures, which will be in proportion to that.-- SabreBD  (talk)  12:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * (wrote this at the same time as SabreBD was making their comment above, sorry to repeat a couple of their points again) There is no right or wrong number of maps specified for a Wikipedia article, the question is purely whether the maps serve a useful purpose for readers in illustrating information given in the article. I see no value in comparing the number of maps in this article with the number of maps in other country articles, since those countries will have entirely different histories and profiles, although I note that the France article has 10.


 * Since the British Empire was the largest in history, existed for the majority of the UK's existence, and only started being disbanded half way through the twentieth century, a map showing its extent seems to me completely essential. A map showing the spread of the English language also seems essential and of great interest to readers, this is perhaps the single biggest cultural influence that the UK has had internationally, and English is now the leading second language worldwide and the first langage of many of the richest and largest countries in the world.


 * Both migration and immigration have had a very large impact on the UK's development and the migration section of the article is justly quite large. It seems entirely sensible to illustrate this section with maps. My only hesitation in this case is that it is important that these maps be up to date. The data for the expats map is now four years and in my view that map does need updating or should be removed. As a concept though I think that the map is very useful to readers and completely justified.


 * A map illustrating the present dependencies seems perfectly sensible and these dependencies continue to be an important part of the UK's influence in the world. Dependencies rightly have their own section in the article.


 * The final two maps are of the UK. Who could seriously query the presence of maps of the topography and administrative units of the country?Rangoon11 (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Qantas A380 Jet
Change the picture of a Qantas A380 Jet in the Economy section with a picture of a Trent 900 Jet (File:A380-trent900.JPG) and the caption "A Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine manufactured in the UK" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.199.247 (talk)


 * I note that you have made this change at Economy of the United Kingdom earlier today. I am interested to understand your thinking behind this, since the wings of all Airbus A380 are manufactured in the UK (and of course many, but not all, of the engines).


 * In my view a photo of a whole aircraft is more visually appealing and accessible than one of an engine and more appropriate for this article, although I am not totally against the proposed photo I am certainly interested to hear your reasoning.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -Atmoz (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Stands to reason if you think about it why have a picture of a Australian jet plane only part of which is built in the UK to demonstrate a section on the UK economy when you can put something in its place that wholly built in the UK.


 * Few products are now made wholly in one country and certainly no commercial jet airliner, and Rolls Royce engines assembled in the UK do in fact include a considerable amount of foreign components. The UK contribution to the Airbus A380 in terms of both research and development and manufacturing is very substantial and an Airbus A380 with Rolls Royce engines will actually have a greater UK workshare than that of any other nation.


 * Unfortunately British Airways are not yet flying the A380 so a photo in their livery is, I presume, not an option. I believe that Virgin Atlatic have placed an order but not yet received any aircraft. Quantas is at least a One World partner of BA.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

but the current picture of a Australian jet plane does not fit well in a section on the UK economy the picture of the jet is better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.199.247 (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would hope that readers are capable of discerning between the aircraft and the livery of the airline operating it. Arguably the livery goes to emphasise the success of the product and the fact that it is an export from the UK, which is a crucial aspect of its importance to the UK. There is also a photo of Wembley statium in the article, which was built I believe by an Australian construction company. How do you feel about that? Rangoon11 (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

the A380 is not assembled in the UK the engine is as for the quip about Wembley stadium that is not in a section about British builders —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.199.247 (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is the location of assembly so important? The assembly of an aircraft is no more important than the manufature of its wings. Apple Inc. assemble most of their products in China, does that make them Chinese? Similarly Toyota, Honda and Nissan all assemble cars in the UK, does that make them British, even though the research and development took place in Japan? Would you prefer a photo of a Toyota Avensis?Rangoon11 (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you being difficult on purpose. Why should a picture of a Australasian plane be on this page in a section about the UK economy when a better picture is available ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.199.247 (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I can assure you that I am open minded to a change and am interested to hear your reasoning. I must confess that I'm not convinced by your arguments so far though. You may have noticed that I left your change to the image on Economy of the United Kingdom. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

How about File:A 380 meeting.jpg, which is also a photo of an Airbus A380, but in more neutral Airbus livery? —  Jeff G. ツ  18:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice photo, it certainly works for me.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Better than the current one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.199.247 (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Government section
Adding Speaker Bercow and Baron Phillips to the government tab of the side info bar seems redundant. Firstly Bercow is missing the title MP, which seems quite odd considering David Cameron has it. Secondly the speaker only plays the role of presiding over parliament, he doesnt have the role of setting Parliaments legislative agenda like the Speaker of the Unites States House of Representatives.

Baron Phillips doesn't have the title Chief Justice either, he's the President of the Supreme court. We should mirror other Westminster system countries pages that just have the monarch and Prime Minister (without the governor general of course)

ALMAlex5 173.51.119.15 (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree and I've reverted their recent addition. Consensus needs to be reached if this addition is to be made. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember a couple of months ago we had a similar discussion over whether or not to include the Deputy PM in the box and that idea got shot down so I imagine there'd be the same response if you tried to add the Speaker. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Special Relationship + updated Armed Forces image needed
Hello, I believe the Special Relationship nonsense should be removed, its not in the United States article, looks desperate we have it in the UK article when UK-US relations are no way as strong as it once was. Seems to be an old term for an old time. Also the UK forces image, BritishPatrolHelmand01.jpg should be replaced (three years old), we no longer use the Land Rovers in Afghanistan. -- SuperDan89 (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. It is sourced, in inverted commas (suggesting its limitations) and with a wikilink if readers want to investigate it further.-- SabreBD  (talk)  18:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * May I ask why it is in the UK article and not the US? If it were so 'special' wouldn't it be mentioned in both? -- SuperDan89 (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Because, most of the time, only the UK uses the terminology. Just because it is a British concept doesnt mean it cannot appear in the British article.-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The term does appear in both the United Kingdom-United States relations and Foreign policy of the United States articles. G.R. Allison (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's in United States now, too.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a quote by Obama from May of this year which may be of interest to those questioning the current state of the relationship: "As I told the prime minister, the United States has no closer friend and ally than the United Kingdom, and I reiterated my deep and personal commitment to the special relationship between our two countries -- a bond that has endured for generations and across party lines." Rangoon11 (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to see it has been added to the US article and to hear Obama's comments supporting the relationship, with that the idea of the 'Special Relationship' seems to make more sense now and I agree it should be kept. -- SuperDan89 (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Cliff Richard in the Music section
I note that Cliff Richard is not included in the List of best-selling music artists article, and that it is hotly disputed as to whether his sales total is anywhere near 200 million: [].

I therefore propose to replace his name with that of the Bee Gees (who are British/Australian) in the sentence starting 'Prominent British contributors to have influenced popular music over the last 50 years include', as their sales total of over 200 million is generally accepted to be true.

I would be grateful to hear others' thoughts on this. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Cliff Richard has a reliable reference in this article so I dont see a reason to delete. I dont have a view about the The Bee Gees but you dont need to remove one to add one. MilborneOne (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've now added the Bee Gees but left Cliff Richard, my main concern is that his reference in this article creates a contradiction with List of best-selling music artists. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood but we are not here to understand other articles, which does not appear to accept reliable sources like the BBC but has for some reason set itself a higher standard than normally reliable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Lists
A number of lists appear in this article. The most blatant one is in the science and technology section, but they exist throughout it, especially in Culture (albeit lists in prose). It is my opinion that these do not belong on this article, especially as it is a summary the UK. They don't add anything. Remove? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly feel that the content of these lists should remain. I agree that there is an issue with some information requiring citations and some information being in a list format which might be better in prose. However the great majority of the information is extremely valuable and relevant. The UK's overall contribution to science and technology, and technological innovations, is arguably the largest of any nation over the last 300 years. The last 300 years have also seen by far the greatest technological progress in human history. This is very important content. The science and technology section in, for example, the Russia article is far larger in terms of total words.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And if you go to the Russia (recently delisted from GA) article's talk page, you'll see I suggested cutting that section down. This was agreed to by other editors. At any rate, the section there is nice and prosed, organised. The lists here are just random assortments of everything. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that the section as it stands needs work, the list style is not appropriate and the information should be in prose. However the solution cannot be to simply remove content that is completely relevant and important. Please explain which parts of the content you feel are 'random assortments of everything'.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well besides the items chosen for Science and technology that seem to have no criteria other than made in UK, theres the movies chosen as examples of being based off British stories, list of early writers (seemingly picked to get one a century), list of 20th century writers, a couple more in the literature section im not going to bother listing out, large parts of the music section, the second paragraph of Philosophy, practically the whole visual arts section, etc.
 * Not only are the lists mostly unsourced (often not even individual items are sourced), but usually no context is given other then oh these people or places are important. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I don't follow you at all. How are scientific discoveries made in the UK not relevant to a section on science and technology in the UK? How are British writers not relevant to a section on British literature? How are British musicians not relevant to a section on British music? How are British philosophers not relevant to a section on British philiosophy? A few examples of Hollywood films based upon British stories and events seems to me highly relevant to the cinema section, particularly since the British and American film industries are so closely connected.


 * If your comment is that these sections could be better written, then perhaps I can agree. All of your comments regarding content I completely disagree with however. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've not once written about relevance. They're definitely relavant. The question is if they are so notable they should appear on this page, which should just be the shortest of summaries of whatever the topic is, especially under level 3 headers. If they are notable, not much reason is given why. There is only so many ways one can write a list. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at this article and the articles of other major nations I don't believe that the overall treatment of science and technology, literature, cinema or music is overly long here or that too many individual names are given. It is also fair to note that the UK has had an exceptionally large impact in very many areas and has produced very many notable individuals. In terms of whether this or that specific individual is worthy of mention, there will of course always be an element of subjectivity. In the literature section I think very few people would argue with the inclusion of Shakespeare, Dickens, Chaucer, Austen or Orwell but some may argue that, for example, David Edgar should not be listed (personally I wouldn't though). There are also many authors who are not included that a strong case could be made for. I am suprised, for example, to see no reference to Ian Fleming. Which authors do you feel are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article? Rangoon11 (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is not the length of the topic per se, but the fact that much of that length is simply taken up by lists, with no real depth given. I would agree that the UK has produced many notable individuals, following your literature example, Ian Fleming in my opinion should be there too. However, what you think, and what I think, should play a minimal role in regards to lists like these. Although notable individuals are worth mentioning, mention too many and they all become meaningless names. If we pick who it is, there is an element of OR there. The best option would be if it was sourced from a list somewhere of people the list felt was most notable. The problem is none of the lists here have that, they are thrown together by the editors here. Summarizing:
 * Long lists take up space that could be used to explain the notability and effect of the topic, especially in its relation to the UK.
 * The current lists are arbitrary, based off the editors with no sources for them.
 * -- Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The science and technology list is ugly and they are not based on a single source, and hence involve original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is, certainly with anything connected to the arts, that there will always be a large element of subjectivity. This is not to say that the lists are arbitrary, they represent the combined contributions and opinions of many editors over many years. Even if we could find one source which listed the thirty or forty most significant figures in British literature, we could find other sources which would contradict much of the content. There is an inherent subjectivity in this area which is unavoidable. We could fall back on purely statistic-driven criteria, such as listing only the biggest-selling authors, but I think most people would agree that that would be both crude and inappropriate.


 * There is also not space for a proper narrative of a topic as vast as the whole of British literature. Getting the balance right between narrative and purely listing out names is itself highly subjective and a matter of editorial judgement. Looking at similar articles on Wikipedia one can see that they also include large numbers of names. Given the very limited space constraints and the huge amount of ground to cover this is probably unavoidable. Having said all that I do agree that the narrative aspects of the literature, music, philosophy and science and technology sections of this article could all be improved. However I feel that doing so requires considerable care and restraint in order to avoid losing important and valid information and replacing it with narrative that is so partial and superficial as to itself be highly subjective.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Subjective information decided by editors should not be in an article. However, if the information is backed up by WP:RS, then it can be in the article. At present the lists do not fulfill that. Additionally, we are not trying to create a narrative of the entire body of British literature. That's what the page British literature is for. This applies for all of these sections. This article is not meant to have so much detail. It is meant to be a summary, not a full account. Lists are excessive detail probably not needed. Instead of just comparing it to Russia, please browse through the GA and FA country articles found here. There are some lists, but nothing close to the number here and nothing as audaciously bad as the current science and technology one. I've copied the list to Science and technology in the United Kingdom. I thus move for it to be deleted here, replaced by maybe a sentence saying that the UK has resulted in achievements such as (2 or 3 examples max). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not like the idea of radically cutting that list to just provide a couple of examples. Many things in that list are notable, it certainly provides the reader with more information than a couple of sentences would. If this was a roadblock to it becoming a "Good article" then id support removal, but i suspect there would be major other issues with the article before that becomes a problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * All articles on countries in Wikipedia, including all of the GA and FA country articles, contain lists and contain subjective material. This is unavoidable. And as I said before, sources can always be provided to support an infinite number of possible texts, but the selection of the sources is itself original research and the content will still be subjective, it will just be sourced. You seem very keen on simply deleting chunks of this article, rather than making efforts to improve it, to rework content and to add sources. To delete the content of the science and technology section rather than making efforts to improve it through working the text into prose would be completely unacceptable to me. You also fail to see that your proposed approach of choosing just two or three examples of UK scientific breakthroughs is actually even more subjective than the current longer list, since it involves a far greater element of choice of what to include and exclude. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please show me the GA/FA country article which has an unsourced list of 20 odd items. If a source can be provided, support it. Selection of sources is not original research. "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." If a list comes from a reliable source, we can use it. My proposed approach was a compromise approach, apparently unacceptable to you. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * BritishWatcher, just because there are other problems with the article, doesn't mean we shouldn't address the list issue. Hopefully as a starting point, we can agree that the bullet-point list format should be changed to prose? I'm sure a reliable source can then be found to support the selection of items. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest i prefer the list format and would rather see more bullet point lists like that than tons of prose, however i accept standard format is prose on wiki so i dont mind that being changed, im just against cutting the list down to 2 or 3 examples, losing a couple would be ok though. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would personally be prepared to lose the references to the hovercraft (a niche form of transport), soda water (obscure) and the theories of Stephen Hawking (merely theories and of uncertain impact thus far). I also feel that the references to the steam train should be combined, and the duplicative references to the jet engine and electric lighting removed from the sentence below the present bulleted list.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to put in my 2d worth. I would support the lists being turned into prose, as these look more encyclopedic and are less of an encouragement to unsourced list creep, probably with less examples, but almost certainly more than just 2 or 3. The subjectivity can be mitigated by following some major source as to what are the major discoveries.-- SabreBD  (talk)  18:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Where did we get to with this? Is anyone willing to take on a rewrite to more concise prose?-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to imagine making the list more concise, it's a barebones list. Per the complex list guidelines "a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence", however I suppose if the "greatness" of everything was explained, it could become nice prose, albeit long prose. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"United" Kingdom of Great Britain?
This is strange and have never heard it called that before, also strange to start the history of the United Kingdom in 1707 rather than 1800. I checked the texts to the 1707 and 1800 Acts. Art 1 of the 1707 Act says explicitly that the name of the Kingdom is "Great Britain" - no attempt to include "United" in the title unlike the 1800 Act. The 1707 Act does then go on to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain later in the text but 'united' is clearly being used in an adjectival sense rather than part of its formal title. One shouldn't be misled by the use of capital 'U'. In accordance with usage at the time many words begin with a capital letter (which don't now) for the purposes of emphasis. This is quite different to the usage in the 1800 Act. Can someone clarify please the thinking here.DeCausa (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

For clarity this is the 1707 Act: "THAT the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the first Day of May which shall be in the Year one thousand seven hundred and seven, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain..." and this is the 1800 Act: "That it be the first Article of the Union of the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first Day of January which shall be in the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom, by the Name of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland;" DeCausa (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. I believe you have quote from the English Act. The Scottish Act and the Treaty itself give a different picture. For example, article VI says "That all parts of the United Kingdom for ever from and after the Union shall have the same Allowances, Encouragements and Drawbacks, and be under the same Prohibitions, Restrictions and Regulations of Trade and lyable to the same Customs and Duties on Import and Export." Hope that helps! 86.153.144.192 (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note also that for historical completeness (some might say over-kill) there is a separate Kingdom of Great Britain article for the 1707 to 1801 period, and a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland article for the 1801 to 1927 period.


