Talk:United Kingdom

2012 Census

Needs to be updated, now only 85% of Britain is white, when in 2001 it was 92% http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20677321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.29.234 (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, religious data has changed significantly - numbers of Christians have fallen, and those of atheists increased. 80.3.155.55 (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

See Census figures 2011, below, Same answer applies.Tmol42 (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Great Power

The fact that I have not taken an interest in this matter for some time does not mean that I am happy with the lede claim that "the UK remains a Great Power" or that I no longer take the view that the term Great Power is peacock. I realise the strength of the nationalist POV lobby and that the term is upheld by some eminent commentators, and that its removal may provoke an edit war, but the commentators are not unanimous on the subject. Would anyone mind if I replaced "remains" with the wording used in the Great Power article: "referred to as", which is not quite the same as "remains"? Viewfinder (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. DeCausa (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree totally that a straight assertion about Great Power status is wholly inappropriate; and also think that even "referred to as" is a bit much, since even that is probably not true that often in 2012. The latest addition re "soft power" seems pretty daft as well, especially for the lead, based as it is on a news report of a survey in "Monocle" lifestyle magazine. N-HH talk/edits 09:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with that too. I don't find the source for "great power" in the lead (an op-ed in The Australian) particularly convincing. There are a couple of slightly better sources for it in the Great power article. Without doing a full review of sources (maybe it's in the archive?) my guess is that the balance of sources would point to something like "once a global power, now a middling power" - which is effectively what one of the sources in Great power says about the UK.

