Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Motto

I think there is a problem with the motto. This page says it is Dieu et Mon droit and that that is the royal motto. But isn't the royal motto Honi soit qui mal y Pense (Shame on those who think this is shamful)? You can see this motto on the ring going around the coat of arms, though it is partially obscured by the fore-legs of both the lion and the unicorn. Please verify this information: Booksworm 19:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Dieu et Mon droit is correct - it is the motto of the sovereign. Honi soit qui mal y Pense is the motto of the Order of the Garter, the sovereign's personal order of knighthood - the "ring" you refer to is actually a garter. Please see this official British Embassy webpagefor external verification. Bwithh 21:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Ireland article titles

A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting System in Great Britain

hey, im doing a report- I can't find some things:

How do the people vote in great britain/ UK? What is the role of the political parties? What are the requirements to vote??--24.231.174.17 22:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC) thx j

Is this not on an article somewhere? If it's not then it's a weakness... I'll put it into the Politics of the United Kingdom tomorrow, if no-one else does first.

Anyone over the age of 18 can vote, unless:

• They are in prison
• They are a member of the House of Lords
• They are a member of the British Royal Family

People can vote at polling stations, which are typically set up at local community centres or schools. Voting commences in the morning (not sure when) and finishes by about 8 or 9 o'clock. Increasingly, many people are choosing to, or obliged to, vote through post. Forms are sent out about 3 weeks before an election, and people have to return their votes by the date of the election. In some areas of Northern England, postal-only votes have been trialled, to see whether voter turnout is increased.

Political parties are more complicated and I'm going to bed so someone else can expalin them... Robdurbar 22:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the above requirements, don't you need to have been resident in the country for at least three weeks ? Derek Ross | Talk 01:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The following might be helpful to you. It details the timetable of the election and the requirements and restrictions for candidates and voters: http://www.dca.gov.uk/elections/gen-elec-brief-info.pdf Rednaxela 14:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is more information in Elections in the United Kingdom. The bar on prisoners voting is being challenged under European Human Rights law [1]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

GDP mix-up?

Why is the UK listed as having 4th largest GDP (PPP) when all three lists of countries by GDP (PPP) list it as 6th? UK is listed as the 4th largest GDP (nominal), but the country infobox explicitly states PPP. India is also (correctly) listed as 4th.DJIndica 20:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks DJIndica, I have fixed the error, as to why...your supposistion that someone misplaced with nominal is probably correct.Nmpenguin 20:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The template was changed without the calls being updated. It really shouldn't happen.

James F. (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's referred to as fourth largest in the text without specifying exch-rate or PPP. Should this match the infobox? BrendanH 21:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Article organization

After looking at dozens of country articles, I think this is one of the better organized articles in terms of top level sections. But, the section organization in this articles still needs some major work. One reason is for ease in finding information. Another is to offer a flow from more objective to more cultural-paticular topics. So, I am trying a new organization. Feel free to revert. Vir 17:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Article title

"United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom, or the UK)"

IMHO the article title should then be "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (I would have created the redirect myself if I hadn't been deterred by the number of links to the article, which means there is a risk of breaking a few things) Apokrif 16:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Most – if not all – countries, as per the Country WikiProject, are entitled in Wp with their short-form names for simplicity (e.g., Germany, India, Kenya). Varied renditions typically appear in the lead/introduction. This is somewhat contentious with some entries (e.g., United States), but lengthy article titles (names or descriptions) are arguably necessary only if and when there's a chance of ambiguity (e.g., Republic of Ireland). And the current UK is the culmination of former kingdoms similarly named, covered off through hatnotes atop the current article. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that the article title is the title of the article not necessarily the title of the subject of the article. In this case we have an article titled "United Kingdom" which describes a state titled "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". While the longer title may be suitable as the title of a state, it is too long to make a good Wikipedia article title, hence the use of the two word title for the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotation marks

For other meanings of the terms "United Kingdom" and "UK”

Which ones are the right ones? Apokrif 17:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Both are. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Official languages