 * It seems sensible to keep historical information about both those periods in this article however, both for the ease of readers and most importantly because to do otherwise would ignore the reality that the various incarnations of the United Kingdom post-1707 have been, in all significant features and to all intents and purposes, exactly the same nation but with different borders; to break the narrative sweep of the nation into articles covering the periods 1707 to 1801, 1801 to 1927 and 1927 to present day would be completely artificial. United States has a single article running from 1776, although its borders today are quite different to at its foundation.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If that is the reasoning, then I'm afraid this article is misleading and incorrect. The United Kingdom was founded as a new state in 1801. Prior to that there was no United Kingdom, but two predecessor states: Ireland and Great Britain. Just as in 1707, Great Britain was a new state created out of its two predecessors: England and Scotland. It wasn't the expansion of one state with additional territory (as is the case with the US). I can find a ton of citations for this - I had assumed, however, that someone had found a technical reason for arguing that Great Britain = United Kingdom. If there isn't, it's just a mistake and needs to be corrected.DeCausa (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the above before I saw the message from 86.153.144.192. I'll take a look at that. Even so, I think it is a highly unusual and novel use of "United Kingdom" based on one of the two Acts only. DeCausa (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I happen to have a particular interest in Scottish history. The Treaty of Union created a 'united kingdom' in that it united two kingdoms. The Treaty did not call this state 'The Kingdom of Great Britain' or even the 'Kingdom of Great Britain', but just 'Great Britain'. The question then is whether we should add the description 'The United Kingdom of' or 'The Kingdon of', to its name. The Scottish Act of Union chose the former as that more accurately reflected the wording of the Treaty, the English Act of Union chose the latter (I'm not sure why.) By the way, no one is arguing that Great Britain = United Kingdom as that would lead to confusion since Great Britain is also the name of the island and the United Kingdom is Great Britain plus Northern Ireland. However, if you had said' United Kingdom of Great Britain = Great Britain' that would be clear and make sense! The political union created in 1707 has indeed evolved, and its name has changed twice to reflect these changes. I'm sure no one wants to confuse matters by suggesting that each stage should be regarded as completely separate? The union that is the United Kingdom has survived (indeed prospered) for over three hundred years and, notwithstanding various nationalist movements, is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Hope that is helpful. 86.153.144.192 (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I really disagree on this. The normal convention by historians and constitutional lawyers follows the legal formality, that is that 'United Kingdom' refers to the union of GB and Ireland, whereas 'Great Britain' refers to the union of Scotland and England. 'United Kingdom' means something specific. I can easily gather cites from constitutional law books and will post in the next few days. As I said in my earlier post, the English Act of Union of 1707 said the countries "be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain. I've now checked the Scottish Act, and it expresses it in exacly the same way - sede Art 1. The later references in the Act to the "said united kingdom" are merely adjectival i.e these kingdoms that have been united and are also in the English act.  The term "United Kingdom" was not brought into force as the name of any state until the 1800 Act.DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree the use of the term United Kingdom in the 1707 act is adjectival and that the conventions stated by DeCausa are normal among historians. However, I didn't think that the article was stating that the state started in 1707, just that this was part of a process of constitutional development, just like the union of crowns in 1603. Perhaps I am reading this a different way, but this kind of mention to 1707 seems reasonable in this context. What exactly would be proposed changes if this view was accepted?-- SabreBD  (talk)  22:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that it does strongly suggest that. The first sentence of the history section says that the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" was created in 1707. There should be no reference to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" and the history section should start with a statement that the UK was created by the Union of GB and Ireland in 1801. It can then say that prior to this GB was created by the union of England and Scotland in 1707 (see main article Great Britain) and that Ireland was established as a Kingdom in personal union with the English (then British) crown (see main article Ireland). I'll write it up if there is consensus on the principle.DeCausa (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally don't mind that sentence being changed to say that the name of the state as established in 1707 was the Kingdom of Great Britain - although I feel that this is very much a point of form rather than substance - but the article should nonetheless still contain pre-1707 historical information, in a similar manner to Italy, Germany, Russia etc. In my view the history section of the article as it stands needs a lot of work and expansion, but that is another matter.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Pre-1801 information should primarily be in the Great Britain article with a brief summary in this article. I think the view that it is form over substance is a misunderstanding of what happened in 1800.109.154.121.100 (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am fine with DeCausa's suggested pattern, which I think is a largely a matter of emphasis through getting the order right. On the problem of how far the history section goes there is a major difficulty here, which has been discussed extensively before. It so happens that Italy, Germany and Russia, although relatively modern states, occupy an area that had the same name or for which the same name is used in English. In a literal sense there was no UK before 1801. But that is probably a debate for another thread if someone wants to reopen it.-- SabreBD  (talk)  01:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi DeCausa. You say "The United Kingdom was founded as a new state in 1801. Prior to that there was no United Kingdom.." Unfortunately that is not accurate. Prior to 1801 there was a 'United Kingdom' - the political union formed when the two kingdoms of England and Scotland merged to form a new 'united' kingdom. I agree that you could argue that the United Kingdom formed in 1801 was a different 'United Kingdom' since the two kingdoms merging were Great Britain and Ireland, but this was much more of an existing union expanding rather than a completely different state being created. It's a little bit akin to the expansion of the European Union where the EEC grew and changed to the EC which in turn became the EU - a proper history of the EU would have to start at the initial 'union' whether it was called the 'European Union' or not. Similarly, the history of the United Kingdom should start with the original 'united kingdom' which was formed in 1707. Such an interpretation is clearly supported by authoritative sources including, if I recall, the UK parliament website. I'll check that out and post the link to confirm. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To confirm the above, the UK parliament website states that the United Kingdom of Great Britain was formed in 1707. It then goes on to say that "The Parliament of the United Kingdom met for the first time in October 1707." Hope that is helpful. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, fraid that's not right - already covered earlier in the thread - that's based on a misinterpretation of the 1707 Act. I'll dig out the citations from my constitutional law books and post! Cheers DeCausa (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I assume you're referring to the Scottish Act. In any case, whatever your constitutional law books may say (which will also be interpretations) the fact remains that reliable sources do support the claim that the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' was formed in 1707. It is also the case that the term United Kingdom was in use to describe the state of 'Great Britain' long before the Treaty with Ireland. Indeed, that is probably why the new state was formally called 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' rather than 'The Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, one (and it is one) sloppily written website doesn't carry much weight against the statutes themselves plus the overmhelming weight of the legal academy and historians' convention (in print).DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you really say that Parliament's official website is sloppily written? That seems a little unjust. -- George 2001 hi 23:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? The official booklet issued by the Home Office which candidates for the UK citizenship test had to study contained notoriously legally incorrect statements about the constitution for many years...! Civil servants...TasiEngi (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipdedia is built on the idea of reliable source. If The UK parliament website can not be viewed as a sufficiently reliable source, we are in big trouble! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are discrepancies between reliable sources, we should explain those differences in the article. If it's simply a disagreement between editors, it's trivial, irrelevant to the article, and can be ignored and forgotten.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems clear to me that the name of Great Britain was suitably ambiguous, and that no-one of the time particularly minded. In statute, Kingdom of Great Britain was used often, as was Great Britain alone - and United Kingdom was used in a modern fashion for Great Britain as well: "of that Part of the United Kingdom" - Scottish Episcopalians Act 1711. --Breadandcheese (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Surveillance State
The paragraph "The UK is a pioneer of mass surveillance..." should really go in the law and criminal justice section. While undoubtedly true and important, it isn't really introduction material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.205.221 (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It certainly had no place in the lead, which was pure soap boxing. I have every sympathy with general concerns about the level of surveillance but some objectivity is required when comparing the UK with other nations. In terms of monitoring of the internet, email, phone calls etc, I see no evidence that the UK is more active in this area than other major nations, and in each case the reality is going to be a state secret so who knows? Yes there are lots of CCTV cameras in the UK, but very few of them are actually operated by the state. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for moving it. I actually agree with you, but I'll let others decide whether it should go in at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.205.221 (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This does not belong in the History section either. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In its 1st century, the UK ...
The history section uses the formulation above. I labelled this formulation with a "when" tag, because I find it is unnecessarily complicated. I guess the 18th century is meant, but I am not entirely sure, so I wanted to leave it up to other editors to find a straight way of putting it.

User:Rangoon11 removed my tag, commenting "minor edit". :-(

Please see my edit summaries for clarification as to why the current formulation is not optimal. T om ea s y T C 17:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't use '1st' in a sentence apart from to describe a century, we should use 'first', putting '1st' actually increases the ambiguity that you are referring to by making it appear at first glance a reference to the 1st century, not the first century of the existence of the United Kingdom. The sentence seemed pretty clear to me as it was but there are many alternatives, such as 'During its first 100 years', or during the period ... to ...Rangoon11 (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My point was not about 1st or first. It is about the of "its". The reader needs to figure out what the subject of its is (i.e., the UK), and then know when the UK started to exist (i.e., 1707?) to make sense out of it. Your proposal does not solve this problem at all. T om ea s y T C 19:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that there is no clear agreement on when the first century was (see "United" Kingdom of Great Britain? section above) I admit this may be a bit unclear. Can we either agree a specific period or perhaps drop that bit altogether?-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * How about 'During the 18th and early-19th Centuries' ?  Rangoon11 (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

UK as a country
From the FAQ of this talk page;

Q1: Is the United Kingdom a "country"? A1: Reliable sources support the view that the United Kingdom is a single country. This view is shared with other major reputable encyclopedias. There has been a long-standing consensus to describe the UK in this way.

Definitions to support this may include "A country is a geographical region considered to be the physical territory of a sovereign state" or "state: a politically organized body of people under a single government".

Also it is only the UK which appears on the ISO list of countries. Countries in this context being used to refer to a sovereign state but less confusing to casual readers as country is easy to understand despite some calling England or Scotland countries too. I also think the use of the world country is thrown around often when it comes to England, Scotland etc when they are perhaps nations but it is hard to see how they are countries themselves.

Given the above reasons I have changed from sovereign state to country in the lead. Does anyone have any feelings about this? G.R. Allison (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your edit. The article already stated that the UK is a country, further down in the lead. It is both a sovereign state and a country (unlike England, which is only a country). The opening sentence should use the word state, since that is the 'highest level' description of the UK's status. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which definition of country are you using out of interest?G.R. Allison (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Yes. Not everyone reads the talk page, let alone the notices at the top.  There have been extensive discussions in the past, not about whether the UK is a country which it clearly is, but about whether England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be called countries.  The consensus - developed through much discussion over countless pages - is that they are indeed countries (although there are outstanding disagreements, particularly about Northern Ireland).  Given that, it is more confusing to our international readership to say, in effect, that the UK is a country comprised of four countries.  It is much clearer to state that the UK is a sovereign state - which is not disputed - composed of four countries, with an appropriate discussion in the appropriate place of the senses in which E, S, W and NI are called "countries".  Not only that, but attempting to unravel the whole discussion from this page would lead to yet another round of arguments on other pages as well.  This is quite a sensitive area, and changing introductory text in this way is unhelpful.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all I disagree with it being unhelpful, it has served to spark a discussion regarding it. Given your point however I feel it may be better yo use 'state' rather than 'sovereign state' as the former is the easiest to understand for many readers and means the same thing. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really - a state can also be a sub-national entity, such as in Germany or the US. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Sovereign state" is the accepted technical term, and has a linked article explaining it. "State" is ambiguous, particularly to our American friends.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems my proposal has been defeated, sovereign state it remains. Thanks for your time. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As a follow up to (and in light of) this decision, would it be sensible to refer to the countries of the UK as "Constituent Countries", as they are commonly referred to, or use the term "countries"? Since paragraph 2 of the lead of the article refers to the UK as a country, and the rest of the article refers to the four "parts" as countries as well, would this change ensure more clarity or is it unnecessary? (Also considering that "Constituent Country" may/may not be a legal/official term, but simply used for the purposes of clarity.) [Example: "It is a country consisting of four countries". I can imagine this being confusing to those unfamiliar with the UK and its geographical makeup.] Thanks. ★ KEYS 7 6 7 ★ talk 23:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it would it be sensible to refer to the countries of the UK as "Constituent Countries", feel free providing no one here objects. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a fascinating ongoing discussion, one of the joys of Wikipedia. We could rarely have this discussion anywhere else. The UK is a fascinatingly odd polity to describe. It's not a unity anymore, because Northern Ireland and Scotland are autonomous now (is Wales?). But then it's not a federation either, because the components of the United Kingdom are not sovereign states. Scotland was of course, before the Act of Union. So yes, how do you define a 'country'? Gazzster (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say they are autonomous as the UK parliament does have power of many key issues but semi-autonomous certainly. G.R. Allison (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have some devolved powers, but each to different degrees. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, the fact that Scotland today has some degree of autonomy is not the reason why it is a country - it was a country before a Scottish parliament was re-established in 1999. By the way, to answer G.R. Allison, I do object to the phrase 'constituent country' as the phrase, when used, is often used by those with a political agenda (to downplay the fact that Scotland is a country). Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue here is what way the word 'country' should be used, Scotland is a country under some definitions of that word but not under others. The situation is certainly very complicated but given all the feedback I think 'constituent country' is the better term when describing parts of the UK as it still infers country status but also acknowledges that each country is part of the UK. G.R. Allison (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Numerous reiable sources (some are noted here) verify England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as countries - including official UK Government sources. The article is worded just fine as it is, and has no need to be changed. Daicaregos (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Many also describe them as constituent countries, this issue is not which has more sources, but simply which would be easier to read for the casual reader. But I think it is safe to say the consensus here is 'leave as is' and going by that I think this matter is now closed. G.R. Allison (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, 'country' is fairly safe I think. I land with its own distinct people, with its own language (though it may be little spoken) and its own laws and traditions would qualify as a country I think. In former times, when people rarely travelled, they might speak of Kent or Gloucestshire or even their county as their 'country'.Gazzster (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Why has "country" been removed from the introduction. For some time it said UK is a country and sovereign state. Country should be re added to the introduction. Some people do not believe the United Kingdom is a country there for it should clearly be stated in the introduction. I agree that sovereign state should be there too rather than replacing it with country. Both need to be displayed and it was stable until a recent rewording. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in the first line of the second para. From memory (not easy to check as the page versions take so long to load) the change was made quite some time ago, as part of a revamp of the whole introduction.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * about a month ago yes. But Country should absolutely be stated in the first sentence of this article along with sovereign state. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No it "absolutely" shouldn't. It doesn't matter.  It's in the second para.  That's fine.  Move on.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering someone wanted to have it say country instead of sovereign state there, i think its reasonable to go back to the previous wording which said both country and sovereign state before it was changed without consensus to remove country from that first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Also looking at the introduction, is it really accurate to say "The UK has three Crown Dependencies [17] and fourteen overseas territories that are not constitutionally part of the UK"? The Crown dependencies are possessions of the Crown, unlike the overseas territories which are the United Kingdoms? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe so. The territories are possessions of the UK, and it has legal authority over them; the crown dependencies are possessions of the crown itself, and I believe (but could easily be wrong) that they are much more autonomous legislatively, though the UK still manages things like defense and foreign affairs. I can't think of an analogue anywhere else in the world, except maybe the Netherlands, with its difference between "The Netherlands" and "The Kingdom of the Netherlands". Aruba, etc. are not part of the Netherlands, but they are part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. So an analogous (but I could easily be wrong) way of putting it might be, the territories are owned by the country of the United Kingdom, but the Crown Dependencies are not; they are owned by the kingdom of the United Kingdom. Things are complicated by the fact that the country has "Kingdom" right there in its name. :) --Golbez (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