But in any event, IMHO, "great power" isn't a term with much currency for any country. I believe it's more of a 19th century and 1st half of 20th century term. "Superpower", "regional power", "global power" and, perhaps, "middling/middle-ranking power" are the only "powers" that reference is generally made to these days I suggest. DeCausa (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked out the link afterwards and was slightly surprised to see that was what we were relying on (and there's nothing in the body to support it as far as I could tell, other than a free-floating and unsourced sentence somewhere way down). I was also going to say something about how to these ears/eyes at least, it's a bit of an anachronistic term, more commonly used, as you say, in the later Age of Empires. Given that we have a term that is both subjective and arguably anachronistic even in the best cases, and of both dubious and, more importantly, relatively infrequent application to the UK in 2012, I can't see a case for maintaining the wording as now. I won't edit it myself, and it may be worth waiting for other opinions/evidence, but I'd happily see someone else amend the wording or even take any form of the claim out altogether. N-HH talk/edits 11:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I'd be happy with removing the specific words "great power" in the lede for the reasons given by others. But what is particularly important and noteworthy about the UK is not that its military and economic power is now supposedly "middling" (a meaningless term that we should avoid - it is far greater than most sovereign states) - it is that its cultural and "soft power" remains remarkably high - [1], [2], etc. - and of course that historically it certainly was a "great power". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The historical position is dealt with by the preceding sentence ("foremost power"). Suggest replacing the sentence in question with "The UK's economic, cultural, military, scientific and political influence remains globally significant", and delete the new sentence on Soft Power based on the Monocle(!). DeCausa (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That's OK, but I'd support a link to "soft power", maybe at the start of the Culture section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion having died down with at least a consensus against the existing version, I have made the change to the Great Power claim and reworded the soft power claim. I would tend to support further changes but leave them to others to make. Viewfinder (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of the term great power from the lead of the article. The United Kingdom is still considered by most academic bodies in international politics to be a great power and is recognised as such at the United Nations Security Council, the G8, the G7 and so on. The Great power article refers the the United Kingdom as being as much of a great power as any other country which is considered to be a great power. The leads on the articles on France, Germany, Japan and Russia all include reference to those countries being considered to be great powers. I don't think the United Kingdom is seen as being any lesser of a power than those countries and therefore the article should maintain reference to the United Kingdom's status as a great power. Some here it seems only to want the removal or watering down of the statement that the United Kingdom is a great power rather than what is most accurate or best for the article. Quite vivid blur (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with this. I don't see any reason for it to be removed. — Jon C.^ॐ 16:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree also. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, although you can argue the phrase has a quasi-objective status, I think it's ultimately a subjective term and a bit peacocky; and I'm definitely not sure we can rely on arguing that it is "recognised" as a Great Power by virtue of its membership of the UNSC, G7 etc. The fact that the UK sits on those bodies is correctly noted. It seems to me that stating those simple facts is all we really should be doing, especially in the lead. I'd argue that the phrase should be avoided in the leads of similar articles as well. N-HH talk/edits 21:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. As discussed above "Great Power" is a slightly outdated term for any country. It fits with the the Great Game, but in 2012 how often is it used in any context? DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, even with the minor changes that were made following the initial comments after this thread was first opened, the lead still notes that the UK is sometimes "referred to" as a Great Power - the term hasn't been excised altogether, the article just doesn't assert it as an explicit and unqualified statement of fact anymore. I think it's pretty hard to argue that it should go back to doing that. N-HH talk/edits 23:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is clearly a POV attack against the United Kingdom article. The UK is a great power. There are plenty of references backing that up in the great power article. Don't remove it from the article until it is proved otherwise and/or there is consensus for it - all I can see here are two or so vocal editors who are pushing for the UK's great power status to be removed from Wikipedia. David (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, why is "great power" a peacock term?! It's a well-known and well-used term in power in international relations. And it's still very much relevant. The UN Security Council is a perfect example of it, an embodiment of "great power consensus" being required in world affairs. And the UK is still a permanent member of that Council and still has great influence in world affairs, from both soft and hard power. David (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see points already made about it being, in part at least, a subjective and anachronistic term, plus the argument that mentioning the UK's UNSC status etc surely speaks for itself without having to throw that term in on top of it. Sure, some sources describe the UK as a great power; plenty do not and would not. You can't just grab one source and say "proven". And what "POV" btw do you suggest I and others are coming from exactly? N-HH talk/edits 23:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The argument you put forward, about the term "great power" and Britain's great power status, are just your own opinions and conjecture. The sources speak for themselves. Please provide sources that Britain is no longer a great power or that the status is irrelevant today. David (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the suggestion that great power status - or the lack of it - does not exist as a verifiable, definite categorisation, amenable to being "proven" one way or the other, is an uncontroversial statement of the obvious, not simply my "own opinion" or "conjecture". And, despite that, you also seem to be misunderstanding the nature of the issue here - I am not asserting that it is not a great power, such that we are on opposite sides of an either/or debate. The point is that there are sources that might say that it is, and sources that will say it is not (or at least pointedly not assert that it is), based on their own definition of the term and then their assessment of where Britain fits in with that. If you really are claiming that sources that reject or qualify the description for the UK in modern times do not exist, as your demand that I present them suggests, please just Google for anything related to Suez for starters. A truly neutral representation of this question in tertiary source like WP would not take sides one way or the other. N-HH talk/edits 00:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

So why is the UK losing its great power status but, say, Russland its keeping theirs? Seems odd to single just this article out. — Jon C.^ॐ 09:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've never asserted that to be the case either way in the real world, to the extent that such an assertion would have any meaning, nor would you expect me to debate that substantively if you'd understood anything I've argued above; nor have I suggested that the term has to be excised from this page altogether; nor has it been. Equally, this is the talk page for the UK, not for Russia (or any other country) - this page is being "singled out" for discussion here for that reason. And if Russia is simply being raised as a genuine comparison/talking point, I and others have already said that the term is problematic in all modern contexts for all countries, as a matter of possible anachronism and terminology, as well as any issues in relation to subjectivity. N-HH talk/edits 09:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the "real world", just Wikipedia. Could've phrased that better, maybe. — Jon C.^ॐ 09:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough and thanks for clarifying; but then see the latter part of my answer! The overall point for me is that people, including serious historians of international relations, write whole books arguing for different interpretations of what the term "Great Power" means - and whether the term even has any meaning in a "unipolar" or "bipolar" world, as some writers choose to describe it - and spend hours debating whether post-imperial Britain really is one, as even a cursory knowledge or review of the literature will reveal. This WP page, like all WP pages, should (succinctly) reflect the breadth of this or any other debate, not cherry-pick from sources that appear to back up one preferred option. The fact that the newest contributor to this topic has been canvassing for allies while making ridiculous claims about supposed "typical POV attack" reveals more about their POV than that of anyone else involved. <insert joke here about Britain no longer being able to act alone on the world stage in pursuing its interests> N-HH talk/edits 10:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please can we put back the word "sometimes". If it is OK to remove it on the grounds that it is weasely, it is OK for me to remove the term "great power" altogether on the grounds that it is peacock. "The UK is a great power" - in your opinion, David. Not all commentators agree. Viewfinder (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Eh? No, it's not my opinion, it's what many reliable sources say. This is getting ridiculous. And if you remove "great power" from this article because you reckons it's a "peacock" term (though it's not, again backed up by many reliable sources) then you must also remove it from every other country's article, or at least their leading paragraphs. David (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