Since the UK is not known to have any official languages, English is denoted a de facto official language. But shouldn't Welsh have an equal status to that (at least in the portion of the UK known as Wales)? Welsh is used in all sorts of government documents including driving test forms, road signs etc. etc. In the absence of 'official' languages which can be clearly stated, the box should either be empty or all languages treated as de facto official should be listed. — SteveRwanda 09:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Welsh is an official language in Wales only. UK wide it is considered an minority language only. It is clear that no language has status equal to English. Every piece of official government business is conducted in English. No other language gets anywhere near the same usage. josh (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about usage, I'm talking about 'offical' status. As stated previously, there's no such thing in the UK, but by the same argument as English being official Welsh is official in Wales. Welsh speakers have legal rights to documents written in Welsh. And since Wales is part of the UK, that makes it an official language of the UK also. — SteveRwanda 12:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that would make it an official language in Wales only. on the Wales article it is listed along side English as official languages. This was made official under the The Welsh Language Act 1993 and the Government of Wales Act 1998, these do not change the status of languages in the UK as a whole, and as such don't need to be added to this article. - TheKeith 13:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Since Wales is in the UK, it would make Welsh an official language in the UK, but not throughout the UK. The fact that it is not official in England does not mean that it is not an official language in the UK. It is common for minority languages with official recognition to have that status on a regional basis. However, the fact (?) that there are no official languages makes it all moot. BrendanH 13:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Welsh is as much as offical language in the UK as English - i.e. ussage by Government organisations. However, its use is clearly more limited. However, it should be noted that if usage by Government organisations is regarded as denoting "official" status, then additionally Hindi, Urdu, Chinese etc.. should also be recognised as having an "official" status, albeit more limited than Welsh, as well, as those languages are frequently used by Government organisations as well, although in a considerably more limited way.--jrleighton 08:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you have gotten the idea that the UK has no official language from, can you cite a reference stating that - doubtful? All government and official buissness is conducted in English (British) would be my evidence. A treaty for example, involving Wales would be written in English and not welsh. The only official papers written in Welsh are either Welsh language versions of treaties originally written in English (British) or official papers written before the formation of the United Kingdom in the 1800's. The only reason road signs (in Wales only) and driving test forms are also printed in Welsh is because the DSA (Driving Standards Agency) who govern tests have their offices and processing facility in Wales and the decision was made by them to do so, it was a corporate desicion, not national. Furthermore the DSA and their documents are not official government documents as such, DVLA documents are (e.g. your driving license). More people speak Urdu in the United Kingdom than welsh, it trully is a minority language. As are the various forms of Gaelic. I doubt there is a single person who can speak Welsh but not English, and English is still part of the Welsh national Curriculum. Without doubt the official language of the UK is English. By your argument, i once met some people in london who can speak passable klingon - perhaps we should list that as one of the official languages of the UK. -- NickD

The Welsh Language Act 1993 obliges all organisations in the public sector providing services to the public in Wales to treat Welsh and English on an equal basis. This includes both the DVLA and the DSA. You can get bilingual driving licenses - mine is. It is not a matter of corporate decision but of legal obligation. Rhion 18:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As has been said britain has no official language written down in law. It just so happens that most government business, if not all, is conducted in english. 86.140.63.66 22:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

At first I thought Welsh should be in there, but on second thoughts- I'm sure many countries have languages spoken only in certain areas, that are not official languages. I don't think Welsh has enough speakers YET to be considered an official language, though I can certainly see that changing in the future. 'De Facto' is concerned with the popular standard- the fact that English spread into Wales and Scotland and not vice versa (and no one has even mentioned Gaelic) and that the vast majority speak English means the de facto official language- is English.

Whilst I agree with you that Welsh should not be included I disagree with the 'Yet' statement. We cannot say that when a populus reaches a certain numerical value which can speak a different language that we can make that language 'official'. The key part in that statement is 'can speak a different language'. As I commented earlier, I doubt a single Welsh speaking person in the UK cannot speak English. Official is whatever the government says it is and it has no view on language at this time. Besdies, What would that number be? How would you know that many people actually speak welsh seeing as that kind of census data won't be available for many decades. English is, without shadow of a doubt the most commonly spoken language in the UK. To restate what I said earlier, if your going to include every minority language in there then you may want to put Elvish and Klingon in because I understand theres a fair few people who can speak that. Its a nationalistic motivation to include Welsh as an official language (highlighted by the fact this issue was raised by an English speaking Welsh individual.) I believe to include it in the languages section would be to do so for all the wrong reasons. English (UK) is the de facto offical language.

