Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:33, 24 August 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39Auto-archiving period: 30 days

view · edit Frequently asked questions 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. Q2: Why isn't Great Britain listed as one of the names of the United Kingdom, in the lead? A2: See the article entitled "Terminology of the British Isles". Great Britain is the name of the largest island that the UK encompasses, and is not generally used in source material as the name of the country. Indeed, Britain 2001, the "official reference book" of the United Kingdom produced by the Office for National Statistics for "British diplomatic posts" says in its foreword: The term 'Britain' is sometimes used as a short way of expressing the full title of the country: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (or more simply again, the United Kingdom or the UK). 'Great Britain' comprises England, Wales and Scotland only. — Office for National Statistics, (2001), Britain 2001: The Official Yearbook of the United Kingdom, p. vii This view is reiterated by the Prime Minister's Office, which states: The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 'Great Britain', however, comprises only England, Scotland and Wales. Great Britain is the largest island of the British Isles. — Countries within a country, number10.gov.uk (archived version from April 2010) A report submitted to the United Nations Economic and Social Council by the Permanent Committe on Geographical Names and the Ordnance Survey states: Great Britain consists of England + Scotland + Wales. The term is exclusive of Northern Ireland and is therefore not a synonym for the term "United Kingdom". — United Nations Economic and Social Council (2007). "Ninth United Nations Conference on the standardization of Geographical Names" (PDF). There has been a long-standing consensus not to include Great Britain in the lead as an interchangable name of the state. Q2b: Is Britain really one of the names of the United Kingdom? A2b: Whether Britain should be listed as an alternative name in the lead has been discussed often, most extensively in August 2007 and April 2011; and whether the alternate name Britain should be qualified with "incorrect" in June 2006, with "informally" in September 2006, or with "mistakenly" in January 2011. Q3: Isn't the United Kingdom a "collection of countries"? A3: This is one of the most common questions raised on this talk page, but consistently, consensus goes against taking that approach. No major reputable source describes the UK in this way. However the history of the formation of the United Kingdom, supported by source material, highlights that England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are "countries within a country". Please also refer to Q4. Q4: Are England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales countries? A4: This is the most frequent question raised by visitors to this talk page, and the issue which generates the most debate. However, as a result of a lack of a formal British constitution, and owing to a convoluted history of the formation of the United Kingdom, a variety of terms exist which are used to refer to England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Reliable and official sources support use of the word "countries": As the UK has no written constitution in the usual sense, constitutional terminology is fraught with difficulties of interpretation and it is common usage nowadays to describe the four constituent parts of the UK (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) as “countries”. — Scottish Parliament. "Your Scotland questions; Is Scotland a country?". scottish.parliament.uk. Retrieved 2008-08-01. On Misplaced Pages, the term has broadly won preference amongst the editing community (note, however, that a country is not the same as a sovereign state). Also commonplace is the phrase "constituent country, or countries", when referring to the countries as elements of the UK. This phrase, however, is not an actual term; ie Scotland is not a 'constituent country' in itself, but is one of the constituent countries of the UK. The community endeavours to achieve an atmosphere of neutrality and (for the sake of stability) compromise on the various UK naming issues. See also Countries of the United Kingdom for more details about the terms that have been used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Q5: Why don't we refer to England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as nations, or by the term "Home Nations"? A5: Widespread confusion surrounds the use of the word "nation". In standard British English, and in academic language, a nation is a social group of two or more people, and not a division of land. This is also the approach taken in the nation article, and across Misplaced Pages (for example, the English people and the Québécois are described as "nations", reflecting real world practice). The term Home Nations is generally used only in sporting contexts. It is not used in any major reputable sources outside of sport, and is not the approach taken by any other encyclopedia. Q6: Isn't Northern Ireland a province, and Wales a principality? A6: This view is supported by some sources, but the current consensus amongst the editing community is aligned to a greater body of work which describes both Northern Ireland and Wales as countries. However, the terms are not all mutually exclusive: a country can also be a principality or a province, and these terms are mentioned throughout Misplaced Pages as alternative names in afternotes. Q7: Why isn't the flag of Northern Ireland shown in the article? A7: Northern Ireland has not had its own unique, government sanctioned flag since its government was prorogued in 1972, and abolished in 1973 under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. During official events, the British government uses the Union Flag — the flag of the United Kingdom — and this is the only flag used by the government in Northern Ireland. The consensus is to reflect this in the article with a note. Q8: Why is "British Isles" not mentioned in the introduction? A8: Again, Misplaced Pages editors often disagree on the acceptability and suitability of various terms and phrases. This term is not favoured by a number of Misplaced Pages editors, and is currently not used in the introduction both to simplify the status quo, and also to discourage edit warring.