We can continue going round in circles if you wish. All your points have been responded to, more or less to the point of rebuttal, without acknowledgement or counter-argument from you, as follows: many reliable sources say it, but many do not and/or question the assessment, while many dispute even the value of the term altogether; in any event, the term is still there (albeit in slightly qualified form) and no one is currently suggesting removing it altogether; each page here stands on its own and other pages are other pages, and people are not barred from suggesting or even making changes on one page until they agree to do the same in every other equivalent situation. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 22:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No one has explained how exactly great power is a peacock term rather than an accurate description? And how is great power any more of a peacock term than those of superpower and middle power? Great power is a term often used to describe a country less powerful than a superpower but more powerful than a middle power. It often takes the form of major power or world power but nevertheless is it frequently used by academia and the media. Some here claim it is an outdated term but where are the citations proving that is any more outdated of a term than those of superpower or middle power? It seems the problem is only with the United Kingdom being referred to as a great power and not with France, Germany, Japan or Russia being referred to as great powers, nor for that matter with the United States being referred to as a superpower, China as an emerging superpower or any of the numerous countries referred to as middle powers. A modern example of the United Kingdom as a great power was the 2003 invasion of Iraq, whereby the United States, a superpower, contributed 148,000 troops to the invasion, the United Kingdom, a typical great power, contributed 45,000 troops to the invasion, and Australia, a typical middle power, contributed 2,000 troops to the invasion, with numerous smaller powers contributing far fewer. Quite vivid blur (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out with regards to wp:peacock that the term great power is an academic term and not a personal opinion and therefore is not a peacock term. An example of a personal opinion and peacock term would be 'The United Kingdom is a great country.' rather than 'The United Kingdom is often recognised as a great power.' 'Great power' is an academic term and not just an unsupported personal opinion. I also agree with the removal of the word 'sometimes' as per wp:weasel word. Quite vivid blur (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Academics devised the term "great power" in a world of European dominance that consisted of several more or less equal and definable powers. The fact that academic use of the term on the vast internet can be found makes it no less peacock. Incidentally, as far as I can see, all the upholders of the term "great power" here have been canvassed] by Dpaajones. Viewfinder (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I was pretty much already involved with this discussion from my first comment on the 29th November. Quite vivid blur (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

People have explained endlessly above why "great power" is not necessarily an "accurate description" and why there are issues around subjectivity and anachronism. No, it is not pure peacockery, but it skirts very close to it, as anyone with a cursory understanding of the term and the voluminous academic literature around it, but without a nationalistic agenda, understands. And there has indeed been canvassing, even if you exempt yourself from it. N-HH talk/edits 00:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there has been canvassing of sorts - I felt I needed to alert others who have contributed to the great power article about this peacock term claim. I find it annoying how two or so editors can hijack an important article like United Kingdom and declare a long-established academic term (great power) as "peacockery" or whatever so they can remove it from the article. The discussion needs to include more editors and especially those who have contributed to the UK article, the great power article, and to other similar (other countries/international relations) articles. David (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