To have a country made up of four countries is an impossible paradox. The four countries in question ceased to be countries when they merged into one country thus abrogating their sovereignty to the newly formed united country and nor was there one union but several. Please would someone adjust this. It would seem to make sense to say "The United Kingdom is a country formed from when Great Britain and Ireland were united in... "for example (?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 21:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * They are legally defined as countries, so it's not impossible - just an incredibly bizarre and confusing set of statuses. However, I still stick by my belief (above) that England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales should be referred to in this article as "constituent countries" to avoid ambiguity to the casual reader. &#9733; KEYS 7 6 7 &#9733; talk 23:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no basis for saying that Northern Ireland is "legally defined" as a country. It is not and never has been defined as such.  Can you provide a single reference to any law?  In Northern Ireland, to refer to the place as a "country" is a political statement - it identifies the speaker as Unionist.  The term is never used by anyone in the substantial nationalist minority, and should emphatically not be used in Wikipedia. Brocach (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ambiguity is in the nature of the constitutional arrangement, like it or not, and this article should not try to impose simplicity where none exists in reality. The intro sets out that the UK is a sovereign state, and a country comprised of four countries.  That's not necessarily a paradox - the word "country" has more than one meaning, and those meanings are fully explored in the text of the linked articles, and in this article.  Attempting to explain the different meanings in the intro would give the issue undue weight - curious readers will click on the links.  Statements like "The four countries in question ceased to be countries when they merged" are (sorry) simply ignorant.  By the way, why does the USA only have one State Department?  Paradoxical terminology is not confined to the UK.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hogwash and flibbertyjibbet! England and Scotland stopped being distinct countries when they merged. Wales and Northern Ireland merged also into the UK under different circumstances and cannot be countries either. You cannot have a "country comprised of four countries". It's obviously impossible. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are territories (of undefined but differing status and some of them formerly countries) within the UK - suitably neutral term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 23:18, 30 November 2010
 * Did you actually read what I wrote? It's not "obviously impossible", no more than the USA is a "state comprising 50 states". Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't think states is a perfect analogy. States-within-states are widespread. US states don't call themselves countries for obvious reasons. I'll stand by what I wrote. The notion of 'country' implies an independence, a distinctness, a sovereignty, which by definition cannot be retained upon merger into what is universally defined as a 'country', in this case the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 23:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your (Ghmyrtle's) 'USA: "State/State"' argument is the pretty much the most sensible thing I've seen all month :P - it certainly puts the Country/Country argument into a relatable context; I'm actually quite baffled that I didn't think of that myself. So I guess It seems that if a person is interested enough in the subject to make extra queries about the difference between the US "state" and the US "states", then that should certainly be expected of someone confused about the definition of the terms country in this article... Well, there you go now... :)
 * Screwbiedooo, the UK's constituent countries' status is not really up for debate. The UK government refers to them officially as 'countries' on a legal and international basis. There is no argument to be had - if there was any discrepancy in their titles, I think it would have been discovered, and raised in parliament - not a Wikipedia talk page.&#9733; KEYS 7 6 7 &#9733; talk 23:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does the government do this? If the UK government is acting internationally on behalf of the country known as the United Kingdom, then in what context is it relevant to be representing 4 countries, unless you call into question the status of the UK as a country itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.176.110 (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been explained here and elsewhere on countless occasions, the word "country" can mean non-sovereign state, or territory, as well as sovereign state. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Will people be satisfied if the intro says "country comprised of four constituent countries" or is it better to leave as is? G.R. Allison (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For the multiple reasons that have been discussed here countless times in the past, it's better to leave it as it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, fair enough - Seconded &#9733; KEYS 7 6 7 &#9733; talk 17:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, this issue won't go away - to refer to England, Wales or Scotland as countries is not controversial, but in the case of Northern Ireland, the term is completely contrary to NPOV. To refer to Northern Ireland as a country is to assert one's Unionist credentials. Brocach (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as Northern Ireland remains a part of the UK, it's alright to call it a country within this article. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A bizarre way to attempt to resolve the issue - whether or not a politically non-neutral term should be used in Wikipedia does not depend on the constitutional status of a particular region of a particular state, let's just go with Wikipedia's own rule of NPOV and avoid the conrtoversy. Wikipedia should not be used to further a partisan viewpoint. Brocach (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there another way to resolve it? GoodDay (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is only one way to resolve it - but let's take the discussion back up to the 'Terminology: Northern Ireland as "a country"?' section - see my posting of 16 December 2010 which I think sets out the only sensible way forward. Brocach (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Intro
The UK was "the world's foremost power during the 19th and early 20th centuries" : maybe this information should be balanced with historic facts : during the early 19th, Napoleon's First French Empire was the most powerful European state. We have to remember that a coalition of several states, including the UK, the Russian Empire, Prussia, Sweden (that was at the time one of the great European powers) and the Austrian Empire was necessary to defeat France alone.

Moreover, when the German Empire was united under Bismark, it has a great industrial and economic potential and an important population, that led some people think it was the greatest European power of the time :

Here were two examples of countries that have challenged British power during the 19th century. It's sure that finally, the UK was victorious, but I think that stating that only the UK was the greatest power for all the 19th century is quite inaccurate.