Template:VA Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

	United Kingdom was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 3, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 22, 2006 Good article nominee Listed September 30, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 11, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 3, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted January 22, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Template:WP1.0 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. UK geography Top‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Guild of Copy Editors
This article was copy edited by Chaosdruid, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 17 May 2011.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

To-do list for United Kingdom: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2010-10-28 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : The Culture section as it stands has a large amount of list information, which is not useful for a summary article. It should be turned into prose or removed. Verify : Large parts of article are completely uncited - i.e. need inline citations - the last half of Football for instance, and almost all of the Culture, Geography and Christianity sections. There are many unattributed expressions of opinion in culture section. Publishers and last access dates need to be shown for all of the citations.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Country/State debate archives June 2005 – March 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 Terminology debate archives July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – October 2006 Subdivision name debate archives April 2008 – June 2008

This page has archives.

The wording of the formation of the United Kingdom is misleading

This article is very frustrating. The wording of the formation of the United Kingdom is misleading. There appears to be a purposeful bluring (i.e., Equivocation) of the Geographic Features and the Country Units.

(1). The Geographic Features are the Island of Great Britain, and the Island of Ireland,

(2). The Country Units are the Kingdom of England, the Principality of Wales, the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Kingdom of Ireland.

(3). Since we are discussing the Country (i.e., Independent State), of the United Kingdom we should talk of its creation out of the Country Units, and not the Geographic Features.

(4). The Kingdom of England, the Principality of Wales, and the Kingdom of Scotland rest upon the Island of Great Britain,

(5). The Kingdom of Ireland rests upon the Island of Ireland.

Now in 1707 the Country Units came into Union, and thus a United Kingdom of Great Britain was formed, resting upon the Island of Great Britain. To re-emphasize, in terms of a United Kingdom of Great Britain the word United already applied as a union of 3 countries ... 3 united countries.

Please note Northern Ireland is a PROVINCE of the UK NOT a country!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.183.27 (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Also re Northern Ireland-In the section about what we call ourselves, it IS true you do get say a Welshman, saying he is Welsh, and NOT British, but anyone saying they are Northern Irish IS British by implication. The two go hand in hand. A nationalsit would say Irish (NOT Northern Irish) even if they lived in the Province. I am convinced this is written by people who DO NOT know the facts or live them day to day!!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.182.98 (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not true. Some Northern Irish/Ulstermen wish to be free of the both the UK and RoI. JonChapple 14:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Next, the United Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800) then came into Union with the Kingdom of Ireland (1541-1800), thus forming an expanded Union, whose name was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1921), and then later (after December 6, 1921) the United Kingdom Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The uniting of the Country Units should be emphasized, and NOT the uniting of the Geographic Features. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"United Kingdom of Great Britain" is mistaken, as the name of the country formed in 1707 was simply "Great Britain". Please see Talk:Kingdom of Great Britain. Moonraker (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, ... I disagree with you. I happen to believe that the Name of United Kingdom of Great Britain (1707) is in fact correct. . ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I am puzzled as to while anyone objects to my splitting the History section so as to start a new section at the creation of the United Kingdom in 1801. As this article is about the United Kingdom, the creation of the United Kingdom ought to start a section, but User:DeCausa thinks it is "opening up a can of worms".

I know there has been a tiresome argument about terminology when it comes to Great Britain, but that is irrelevant here. There is no doubt that 1 January 1801 saw the union of two kingdoms into a new kingdom, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (using identical wording to the union which created Great Britain) and despite a name change in the twentieth century, it is that kingdom which is the subject of this article. We cannot pass over the creation of the very subject matter of the article as if mere detail.