List of Authors

It currently runs at over 15 authors (including JK Rowling twice) and it doesn't include Chaucer, the father of the English language. The problem is that everyone wants to add their favourite. Perhaps we should restrict it to the 3 or 4 best examples. Then add a comment stating that the talk page should be consulted before adding another author.

Obviously Shakespeare is beyond reproach. J.K. Rowling is the best example of a contempory writer. I would include Chaucer for the above reason (although perhaps you could argue that he has less international influence). Dickins or Austin are probably the two favourites for a famous historical writer. Any thoughts? josh (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguably everyone from before 1800 should be removed, as they date from before the creation of the UK. -- Arwel (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Good point. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I added Chaucer because I was too shocked that he wasn't already there, but I think the list is quite good as it stands. Personally I don't like J.K. Rowling in there, I would prefer Philip Pullman, personally, as an example of a contemporary writer. Considering the incredible number of excellent and famous writers there COULD be on the list, I think the list is pretty good though on the whole. William Blake should definitely stay. - Elín

Lions

Does anybody know (and can add to Wikipedia) the origins of the usage by the UK of lions as symbols - England three lions passant, and Scotland one lion rampant ? Indeed, whilst we;re at it, what about the origin of the usage of the Welsh dragon ? Presumably for England, the origin is due to Richard the lionheart - but again, why a lion ? Alas, no animals - to my knowledge - for (Northern) Ireland.--jrleighton 08:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Scotland, Wales and England. It's all in the respective articles

English people only care for theirs kings and queens history?

I know that UK history are oldest then 1066 ( maybe 3000 B.C ) but in all websites that talk about anciant briton I see that the history of the island begin with 1066 and you can find only a few lines about Celt, Roman ,Viking and other nations how lived in this island before 1066, you will not find any historical information before that date. You can name it the lost history.

We could but we don't need to since it's not lost. In fact I am surprised that UK history even goes back to 1066 since the UK was only created in 1707. However British history goes back a lot further and does mention Celts, Romans,Vikings and others. So, yes, it is easy to find British historical information before 1066. Wikipedia has a wealth of it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Derek, Infact when I began school about 14 years ago we were first taught the celtic history, then the roman history, the viking and saxon history and then the norman history. After that we studied the 1st Civil war (the war of the roses), then the second civil war (King Charles defeat and the formation of the worlds first consitutional democracy.) Finally the history of the 20th century, namely communism and the 2 world wars. I would say the UK has infact got one of the longest and most understood histories of any nation in the world and its certainly not a 'lost history' - you aren't looking hard enough I think. Students who go on to study history to A-Level and Degree also learn about the minor hisotrical details of the UK such as Paganism and the Druids, the minor military disputes, namely with Holland etc... No part of your post makes sense, including the title because there were kings and queens in England before 1066. Furthermore to add to the confussion this wiki article isn't the history of England, its the History of the United Kingdom (which is a tremendous difference) seeing (as Derek stated) the UK was formed in 1707, and so its history only dates back that far. Please move your wave of ignorance elsewhere. -- NickD

"In fact I am surprised that UK history even goes back to 1066 since the UK was only created in 1707."

I mean England history and you know very well that Scotland and Ireland are England colony and they fight for their independence many times and if you want to understand England history I think you must read the history of these nations how settled and lived in the island before the Anglo-Saxon.

Everyone knows that many nations lived in the island before Normans conquered but when I said Lost history I mean that there are few informatin about this history, for me as a not english man I like to know about this history because I want to understand how this small nation and island became on of the greatest empires of the world and I can find thousands of books and articles about history of England after 1066 but when I search before that date I find only few words and myths, you say :

"when I began school about 14 years ago we were first taught the celtic history, then the roman history, the viking and saxon history and then the norman history."