Taking this in account, don't you think it's a little bit presumptuous for English Wikipedia to declare that the UK was the foremost power on this time, and not one of the great European powers, together with, for instance, France and Germany ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.241.244.179 (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The statement comes from a reliable source, so whether you or are agree or disagree with the statement or the degree of its presumption is not really relevant. If you want to make changes along the above lines you will need to find reliable sources (and the web site you reference will not be enough.  -- Snowded  TALK  11:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support the present wording, there is no need to change it. Has said that for some time and is stable and accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I too strongly support the present wording, which is a plain statement of fact. A vast number of additional citations could be found in major history books to support the sentence in question. The link provided by the IP above is in any case to a web site of questionable provenance. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The anon does have a case, but s/he will need to find some references to support any modification, the web site doesn't do it.. If there are referenced then it can be changed regardless of stability.  Accuracy will be determined by references.  WP:BITE guys   -- Snowded  TALK  12:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to have a debate on the subject. The fact that there were challengers to UK power in certain spheres is quite different to saying that this meant the UK was not the foremost world power. The U.S. has faced and continues to face challenges, such as from the Soviet Union in the space race and the nuclear arms race, from Japan in semiconductors, optics, automotive and consumer electronics, and increasingly from China, which has a much larger population. The UK traditionally did not have a large European standing army, hence fighting against France in a coalition. The UK's navy made it the dominant global power however, and enabled the development and maintenance of the empire. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This point has been discussed a lot before, so please take a look at the archives as many of the debating points are in there already. The main distinction is between european powers, like France & Germany and global powers, of which Britain was the first and only one. Foremost power is one way to describe that but there are other possibilities too. No other nation had Britain's global sea power between 1815 and 1943 or thereabouts when the US took over the role. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is not about European power, its about world power. The battle of Trafalgar gave Britain world dominance and dominance over world markets. For over a century, Britain could put soldiers and ships unchallenged, anywhere in the world. Germany may have been the dominant European force, but it could not challenge the Royal Navy until the first world war —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.173.142 (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would also have to say that seeing as Britain was the dominant world power, it would stand to reason that it was the leading power in Europe as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Welsh
Why is welsh on the infobox? If Welsh is there, shouldn't all the other subnational languages be there? It ought to be just English, as the others are sub-nationally recognized languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.10.198 (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I removed it, but if there is some reason why someone has added it, then a discussion will be started here. Nations United (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Welsh is an official language in part of the UK - . (And, btw, Wales is not a "subnation", it is a nation.)  It should be within the infobox.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh no, UK terminology :/ *lip wobble* But anyway, Welsh is an official language in one of the constituent...[political units] that make up the UK. There is a strong argument it should be included. But then again, scots gaelic etc. may also be argued for inclusion, although only a regional language. Northern Ireland has Irish and Ulster Scots as official minority languages. Should those be included? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Welsh is used in the courts etc. etc. it is an official language. Scots gaelic has similar use although less formal status. There is a case for its inclusion. I'm less sure about Ulster Scots. I'm not an expert but I think that is a dialect? -- Snowded TALK  07:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine Ulster Scots being significantly different to the main language, but that's what it's called in Northern Ireland. I doubt UK would be different in each dialect/language anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why can't they all be included, perhaps using a descending feature similar to that used at the top of the info box in the Great Britain article? Rangoon11 (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Have to agree fully with the original edit/removal - The Welsh title should be removed unless all of the other languages listed on the infobox are also included. Why is only one listed? It doesn't make sense, nor does it seem fair. Like Rangoon11 mentioned, the Great Britain article has a good way of displaying multiple translations. &#9733; KEYS 7 6 7 &#9733; talk 18:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no real need for the Welsh title, regional names for the country are listed as a footnote. A collapsible list was once included on this article, but because it negatively affected the article's loading-times, it was later removed. -- George  2001 hi 20:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem to slow down the loading of the Great Britain article particularly. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Um...Ghmyrtle, where does it say in your source that Welsh is an official language of all of the United Kingdom? It only says that Welsh has become an official language in Wales. I still stand on my position. It makes absolute no sense that only Welsh is include. Either it is removed, or all other languages are included. Nations United (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Read my words... "Welsh is an official language in part of the UK". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Welsh is treated differently from other minority languages in the UK. UK government websites, for example, are quite commonly presented in English with a second Welsh option only. Scottish Gaelic also has a lesser official status, but still in advance of other languages like Irish Gaelic. --Breadandcheese (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, but does it really make any sense that Welsh is included just because it is more "official" than the other languages? The fact is that the de facto language is only English, so the only name should be in English. Nations United (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "...the de facto language is only English..." Not true - .  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You keep showing sources that show things about Wales; I find that irrelevant because we are talking about the United Kingdom as a whole. Look at the "Official languages" under the UK infobox. English is the only one there. Just because Wales has passed a law that says it is an official language in Wales does not mean it is a official language of the UK. I think the fair way to settle this argument is to have a vote. What does everyone else think? Nations United (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please learn to spell the name correctly.  The Welsh Language Act was passed in the Westminster Parliament in 1993 so you are wrong in fact there.  Also you don't settle wikipedia issues with a vote.  -- Snowded  TALK  08:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what did I spell wrong? And by the way, having a vote is a perfectly good way to help settle issues. Nations United (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You spelt Wales as Whales, I corrected it for you on the GF assumption it was a genuine error on your part. Votes are not used in WIkipedia - check policy -- Snowded  TALK  21:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, as an official language of a constituent country of the UK, it is therefore by default an official language [Ok, at least a recognised language] of the wider country - as I see it. BUT, surely the issue being discussed here is its inclusion in the infobox, while the others were not included - in which case I think it should be removed.&#9733; KEYS 7 6 7 &#9733; talk 23:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree with you that is is a recognized language, just not an official one. I take it that your comment is a support for removal. By what I see above, there are only three definite opinions. It would be great if others could state their opinion; then we can reach a consensus. Nations United (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Either delete welsh, or add the others. I personally don't see it as important enough to warrant infobox inclusion. It's an official language in part of the country maybe, but not the whole UK. Thus an article on the UK probably doesn't need it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is an official language, used in legal documents and the courts so there is no case for removal. There is a case to add any other language with official status.  -- Snowded  TALK  08:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a language of Wales, not the UK, so I'm sure a case could be made. So should we add Irish? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Its an official language of the UK, which is in the main spoken in Wales. If Irish has similar status fine but I am not aware of an equivalent of the Welsh Language Act.  De facto would of course be another criteria in which case we would look for a significant regional use which I know can be established for Welsh and Scottish, less sure of others.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Wales has passed the law for Wales, not the United Kingdom. Therefore, it should be removed. And also, once again this article is talking about the UK as a WHOLE, just because Wales has passed this law it does not affect the United Kingdom as a whole because it is part of the UK. And wouldn't government websites offer the language in Welsh too then? I don't see it here. Nations United (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read, having to explain things twice is tedious - Wales did not pass the law, the Welsh Language Act was passed BY the United Kingdom Parliament. A language does not have to be spoken throughout a country to be an official language of that country (look at South Africa which has eleven for example). If you apply for a driving license you will be given a welsh option (and that is the case on a lot of government sites.  You probably don't see it because you have not looked.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I admit I made a mistake, but even so, it doesn't change anything. I've read the page and the first thing it says is "The Welsh Language Act 1993 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which put the Welsh language on an equal footing with the English language in Wales with regard to the public sector." See how it says in Wales? And to rephrase what I said; it has been passed for Wales, not the United Kingdom as a whole. Just because Wales is part of the UK, does it means that the UK now has another official language which its name should be written in that language as well? That makes absolute no sense. Nations United (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Good, we are making progress. Now check out other articles such as South Africa where there are more than one official language, generally only spoken or used in one are of that country.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That doesn't support your case at all. If you haven't read it, the reason those languages are there is because the official languages below on the infobox includes all eleven of them. Look at the infobox of the UK. The ONLY official language there is English. Therefore, Wales should not be included. It is an official language in Wales. Nations United (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The last time I checked Wales was a part of the UK and Welsh an official language within the UK (per the UK Parliament). An official language does not have to be universal within a country to be official or referenced. -- Snowded  TALK  19:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You are not facing the facts. You're completely ignoring what I said above. You keep saying the same thing over and over again. It's one thing to have an opinion and reason(s) for that opinion, but once those reasons become irrelevant, then you need to realize that maybe you are wrong. For some strange reason, there are some Wikipedians that find it extremely hard for them to consider that they may be wrong; right now, you are acting like one of them. Please, try to see what I'm saying. Look at the infobox of South Africa and the UK and look at the Wales Language Act page. I know it is hard for you to look at this from a neutral point of view, considering you are from Wales, and by the look of your user page, a very proud Welshmen, but please look at what I've said. Nations United (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, I am having to say the same thing time and time again because you are not listening. If you say something new I will comment.  Otherwise please deal with content issues don;t make speculative comments about the behaviour of other editors.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, you did not take anything from what I said, but you know what, I've stated my opinion; you've stated yours. So far, I see three other people who agree with me, and one who agrees with you. Because that is not a consensus, I think the best thing for us to do now is to let other users contribute to this discussion, and let them state their opinions. Once they have, we can get a clear consensus. (And by the way, if you took any offense to what I said, I apologize because I didn't mean it in an offensive way at all.) Nations United (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. By the way - Wikipedia is not a democracy, consensus is not determined by a vote  -- Snowded  TALK  21:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the regional languages section should be deleted. Stick to using just the official language of the entire kingdom, english. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, but if there is an overwhelming majority of users who agree with one side, I think a consensus would have been reached. I wasn't trying to determine by a vote, just seeing how many people were on each side so far. Nations United (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you check you will find there is no over-wealming majority for removal. There are three groups, those who want it deleted, those who want it to stay and those who think if Welsh then the others or none.  This latter group is more nuanced, some accepting the point that the official status of Welsh is clear.   The practice elsewhere on Wikipedia is to include all official languages.  See South African & Belgium, related practice on Great Britain is to list official and other languages.  Knowledge of Welsh, Scottish Gaelic or English is sufficient for naturalisation purposes by the way which argues for those three but not Irish or Cornish.   We need this debate to be in terms of policy and practice not opinion (humble or otherwise GoodDay)  -- Snowded  TALK  07:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two official languages in the UK. One (de facto) is English. The other (de jure) is Welsh. Both official languages should be used to name the UK at the head of the infobox. Welsh should also be noted as de jure under 'Official languages' in the infobox (noting Wales only in the footnote) and removed from 'Recognised regional languages' (located between 'Capital' and 'Ethnic groups'). Daicaregos (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * concur -- Snowded TALK  09:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that analysis and am happy with that approach (I should add that I would also be happy for the other languages discussed in the thread to be added in a drop-down format at the top of the info box). Rangoon11 (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If ya's are keeping Welsh in the infobox, ya's gotta keep Scottish & Irish too. PS- Welsh belongs in the regional section, along with Scottish Gaelic, Irish etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there's a reasonable argument for including Scottish Gaelic and Irish (and maybe also Scots, for that matter; I'll ignore Cornish for the time being), but it doesn't follow from the inclusion of Welsh that we should include these two. The legal situation is different in each case. Welsh is the only one of these that is official language by law in any part of the UK. English is de facto official throughout the UK, but this isn't encoded by law (unless, of course, the law continues to state that it have equal status with Welsh in Wales, in which case it is de jure official in Wales; I'm not sure how the new legal situation fits in the with old). Irish is legally "recognised" in Northern Ireland, while Scottish law gives Scottish Gaelic "equal respect" with English. Scots is "recognised" by the EU. Only English, Welsh and Scottish Gaelic are accepted for naturalisation purposes (unless this has changed since I last checked). So we have five languages, all with different statuses, only two of which are in any sense "official" languages in the UK, and only one of which (not English) has its official status clearly enshrined in law. So we need to establish precisely what our inclusion criteria are, because it certainly doesn't necessarily follow that including one means including any of the others. garik (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an act of parliament that moves to English from French as the language of the courts so I think English is de jure as well as de facto.-- Snowded TALK  15:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the welsh version of the Kingdom, from the top of the infobox, as this is the english language Wikipedia. Note: that french isn't added to the top of the infobox at Canada (for example). GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't recall (for example) the Queen delivering the throne speech in english & welsh, before the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Nor do I recall the UK Prime Minister speaking in english & welsh, as the Canadian Prime Minister speaks in english & french. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is the English language Wikipedia and therefore should not include other languages spoken by some people in UK. If that is wrong then I think Welsh should not be included while Scots,,, etc are not. Just my opinion. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  20:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Where was the consensus to add the Welsh version & only the Welsh version with the English version? AFAIK, there wasn't any. It was added on November 17th by Cashkid121. Why didn't he need a consensus? There's a double stanadard working here folks. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There wasn't. On the topic itself, I've been searching for evidence that the UK even has one or more official languages. Some sources say it doesn't. The UK Border Agency says that English is the official language. Any more official/governmental sources? Note that for this article we need sources relating to the use of official language(s) for the UK, not for Wales. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Last time I looked Wales was a part of the UK and the general precedent on other articles is to include all official languages, even if they are only used in a part of the territory. English is an official language in the courts and de facto otherwise.  GoodDay - of someone makes a change and it isn't challenged at the time then its the new stable version and a consensus is required to change it.  I realise you mostly edit on talk pages but you should know that.  -- Snowded  TALK  21:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be interesting to take a look at other opinions of the status of official language(s) in the UK. Official opinion internationally seems to be somewhat imprecise. The State Department simply list major languages in the UK, classing these as English, Welsh, Irish Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic. The CIA World Factbook has English as the language but feels that the following are recognized regional languages: Scots (about 30% of the population of Scotland), Scottish Gaelic (about 60,000 in Scotland), Welsh (about 20% of the population of Wales), Irish (about 10% of the population of Northern Ireland), Cornish (some 2,000 to 3,000 in Cornwall). Our EU descriptive entry mentions only English. . The relevant Wikipedia page, Languages of the United Kingdom, specifically declares that we have no official language. I would say there is a slight lean generally to the UK either officially speaking English or else not officially speaking anything. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But, that does not take into account the fact that the position in Wales changed on 7 December 2010, when new legislation was passed which "..confirm[s] Welsh and English as official languages.." within Wales - . Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Within Wales, but not the whole United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. We include the name in the official languages of the country, but not when it's only official of a constituent part. If we included those, United States would include its name in four languages. --Golbez (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please advise which official languages exist in the US so we can understand the point you are making. -- Snowded  TALK  22:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no official national language. This being the English Wikipedia, and English being the de facto official language of the country, we use English in the infobox. Were we to include every official language of every part of the country, we would have to include English of course (because some states have it as an official language), French (official in Louisiana), Spanish (official in New Mexico), and Hawaiian (official in Hawaii). --Golbez (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So those are state laws? In the UK the Welsh Language Act was passed by the UK Parliament.  In the US it would make sense for the articles on Lousiana (for example) to use French and English but not the US.  In the UK I can apply for a driving license in Welsh even if I live in England and there are other cases.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 22:11, 13 December 2010
 * See Languages of the United States. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Has the Scottish & Northern Irish governments agreed that english & welsh are the UK's official languages? GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In Wales, it's a matter devolved to the Welsh Assembly following this decision by the UK Parliament - it's not a matter relevant to those other bodies. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Welsh Assembly hasn't GoodDay, the Act was passed in the UK Parliament. -- Snowded  TALK  22:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm...no....you mean vice versa, I think..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why isn't it practiced? GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? -- Snowded  TALK  22:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Queen & PM don't use Welsh when addressing the UK Parliament or anything concerning the whole kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should they? It has nothing to do with the official status of Welsh.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If the United Kingdom's official language(s) is english & welsh - one would think the Queen & PM would use both languages - Are they not the Head of State & Head of Government of the United Kingdom? We're discussing the entire kingdom, not just Wales. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You might think it, but that is your idiosyncrasy. The official status is determined by Parliament not by the practice of two individuals.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In Wales, english & welsh are official. In Scotland, english & scottish are official. In Northern Ireland, english & irish are official. In England, english is official. In the United Kingdom, english is official. The UK example, hasn't changed. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is claiming that Welsh is an official language outside Wales. That still makes it an official language of the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is an official language of part of the UK, just as Hawaiian is an official language of part of the United States, yet no one would seriously entertain including the Hawaiian name of the country on the top of the US's infobox. This is the article on the whole country, not just Wales; Wikipedia standards have, thus far, been to only include nationwide official or de facto languages in the name at the top of the infobox, and no discussion here that I've seen has demonstrated Welsh to qualify. --Golbez (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

We need to unindent here. The article clearly states, Welsh and English have equal footing... in Wales. This is not the article on Wales. This is the article on the United Kingdom. The fact that French has equal official status in Louisiana does not mean we have to include the French name of the United States in that country's infobox. Despite multiple opportunities, I don't see where anyone has demonstrated that Welsh is an official language of the country as a whole. The BBC article of a few days ago states that Welsh is an official language in Wales, and the article on the 1993 act specifies it has equal footing in Wales. I am an impartial viewer here with no care for whatever nationalistic battles may be going on, so please, educate me: Is there anything stating that Welsh is an official language of the United Kingdom as a whole, and if so, where? --Golbez (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The UK "as a whole" has no official language, in part because - in Wales, Scotland and NI - matters such as that are devolved to the national administrations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we rely on the de facto national language, which is, unless demonstrated otherwise, English. Look at the United States - no official language, four languages deemed official by its components, but we only use the national de facto language. Canada: Two official langauges, both mentioned. I should look before leaping; since "Canada" is the same in both languages, there's no need to include it twice. Switzerland: Four official languages, plus the official name (in Latin), plus English. The UK has no national official languages and, until demonstrated otherwise, only one de facto national language. Welsh doesn't seem to qualify for the top of the infobox. --Golbez (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems fairly clear that those arguing for it to be in are basing this claim on the fact that Welsh is an official language in Wales. It can't be logically right that this argument maps on to the whole UK. After all, one would get short shrift going to Scotland and adding Welsh as an official language there; yet that follows from the position that it is UK-wide, since if it is UK-wide, it must apply in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. Clearly it does not. This also clashes with the principle that many accept within Wikipedia that Wales, Scotland, England (and perhaps) Northern Ireland are distinct countries. It also seems clear that the UK does not have an official language in the legislative sense but that it is widely considered to be English. Finally, we should remove the disputed text for the time being, because in the absence of consensus we should revert to the previous status quo. Done. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In agreement, there was never a consensus to add the Welsh version of the UK to the infobox heading. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I can't believe how far this discussion has gotten in one day. I see many people took part in it. I'm happy to see the Welsh version has been removed. I'm glad everyone sorted this out. Nations United (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope it's been sorted out. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * GoodDay you need to read up on Wikipedia process. The change was made and not contested sometime before this discussion started so it is the default position and your removal of it was a breech of WP:BRD,  you are also offering no argument other than some nonsense about what language the Queen uses and the fact you don't like it.
 * James, the Scottish argument is an interesting one but I don't think it stands as such, we can inherit up from Wales to the UK but there is not particular need to then spread to all articles associated with the UK
 * All, we were very close to an agreement before GoodDay intervened without reading the previous flow. That basically had the acknowledged languages used in the information box, I would suggest in a smaller font.  While Welsh is official in a different sense thanks to the Welsh Language Act we should I think work with the the de-facto position and show Welsh, Scottish Gailic and Irish translations, then follow the precedent on Great Britain and show the dialect names in a drop down box.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, English & Welsh are official languages within Wales, but not across the United Kingdom. Leave only the english version of the UK's name in the infobox heading. Furthermore, as I now understand it, there is no official language for the UK, thus english only would be used, as this is the English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep the Welsh text. The Welsh Language Act 1993 clearly makes Welsh an official language within part of the United Kingdom. --12:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So is there consensus then to include all recognised regional languages in a drop down? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See my suggestion above, those languages with official status in a smaller type face, other languages in a drop down -- Snowded TALK  13:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the Welsh version has been put back without consensus, via the you snooze, you loose stance. That approach has a very bad taste to it & appears as a hijacking of the infobox content. GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Snowded's suggestion. Daicaregos (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait a sec. Could I see an example of this all languages drop down? GoodDay (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at Great Britain GoodDay, its been pointed out to you several times -- Snowded TALK  13:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This compromise proposal is acceptable. PS: Next time folks, don't use the You snooze, you loose approach to these discussions. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, for an article like this which has a huge number of watchers and 40 to 50 thousand viewers per day, Welsh had been in the info box for long enough for it to have become part of the stable version of the article. Rangoon11 (talk)
 * Added a test below. Incomplete, missing some languages and the icons (don't know the icons), can be filled in if needed. Thoughts? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Should it not be headed 'National and regional languages' though? Rangoon11 (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it should, I based it off the current infobox list. Besides, using "National" on a UK article enters a world of trouble, which would be best avoided. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It should. Perceived trouble or not, it would be more accurate. Daicaregos (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Regional is wrong, and I would prefer Welsh & Scottish to be in the box with the others in a drop down. That would properly reflect status.  Then "regional" could be used. -- Snowded  TALK  14:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * National would be ambiguous. It would imply a language of the whole UK, and may have to be itself qualified. Would Irish then be out of the dropbox too? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We need Irish in there aswell, for Northern Ireland's sake. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That is my point Chipmunk, if a language is official we simply put it in the information box in a smaller font than English. Other languages can then legitimately be listed as regional and the problem goes away. I have no idea if Irish is an official language to be honest, maybe GoodDay would research that rather than simply opining.
 * The answer seems to be that it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was trying to get GoodDay to do some research for a change Ghmyrtle rather than just sharing his opinion informed or otherwise. -- Snowded TALK  14:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Pick, pick, pick. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * More Hope, Hope, Hope I'm afraid, do your share of the hard work this is no place for dilettantes -- Snowded TALK  15:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have the know-how, most of ya'll have. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, if an editor fails to undertake basic research to provide evidence to support their opinions, their opinions are worthless here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One doesn't need to research, to show that a chair is for sitting on. Thank goodness, there was no sources for klingon being a language in the UK. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the basic research that shows that Welsh is now an official language of the UK as opposed to just Wales? There isn't any, because in the legal sense of "official language", the UK has none. So if we're casting aspersions at each other about the lack of research, I invite futile efforts to prove that Welsh is now an official language of the UK as a whole. As regards the drop-down box, it can't but be an improvement on the current situation - the infobox currently looks as if Welsh is one of two main languages of the UK. On the status quo point, there must be a decided lack of vigilance from many editors hereabouts. I've been away for a month or so, but if I'd been around and seen that, I would have immediately challenged it. Glad we're getting it sorted now. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but some of us get very tired of GoodDay's repeated and persistent demonstrations of his ignorance on UK constitutional matters. Protestations that his views are not backed up by any research merely make the position worse.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's be content with the compromise we've got & avoid any future you snooze, you loose approaches to this article. An article, we all agree, tends to have emotional discussions. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, that "you snooze, you loose" comment which you keep repeating further demonstrates your woeful ignorance of the way Wikipedia works and your inability to know when to shut up. You spend all your time on talk pages, doing hardly anything in content space.  You distribute your opinions without argument or supporting research at any available opportunity.  You love to try and provoke disruptive editors who have been silent for a period to start up again and their are multiple examples of you stirring things up.  Its a pattern that one of these days will see an RfC or ANI report.  Ghmyrtle is one of the most level headed and temperate editors I know, if he is getting very tired its time for you to pay attention. -- Snowded  TALK  05:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are editors on Wikipedia, who are growing tired of your actions too. I don't wish to quarrel with you Snowded, so please - ease off on commenting on the contributer (me). GoodDay (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, if you were pissing off some editors by doing some real work on contentious articles I would be the first to support you. Layoff actions like repeating "You snooze, you loose" on multiple pages and there will be no need to comment on behaviour.-- Snowded  TALK  05:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a query about the welsh name in use on the article. Other users have mentioned that new UK passports list the full name of the country on the front page in English, Welsh and Scots gaelic. However, the wording in the passports (at least, in my passport) is different to the wording in the article. The passport says "Teyrnas Gyfunol Prydian Fawr a Gogledd Iwerddon" as opposed to "Teyrnas Unedig Prydain Fawr a Gogledd Iwerddon". Is there any official source supporting the current wording, or any reason to change it to reflect what it says i the passports? My apologies if that has already been addressed, though I could not find any mention of it in this long discussion. --89.168.241.200 (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Test
We'll need in brackets, what's Irish & what's Scottish. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Much better, now all we need is the Irish version. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * According to this article, the Irish name is Ríocht Aontaithe na Breataine Móire agus Thuaisceart Éireann. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Minor point - should it be alpha-order? Rangoon11 (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Can it be inserted now? GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, shouldn't they be added under "native_name"? "conventional_long_name" is specifically for the conventional English long form name. --Errant $(chat!)$ 15:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the order here. Shouldn't they be ordered by number of native speakers? In which case the order would be 1)English 2)Scots 3)Welsh 4)Irish 5)Scots Gaelic Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ulster Scots should be included in the collapse-list if Irish is, since they have the same status as languages. Don't know where to get a translation though... Suppose it could be left out if a translation can't be found... &#9733; KEYS 7 6 7 &#9733; talk 04:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's a difference between Ulster Scots and normal scots maybe. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how many people speak "normal scots" by the way so any order should probably be alphabetical.  Interestingly I was on the MoD site a few minutes ago as I have a meeting there in the morning.  They have options to download all contact forms in Welsh or English but not any other languages.  The same is true of several other ministries, although I've only checked a few as I have to get a train shortly.  Its supporting evidence on the official status issue.-- Snowded  TALK  05:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They are just following protocols for form downloads for government departments; this applies to many other UK HMG operations, but the precise interpretation is locally set by each department or agency according to perceived customer requirements; hence some for example have Hindi, Urdu, etc. It doesn't really either prove or disprove the debate above. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By far the majority of the population of Scotland speak Scots. Not sure whether or how the Ullans would differ from the Lallans in this instance. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