For I think the fourth time – no one is trying to remove it from the article. A couple of people have suggested it might be better removed, but no one has insisted on that and no one has made such an edit. Nor has anyone disputed that it is a standard academic term; those who are querying the use of the term, or how exactly we should use it, have been explicit in pointing out that the peacockery, if there is any, is partial and/or mostly relates to the application of the term, which is indeed a subjective and much-debated choice. We seem to have built up a vast amount of text on these two "power" topics based mostly on strawmanning, scaremongering and forum-style debating. N-HH talk/edits 10:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I am confused about taking the U.K.'s great power status into an question. Shouldn't we also be removing other Great power references or "neutralizing" them? Like from France, Russia, etc. If it is peacockery, then I think we should also remove the term "great power from other articles. Because if it is just the U.K. article being neutralized then it looks kind of like a personal attack and I worry that non-registered users might be confused about that. For example, France's military budget is fifth, but Russia's is third largest. But they are still called great powers without objection. The United Kingdom, which is fourth, is not without objection a great power. It just seems a little bit of a misconception. Does anyone else agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenmary1936 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Validity of religion in census table

The current table added to the religion section is actually misleading as the 2011 data for Scotland will not be released until the 19 December, meaning that data for England and Wales is being compared with that for the UK. I suggest we take it down for now and then revisit after the data is released and can be consolidated, but for reasons that should be obvious I do not want to be the one to remove it.--SabreBD (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should add the word "England" to the existing table until the Scots data is released and merged with the Englsih and Welsh data. It is only five days away! Martinvl (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, just put England and Wales only until the Scots release theirs. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

See the discussion at the bottom of Talk:Religion in the United Kingdom; it is currently an "apples and pears" false comparison, so should be removed. I'd remove it from this article, but it's locked, so I cannot. Perhaps Martinvl would try to remove it for us if he has a more privileged access. Curatrice (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Since England and Wales account for 80% of the UK's population, this is not quite an "apples and pears" situation, but rather an "apples and Cox's apples" situation. Anyway, I have amended the table headings which can be changed once the Scottish are released. Martinvl (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The result is hardly any better. Tabulating data from different distributions in such a way as to imply direct comparability is very misleading. I'd rather it was deleted. What do others think? Curatrice (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Only having to wait five days I see little point in keeping this data in this confusing (or misleading) form. The issue I put in an edit summary originally still remains, that if we are going to state this in the text do we need the table?cmt The only point in having a table is if it convey more information than is in the text.--SabreBD (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it makes no sense to have a lop-sided and misleading table for 5 days. Unnecessary. DeCausa (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Can Martinvl (or anyone else with editing privileges in the article) remove it then please, given the weight of feeling against its inclusion. Curatrice (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I won't be doing it - since 88.5% of the UKs population live in England and Wales, it is highly unlikely the figures from Scotland and Northern Ireland will change the trend. Anyway, readers can see the caveat and make their own judgement as to what the figures mean. Martinvl (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I now seem to have acquired increased privileges myself. so have actioned the changes as requested above, and similarly to the associated text. Curatrice (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And I have undone the changes. Please look carefully at what you do. You managed to remove all references to Moslems and to Hindus in your changes, never mind removing comments about the growth of these groups. If you want to be constructive, add something about whether these groups are evenly distributed across the UK, but do not just delete text. Martinvl (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

All I removed was based on incomplete census data. The UK includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, the data was for just England and Wales. Curatrice (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if it was incomplete, it can still be useful. By flagging it as being only English and Welsh data, the reader can decide for himself how valid it is - we don't know why the reader wants that data, nor should we second-guess, all that we are telling the reader is that the two are not strictly comparable. Martinvl (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Where would you draw the line - should we include the findings of a survey covering just Northern Ireland or just Yorkshire or just Anglesey? There is an article on just England and Wales, so there is no need to have that sub-set covered again here. Curatrice (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted Martinvl because I'm not seeing consensus support for the dat's addition. It should not be reinstated until there is a consensus to do so. Apart from that, this article is about the UK and data on England and wales only is not only misleading it is simply irrelevant for this article. Additionally, it's just plain silly having this argument when the full UK is just days' away from being available. DeCausa (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If so many people are opposed to including the 2011 census figures, does anybody object to reinstating the section as it was immediately prior to the 2011 census fugures being releaased rather than just blindly butchering sections? Martinvl (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea. Let's not waste any more time on this. DeCausa (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Maybe Curatrice should take a lesson here on why not to just hack out sections of text. Martinvl (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept that as a fair criticism of my actions here. However, maybe Martinvl, you could learn how to be less clumsy with your edits, and how to give less misleading edit summaries. Curatrice (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I was going to suggest going back to the pre-release version, so that is fine by me, but obviously we need to consider what we do when the full figures are released.--SabreBD (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Einführung