Howard Alexander (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with you and would have split the section at 1800 with pre- and post-formation of the UK titles. In fact, I think that's how I originally did it when I put in the pre-UK part. (It was until recently missing.) However, just as there is a tiresome (as you say) argument about the terminology of Great Britain, there is an equally tiresome argument about whether the "United Kingdom" begins in 1707 or 1801. The titles and content of the history section has shifted to and fro because of this, but the current set-up seems to be the most stable because it doesn't touch on that "controversy". So that's the reason I reverted. Hope gthat explains. DeCausa (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a wee bit odd though. I had seen the arguments about whether GB was called just Great Britain or the Kingdom of... or the United Kingdom of ... or the united Kingdom of ..., but that becomes irrelevant in 1801. Has anyone argued that the 1800 Acts of Union were different in quality to the Acts of 1707, that they annexed Ireland to Great Britain rather than uniting the two? No doubt Parliament could have done the former had it wished, but the wording of the Acts of Union is unambiguous. The political reality of the 1801 union is arguable, as is the development of circumstances after the union, but the legal form is clear. A new kingdom was created on 1 January 1801. Has anyone disagreed with that, with a rational argument for it? Howard Alexander (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No that's not the problem. You wanted to have a sub-heading for post 1800 of "Formation and later history of the United Kingdom". But that would be a problem for those who believe that the entity created in 1707 was also called the "United Kingdom". It really isn't worth the trouble to get into it. DeCausa (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a think about it before I try anything else, but I will try to avoid that problem. Howard Alexander (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I really think the current solution is the best option. After all, the 1707 union, in terms of the current configuration of the UK, is the more significant of the two Unions, IMHO. The 1801 union's significance today is more for the state's name rather than the underlying political concept. This, of course, is with hindsight. One wouldn't have said that in 1900, for instance. DeCausa (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Alfred the Great in history?

It seems as if it is a big omission to leave out King Alfred the Great (the only monarch to be so named), who spread the english language through an education system not seen since the Roman empire, aswell as his laws which led to the Magna Charta. Could we potentially work on adding this to the page? Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.67.192.64 (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The UK was only formed in 1707, so most of the History in this article deals with the period after then. Alfred is mentioned in the article on England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The UK was formed in 1801, but that does not help King Alfred. Moonraker (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be picky but quoting 1801 as the birth point of the United Kingdom is controversial as I'm sure you know. For example, "The most important consideration in the making of the United Kingdom in 1707 was the standpoint of England." (Quote from Professor Allan I. Macinnes, in his article 'Acts of Union: The creation of the United Kingdom' as quoted on the BBC website. However, at least we agree that King Alfred preceded the start of the history of the United Kingdom! Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's only controversial with Misplaced Pages editors! DeCausa (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

To Moonraker2, ummm, ... I disagree with you. I happen to believe that the Name of United Kingdom of Great Britain (1707) is in fact correct. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No, UNITED KINGDOM only came about with the union of Ireland with Great Britain! Take that from a Welshman !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.183.27 (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Religion

This section is outdated and a misrepresentation, The Article says that 71.6% of people are Christian, This is with odds with recent statistics that the minority (43.70%) Identified themselves as Christian and the majority (50.70%) Describing themselves as non-religious

http://www.britsocat.com/BodySecure.aspx?control=BritsocatMarginals&var=RELIGION&SurveyID=221 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.47.16 (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggest Adding from this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/Demographics_of_atheism#United_Kingdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.47.16 (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. What is says is "In the 2001 census 71.6% of all respondents indicated that they were Christians". Until new data is released from the 2011 census this is not out of date. It also goes on to make brief points about other evidence. It would have been nice to have included evidence from the BSAS, but space is a factor in this article. More detail can be included in linked articles. This was the subject of very intensive discussion here.--SabreBD (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

When claims like that are made from census results, it's really important that the census question be accurately paraphrased here (or even quoted word for word). To exactly what question did they respond "Christian"? HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