On the presentation of the current dropdown, in Firefox the whole list shows up first and as Wikipedia seems to be running slowly at the moment and a big article is slow to load in Firefox (perhaps Wikipedia is under attack by the CIA - typical of them to get Wikileaks and Wikipedia confused), this means that for some time the Infobox is headed by that great list. It would be better to make the other languages in a much smaller font, as it would be less confusing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not just on firefox, on my chrome as well. I think it's just loading, the text loads before the dropdown does. To make the font smaller, a could just be added around the beginning and end while removing the current ones around the icons. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This thread is hilarious - as is the drop-down box. (...who in this 'Untit Kinrick', apart from a handful of poets, devotees, dictionaries etc, has written in Scots in the last two hundred years??? Name one living Scot who calls this country 'Untit Kinrick'!). Particularly funny is the huge debate over what are our 'official languages'. The UK doesn't have any, of course. There is only one, arguably two, legally recognised sources for the name of the country: Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 (and the subsequent Royal Proclamation of 13 May 1927). Both in English only. DeCausa (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's actually unitit, not untit, but I am beginning to agree that they should go. Other major nations only use these infobox headline format alternate names for OFFICIAL languages and not for REGIONAL or SUB-REGIONAL languages - see Belgium for example, which correctly lists its official language variants and France which correctly omits its regional language variants like Breton. The list should come out, as the UK does not have an official language. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Either they all stay 'or' they all go. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ...apologies for the 'untit' (my 18th century scots isn't what it should be). I forgot to add to my earlier post that the other thing that makes this thread ridiculous is that the most widely spoken languages in the UK (in terms of numbers of speakers) are (after Welsh) Punjabi, Bengali and Urdu - in descending order. DeCausa (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Whilst precise figures are always contentious, I would guess that there are far more native Punjabi speakers in the UK (at least 600,000) than native Welsh speakers - surveys I've read estimate the latter at fewer than 200,000. The widely stated figure of 600,000 Welsh speakers is derived from those who have passed GCSE Welsh. Some sources say 200,000 is a considerable over-estimate and that despite S4C, etc, actual native Welsh as a mother tongue continues to decline. We could also look at Polish which probably has over a quarter of a million native speakers in the UK now. Clearly the infobox header is a nonsense as it stands. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't see how that's relevant as Punjabi, Bengali and Urdu are not regional or national languages of the UK or its constituent countries.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why aren't they? They have as much claim to be "national" as Welsh, in fact, considerably more, as Punjabi is spoken right across the UK. Or are you perhaps thinking of either "historical" or "official" languages? If so, you are getting confused. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not according to the UK government anyhow: . Punjabi, Bengali and Urdu are in my view completely irrelevant to this discussion. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No - the European Charter's about protecting minority languages not making them 'officia languages'l. There are no "official" language in the UK, we just don't have that statutory/constitutional structure - the closest is Welsh. All the Welsh Language Act says is taht the "Welsh public sector" have to give it equal status to English. But then English has no official status anyway and in any case that's far short it being an "official" language as other countries have it. As Wikipedia is not part of the Welsh public sector, the WLA has no role here. It's got to be either English or English plus the next most populous languages - hence punjabi etc (but where's the cut-off?) Again, the whole thing is ludicrous and the drop-down makes the article look a laughing-stock. ...oh and by the way, where's the Cornish...? DeCausa (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My point was that the UK government has recognised that Welsh, Scots, Gaelic, Ulster Scots, Irish, Manx Gaelic and Cornish are all regional languages of the UK. It has never recognised Punjabi, Bengali, Urdu or Polish as such.    Rangoon11 (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * An additional point I thought I would share, I just noticed that the main UK Government web site is available in English and Welsh only: Rangoon11 (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Both complete non-sequitors and frankly I don't see why you raise them, unless either (a) you are confused or (b) you seek to confuse us. The Scotland link you give merely confirms that the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages requires monitoring; it says nothing at all about what is official across the UK. The use of languages in government websites varies from site to site and is nothing whatever to do with the status of officialness of the languages used. Just to repeat - THERE IS NO OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE UK. If you are trying to muddle a way to prove that, you are totally wasting your time. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As has been said a few times before in this thread, English is the official language of the UK de facto and Welsh is an official language de jure. Additionally, Scots, Gaelic, Ulster Scots, Irish, Manx Gaelic and Cornish all enjoy UK government protections - as established by the European Charter for Regional or Minority - as regional languages. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, what people say here is not evidence, sources are required. But if it's just de-facto-ness and de-jure-ness you are calling on, you are wasting your time in terms of Wikipedia - the precedent is about what goes as a header in a nation-state infobox. At the moment, that is official language names. If you want to change that, go ahead - you can expect some battles. In the meantime, the infobox alternates have to come out. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You can say it as many times you like, it's still a mixture of being incorrect and 'so what?' Neither excuses the ludicrous drop-down. As I say it makes the article a laughing stock. DeCausa (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What is your proposed solution then? There is little doubt that Welsh should be included, in view of its de jure status, as amply evidenced in this discussion. Whether or not the protected regional languages should be also included in some way seems a more legitimate topic for debate. Talk of languages such as Punjabi, Bengali, Urdu and Polish should in my view now be completely dropped however as it adds nothing to the discussion and the inclusion of those languages will in any event never achieve consensus. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There isn't a problem that needs solving. Having that list at the head of the infobox is entirely misleading as it suggests to any casual visitor that, in line with other nation-state articles, those must be official languages of the UK. This is false. The solution is to remove the list. I only raised the other languages spoken here because they have much the same status officially as English or Welsh. If you want your list, we must have them all. But that would also be nonsense. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * James there is a lot of OR and SYNTH in your arguments above. The citations that show that Welsh is an official language have been given and English de facto (and in the courts de jure) is without dispute.  We have precedent on other country articles (where official languages are also geographically limited).  We also have the precedent on Great Britain for the drop down box.  The diversity of the UK is a part of its nature, and to have the names in the official (and possibly the other recognised) languages informs readers.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that "citations that show Welsh is an official language" haven't been given. They only show that Welsh is an official language in Wales. But really, as you must be aware, you just keep flipping the basis of your argument. On the one hand, you try to claim it's an official language of the UK - but it can't be, because the UK has no official language. You seem to realise this Snowded, which is why you then flip to the "de-facto/de-jure" argument. But that places you in the position of redefining how the language alternatives at the top of infoboxes work for nation-state articles. Perhaps it would help if you came down on one or another "logical" (I use the word in inverted commas advisedly!) argument, so that we can all understand your basic point better. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware if "flipping" any argument James. Wales is a part of the UK and Welsh has official status.  English has de facto status and de jure in the courts.  We therefore use both.  You and some other editors wish to emphasise "in Wales" others of us don't think that is particularily relevant; official is official.  Sarcy references to other editors logic don't really help -- Snowded  TALK  21:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you give me some of these examples of precedent? I've looked in the above discussion but could only find Belgium and South Africa, which aren't the same, because those are nationwide official languages (or perhaps official names, in the case of Switzerland etc.), not languages that are official only in one portion. It's the difference between Canada being bilingual nationwide and the United States having four official languages, but only amongst its components. --Golbez (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You beat me to it..I was typing: It should be English only! Of course, it shouldn't be in Welsh. As I said earlier, Wikipedia isn't a public sector body within the meaning of the Welsh Language Act. The statutory naming of the state in the 1927 Act and Proclamation is only in English and there has been no amendment to that Act or proclamation. And by the way "as amply evidenced in this discussion" is why I began my first post earlier this afternoon by saying I find this thread hilarious. I think if Catalan is not in the Infobox for Spain we can be spared 'Unitit Kinrick' FFS.DeCausa (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've answered the US issue before.  De Causa your sense of humour is your own but hardly relevant.  the 1927 act precedes the Welsh Language Act.  You both seem to agree that Welsh is an official language, but are making an argument based on geographic specificity.  In practice in Belgium and South Africa the use of the different languages (including documents is also geographically specific.  That is also in part true of Canada where you rarely see French in use in Alberta for example.  As to Catalan, I am not sure of this but I don't think it has the same status as Welsh.  If it does it should be in the information box.  The debate really rests on the geographical specificity issue and the relevance of that to the status overall.  There are some fairly obvious differences between editors here and if you don't like the drop down solution I am not sure how to resolve them.  -- Snowded  TALK  21:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it's to do with officiality. Belgium and Canada have those alternates as legislated official languages - hence their presence at the top of the infoboxes in pride of place. The UK has no legislated official language. QED. Any other argument is frankly mere sophistry. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We are all agreement that the UK has no official language, right? Are we also in agreement the infobox heading must not be English & Welsh 'only'? GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No GoodDay we are not. James, you have an interpretation of the facts that I disagree with. It happens on wikipedia, there is no need for this name calling.
 * I believe your 'drop-down' solution is best here. There's not gonna be a consensus for English only & there's not gonna be a consensus for English/Welsh only, either. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On a pragmatic level I agree with this. There are valid 'policy' grounds for the inclusion of English and Welsh, but to include Welsh and not the other regional languages is bound to be seen as discriminatory on emotional and historical grounds. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no valid grounds. I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, but I will. The UK has no official language. Please present two valid sources to say it does. And don't waste time on ones that say Wales has one. Wales is not the UK. So far nobody has put forward such sources and you won't be able to, because it doesn't. It isn't a "difference of opinion" (Snowded), it's a plain fact. Only here in Wikipedia could it even come up as a dispute. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since leaving the infobox heading blank, isn't an option (on the basis of no official language), then what? GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly think then that over at United States it has been left blank as a mistake? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant entirley blank, which isn't an option in Infoboxe headings. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The United States is not a country composed of constituent countries - indeed no other country is - so looking at other info boxes may not be that instructive. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "indeed no other country is": with respect, that's incredibly ill-informed. The Spanish info box is interesting in that the Catalan nationalists have allowed only Spanish in the title. (Catalan is listed as a 'recognised regional language' in Catalalonia in the infobox and there is a footnote to say it is co-official with Spanish in Catalonia). In fact, Catalan has much more of an 'official' status than Welsh has under the limited 'official' status in the Welsh Language Act. Same goes for Basque etc. strange that in a country where language is so much more of an explosive issue than in the UK, the article doesn't seem to have got into this level of silliness. DeCausa (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Catalonia and the Basque country span both France and Spain and are not "countries". Perhaps you would explain how Catalan has more official status?  -- Snowded  TALK  05:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Catalonia doesn't. Where do you get your definition of country? (I think the Basques would have something to say about your definition) I don't want to get into an esoteric discussion about what's a country...but Catalonia in lots of ways is more of a 'country' than Wales. It was only united with Spain in 1707 (there being a personal union of the crowns for 200 years before that). It had a period of brief independence in the 1930s - both more than you can say for Wales. (Wales has never had a united period of independence) It has been autonomous since 1979, with the catalan parliament having far greater autonomy and breadth of legislative authority the Welsh assembly. As far as language is concerned, you've misrepresented the Welsh Language Act throughout this thread. It doesn't declare that Welsh has official language status. All it says is that a Board is set to be set up to issue notices to public sector bodies operating in Wales requiring them to draw up a "scheme" on how they propose to treat, as far as possible, Welsh and English equally (section 5). Because it doesn't declare Welsh as an official language, the Welsh Assembly  decide to make up for this deficiency (in their eyes) by passing the Welsh Language Measure 2010 this month, which makes Welsh an official language in Wales. it's not in force yet because it hasn't received the royal assent yet. This is very different from Catalonia where Catalan has been declared under Catalan law an "official language" of Catalonia since the 1980s and was prior to that declared the "native language" of Catalonia by the Spanish Cortes in 1979 DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You really need to calm down and cut back on the polemic. You have no idea as to my opinions on Catalonian nationalism and they would be irrelevant anyway.  Wikipedia works from citations and on that basis Wales is a country.   Neither do I think I have misrepresented the status of Welsh, your summary of the Welsh Language act is partial at best.  The 2010 is a modernisation of that with some increased powers of enforcement and promotion through various duties. It has the consent of the Secretary of State so the Royal Assent is a formality; if you think it has relevance to this debate, I don't think it is necessary. We have a perfectly reasonably compromise in place lets leave it at that.  -- Snowded  TALK  09:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is a BBC article that says the 2010 article is a "historic" change which WILL make Welsh an official language: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11934239. (You made the point that it was significant that Welsh's 'official' status was derived from a UK Act of Parliament not a Welsh Assembly measure).There is no polemic in what I have written. I have written nothing that says what your opinions of Catalan nationalism are. I wasn't getting into whether Wales was a country - just making a comparison with Catalonia. I wasn't doubting that it will get the royal assent - just stating its current status.  By the way, you might want to change the Welsh Language article because it doesn't follow your line on this. DeCausa (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Catalonia/Catalan aren't a precise analogue to Wales because they are classed within Spain as administrative regions (like Brittany is within France) rather than constituent countries. The UK is not totally unique however, as is sometimes claimed in this talk page and related ones. The Kingdom of the Netherlands has constituent countries. That has a bearing on the argument, because one of those constituent countries is Curaçao. In Curacao, Papiamento is a local official language. But Papiamento does not get a translation of "Kingdom of the Netherlands" on the Kingdom article infobox header - only Dutch is provided, for the reason that this is en-WP and we need the ne-WP version. Here in en land, for the UK page, we only need the en title. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Catalonia is often called a country, although officially it is termed as a "nation" by the Spanish government. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is also not a perfect analogy, as the status of the "constituent countries" is different. That is not to say however, that it is not relevant. Besides, what has being named a "country" got to do with whether languages should be in the infobox? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Somewhere in the mangled logic of the "keep it in" campaign above, it makes sense. :-) Seriously though, surely the main driver of having alternate language names in is if those languages are the official languages of the nation. Snowded adopts a sophisticated argument that because one language (Welsh) is official in one constituent country (Wales), the argument succeeds that it is official for the UK. I think a judge would laugh this out of court. The UK has no official language. So it should remain just plain English as this is en Wikipedia. As for the other languages, so far no good justification for those has been offered. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There's only 2 options: Keep the compromise or eliminate all the non-English versions from the infobox heading. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Nations United (talk) 05:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if the current dropdown is retained, it should only have Welsh, as no significant sources have been presented (indeed none have been presented) to indicate that the other languages have the same "UK de-facto status" that is the apparent justification for having Welsh in there. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * English & Welsh are the official languages of Wales 'only'. Who observed that they're de-facto official languages across the UK? 'cuz they're certainly not. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I was prepared to come here and argue that I'm sure that the same article on the Welsh Wikipedia would not have the English translation. Strangely enough, I would have been wrong. Even so, I wonder what the reaction will be from those other language speakers if Welsh were the only translation permitted here. I believe that there should be only two choices. Either leave them all out of the box or include them all and perhaps specify that they are indigenous languages. Fred DeSoya (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Wales has both because English and Welsh actually are legally official languages of Wales. The same is not true of the UK, which, to repeat for the umpteenth time, has NO OFFICIAL LANGUAGE.