I have reinstated the long standing third and fourth paragraph of the lead of this article since they were heavily modified without any discussion, let alone a consensus. If large scale changes are to be made to the lead they should be with a consensus on this page. Quite vivid blur (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Date for Battle of Culloden

The Article states "defeated at the Battle of Culloden in 1745...". The battle was in 1946. Could this be edited? (Battle was on 16 April 1746 per the linked page on Battle of Culloden, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culloden) Dt69 (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Martinvl (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

.uk used; .gb not used - Is Northern Ireland the real reason?

On this List of Internet top-level domains page, the following statement is made: “The use of .gb would exclude Northern Ireland”. My general understanding of British history is that “Great Britain” was a far more common name for the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” than “UK” ever was (back in that pre-1922 era). Moreover, even today, I think lots of people use the term Great Britain to refer to the whole country of the UK (especially in the UK). Is there any ‘’’source’’’ that indicates that – at an official level – the reason “.uk” is preferred to “.gb” is because “[t]he use of .gb would exclude Northern Ireland”. I don’t think it would exclude NI. For example, other countries seem to have no problem with the equivalent:

• .ag stands for Antigua and Barbuda even though “.ag” clearly cannot derive to any extent from the name Barbuda
• .ba stands for Bosnia and Herzegovina even though it doesn’t really seem to relate to Herzegovina
• .st stands for Sao Tome and Principe even though it doesn’t really seem to relate to Principe.

I would be interested to learn of any sources concerning official thinking on “.gb” versus “.uk”. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it is somebody mixing up the common name Great Britain which is the same as the UK or the island of Great Britain. We have lots of moves in wikipedia to try and ignore the GB=UK despite which it keeps appearing as a common name. I cant see why the UK would be given geographically restricted TLDs. Has it a reliable reference? nothing mentioned in our .gb article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The statement on List of Internet top-level domains is incorrect. .gb is the ISO ISO 3166-1 for the UK.

The history is explained here. It would appear that use of the .uk TLD predates the creation of the ISO-inspired list of ccTLD. Consequently, by the time that .gb came into being, .uk already existed and it was too late to roll it back.

The answer, therefore it would seem, is that the use of .uk instead of .gb is an accident of history. --RA (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And I bet the guys in Ukraine were really cheesed. But they got UA (for UkraniA) so it wasn't too bad. --Red King (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

UK is now 7th largest nominal GDP

Either that or they've changed the name to Brazil - 3rd paragraph.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.89.210 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite true. I already changed that once, since all available data say the same thing. The IMF, UN, World Bank and CIA all say the same thing, the the UK economy is the seventh largest, and that's what said in the article to which the claim links. Despite this, some misguided Brit almost immediately reverted. Let's assume good faith, but if it goes one, it should probably by reported as vandalism. Claiming that the UK is the sixth largest economy without having a single source and willfully ignoring all the data from the IMF, UN, World Bank and CIA does look pretty bad.Jeppiz (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