But how mucth you learn about this nations, I am sure you learn only a definition informations about them but that is not a history. History means religious, politics ,language ,economics, social, great events ... like what we read about Egypt and Iraq and Greek. I like english history and admir thier political system but relly they aren't care very much about there ancint history and if you visit their government websites that talk about history you will be sure ... They only talk about thier kings and queens after 1066 and if I am wrong then please direct me to a website where I can find such information (specially about Celt in England and don't say wikipedia because I read it and it's also like what you read in the school).

"Please move your wave of ignorance elsewhere...NickD"

I will not move it and if you don't like it then don't read it.

I am not going to discuss this with you because you have not done any actual research to justify your position. A simple "History of England" into google returns millions of relevant pages. Please read this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_england) which has an extensive amount of information on the "history of england" which you claim doesn't exist. It covers the Social, religious, political, linguistic and cultural background of England right back from when homo erectus lived in what is now England 750,000 BC to current day (including post 1066 history, it has stems to many other full articles with more detail about English history - refer to these). England actually has one of the most deeply understood pasts in the entire world with the possible exception of Ancient Egypt. However you must realise that there was no great civilisation on the British Isles until after around 400BC. The number of inhabitants prior to that was relativley small even by the standards of the time and were mainly small tribal pagan cultures. However there are still 600 years of history after that which are very well understood, and the life of the pagan tribes is also very deeply understood and some pagans (druids) still exist in england to this day.

I will delete this discussion at some point because frankly you don't know what your talking about and can barley string a comprendable sentance together, I can garuntee every other wiki user would back me up on this one - the history of england prior to 1066 is no secret or lost history, its a very clear and well understood history, if you ever come to england there are extensive saxon, roman and celtic ruins and many museums full of artifacts, coins - even roman shoes!

Economy

I updated the GDP as per the IMF 2006 list. That list can be found at: http://imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2005/02/data/dbcoutm.cfm?SD=2002&ED=2006&R1=1&R2=1&CS=3&SS=2&OS=C&DD=0&OUT=1&C=512-941-914-446-612-666-614-672-311-946-213-137-911-962-193-674-122-676-912-548-313-556-419-678-513-181-316-682-913-684-124-273-339-921-638-948-514-686-218-688-963-518-616-728-223-558-516-138-918-353-748-196-618-278-522-692-622-694-156-142-624-449-626-564-628-283-228-853-924-288-233-293-632-566-636-964-634-182-238-453-662-968-960-922-423-714-935-862-128-716-611-456-321-722-243-965-248-718-469-724-253-576-642-936-643-961-939-813-644-199-819-184-172-524-132-361-646-362-648-364-915-732-134-366-652-734-174-144-328-146-258-463-656-528-654-923-336-738-263-578-268-537-532-742-944-866-176-369-534-744-536-186-429-925-178-746-436-926-136-466-343-112-158-111-439-298-916-927-664-846-826-299-542-582-443-474-917-754-544-698&S=PPPWGT-PPPPC&CMP=0&x=78&y=11 -Doug Johnson

Question

Could someone message me on my talkpage regardin which is the appropriate article for this prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/030406camp.htm]? Thanks --Striver 22:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sports

I can't back this up right now(but will check and come back later), but I am not sure the following is true; "The national sport of the UK is association football, "

I am fairly certain that the national sport is actually cricket, although I admit that it isn't exactly wildy popular in the bits of the UK other than England...

If your going by public support it would be association football by a long way. Lots of games are of British origin though - consider also rugby to name but one. Also remeber this is the national sport of the UK, not England. I'd be in favour of leaving it as Association Football.