 * To summarise the position, we now have an infobox header proffered as the basis of a "compromise" (wikiality that has no basis in reality) which is wrong on a variety of counts.


 * (1) It uses the phrase "National Languages". This is false. It is actually referring to languages of Constituent Countries that are not languages of the UK as a whole and are not national.


 * (2) It follows the format for nation-states usually used where such languages are official. There is no official language for the UK.


 * (3) If we did accept that languages legally official within one constituent country should be mapped on to the whole of the UK, that would only be Welsh.


 * Therefore either the whole dropdown should go, or else Welsh only should be shown. I suggest we gain opinion on those two options. The current situation is unacceptable. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you remember aright my original proposal was in effect your option (3) with a drop down box labeled "other languages" to avoid the national issue.  That said I don;t think the current situation is unacceptable  -- Snowded  TALK  12:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On that basis, and looking at the precedent of articles on other countries, it should be English only. Articles of countries where a language is 'official' in only part of the state (eg India, France, Spain etc) do not have those languages used in the title - unlike articles of countries which have 'official' languages for the entire state (eg Belgium, Switzerland - note these languages, in both countries, have BOTH an official regional status and an official status for the whole state). DeCausa (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If those are the only 2 options? then the drop-down must be eliminated. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

James is correct, the drop-down should be deleted & as the United Kingdom has 'no official language', we should just leave it at english. It's sad this whole discussion/dispute grew out of an editor's incorrect edit on November 17, 2010. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your opinion GoodDay, others disagree, the question hangs on the issue what is or is not an official language for the UK and both sides have put their cases, its just repetition of argument now, or in your case restating your opinion.  -- Snowded  TALK  17:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * James is correct, there's no official language of the United Kingdom & this infobox heading should remain English 'only'. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly support removing all languages from the infobox heading except the English language name of the country, this is the English language wikipedia and that is the defacto national language of the United Kingdom anyway. The listing of different regional minority languages in the infobox is enough, we do not need to display the full names in every language. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just official ones BW. Back from holiday? -- Snowded  TALK  19:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Na still taking my break, just spotted this debate and thought id share my thoughts. Hopefully in the new year i may partially return, although i have a lot of pages on my watchlist i need to delete and no longer get involved in. I have certainly lost interest in the whole British Isles issue. It was fun but far too addictive and time consuming. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like most people support using English as the sole language, so shouldn't the "National Languages" be removed? Nations United (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be removed, but that's easier said then done. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reading back I still think we have a balance of support for the compromise, which also follows the GB article. -- Snowded  TALK  07:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, I think the majority are aginst the 'compromise'. I've just done a quick headcount of contributors to the thread and by my reckoning (and apologies if I've misinterpreted or omitted anyone): eight are for English only (myself, GoodDay, Nations United, British Watcher, Golbez, Kittybrewster, George2001 and 69.127.10.198), seven are for the "compromise" (Snowded, Rangoon 11, GHMyrtle, Daicaregos, Ivor Stoughton, garik, and Chipmunk Davis), two seem to say 'either all languages or just English' (Keys767 and Fred DeSoya) and therefore don't seem to be on either 'side' and one seems to say 'English, or Welsh and English only' (Jamesinderbyshire) which in any event is against the 'compromise'. Is that 7 for the 'compromise', 9 against and 2 abstentions?? DeCausa (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well leaving aside whether you should count a one time contributing IP I would say "either all or none" supports the compromise that was agreed as a variation on the prior position which had English and Welsh. Even on your numbers (and remembering that we don't vote) there is no consensus for change.  Compromise is the essence of how we have handled things here, and the drop down box has been stable for a long time on Great Britain.  -- Snowded  TALK  03:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There was no consensus to 'add' Welsh to the top of the infobox, on 17 November 2010. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * An edit which has not been challenged for a month on a well watched article is the new stable version GoodDay; this has been explained to you several times. Please either point to the wikipedia rule or guideline which supports this particular and peculiar perspective of yours or stop making spurious comments .  -- Snowded  TALK  03:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've modified my statement, making it more accurate. GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * since when are inverted commas a measure of accuracy GoodDay? -- Snowded  TALK  04:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The argument is made that a 1-month run of non-comments over the introduction of the Welsh version to the Infobox's top, was a consensus (of acceptance). If this is so? why does WP:Ccc continue to get ignored? it's quite apparent that many editor here, prefer to reverting back to before the 17 November 2010 edit. GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus comes into play when an edit is disputed at the time GoodDay. No one is ignoring consensus. -- Snowded  TALK  04:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So now, you're stating there was no consensus for the addition of the Welsh version on November 17? GoodDay (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Try reading GoodDay, consensus comes into play where there is a dispute. I'm tempted to put a welcome message on your talk page so you can read up on policy.  -- Snowded  TALK  04:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a fuzzy area of policy, and I've run into trouble with it before. Best to drop it, or bring it up on the policy talk page. I for one never noticed Welsh in the infobox till it was brought up here, if that means anything. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Snowded, your logic seems faulty: how can 'all or just English' support the compromise?? It surely supports both propositions and so can't be counted. I'm simply pointing out (contrary to your statement) that the 'compromise' - which is not stable and is only a few days old - is a minority view (of at least those who have posted here). Let's not claim that 'the balance of support' is for the compromise. DeCausa (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The compromise was to include all so I think that means "all or none" are happy with the current version as it contains "all". This is a minor issue at best, the compromise was produced early on and implemented.  It provides information without giving undue prominence and follows practice on a related article.  -- Snowded  TALK  10:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The true characterisation of the current position, in my opinion, is as follows. English only was the long-standing (i.e. for many years) format. (The fact that another article - arguably less prominent - went another way is irrelevant.) That was unilaterally changed a month ago without discussion by a single user. When it was noticed, this debate ensued. A 'compromise' was instituted a couple of days ago - but as I have shown by the headcount that was, in fact, not with consensus. I believe the correct procedure now is to revert it to the long-standing English-only position until consensus is truly reached. I don't expect the Welsh or Welsh + other languages proponents to agree with this characterisation but can I suggest we ask a non-involved administrator to determine whether it is correct. DeCausa (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Other related articles are not irrelevant, your headcount shows editors as balanced between removal or sustaining the compromise. Administrators made decisions on behaviour not content.  You have a range of options such as an RfC available if you really want to make a mountain out of a molehill.  -- Snowded  TALK  10:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Might be worth getting an uninvolved admin to look at the interpretations of policy at any rate. I think we should distinguish between Great Britain, a geographical article, with United Kingdom, a political article. The dropdown exists on Great Britain as it has no official language, being only tenuously considered a political unit. This article doesn't necessarily need to do the same as Great Britain and show names in all the languages present in the area, so it's not the best analogous article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If people really think its important enough an issue to post at ANI fine. The whole think hinges on the interpretation of what is official for the UK, with some people thinking that official in Wales does not mean official in the UK.  I don't think that is a policy issue, its a content issue.  I'm not wild about the compromise to be honest as Welsh has official status by Act of Parliament.  I accepted it as a means of getting away from a storm in a teacup (I've already used up the molehill one)  -- Snowded  TALK  11:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If I could elaborate on my previous statement. If they were all to remain in the box I would have no argument against that. The alternative of having only English and Welsh I don't agree with. As`far`as I'm aware some of the other languages have a modicum of officialdom. Who's decision is it that a certain amount of official status must be reached before inclusion? If the alternative of having all of them included were not a runner I would rather choose to leave them all out, bar English of course. Fred DeSoya (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why the compromise was accepted (or so I think), its reasonable and provides information -- Snowded  TALK  12:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * For the umpteenth time, Welsh is not an official language across the United Kingdom. It's an official language within only Wales. GoodDay (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And for the umpteenth time GoodDay some of us disagree with you. I see your resolve on your talk page didn't last 24 hours by the way, pretty much average consistency -- Snowded  TALK  12:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Snowded, why are you persisting with that? The opening of the recent BBC article I already highlighted to you clearly sates "The [2010 Welsh Language] measure makes Welsh an official language in Wales": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11934239 You're also wrong about getting an independent administrator involved: see third opinion. Despite your dig about making a mountain out of a molehill (a surprising dig considering your contribution to this thread) I think it may be helpful. DeCausa (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * DeCausa, we came to a pretty reasonable compromise some time ago and that should have settled this.  I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill by not accepting that and blowing the issue out of all proportion.  As far as I am concerned Wales is within the UK, and Welsh is therefore an official language within the UK and thus it (and others) are reasonably placed within the information box.  In addition Welsh is an official language on most government web sites and can be used by welsh speakers in England or Scotland.-- Snowded  TALK  14:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is disingenuous. This issue only came about (long before my involvement) because of a push to incorrectly put Welsh in the title. This disrupted a position which had been stable for years. You're verging on a personal attack on me by trying to say that I am the one "blowing the issue out of all proportion" - as though the length (and quite frankly, ridiculousness) of this thread was down to me. It seems to me particularly inappropriate since you appear to have been the most energetic and consistent contributor to this thread since 12 Dec. DeCausa (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a push, that is simply a false statement. Another editor put it in (correctly in my view) and no one objected for a month and lots of people have this article on watch. Then we had the objections; a compromise was quickly worked out and implemented.  Then you and other editors decided to attempt to change that,  I've had to respond given your persistence. I think its ridiculous that I have had to do this at this length.  -- Snowded  TALK  15:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not just 'other editors', it is, as I pointed out earlier, the majority of editors. DeCausa (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And as I pointed out its evenly balanced. Always best to run with a compromise on issues like this, especially one that informs readers. -- Snowded  TALK  15:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

TBH I was a little unsure about the push to have all these languages. None of them are official languages (yep, even the English) and there seems no major benefit to having them. We've only really got them because someone tried to push Welsh into the article and this was the only way to get a compromise. ;) We use the English name in the title/page only because this is English Wikipedia :) --Errant $(chat!)$ 14:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I'm still uncomfortable with them being their under "National languages". Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not wild about that either, and regional was wrong. "Other" would work fine -- Snowded  TALK  15:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a suggestion earlier that they could be described as indigenous languages? Fred DeSoya (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the use of "indigenous" by far right groups in the UK I am less than comfortable with that, but if it brings peace would accept it.-- Snowded TALK  15:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggested indigenous only because of the dictionary definition. What far right groups make of the word is neither here nor there to me. We shouldn't lose perfectly good words due to a small minority. Fred DeSoya (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards "Other languages", just to avoid all this conflict. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * More than willing to let the 'indigenous' word go if it's in danger of causing conflict. Fred DeSoya (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They are national languages, though. But "Other languages" would work too. Daicaregos (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Welsh is a national language in Wales, Scots is a national language in Scotland. However, Scots Gaelic is not a national language and Irish may be a national language in the Republic of Ireland, but not in Northern Ireland. "Other languages" is better. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I just renewed my passport and I notice that the name of the country ' "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is featured in English, Welsh and Scots Gaelic, but not in Scots or Irish. Not sure if that helps us here....Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I just checked my own and you're right enough. Something else that may be of interest is this website on Citizenship & Naturalisation . Interesting to read the part were it says "If you speak English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic to a reasonable standard you will need to pass the 'life in the UK test' " Fred DeSoya (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't wish to appear to be flip-flopping over this issue after my opinion was given earlier but, I wonder if after seeing the two bits of evidence above there is a thought that perhaps only the Welsh and Scottish Gaelic translations should be added? Fred DeSoya (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see the case for that, if we are to go by which languages are used in certain contexts by the U.K. government. But I don't think we need to be so constrained. I still think the number of speakers of each language should guide us here. In that regard, I was actually surprised to see Scots Gaelic alongside Welsh and English on the U.K. passport, as (unlike Welsh) it is spoken by a tiny minority of people in Scotland. Scots, on the other hand, is spoken by up to 85% of the Scottish population, if one believes a certain study conducted for the Scottish Government. Here:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/01/06105123/0 Ivor Stoughton (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The current compromise still works for me, although I fully recognise that it is an imperfect solution. I'm not convinced that any better alternative has yet been articulated however.
 * I do feel that the heading should be 'National and regional languages' though, and not simply 'National languages' Rangoon11 (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rangoon, thoughts on "other languages"? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Other languages' works for me, too. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