UK Founded when

Ok was the UK founded in 1707 or 1801? If it is founded with the Act of union that united the kingdoms of England and Scotland then List of sovereign states by date of formation needs to be changed accordingly. If it is via the union of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801 then this article and History of the United Kingdom needs to be changed. Please can you let me know which is the encyclopaedic answer & please offer academic sources backing up your belief. Thanks -- Phoenix (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The United Kingdom, though not called that then, began in 1707 when the Kingdoms of England and Scotland united to form a new, united kingdom. Though the Treaty of Union and the subsequent Acts of Union that ratified the Treaty did refer to the new state as 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain' and 'the United Kingdom', the name of the new, united kingdom was clearly stated to be 'Great Britain'. Almost a century later, the Kingdom of Ireland merged with this new state and this time the state was named 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'. Just over a century later, another change as most of Ireland left the UK, giving us the United Kingdom in its present form. Therefore, the first United Kingdom was created in 1707. However, some interpret history differently putting more stress on the name - they regard 1801 as the start. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, as Fishiehelper says, that's an interpretation which not everyone agrees with. The classic/mainstream (IMHO) interpretation is that it was created in 1801, as that is when a state that included "United Kingdom" in the name was founded. Two issues muddy the waters:

• "United Kingdom"/"UK" is an abbreviation, so, in a sense, it's the wrong question because no state has ever been created with that name. Some see it as important that there is evidence of informal or even inconsistent official use of the term united kingdom during the 18th century to refer to the country. That's part of the reason behind the differing interpretations. I think what can be stated which no one disagrees with is that the kingdom created in 1707 was called in the statute Great Britain and a new kingdom was created in 1801 called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and that same kingdom changed its name in 1927 to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I think that's what the article says. If it doesn't please point out where.
• Looking at what the UK now is, you would have to say that the 1707 union de facto if not de jure created the current state. Northern Ireland, with all due respect to it, is a relatively small addition to what was created in 1707. For that reason, you will find a lot of sources (including academic) referring to 1707 as its founding date. However, Ireland was a very significant part of the UK in the 19th century, (eg Ireland had half the population of England prior to the famine, cf relative populations of NI, Scotland and Wales and England today). So prior to the breaking away of the Irish Free State, one wouldn't have made the same statement. In 1900, I think one would have to say that de facto as well as de jure the UK (as it was then) came about in 1801.

DeCausa (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Being a student of history I am in agreement that the UK (as we know it now) was founded in 1707 (and there can even be made some arguments made for earlier dates like the Union of crowns). But can you provide any academic sources stating such? -- Phoenix (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DeCausa. All good academic histories (the Cambridge Modern History is an example) date the United Kingdom (that is, the country called that as part of its name) from 1801, although I suppose it was "founded" (in the sense of its foundations being laid) in 1800. Until then, Great Britain, which was specifically given that name in 1707, had very occasionally been referred to, but not called as its name, the "united kingdom", and the distinction between "Great Britain" (which does not include Ireland or any part of it) and the "United Kingdom", which does, is an important one. There was real perplexity in the 1920s, when the Union between Great Britain and most of Ireland broke down, causing George V to drop the words "United Kingdom" from his titles. They were never used by George VI, but were restored to the titles of Elizabeth II in 1953.

Having said that, no one can dispute that the origins of the United Kingdom lie in the former kingdom of Great Britain: a whole host of organizations, such as the British Army, date from 1707 and not 1801. in general, the Union of 1801 caused less constitutional innovation than the Union of 1707. Moonraker (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@Phoenix. Here's one. As Moonraker says, there are plenty of others that say 1801, so to cite this in isolation would be wrong. DeCausa (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Phoenix. There are a number of academic sources that would support the view that the United Kingdom was formed in 1707. For example, Professor Allan I. Macinnes writing on the BBC website says "The most important consideration in the making of the United Kingdom in 1707 was the standpoint of England."Acts of Union: The creation of the United Kingdom Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not think Allan Macinnes would write that now, as I understand it led to some disagreement in the Historical Association, which is on record as contradicting the same point of view when expressed by Bernard Crick (please see here: "HA The United Kingdom did not come into being until 1800, with the Act of Union with Ireland, which is not mentioned".) Moonraker (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You may be correct that Professor Allan MacInnes has changed his viewpoint recently, though I can find no evidence of such - his book Union and empire:the making of the United Kingdom in 1707 was published in 2007. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem with relying on many historians who have been cited (including all of those citing on the point in a certain dire article). If the historian is writing specifically about Scotland or about the 1707 union, then of course he will be talking about 1707.