All I am saying is, Provide the references and include them! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 19:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you provide references for your claim of the UK being the sixth economy? It is common practice in introductions to link to lists such as List of countries by GDP (nominal) in which all the necessary references can be found. That is done for several countries and that is precisely what has been done on this article for a long time. All I'm doing is updating it so that it reflects the actual situation and doesn't contradict the list to which it links. Would you kindly explain why you feel we now have to provide references for this claim when none were needed in the past?Jeppiz (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This argument is counter-productive and a waste of all your efforts. If new material is avilable that can be added, AND it can be done by using the accepted wikipedia requirements of providing references (that is, all additions should be sourced), then do so. We all know that there is plenty of unsourced material on wikipedia, and there should be efforts to reduce it. Then this is one way of doing so. If we adopted the approach that "if it wasn't sourced before, we don't have to source it now", then hardly anything in existing articles would change, and there would be no improvements, would there? Do not get all angry if someone reverts an apparently unexplained change. Just realise that you made a slip-up and change back with the references. No need for this drama that has the potential to transforming itself into an edit-war!  DDStretch  (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Second that. Point well made. DeCausa (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Hear, hear!"
Exactly the point that I have been making to the IP:92.24.89.210 and Jeppiz
Cheers!
some misguided Brit aka
 - Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard - 14:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I take it back. The template is clearly not intended to show a citation for ranking. I've just tried to add one in and it won't come out as a normally formatted citation number. The rank number automatically links through to the list(which is sourced.) I think it should just be changed to 7th and not waste any more time on this. DeCausa (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

fair enough. However, note that the main points I was making remain valid, and in this instance, they have only been "defeated" by the particular features of a template. It may well be that the authors of the template should be contacted to see if they intended this strange "feature" or not.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The code of the infobox makes it complicated to accept references due to the need for wikicode, which the template will try and put in a pipelink and such (the infobox was made back in the early days of wikipedia, when verifiability was far more relevant than individual sourcing on every page). However, like everything in the WP:Lead, items in the infobox can be referenced in the article text. Alternatively, if anyone's good at coding, they can add a separate field to work similarly to the Gini field. CMD (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Census figures 2011

When do you update those data? Particularly on ethnic and religious make-up, there have been significant changes. From 71% the percentage of people describing themselves as Christians fell by about 12% to 59% between 2001 and 2011. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.97.140 (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

UK ethnicity data is not available yet as the data for Scotland has not been released and is not expected until July 2013. see discussion above!Tmol42 (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Change to the opening paragraph

In the past few hours, there has been an attempt to change all the introductory paragraphs to countries which are members of the EU to just state that that are a constituent state of the EU, removing terms like "country", "sovereign state", etc. The edit was quickly reverted for United Kingdom and I reverted some others. After comments on the editor's talk page about how it was very likely to be contentious, it was suggested that a discussion be opened on either Talk:European Union oder Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe. I invite people to watch out for such discussions if they think they have something worthwhile to add to any discussion. DDStretch  (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As you've already sensibly pointed out to them, these things are not a matter of any one person's claims as to what constitutes the "truth", even if they can find one or two people out there in the real world who agree with them. It is of course about the standard basic descriptions across reliable and authoritative sources – most of which would not dispute the sovereignty of the UK and European countries or equate EU member states to US states. (There are of course genuine broader issues here around EU membership and member-state sovereignty, but they should not lead to such simplistic assertions; and that kind of edit does nothing to illuminate them anyway). N-HH talk/edits 11:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. The absence of any authoritative or reliable sources to back up what is wanted to be put in the articles makes it seem to be a failure of WP:NPOV, and even a case of WP:OR. I think one should be able to uphold the principles of wikipedia here, no matter what one's own (possibly biased) opinions on the matter are.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Main native languages

Hi there,

it is unbelievable, but this article doesn't say which are the most common native languages. Sarcelles (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There is already a section entitled Languages if there is something missing suggest you add what you believe is needed. Tmol42 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to write, that there are non-indigenuous languages including Polish and Punjabi have more native speakers in the UK than do any of the Celtic languages. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/30/polish-becomes-englands-second-language,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_language#cite_note-McDonnell-21 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_language)Sarcelles (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You made that exact edit yesterday evening, but without your references.
I reverted you with this edit summary ... (Reverted good faith edits by Sarcelles (talk): Needs references before re-instating. (TW))
Now that you have them, I suggest that you replace your revision and add the references this time
Cheers! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 18:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