We should keep the option of eliminating all those non-English versions from the infobox heading, as the UK has no official language. In the meantime, if the non-English versions of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are gonna be kept, Other languages is a better discriptive. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with GoodDay. I still think that the only language should be in English, but at least the "national languages" has been changed to "other languages". Nations United (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree 'other languages' is the best option since it is suitably meaningless (as meaningless as the concept of including the "languages", that is.) DeCausa (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A side-note: Are Ulster Scots and Cornish not in the collapsing list for a reason, or do we simply not have a translation of "The United Kingdom..." in those languages? &#9733; KEYS 7 6 7 &#9733; talk 22:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point re: Ulster-Scots and Cornish. I would be happy to see them both added. However, it's not clear to me if or whether the Ullans translation would differ from the Lallans here? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one to think that "Other languages" (or "National languages") is a bit confusing? It makes it sound like a list of languages, not a list of the names of the UK in other languages. In any case, I'm in agreement with those above saying that only the English version should be used. Given the lack of an official national language, we should just use English as the language of this version of Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not the only one now (Cordless) - it's a mess, because it doesn't follow country infobox norms and because it's confusing. What do they mean? "Translations into local regional languages" would be more accurate but that's not following the nation-state infobox principle that these alternates are usually given for official language variants of the state in question. We are in this mess, just to recap, because a month ago (surprisingly, unnoticed - the pre-Christmas rush?) someone slipped in a Welsh only variant. That was wrong, because it made it look as if Welsh is now one of two official languages of the UK, the other one presumed to be English. There is no official language of the UK. Welsh is an official language, along with English, of Wales only. So basically they all need to come out, or else there needs to be a higher level agreement that nation-state infoboxes are going to change and will now incorporate regional variants. Something that will get, er, nowhere. So far I am unconvinced by the contrary argument that Welsh does have official language status in the UK - this appears to be a misreading of the context of the parliamentary act that introduced it for Wales. The others apart from Welsh should be out, no question. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Jamesinderbyshire: are you in possession of a United Kingdom passport? If so, you will see that the Welsh (and Scots Gaelic) translations of U.K. are there on the first page. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why that means they should be included in this article's infobox, frankly. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you live in Wales or Scotland Ivor? Or is that something on the new biometric passport? Mine was renewed about 4 years ago and doesn't have that - it has all the languages of the EU. However, it wouldn't prove anything - "official language" means legislated to be official and that is definitely not true of the UK, where there has been no primary national legislation to determine it. This has been discussed many times in parliament by the way and there is extensive Hansard on the subject. Various MPs have pressed for it over the years and been turned down by successive governments. What does exist is varying uses of language alternatives department-by-department and doubtless that applies to the Passport Agency also. They do not infer the existence of an official language in the same way, that, for example, Canada and Belgium have multiple official languages. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There’s extraordinarily muddled thinking by the ‘other languages’ enthusiasts in this thread. There is currently no ‘official’ languages in the UK. What we currently have are 2 pieces of legislation on pretty similar terms: the welsh Language Act 1993 and the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005. Neither are about establishing ‘official’ languages. Essentially, they both set up Boards to require public sector bodies in Wales/Scotland (or covering Wales/Scotland) to draw up plans on how they propose to support Welsh or Gaelic (in their context as minority languages to which the UK is committed to giving protection under the European Charter). It’s about giving support not about declaring anything official. Clearly the UK Passport Agency (which must service Wales and Scotland as well as the entire country) must have included in their plan this kind of support for welsh and Gaelic. A public sector body with no role in Wales or Scotland would need take no action. The only piece of legislation or legislative instrument which speaks directly to an ‘official’ status is the Welsh Assembly's Welsh Language Measure 2010, which will come into force next year. This does declare Welsh to be an official language in Wales. DeCausa (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the legal position is actually pretty clear. Interestingly, the BBC back in 2002 described the others as "official minority languages" which seems to be more accurate - don't know where they sourced this description though. The internet is awash with confusion about it and few sources are trustworthy - even comments from MPs and leading journalists are often wrong on the subject. Given this level of confusion, all the more reason for us to get it right. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would argue that much of the difficulty in this debate is caused by the lack of a clear definition of precisely what constitutes an 'official' language, and also a lack of any clear Wikipedia policy regarding info boxes. The Wikipedia article Official language describes an official language as 'a language that is given a special legal status in a particular country, state, or other jurisdiction. Typically a nation's official language will be the one used in that nation's courts, parliament and administration'. By that very vague definition, which is broad enough to include de facto official languages - since it does not state that an official language must be given its 'special legal status' through an actual piece of legislation, rather than mere historic convention - English is without doubt an official language of the UK.


 * The article List of official languages actually states that the official languages of the UK are English, Irish, Ulster Scots, Scots, Scottish Gaelic, Cornish and Welsh(!). My view is that, in the absence of a clear Wikipedia policy on the point, there is not a 'right' answer as to how this issue should be dealt with and we are therefore tasked with finding the most broadly acceptable compromise. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Most people contributing to this thread, I believe, want English only. Actually the whole 'official language' thing is a giant red herring. I think Cordless Larry is right. This is English Wikipedia and it should only be in English. Move away from that only if the state clearly is officially (ie statutorily) given a name in another language. The UK's name is a creation of Act of Parliament (the current one being in 1927) It's in English only and has never been amended. DeCausa (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I've been harping all along, use English version only, as there's no official language & this is the English language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Rangoon, that page (Official language) is unfortunately incorrect and needs modification in a number of places, not just English - sadly, Wikipedia articles are not a valid source. Your example is a good illustration of why we have that rule. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * James - no, I don't live in Wales or Scotland and yes it is a new passport, just renewed earlier this month. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I’ve found the Passport Agency’s Welsh Language Scheme 2001 (http://www.byig-wlb.org.uk/english/publications/publications/1358.pdf) prepared as a result of the Welsh Language Act 1993 - it's the latest one I could find. Interestingly, it states  “The UK passport will only contain details in English in line with the relevant EC Resolution. Only the official languages of the European Union (i.e. the languages in which the treaties were signed) are included in passports; this is common practice amongst member States, and Welsh is not recognised as an official language.” They must have changed their practice after 2001. DeCausa (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah...this 2005 Passport press release says that they are going to include Welsh in the Passport even though they're not legally required to do so. They don't say why they're doing it, but whatever the reason is it can't be because it's an 'official' language. DeCausa (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Welsh can be used in Europe, both the Parliament and in the commission and this has been the case since 2008 -- Snowded TALK  09:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Welsh and Scots Gaelic have some weird status in the EU, not on a par with official languages but recognised as something. Unsure of exact details. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Languages (continued)
Just putting a discussion subject break in so that it's easier to page down in this long discussion. In response to the EU usage point Snowded raised, I believe this is to do with the EU's Chapter 22 Protection of Minority and Regional Languages. Usage in the EU official bodies does not confer rights of officiality within a member state. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I just responded to a question James. I think the discussion is over -- Snowded  TALK  11:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bottom line is that two very strong sources (BBC article and Passport Agency Welsh Language Scheme) explicitly confirm (taken together) that Welsh is not an official language but will become one within Wales sometime next year. Based on previous arguments put forward, can we now agree that the non-English languages can come out (possibly to be reviewed in 2011 whenever the Welsh Language Measure comes into force - date not known at the moment)? DeCausa (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Previous compromise is fine DeCausa and I don't agree with your interpretation by the way. The passport one is about equality which is not necessary for official, the BBC article and related act reference additional enforcement and making something more explicit which was already there anyway.  Not that its necessarily relevant anyway.  If have no unity of interpretation of the same source material, the compromise listed languages without making any special claim.   We have a few editors who are unhappy with that and have carried on repeating the same points in the hope that everyone else will just give in. That is really no way to proceed-- Snowded  TALK  17:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt that it's really just a "few editors" Snowded. In fact, what you are proposing is a change in the way the language alternates are used at the top of country infoboxes. Up to now, they have denoted the alternates for the official languages of that state, as well as the language of the Wikipedia one happens to be browsing the article in. You now appear to be proposing that this be changed to other things like "de-facto" languages (an uncertain, unprovable concept, therefore opening up huge areas of subjective interpretation) and the use of official languages within one constituent country, part-country, region or sub-regional locality. This is not a change I suspect that would win at the major project pages for country discussions. We really do need to take it there though if this is your argument. Even here, a clear majority of editors disagree with using the other languages up there. That majority will be even larger if we take it to the project level. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * James, some editors wanted to remove Welsh after it had been there for a month. There was a discussion and a compromise agreed and implemented and it handled a difficult to resolve disagreement between the "in wales" and "in wales means UK" positions.  The last time I counted it it was not true to say that a clear majority of editors want to remove it, the number wanting removal was slightly higher than those wanting it to stay, and there was a third group who were happy to have all or none which kinda supports the compromise.  Since then three of you have continued with the argument rather than accepting the compromise.  I'm not aware I am proposing to change the way language alternates are handled given that I think  including Welsh would have been in conformity with that practice (as I argued above).  If you can point me to a policy then I'm happy to look at it and comment -- Snowded  TALK  17:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no policy on the precise issue under discussion. Period. If there were then it would have been quoted already in this very lengthy discussion. What there is is precedent i.e. the approach that has been followed in the info boxes of other nation state articles. However that is: (i) not binding; and (ii) a very small sample. In my view there is actually not even any precedent, as there is no other proper contiguous nation state which is comprised of constituent countries in the world. The single example of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has been given. I strongly dispute that that is directly analagous however, in effect the Kingdom of the Netherlands is a 'proper' nation state plus a number of tiny overseas dependencies. Even if one is to accept that as a directly analogus example, it is a sample of precisely one. How can any precedent be established by looking at one other article?


 * Beyond even the issue of Wikipedia policy and precedent however, there is no clear definition of what constitutes the official language of a nation state. The whole issue is one capable of debate.


 * I am therefore left puzzled as to how some editors on here can adopt such black and white positions on an issue where there seems to be so much vagueness and scope for debate. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not puzzled: No official languages = keep out non-English versions in Infobox heading. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Both halves of your equation are unproven.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the practice on most other infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Still though, that would be within Wales & not the entire UK. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The EU stuff isn't the topic. The placing of non-English versions of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Infobox heading is. It's become apparent that more editors are calling for their deletion, on the basis of there's no official language of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(not following on from GoodDay's point) OK, the nub of the issue seems to be clear now. The "keep other languages in" position is not based on official status - it is based on the assumption that the infobox header alternate language option is not clearly defined and therefore, or in addition, the UK has a unique status, and so other languages can be displayed there so long as these are spoken somewhere in the UK? Is this a correct read of the "keep" position? If so, it is riddled with flaws. Not least, how do you determine which languages should be in? By the way, I have just checked every EU nation article and they all, without exception, give the official language versions + the common English name. Normally, the argument here on such matters is that something belongs to the EU norm. Are we going to have the UK out of EU norms for this one? I mean, out of Wikipedia norms for EU articles? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I refer you to multiple previous discussions above -- Snowded TALK  18:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've started a discussion (a few days ago) at WP:Infobox, concerning this discussion. If there's another place to expand this 'wish' to change Infobox criteria stuff? let me know. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I still strongly oppose the fact the infobox is giving the name of the UK in quite a few languages, it ONLY needs to be in English. Its not even the case of it not mattering because it uses that show feature, the mass examples of language names show up for a second when you load the page. If those languages are justified i see no reason why someone wont be able to come along demanding Cornish be added too. None of them belong there. ONLY English. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Heck, may aswell add Muslim, too. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when was "Muslim" a language? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @BritishWatcher - someone has in fact suggested above that Cornish and Ulster-Scots be added. I agree that Cornish should be. I'm not sure if or how Ulster-Scots would differ from the Scots already in there. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And perhaps British Sign Language? Esperanto? Pidgin? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Recommend removal of the non-English versions from the infobox heading. There's obviously no consensus for its being kept there. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Following today’s postings I’d comment as follows: 1.   The original case for inclusion, I believe is summarised in this posting:  “There are two official languages in the UK. One (de facto) is English. The other (de jure) is Welsh. Both official languages should be used to name the UK at the head of the infobox Daicaregos (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC). concur --Snowded TALK 09:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)” No sources have been cited for this assertion. 2.   In response I have provided 2 sources that clearly state that Welsh is not an official language in the UK. The UK Passport Agency states (in the document detailing their commitments under the Welsh Language Act) that “Welsh is not recognised as an official language”. The BBC says that the Welsh Language Measure 2010 (not yet in force) “makes Welsh an official language in Wales”. 3.   Snowded’s  response is: “I don't agree with your interpretation … Not that its necessarily relevant anyway. If have no unity of interpretation of the same source material, the compromise listed languages without making any special.” (sic) Again, no counter-sources are cited. He keeps repeating in a rather pained way that this has all been discussed before. Yet he’s never come up with a source. No reasonable person could construe the sources I've cited other than to say that welsh is not an official language. 4.   The case seems now to have moved on so that the ‘consensus’ established by 5 or 6 editors who happened to  be posting on 14 December overrides all views before and after, including about a dozen editors who want English only, and it doesn't matter whether that so-called consensus was built on a false prospectus or not. In fact, no coherent reason for their inclusion now appears to be advanced. DeCausa (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that we delete all versions of the country name apart from the English one? I believe that that is now the consensus position. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. GoodDay (talk)