The question though is not about narrative and interpretation: it is a technical question with a technical answer. The 1707 Acts of Union without doubt created a new kingdom. The 1800 Acts of Union have exactly the same formulation: they did not annex Ireland to Great Britain but explicitly united Great Britian and Ireland into one kingdom using the same woerding as in 1707.

One can argue that Pitt and his contemporaries thought that the union would effectively be absorbing Ireland, though later generations saw it was not so simple: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was far more, with a new and distinctive Irish flavour within it. However such positions are merely political and social emphasis: the creation of the Kingdom itself is a matter of pure law, and in law a new kingdom was called into being on 1 January 1801.

Howard Alexander (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Science and Technology % of Research Citations

The sentence before citation 229 states that the UK is 3rd in scientific citations or something, behind, and this is the problematic part, "the united states and china and the united states, respectively". Makes no sense. Is the United states or China first? This wiki is locked and I have no account, but I'd appreciate it if some one could address it.

The full sentence is "Between 2004 and 2008 the UK produced 7% of the world's scientific research papers and had an 8% share of scientific citations, the third and second highest in the world (after the United States and China and the United States respectively)." It makes perfect if you know what the word respectively means.--SabreBD (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added a couple of commas, for clarity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Great Britain vs United Kingdom

The use of the name of Great Britain outside the country is very spread, like Grossbrittanien Grande-Bretagne Groot-Brittannië Storbritannien rather than United Kingdom because the expression united kingdom makes no sense, like calling London the town? All present and past kingdoms are united kingdoms even though it is not any more in the official name. Like Sweden abolished the united kingdom approach in the new ground law 1970. This thing makes it for non-British people senseless to say United Kingdom because it leads to confusions, the listener/reader is not certainly understanding the phrase. So in practical language Great Britain and eq translated terms are the common expression, also make it more distingushed from Brittany in France as well.

The last 15 years there has been more common that British people refere themselves to living in the UK rather than Britain and it is definitly something that makes things more clear, and vey domestic like a STockholmer is talking about STockholm in daily talk as the town it is silly to be used officially.

At the same time there has started a huge confusion about America taht fopr most people is one or two continents and Americans people from this or these two continents and english speaking people starts to use it for USA and the population of USA. Like meeting Canadians refusing to accept he is an American, that is real silly. Then cover this with the Spanish expression for the two continents Americas is even making it worse. The sillyness is that is is the same confusion as with the UK, but the difference is how establish it is. For USA there are hardly any alternative but "the USA" but Great Britain is by far a much smoother and established expression for the Kingdom.

I Suggest strongly that "commonly known as ... or Great Britain" should be added at line 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.161.75 (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The British government discourages use of "Great Britain" to refer to the UK of GB and NI because it refers only to the island made up of England, Scotland and Wales and excludes Ulster. Thet term Britain (with no "Great") is in common currency and is becoming more widely used in an official capacity, but it's already mentioned in the first line so I'm not sure what more we can do. It's also already mentioned that many people incorrectly call the UK Great Britain further down.