I think 'national sport' probably isnt defined officially. However, football is almost exlcusively described as such. Robdurbar 18:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The United Kingdom, often referred to as "Britain"

i would suggest that it would be better worded along the lines of 'Britain is often used inoperably (spelling?) with the phrase "The United Kingdom"' or something like that. As clearly Britain is not the same as the UK, as it lacks the inclusion of Northern Ireland. Thus it is like the use of 'England' refering to the UK/Britain, perhaps it should also be noted? .. and, I fail to see how anyone can prove that when people talk about Britain they are actually incorrectly talking about the UK. unless they are refering to 'britain' as a state or such in a legal manor etc. Bungalowbill 02:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the British Isles (terminology) page is there so we don't have to repetedly define things in the other articles. Robdurbar 07:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

'Britain' does not exclude Northern Ireland. You are confusing things with 'Great Britain' which does. 'Britain' is an informal term (formal when used in it adjectival form; citizenship etc) which means the entire UK. Great Britain is the largest island of the British Isles. Mucky Duck 10:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

i (continue to) fail to see how you can qualify your (/the wiki's) assumption that when Joe Bloggs uses the informal term 'Britain' that he is including Northern Ireland, and therefore means the UK, rather than Great Britain. I appreciate that perhaps it adds a little too much bloat to the article noting the differences, but still feel it should be worded differently, along the lines of my first 'post'(?), stating/implying that the terms can be used inter-changably in common useage, but not that they are the same, ie X is refered to as Y.Bungalowbill 22:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this has been debated endlessly on various pages - see Talk:British Isles, Talk:Britain, Talk:British Isles (terminology). It all comes down to this - if Britain, originally used as a short term for Great Britain specifically, has been used regularly enough and by all official bodies to describe the UK, then does it become a propoer useage? I would say yes, others argue that the word's origins mean no. I don't think that there is a correct answer, to be honest, but I do feel that wikipedia has attempted to explain this on so many articles that another attempt is a waste of time. Robdurbar 10:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; this matter has been settled (for the time-being, at least). Let's move on to more useful matters.

James F. (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Time

Is it just my browser, or is the time in the United Kingdom bit at the top of the page wrong?

It says 21:43, but my clock says 22:03 ?

Yeah, you're right! Robdurbar 22:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Major cities

This appears in the main template at the top of the article (on the edit page) but doesn't appear in the article itself. Is this a planned addition or a former feature?

Uk Is A Hot Bed Of Terrorism & Instability

First of I would like to say that the main page paints a very 'rosy' image of the united Kingdom which im afraid to say is extremly misleading, Nothing is said the effect that terrorism has over the british pysche, The people of the UK live in constant fear from the next bomb attack by the IRA, or perhaps a suicide bombing by Islamic extremists. Even the Islamic extremists were British in the London subway attacks, This shows much about how terrorism has become part of the British identity.

The UK is a hotbed of terrorism, Perhaps even the global epicenter of terrorism for Islamist and Irish groups, and this is not even mentioning rioting like in Oldham,Burnely, or the rise of far-right groups like BNP. UK today is hardly like the image presented on that page, I wish it was all that "peaches and cream" but anyone that lives in the UK will agree that terrorism and violence over decades has reduced British people to walking scar tissues, very much like damaged individuals living in constant fear of terroism, rioters, or even the local police force might shoot you in the face if you walk to fast in the London system like what happened to the poor Brazilian.

Uk under Blair is like Soviet Union under Gorbachov; Its a country on the verge of total state failure, How about including a sector on "disgruntled elements" to clearly list the irritants or sources of instability in the UK like BNP, AL Muhajiroun, IRA, British suicide bombers etc. --- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Babil79 (talk • contribs) .

What world do you live in? Some interesting comments but this page is not for opinions. Take them to a forum. josh (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The unsigned poster was User:Babil79, who appears to be a Pakistani with very strong nationalist feelings, judging by his edit history (he considers Gandhi a terrorist for instance. He probably wrote the above rant about the UK out of hurt feelings that the rest of the world generally regards Pakistan as a "hotbed of terrorism and instability". He also seems to currently live in the UK, judging by his comments on the Gun Politics in the UK talk page - he says that the UK is a sewer and not real democracy (for instance, because the UK doesnt allow people to own guns as freely as the US), but interestingly, says he wants to seek asylum in the US, which is a real democracy according to him. I'm sure he'd pass the US immigration interview with flying colours. Bwithh 21:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you dont value my unique insight and vast array of knowledge then thats your problem, its one thing to disagree with me, but if your not able to view political events and happenings in a dispassionate manner then the problem is with you and not me. Besides my immigration to/from any other country is not important. What is important is that I will excercise my somewhat 'limited' democratic rights to express my opinion and help create more balanced and fair articles.