 * We are going round and round in circles here. There is a broadly held (although clearly not unanimous) view that, leaving aside the Welsh Language Measure 2010, Welsh is already de facto an official language, certainly in Wales, and possibly in the UK as a whole. For those holding this view, the Welsh Language Measure 2010 merely confirms in legislation the exisiting position. Here are some citations stating that Welsh is already an official language of Wales:, , , and here is a citation describing Welsh as an official language of the UK: . Rangoon11 (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no such broadly held view. There is a minority view. The broadly held majority view is for English only. The sources you cite are casual or non-authorative references to the subject. The Passport Agency source is a legal document issued under the Welsh Language Act and will have had the Home Offices lawyers crawling all over it. The BBC article, although merely journalistic, is specifically focussed on the subject. DeCausa (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Passport Scheme document is not a 'legal' document but a policy document describing the policy of that agency, and is nine years old. The sources which I have cited are equally authoritative and have the advantage of also being current.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No you are wrong. The Passport Agency is required by section 5 of the Welsh Language Act, 1993 to issue the document. If they failed to issue the document in the manner prescribed by the statute they would be in breach of statutory duty. It's not written for policy purposes, it was written to comply with the Agency's legal obligations. The fact that it is 9 years old is irrelevant since they must, under the Act, apply a current Scheme. This is the Scheme they apply on 24 December 2010. DeCausa (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You keep summarising material DeCausa and making statements that reflect your perspective.  There is no clear position here, a compromise was reached, I'm not wild about it but that is life.  The energy you are expending on a minor issue where there is nothig factually wrong in the article is nonsensical.  Just assume no consent to change.  -- Snowded  TALK  04:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Snowded, a decision by 5 or 6 people on one day is not a consensus. Normal practice is to leave an idea on the talk page for a reasonable period of time to collect views. For a contentious issue such as this, a week would have been reasonable. The 'consensus' was implemented without doing that. I find your accusation against me ironic. Throughout this discussion you have only given your opinion. You have made little attempt to back up your highly contentious statements authoritatively, and you have made several demonstrably factually incorrect statements about the statutory position. When faced with clear sources, you simply say they are open to interpretation. When faced with most editors disagreeing with you, you simply say this has already been decided by 'consensus'. When given a new argument, you simply say this has already been discussed. Your only objective appears to be to keep Welsh in regardless of any logic or whether it damages the credibility of the article. Whilst there is nothing wrong in being supportive of the Welsh language it is inappropriate here. If you think this is a 'minor issue' and not important, I suggest you drop out of the discussion. DeCausa (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The compromise is being rejected & calls are being made for the pre-November 17 status quo. GoodDay (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No GoodDay, a group of editors who were opposed to the compromise have carried on arguing their position. DeCausa please AGF; as far as I can see you have not presented any new arguments just repeated the old ones.  Neither have you demonstrated any factual inaccuracy on my part, that statement and those which follow are wrong and poor rhetoric.  It is also nonsensical  hyperbole to say that having other languages in the information box damages the credibility of the article, its just information.  Secondly the issue is that we simply could not agree over the difference between (i) Welsh is an official language within Wales, therefore it is an official language within the UK (my position) and those of you who think that because it is in Wales it means it is not a language within the UK.  There is no policy or guideline to help us here.  Given that difference a compromise was created where all languages were listed in a drop down box.  It was a minor issue so I was happy to accept that; what is not a minor issue is that those who did not agree have continued to argue their case.  -- Snowded  TALK  04:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Snowded, as before you have simply ignored all that has been said to you. But I don't think it matters because as you can see, the direction of the consensus is going one way. Merry Christmas! DeCausa (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK DeCausa if you can support the attack you made in your last two posts then back it up with the odd diff. General accusations really don't help move things forwards.  I've seem other editors over the years who fail to understand NPOV and they generally end up enflaming discussions and holding up progress.  Sooner or later they go too far and end up with a block history.  Given your stated profession asking for evidence or withdrawal of the comment seems reasonable.  As to your statement about where the consensus is going as far as I can see its the same editors who opposed the insertion in the same place continuing to assert their position rather than accepting the earlier compromise.  I think you acquired one more supporter in BW who wants to purge all language references from the English Wikipedia, good company.  -- Snowded  TALK  11:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Snowded, just returned from the Christmas break to see your outburst. You really must calm down. I haven't made any general 'accusations' against you. Since you ask, I have only made 2 specific points: that you repeatedly misrepresented the Welsh Language Act. I outlined in some detail why you were incorrect and your only rebuttal was to say "your summary of the Welsh Language act is partial at best". That's it; nothing else; nada. I genuinely have no idea why you think I (and the BBC and the Passport Office, for example) have wrongly construed the Act. The second point is related: throughout this thread you simply assert your position without providing sources and act irritated when it is not accepted or a source shown illustrating that you are wrong is given. A typical example (not involving me) is the exchange between yourself and Nations United between 18:29 and 19:34 on 12 Dec. DeCausa (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see that you see a request for evidence as an "outburst" or as evidence of some lack of equanimity; the fact that you do may be part of the problem. You now say that you have made no general accusations and have only made two specific points. I list some quotes from you below, none of which support that statement. Now as far as I can see in the 12th December Exchange I corrected Nations United on one statement and he says "Yes, I admit I made a mistake" the discussion then moves on to what is the basic disagreement here namely that some of us think that is Welsh is an official language in Wales then it is an official language in the UK and some don't. Oh and there is an accusation from Nations United (like yours without evidence) that as I am welsh I will find it difficult to take a neutral point of view. Not sure how that is evidence of anything. At no stage does he offer a source which proves I am wrong that I can see in that time slot. In fact he provides no sources during the period.
 * "you have simply ignored all that has been said to you"
 * "Throughout this discussion you have only given your opinion."
 * "You have made little attempt to back up your highly contentious statements authoritatively"
 * "you have made several demonstrably factually incorrect statements about the statutory position."
 * "Your only objective appears to be to keep Welsh in regardless of any logic or whether it damages the credibility of the article."
 * "as before you have simply ignored all that has been said to you"

You also say that I have consistently misrepresented the Welsh Language Act. As far as I can see the only thing that I have said, pertinent to this discussion is that it provides evidence that Welsh is an official language.

So again no diffs from you to support the accusations listed, and an admission that you only have two specific points. That hardly justifies the tone and content of your posts, but I suppose it may be the most that can be expected from you in response. My advise to you stands, please tone down the comments and assume good faith, work with other editors to define problems and seek resolution. In the long term the type of editorial style you are evidencing does not pay off for anyone, least of all you I have made a proposal to refer this an issue of policy to an appropriate forum. Maybe you would respond to that-- Snowded TALK  05:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Snowded, since you have asked me not to reply on your talk page I must do so here even though our exchange is off topic. Your lectures on appropriate editorial style are ill-judged and you should perhaps consider following your own tuition. As Nations United has said about your contributions: "You are not facing the facts. You're completely ignoring what I said above. You keep saying the same thing over and over again. It's one thing to have an opinion and reason(s) for that opinion, but once those reasons become irrelevant, then you need to realize that maybe you are wrong. For some strange reason, there are some Wikipedians that find it extremely hard for them to consider that they may be wrong; right now, you are acting like one of them." I don't understand your 'list' of 'accusations'.  They are all making the same 2 points that I identified. I think you are getting yourself in a real tangle because you don't understand that the purpose of the Welsh Language Act is not to make Welsh an official language in Wales and you don't know what to do with the black and white statements from the sources I have cited. As Nations United said "there are some Wikipedians that find it extremely hard for them to consider that they may be wrong". I'll comment on your proposal now. DeCausa (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * General accusations again DeCausa no diffs. Commenting on editors not on content, failing to AGF.  Your call if you want to carry on that way -- Snowded  TALK  11:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, putting aside tone of the debate which I leave the two of you to discuss, it does sound like the facts of officiality are in dispute. See for example the BBC Wales FAQ on the subject. Perhaps Welsh is not after all rendered official in Wales - it certainly sounds not. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Can the stable version without all the additional languages be restored. Only English is needed thanks. Wales is not an official language of the United Kingdom, it has status in one part of the UK only. English is the only defacto language of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. All minority languages are not even spoken by a majority in the regions of the UK where they are relevant. The idea that we include Cornish which is spoken by a couple of thousand people in a county with around 500,000 people that is part of England which has over 50 million people is completely unacceptable and gives gross undue weight to these "minority languages". We recognise their status by including them in the infobox list, but it does not need to show what the name is in those other languages. Its of absolutely no use to anyone. I think this whole thing is just to assist in the promotion of the Welsh language, the Wales article is littered (or it was when i last looked) with Welsh names in an attempt to try and educate English speakers to learn Welsh words and names. Totally unacceptable as far as im concerned. This is the ENGLISH language wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed...and is the view of most editors. DeCausa (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was trying to establish what most editors preferred above, but the discussion very quickly veered back to the legal status of the UK's various languages. Anyway, I for one support going back to using English only, on the ground that this is the English-language version of Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Support the version at Revision as of 08:36, 15 November 2010 &#9733; KEYS 7 6 7 &#9733; talk 13:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought you added the edit in the first place Keys - so presumably you are OK with it? I think we could have guessed that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also supporting the revision. English should be the ONLY language there. Nations United (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets try and get some structure here
It seems to me that we have two substantial issues: I'll leave aside the issues on process, consensus etc as we have done those to death.
 * A policy issue in respect of official languages. There is no question that official languages are used on other European country articles.  Neither is there any question that Welsh has official status in Wales.  There is a difference between those of us who think that if a language is official in a part of the UK then it is an official language, and those who don't.
 * A style issue over the provision of other languages in use in that country in a drop down box. Some of us think that is informative others want to remove it.

I therefore have a suggestion - we formulate the question here and then post it to the appropriate forum. We see what they come up with, ie request policy, and all accept the result. -- Snowded TALK  11:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Boxing Day greetings to one and all - hope you get to have some sporting fun or whatever engages each of you today. As for the above, I agree with your definition of what the problems are Snowded. I suspect the first is the crucial point, since the second flowed from a bogus "compromise" to it. So focusing on the first, we could still try to come up with evidence for both cases. Case (1) - that Welsh is not official for the whole UK. Case (2) - that the fact that Welsh is official (or will be shortly) in Wales means that this infers officiality for the UK. How about we simply list out references and source material for both below and then that might help with an honest evaluation of the arguments. I hope I've put these two sentences below quite accurately but if people feel they should be changed, propose modifications. We can take some time over this, I propose two weeks for people to submit points. Please try to source each point, don't just say "I think this or that, etc". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the sources won't be disputed James, its the interpretation and I don't agree with your statements for evidence. The policy issue is "If a language has official status in a part of a country then is it an official language of that country for the purpose of the information box etc."   If you can find a third party source which determines that issue fine.  -- Snowded  TALK  14:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually that's not quite it - it's not "part of a country" - it's within a constituent country. The only other analogue for that so far put forwards is the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which goes against the argument that concept. So maybe we don't need this discussion at all - perhaps the evidence is in fact settled and the case that official language in Wales projects on to official language for the UK is false. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is your position James and its been clear throughout. There are no clear precidents so it is a policy matter.  My conflict resolution solution is to put that question to the appropriate forum and ask for policy to be determined by the community.  As we know from many other cases the UK is unique in respect of its country issues.  The second policy issue is whether it is legitimate to include other languages in use to appear in the information box.   Lets try and move this one forward shall we.  -- Snowded  TALK  14:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's your interpratation that's flawed. You're confusing in Wales with of the UK, because Wales is in the UK. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that is your opinion GoodDay, what I am trying to do here is fix a way forward given that we are not going to reach agreement on the interpretation. I also think we need to tone down the language a bit, this is a disagreement about interpretation and it needs to be treated as such.  -- Snowded  TALK  15:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the wording up, below. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You've changed it but that is the most we can say. The issue here is interpretation of largely agreed references and facts  -- Snowded  TALK  15:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this the question everyone wants put to another forum? The discussion above has covered more than this. For my own benefit, what other forum is there to put any questions? Fred DeSoya (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. Don't have a comment one way or the other about the above discussion, but came across the following website while researching something else, and thought the UK entry was relevant to the debate here. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's another source, which says 'English' is the UK official langauge. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting comparison between the sources there. The second id not a RS as its a web site, the fomer I am less sure of, is a web site, but it appears to reference a text book on language.  Anyone know anything about it?  -- Snowded  TALK  16:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've laid out below, it does look like we need to go through the sources and debate them properly. There's no harm doing that here, as doing it "another forum" would require the same work. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well we have the odd new source above, however all the other sources we have debated end up being back to that policy issue I outlined above. -- Snowded  TALK  16:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Enthologue is pretty much a giant encyclopaedia of languages. It's definitely an RS for basic linguistic information, although not 100% accurate. Interestingly it includes the Channel Islands as part of the UK. Are there any established facts here? Such as the UK has no official language? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well its the closest we have to a third party source so far, most other material is primary and interpreted. As to facts I think we can say that Welsh and English are official languages in Wales, that English is an official language of the courts in the UK and de jure in the UK overall.  -- Snowded  TALK  17:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an establish fact, that Welsh isn't an official langauge in Scotland, England & Northern Ireland. Thus meaning Welsh isn't an official language of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OR GoodDay, you believe that because Welsh is an official language in Wales, it is not an official language in UK. I respect that perspective but disagree with it.  I think that if Welsh is an official language in Wales then it is an official language in the UK.  -- Snowded  TALK  17:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this seems to be turning into a circular argument. Has this not been said already? Fred DeSoya (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs, we've just clarified the basis of our interpretations. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am inviting Snowded (or others who feel the same way) to put forwards a sourced argument or sourced arguments to support the proposition that officiality in Wales auto-extends to mean officiality in the UK. So far, none has been put forwards. There is sourcing out there to show that the UK has no official language, some to suggest it might be English and some to suggest that Welsh is used alongside English in some official contexts. But so far, none at governmental level that confirms that Welsh is UK-wide official. In the absence of the latter, I now propose we close this, remove the dropdown and the Welsh from the header and return to the pre-November status quo of English only. I am sure we all want to avoid edit-warring so can we have SOURCED arguments to say why this should not happen, as so far I repeat they have not been put forwards. If they are out there we will consider them. If they are not out there, there is no objective justification for either the November edit or the dropdown "compromise" (actually just a backdoor method of glossing the key problem that Welsh is not UK-official) and we need to return to the status quo without further subjective arguments being used like "disagreeing" with it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has explained to me 'yet', why the 'compromise' (like the Welsh addition before it) is still in the infobox heading. Like the Welsh addition, the compromise has no consensus to be kept. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct - the status quo right now is to revert to the Welsh one as although that is contentious, it is the core issue and not the silly "compromise" situation we have right now. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As you say James, the status quo is to revert to the one with English and Welsh. I am still curious why you won't accept the obvious solution of presenting the policy issue to a forum.  We are in effect agreed on the facts namely that Welsh is an official language in Wales, that English is a de facto official language etc.   The issue is and has always been if it is an official language of the UK, should it be in the information box even if its not prevalent throughout the UK.  I'm happy to accept the community decision on that and I would have thought that between us we could formulate and agree the question.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm considering 'deleting' the Welsh & compromise additions from the infobox heading. Since there hasn't been any sources backing 'any' of the languages as official languages of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the compromise & Welsh additions. Doing so, per NPoV & the fact that no consensus was reached for its being kept & no sources provided to proove Welsh was an official language of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Then we can go on to the core Welsh - official in the UK or not? issue. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The use of Welsh as an official language of Wales does come with some caveats. For example, it is not the Welsh Assembly that will determine whether Welsh is used in Wales but the courts. So although Welsh will be officially designated an official language within Wales, it will be qualified.

As has been stated, in the UK no language holds official status for the entire country but unquestionably, English is the de facto national language. All 4 legislatures in the UK legislate in English as do local authorities.

For the infobox, I would put National language: English; Indigenous minority languages: Welsh (official in Wales), Gaelic, Irish, Scots and Cornish.

I wouldn't distinguish between dialects of Scots e.g. Lallands, Doric and Ulster. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with this type of approach Bill is that it makes the UK main article infobox different to the other UN and EU nation-state main articles. On all the others, Wikipedia users look up at that space to see what official languages operate in that country. This is widely taken to mean legislated official languages as opposed to those that are merely popular, widespread, partial, regional, etc, etc. No really convincing reason has been put forwards to say why the UK article should be unique in this way. The "country composed of countries" (constituent countries) argument doesn't really seem strong enough. Despite it's rather elaborate and vague internal constitutional arrangements, the UK is in every other way a pretty regular modern nation state, which happens to have no official language. There are lots of others like that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support There was no consensus to change it in the first place. Now, if people would like to have a discussion that Welsh or any other languages should be included, then we can go on with this discussion, but for now it stays as what it was originally. Nations United (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support for the reasons stated by Nations United and James DeCausa (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)




 * , I checked through the 1993 Welsh languages Act. It says Welsh & English are of equal status in Wales, but doesn't mention them as having equal status in Northern Ireland, England & Scotland too. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Point



Point

Point

Welsh is only an official language in Wales where it is spoken as every other regional or non-English language in the UK by a minority. English is the de facto language of the majority throughout all parts of the UK. Keep minority regional languages in with minority regional languages. Mabuska (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)