Incidentally, we were taught at school that the French called Britain "la Royaume-Uni". JonChapple 06:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean Northern Ireland not Ulster, Ulster includes three counties in Ireland, but I agree with you we should not be saying "commonly known as GB" --Snowded 06:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You knew what I meant. "Ireland" includes six counties in the United Kingdom. JonChapple 07:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Just concerned that you say what you mean! --Snowded 07:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I did say what I mean. "Ulster" is short-hand for NI in addition to referring to the historical province. Just as "Ireland" is also a misleadingly-named state in addition to an island! JonChapple 08:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The UK is more commonly called "England" rather than the rather technical "Great Britain". But good luck trying to get Misplaced Pages editors to acknowledge what is staring everybody in the face. Incidentally, I notice that "UK" is increasingly being used as an adjective, eg. UK soldier, UK hospital, UK weather, UK parliament, UK government etc etc etc. This would have been utterly incomprehensible to most citizens of the UK even as recently as 50 years ago, when the natural adjective would have been "English" or "British". There is no doubt that language is changing, and quite rapidly. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this covered in the Etymology section (and the See Also's)? DeCausa (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion is that "Great Britain" be added to the list of commonly used synonyms in line 1. The fact that, to UK editors and the UK government, that term is seen as incorrect should perhaps not be the overriding principle here, if reliable sources do in fact indicate that "GB" is a term in widespread use to mean "UK". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see Britain or England are more common. The latter is so wrong as to not be permitted, the former is in increasing use --Snowded 09:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess both "Great Britain" and "England" is analagous to Holland in the Netherlands article. There it is mentioned in the lead (because of common usage), but with an explanation of why it is "incorrect". I suppose that would be a way of dealing with it. In United States, America is given as an unqualified alternative even thaough it is technically incorrect and highly controveresial in Latin America. DeCausa (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Roman occupation vs Saxon settlement

The most odd thing about moste Englsih/Bristih histroy writings is the expressions, Roman occupation and Saxon settlement, why not the other way?

The time as Roman province England and Wales was indeed a part, provinces of the Roman empire. But certainly it was not hords of italians running around in Britain being it. Rather all research points at the fact it was the prevoius local population that was romanised or worked within the Roman sociaty as Romans. They hardly occupied themselves? During 400 years of Romans the celtic languages were in fact still existing, that is something completely different in comaparnce with Ireland or Wales in the Noraman era. The Noramans were really occupying Britain more than any other.

However the Saxons came and clensed the country from celts in a completely different way than the Roman empire. In fact Briatian becaim Anglish during these years.

I would say that these very politically flavoured expressions of British history are unfit. The expressions shows that no follower of political power refere its regin to the Roman era, and so it should be described as black as possible in contrast to their own. In fact after the Roman collapse during the 5th century half the British population vanished and most likly because the souciaty cound not feed them and domestic wars. People died in masses and emigrated most likly to todays France where the sociaty and its facilities were more intact. During this century of disaster the collapse of a smooth working advanced sociaty things like Arthur and Tristan and Isolde emmerge, the most romantic events in British tailes covering the disaster from history records. Political propaganda in the past was really very advanced, much more than one first believes. Many of the features of the roman era Bitish sociaty hasent been seen in Britain until the mid 20th century. The Roman sociaty was not a democracy and not an equal sociaty form, but very few others has been since. I suggest the expresssion "Roman provinces" should be used instead of Roman occupation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.161.75 (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed "occupation" to "rule", does that suffice? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the key point is the opening of the above post "The most odd thing about most English/British history writings is the expressions, Roman occupation and Saxon settlement" (my emphasis). The point of Misplaced Pages here is simply to reflect most English/British history writings. If it is the case that these events are generally referred to as the Roman occupation and the Anglo-Saxon settlement - and I think they are, more or less - then that's how they should be referred to here, for good or ill. The rest of the post which may or may not be true, is WP:OR. I would favour reverting. DeCausa (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The wording has come about because, essentially, the Roman occupation was led by an organised military force which imposed rule over the local inhabitants. Clearly there was romanisation of the population over time, but originally it was a military occupation. The process of Saxon settlement was certainly not peaceful, but equally it was not centrally organised to the same extent, so far as I am aware. So, there is no overriding logic in using the same terminology in both cases. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Occupation is usually used only when an area is regarded as foreign territory, but the areas in Britain became full Roman provinces. True it was occupied, but it is more contentious to describe the 400 years as a continuous occupation. In general I think it is best to avoid words with strong emotive connotations when there are better alternatives in the body of an article. The terminology still isn't the same. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Emotive?! 2000 years ago...Are there Roman Empire neo-nationalists who would get upset?! I still think it's best to be guided by common usage: 10,300 hits for "Roman occuation of Britain" on Google books. DeCausa (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Now now, us Romano-celts have been attempting to sustain civilisation in the face of Anglo-Saxon barbarism for the best part of 2,000 years and its still emotive. The Dyrham a vivid memory, and don't even start me on the Normans. Serious stuff aside, I think the current wording is fine --Snowded 08:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Great Britain, United Kingdom and style guides