Thanks—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Babil79 (talk • contribs) .

Hi. This is a privately owned website for the purpose of creating a free, reusable encyclopedia. I cannot emphasise strongly enough that you do not have any democratic rights to express your opinion here, limited or otherwise. Jkelly 22:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well said. please see WP:FREE, Babil79. Bwithh 22:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Do other users think that we can delete this particular discussion, as it is an irrelevance as far as I can see? One person's extremist, anti-British views are not even worth arguing over, and this isn't a platform for them, as per Jkelly's note above. Most British people will read Babil79's opinion above and think he must be referring to a different United Kingdom (I, and every single person I know who lives here is not 'walking scar tissue' and in my 30 odd years I've not lived one day in constant fear of terrorist attacks, and I don't know a single person who does.) And as for a "vast array of knowledge" - Babil79's terrible grammar would see me preferring that he airs this supposed knowledge elsewhere. Michaeltyne 10:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably best to leave this discussion up and expose people like its initiator for what they are. I'm not a walking scar tissue and I don't believe the majority of Britons would consider themselves to be either, regardless of their ethnic origin. Viewfinder 21:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this should be deleted - its an 'E-Jihadists' rant and not an attempt to add factual information. I live in the UK, i used to live in guildford which was targetted extensivley by the IRA in the 1980's and early 1990's. I have never once been concerned for my own safety at the hands of a terrorist - infact thanks to the IRA the UK is very experienced in rapidly dealing with, preventing and controlling terrorist incidents. Terrorism plays no major part of mine or anyone i knows life. 'Disgruntled elements' - I think the only disgruntled element is you. This is an enclycopedia, not a forum for extremist or revolutionary views - take the 'E-Jihadist' stuff elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.151.178 (talk • contribs) .

It creates a bad precedent to be removing stuff from talk pages just because of their political views. It contevenes policy and, whilst I agree this is all inappropriate nonesense, its still not our place to censor views we disagree with. Robdurbar 17:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, such views are welcome in the appropriate places, this is not one of them. Its not being removed because of its political views, he is welcome to write a page if he wants on "Widespread terrorist fear in the United Kingdom" - (though i doubt it would last long). Instead its being opted for removal because it has no factual backing, is unsubstantiated and the author has a history of sparking extremist islamic talk page flame wars - its taking up important space and wasting time. Its wasting your and my time writting here when we could make more important edits. This is a NPOV encylopedia - what he wrote is several paragraphs of nothing but POV comments. Wikipedia isn't here to tell people whether or not Britain has the right political ideas or the moral fibre of its citizens, its here to offer factual information backed up by evidence, reference and unbiased data, he did not offer any of those things. Thats my 2p, well, more like £6. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.151.178 (talk • contribs) .

I agree completely with Robdurbar - these comments should not be removed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that this page ISNT an encyclopedia - people can write what they want here and it shouldn't be removed; it can be ignored as irrelevant, but not removed. It shouldn't be misused and users posting nonesense - such as our hot-bed of terrorism friend - can be repremanded for contravening policy, but its not our position to delete comments. Robdurbar 09:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the overwhelming majority state a desire not to remove it so I shall hold off, although I would once again state that this lengthy and pointless topic is taking up vast amounts of space on an already packed and extensivley archived article. Its not worth the file space its saved on.

Talk pages should only be used for the purpose of improving encyclopedia articles. However it's also good policy not to remove any contributions if the user thought they were tyring to improve the article, which seems to be the case here. DJ Clayworth 22:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

he wasn't trying to improve the article, he was trying to spread e-jihadist political views as he's done in other articles. Infact i'm pretty sure that improving the encyclopedic information was the last thing on his mind - but rather creating an image of a 'hotbed of terrorist fear' was his goal. But as I said before, the general consensus is to leave this rubbish to clog up already overflowing servers so thats fine by me.