wait a moment! The Guardian article doesn't say what Sarcelles is saying. It says the 2nd biggest language in England and Wales is Welsh, followed by Polish. In England alone, it's Polish. There is no comparison between Punjabi and the celtic languages at all. The language section of the article needs to be updated to bring in the importance of Polish and Asian languages, but it needs to be done accurately. DeCausa (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you DeCausa for that. I was sceptical to say the least with regard to Welsh being overtaken, which was why I made the revert yesterday. It is a very different Wales today compared to the one when I was growing up in the 1940s. There was no encouragement to speak Welsh in those post-war years.
 - Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard - 19:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a very great whole in the language section that there is no mention of Asian langauges and Polish. I've corrected it. In so doing I've turfed out some sentences on the origins of English and its spread via the Empire. I think in order to not lengthen the section unnecessarily it's better to lose that - which are more relevant to articles on the English language than the UK. DeCausa (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This article says (United Kingdom#Languages) "According to the 2011 census, Polish has become the second largest language spoken in England and Wales and has 546,000 speakers." This is untrue, and not what the source says. The Grauniad article says “The first ONS language figures, recorded from a survey of 56.1 million residents of England and Wales, show 546,000 speak Polish. There are still slightly more Welsh speakers in Wales at 562,000.” Therefore, according to the 2011 census, Polish is the third largest language spoken in England and Wales. As this article is about the UK, rather than about Wales or England, is this statement relevant here? In the meantime, I have deleted “and Wales” from the article. Daicaregos (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the question about Welsh speakers is skewed. In Wales, the question was "Do you speak Welsh?", not "Is Welsh your native language?" Unlike Waler, the census form in England made no provision for people to record any languages other than their native tongue".

I agree. The census figures from England are not comparable to those from Wales. Figures from Scotland and Northern Ireland are not included either. The question here is, of course: is the fact that over half a million people in England speak Polish as their main language notable in the United Kingdom article? And if so, is it stated correctly and with NPOV. I would have thought that a figure for the number of Polish speakers in the UK as a whole would be preferable. Sadly, because of the way the census was phrased in England, no census figure is available for the number Welsh speakers in the UK. Daicaregos (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If a native language is a language native to the country, the number who speak that native language is the number who speak it irrespective of whether it was their 'mother tongue' or a language learned later in life. Therefore had the question been "Is Welsh your native language?", it would only have counted those for whom Welsh was their mother language and not also those who had acquired it later. Those speaking Polish are not speaking a native language of the UK. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes. But how do you collate figures for the UK when different questions were asked in each country. I understand the question in England was 'What is your main language?' (not 'What is your native language?'). And in Wales, the question asked was 'Do you speak Welsh?'. Any ideas? Daicaregos (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion without having the time to make any comment. I think I can make one now: The simple answer to the question "how do you collate figures for the UK when different questions were asked in each country?" is a very familiar type of question for me (though not this paricular example), because I worked as a consultant in research design and statistics for many years at University, NHS, and Research Grant Awarding bodies in the UK. The simple answer, especially given that we are talking about Wikipedia, is that (a) you can only do this in a small set of circumstances, (b) you usually have to make various kinds of assumptions and/or interpretations in order to do it, and (c) therefore (the wikipedia bit) because you have to make interpretations and assumptions, as some of you have been doing, it would constitute Original Research from the point of view of Wikipedia, and that is a no-no. The question then is "How should this be dealt with?" I suppose the answer is a brief description of the problem (different questions), and a brief report of the data with the different questions clearly marked. I suppose some combination of text and footnotes would do. What do people think of this?  DDStretch  (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