The Etymology and terminology section says, "Great Britain...particularly in the UK, is not favoured as an alternative name for the United Kingdom." This is not supported by the two cited sources. The Guardian and Observer style guide says, "These terms are synonymous: Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." The opposite of the statement it is supposed to support! It then goes on to advise the writer "not to write Britain when you might mean England and Wales, or just England", which is not of course, the same as using it for the United Kingdom. The BBC style guide says, "Britain remains, just about, an acceptable substitute for the United Kingdom in some contexts", and then says, like the Guardian, that it should not be used for England or England and Wales. Ironically, considering the sentence I quoted from the article, it also deprecates the use of "UK". That sentence needs to be changed to reflect actual usage as shown by the cited sources. Scolaire (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In the early part of your paragraph you have fallen into the frequent trap of confusing "Britain" with "Great Britain". - David Biddulph (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading this wrong, you've mentioned that the Guardian and Observer style guides say "Britain" is the official short of the UK, not "Great Britain". If that's the case, the article is correct as it stands. JonChapple 11:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where this (very strongly felt) belief on UK-related articles that there is a clear distinction between Britain, Great Britain and the United Kingdom comes from or that Great Britain, as opposed to Britain, is the "full" name for the island. Elsewhere, the words are used interchangeably and Britain is the original name for the island, rather than an abbreviated from of Great Britain.

For example, the OED:

United Kingdom: a country of western Europe consisting of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland; population 61,113,200 (est. 2009); capital, London. Full name United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Britain: the island containing England, Wales, and Scotland. The name is broadly synonymous with Great Britain, but the longer form is more usual for the political unit. See also Great Britain, United Kingdom

Great Britain: England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom.
Usage: Great Britain is the name for the island that comprises England, Scotland, and Wales, although the term is also used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a political unit that includes these countries and Northern Ireland. The British Isles is a geographical term that refers to the United Kingdom, Ireland, and surrounding smaller islands such as the Hebrides and the Channel Islands

These would appear to contradict the article and give Great Britain as a frequent synonym for the United Kingdom. --RA (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to David Biddulph and JonChapple, you're right, I was conflating Britain and Great Britain. But I would suggest that is the fault of the article, not my ignorance. To say that it is "often referred to as Britain", and then go into a rigmarole about Great Britain, gives the impression that it is the same term that is under discussion. A reader who is familiar with both terms will not register the change from one to the other unless it is signalled in advance. At any rate, the sentence is still not strictly in accordance with the cited sources: both sources give lists of "do's" and "don'ts" e.g. don't use Britain for England, but neither explicitly states that Great Britain for the United Kingdom is "not favoured". A more proper way of saying it would be:

• United Kingdom is often referred to by the short-form name of Britain. Style guides of British media allow the use of Britain for the United Kingdom, but point out that the longer term Great Britain refers only to England, Scotland and Wales (references). However, some foreign usage...

Scolaire (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your revised sentence to an extent, but it's not just the British media – the Government also frequently refers to the UK as Britain, as evidenced recently by this godawful website, so that would need a mention too. JonChapple 19:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I also tend to hear "Britain and Ireland" mentioned a lot by Irishmen, which I always took to mean short-hand for the UK and RoI. JonChapple 19:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, both terms being potentially vague and spilling into and over each other.

I would not say that Britain is a "short-form name" for the United Kingdom, however. Certainly, it is shorter but IMO it would be simply another name. E.g.:

"'Britain' is used informally, usually meaning the United Kingdom." — direct.gov.uk

--RA (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Acts of Union: The creation of the United Kingdom Acts of Union: The creation of the United Kingdom www.bbc.co.uk, 17th February 2011

• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class United Kingdom articles
• Top-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Top-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• B-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• B-Class UK geography articles
• Top-importance UK geography articles
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English