Atheism

I think the atheism bit could do with some discussion. Thanks to whoever put in the Telegraph reference to support that 40% are atheists argument (later changed to atheists and agnostics). I've added the census reference saying that 76% claim to have a religion, though really only 15.5% said they had no religion. The Telegraph survey which says 35% do not believe in God clearly includes those who do not know if they do not believe in God (only 35% of non-believers know that they do not believe in God). So, although technically correct by some definitions, I think it is misleading to talk about atheism wrt this 35% of the population - since the survey itself (same reference) says that only 12.25% of the population are atheists. (see also [2]). I think it could still do with some re-wording. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that! It was me who supplied the reference - I just noticed that the section had been totally deleted without comment, and thought that was a little unjustified. I noticed it was unreferenced, so just added the first reliable one I found; I'm no expert on the subject however, and didn't feel in a position to expand further. Your edit is both far more precise and accurate, thanks for that. Aquilina 23:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem - it is always better to have a reference which can be checked - and it was shockingly unreferenced before. Secularism is an important aspect of modern UK society which should be mentioned - I'm surprised it wasn't in the article before. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Special Forces vs. Special Operations Forces

Difference in semantics. SOF is the general term whereas SF is usually applied to the US Army Special Forces, also known as the Green Berets.

Land Borders

The following paragraph has been removed: The United Kingdom also shares land borders with Spain (through Gibraltar) and Cyprus (through Akrotiri and Dhekelia). The reason for the removal was that Gibraltar was not part of the UK. However, both the article about Gibraltar and the second paragraph of this article clearly state that it is an overseas territory of the UK. --81.103.41.71 10:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

And hence not part of the UK, so the removal was in order. --Ryano 11:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Also Gibralter is an island detached from the spanish mainland and so doesn't share a land border with Spain anyway - it would technically be a sea border if any. Good removal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.176.155.90 (talk • contribs) .

It does, in fact, share a land border with Spain. Generally, the most convenient way to get to Gibraltar is by walking across the border from La Linea, Spain. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Constituent country/province

There has been some discussion at Talk:Northern Ireland as to whether NI is a "constituent country" of the UK or a "province". To date nobody has been able to produce a source for the claim that NI is a "constituent country". Although some NIers do informally refer to NI as a country, it would seem that the standard/official usage is to call NI a "province". For that reason I believe this article should go back to terming the UK a union of 3 constituent countries and the province of NI. I'm holding off on editing in case anybody watching this article can produce other sources. --Ryano 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many out there. Here's an example from an official site: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp Mucky Duck 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That page was mentioned over at the NI talk page also, but personally I don't consider it a very authoritive source. NI cannot be given the status of "country" by a blurb on the PM's web site. I'm not totally discounting it, but I don't believe it's sufficient in itself. If there are many others, please share them. --Ryano 12:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I always thought that it was 2 constituent countries, a Principality and a province, but that's an unpopular view. The official common term for all four is "Part", so we can use that, but it's... well, unclear and definitely a term of art.

James F. (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's perhaps notable in official literature for only being described as a part. One can find the term province being used occasionally in addition to part, for example in the Official Yearbook (I consider this document very authorative). The term country to describe Northern Ireland is extremely rare, and therefore shouldn't really be used - especially in any leading sentences. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

External links

I propose a new set of links which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skinnyweed/Sandbox. I'll add them if no one objects in 2 days time. Skinnyweed 04:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The media links aren't needed; they should be on Media in the United Kingdom. --Robdurbar 07:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, leave the linsk as they currently stand/wangi 08:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's best to leave the external links as they are, to avoid a deluge of further TV, radio and other less notable media websites being added later. This is currently one of the best prominent articles as regards external links; compare it to Turkey#External links which is just about to go over the link-spam event horizon - practically any vaguely Turkey-related site could now be added with the justification that there is a similar one in the list already, and Wikipedia is not a link-farm Aquilina 09:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Skinnyweed 17:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"International relations of the United Kingdom" template

Target the 'OECD' into the full title of 'Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development'. I don't know how to edit templates. Skinnyweed 01:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Skinnyweed 17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)