(ps: the "technical terms" for these kinds of situations are that the two kinds of information are "incommensurable" or "non comparable": the problem is a major one that constantly thwarts good research design and "meta-analysis" of different pieces of research. Also, read Wikipedia policy on Synthesis, though don't be misled by thinking you only have one source here: the seprate and different questions for each country makes each census for each country distinct from each other when the corresponding questions in each ask about slightly different things: a major design flaw of the census, in my opinion..)  DDStretch  (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not a flaw in the census, it is a flaw in the census summary that was published on the internet (a bit of b*****t supplied by the government to keep the newspaper editors happy). Somebody needs to go to a major library and look at the paper copies of the census reports where they will be able to compare like with like. According to the internet reports, the census questionaires in Wales differed from those in England by have the question "Do you speak Welsh?" as an extra question, not an alternative question. Martinvl (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case, you are correct, and I misunderstood what was being claimed. However, be careful in doing this, which is what Wikipedia's advice about using Primary Sources also states, because we are supposed to be using reliable secondary or tertiary sources. You might also usefully point out the misleading nature of the government Internet report, if it can be verified as being misleading, in a footnote to help prevent any future changes relying on what can be reliably said to be misleading.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The relevant policy on primary sources states "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." My understanding is that if one is merely extracting and repeating what is in the tables, that is OK. Martinvl (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That was what I had in mind, and why I mentioned primay sources in the way I did in my previous message.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The main language questions in Wales and in England were different. Question 18, Language (p8), asks 'What is your main language?' Responses are 'English' or 'Other'. However, the note shown below question 19 says “Note: In Wales, the first response category in the main language question will be 'English or Welsh'. The ONS' figures and commentary sometimes note that figures given for English include Welsh e.g. “Figure 9: Households where not all usual residents have English (or Welsh in Wales) as a main language”, “Notes for - Household language: English or Welsh in Wales.” Sometime they don't. For example, Key statistics (published 30 January 2013) says “Ninety two per cent (49.8 million) of usual residents aged three years and over spoke English (English or Welsh in Wales) as their main language.”, but the 'Welsh in Wales' caveat is not given for subsequent stats. This matters in particular for stat #4 “The second most reported main language was Polish (one per cent, 546,000)” - implying that the most reported main 'language' was English and Welsh. Daicaregos (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In which case, I consider that my original point then fully applies, and you must be extremely careful in interpreting and synthesizing, comparing and contrasting any of the information from the English and from the Welsh versions of the census. It may appear that one can infer something if we assume people behave rationally, but my own experience, and those of others, tells me that these inferences (on what people ought to do if they behaved rationally) are often not backed up if one tests them out. I think you could be in danger of doing unacceptable original research and synthesis (according to wikipedia) unless you limit yourselves to reporting just the bare facts here. I think doing that, and using footnotes to explain the problem might be best.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that :) Daicaregos (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to nail the issue regarding the questionnaires and questions in use in the UK for 2011 and results published so far as not everything said above is in fact correct. 4 variant questionnaires were in use, one for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. In the later case the questionnaire was also available in the Welsh Language. The questionnaires in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were in a similar format. All three asked the identical question: What is your Main Language? English / Other write in (including BSL). In Wales an additional question preceeded it. Can you understand, speak, read or write Welsh? In NI an addtional question followed this: Can you understand, speak, read or write Irish or Ulster-Scots? The Scotland census followed a different format and asked different questions. Rather than asking first about the main language it asked: Which of these can you do? Tick all that apply -for each of-: English, Scottish Gaelic and Scots: Understand, Speak Read Write English. It also asked a supplimentary question dealing with the part of the question in the other questionnaires not so far addressed. Do you use a language other than English at home? Tick No, English only, Yes BSL, Yes other please write in. I think this latter question has been carefully designed to ensure a UK-wide statisitcal assessment as to the main language spoken can be determined.

Regarding the results published so far, to date Scotland's Census have not yet published their results relating to language and nationalities so there is no UK wide data available yet on what is the main language spoken. This is not due until later this year at which time the ONS will publish a consolidated report for all the constituent countries in the UK.

So on the one hand though there is data for the number of people of Welsh and Polish origin living in England Wales and Northern Ireland and what the main language spoken we do not have any of this data published as yet for Scotland. As far as the Welsh language speakers are concerned as indicated at the start of this thread there is only data available for Wales and where Welsh is the main language spoken in England, Northern Ireland and (when published) Scotland. Care needs to be taken when referencing the journalists who may not have interpreted the data about the Welsh and Polich language speakers correctly. I kept numbers out of this so far but if anyone wants the data looked up happy to do so. Hope this helps? Tmol42 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Add one direction to music?

I'm not a fan of one direction by any stretch of the imagination, but you can't deny that they have been astonishingly successful worldwide, and therefore, whether we like it or not, deserve a space in the list of recent British musical successes.