Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 8

Yes, you're right. I didn't seem to notice that LoHaG and Jerusalem are peculiarly English, not British. Sorry about that. I also understand the "Unwritten constition" idea, though I think it's too loose to hold the government in check. (But, that's not my business. That's up to you folks.) What I don't understand is how I'm supposed to find out the exact prodecures and powers of the different branches of the government if they've never been laid down in one place. Parliament's website is hopelessly convoluted to me. I can't find out how someone becomes the Gentleman if the Black Rod or what names you're not allowed to call an MP on the floor, although it's information you'd need to know to serve. More on topic, I associate "Rule Britannia!" with the UK more than "God Save the Queen," if only because we sing the same tune here as "My Country 'Tis of Thee." It does seem that "GStQ" is more "official" if only because it's used more. The Luizer 16:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.parliament.uk/ has quite a lot of useful information however I'm not sure if it includes that sort of traditional information, you could try searching for it over the internet. All I know is that an MP can't accuse another MP of being drunk in the house! Constitution isn't necessary in the U.K. as people aren't quite as paranoid of the government as in the U.S. :)

'God save the Queen' is definitely the national anthem though, surprised a better reference on its status isn't given. I'll try find one. Canderra 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this? Matthew 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one to find 'billion' ambiguous wherever it's read? At school I was taught that it was 10¹² and that 10⁹ was an American thing. I know that the American usage is becoming more prevalent in the English language (though, interestingly, in many other European languages, words that sound like 'billion' (eg the Swedish 'biljon') mean 10¹², with words sounding like the English 'milliard' (unambiguously 10⁹ - eg the Swedish 'miljard') mean 10⁹. The older the Brit the more likely he is to find 'billion' ambiguous. THEREFORE (and there is a point to this) I propose that the 'billion' in this article, which is ambiguous in UK contexts, be changed to the entirely unambiguous 'milliard'. Matthew 11:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Milliard is obsolete. See Long and short scales. The short scale has been officialy used in government statistics since 1974 - well before you were born. Jooler

11:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No to milliard! I'm well educated but I've never heard of milliard so my confusion would be total (unless it was wikified but the reader should not have to leave the article to find the meaning). If an amount is £120,000,000,000 then I (in England) would call it 120 billion (which, I believe, is now the worldwide definition). You want to call it £120 milliard? Why not call it £120,000 million then all people worldwide will understand it. I know that my idea means typing a few zeros but clarity is all. However, in the end, since billion is now defined as 10 to the power 9, what's the problem? - Adrian Pingstone 12:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that 'billion' is ambiguous in British contexts, and confusing to those who haven't grown up thinking of it as 10⁹. This population includes me and many older Brits. And, less obviously, many speakers of other European languages to whom 'billion' in English would appear to map to their own equivalent, which is 10⁹. Matthew 12:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're rather overstating the case. Your user page says you're 20-something. I'm 48, and while I was aware in school that "billion" had in the earlier part of the last century meant "million million", I have never personally used it to mean anything other than "thousand million". -- Arwel (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm 40 and likewise have only ever used it to mean as 10⁹. I think Matthew you must have had rather eccentric teachers. Jooler 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me dig out some further information - I'm sure I have some back at home, but in paper rather than electronic format. Matthew 22:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Like Arwel, I'm 48 and I agree with him and with Jooler. To get over the slight chance of confusion, I would go with the "thousand million" suggestion but in my view "milliard" is a historical item and should stay that way. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

'Thousand million' is just as good as 'milliard' for me - it's a few more letters to type, but is just as unambiguous. Matthew 21:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, so how about 'billion' being replaced with 'thousand million'? Again, it is entirely unambiguous, whereas 'billion' is not. Matthew 12:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

'Milliard' is never used in the media. Since Wikipedia is part of the media, we should follow the conventions laid down by everyone else. That is to say, if people are expected to understand the meaning when the Times or the BBC use it, they ought to be expected to understand when Wikipedia uses it.

Bastin

13:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Times or the BBC are writing for an audience substantially smaller in scope than that of Wikipedia - that is, English speakers resident in the UK. So this line of argument does not extend to the millions overseas who do not speak English as their first language. It would be interesting to know if the BBC World Service has any kind of policy on this. NB all see also Ask Oxford for more on the ambiguous nature of 'billion'. Matthew 13:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, I agree that milliard is out-dated. I'm 36 and I've never used it. However, I was always taught that a billion was a million million - a million to the power of 2 ("bi"), a trillion was a million to the power of 3 ("tri") etc. It makes far more sense logically to me that we should only have invented new words for numbers once we had run out of descriptions. Therefore "thousand million" is always how I have viewed and described numbers of that magnitude.

I think it should be included in a Manual of Style for UK-related articles. --Mal 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed all instances of 'billion' to 'thousand million' as people either seem to agree with this or not mind either way. Mal - you sound like you were taught in the same way as I was 12 years later! Good suggestion re the style manual - I'll try to follow this up. Matthew 12:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I edited part of the Transport section with the word "billion" in late January mainly because some editors have a rather annoying habit of writing enormous numbers in numeric form, (e.g. 287,000 million is 287,000,000,000) which is surely counterintuitive and a pointless waste of space. I am Australian, and while official government documents have a preference for the "thousand million" usage, "billion" is widely understood to mean the same. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Rcandelori (talk • contribs

) 13:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

If another voice is needed, I was also taught that a billion is a million-million (am now 23), perhaps there was a trend amongstUK state schools, but anyway I agree that there is a distinct advantage in the usefulness of data, if it is rendered "thousand million" or 1,000,000,000. Graldensblud 00:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Billion is most commonly used as 1,000,000,000 around the world, and not only in the United States. Chiss Boy 12:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Used most commonly to mean 1,000,000,000 ; yes, it is. Used universally thus, no it isn't. Most commonly could have anything up to 49% of the world using something else. Therefore we need something which isn't ambiguous. Billion certainly is, see how many people are talking about it *points up*. Graldensblud 18:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to start a debate regarding the use of a new template on various UK settlement pages, to include the union flag at the bottom, unlike the English version (Template:Infobox England place) in the hope that it will increase public awareness of the difference between England and Britain. In order to do this a concensus is necessary and I would therefore appreciate any possible support. A copy of this template can be seen on the Market Deeping page or here is the actual template Template:Infobox England place with UK flag for UK map. The current use of the England flag at the bottom of such tables lacks continuity between the map of the UK and the English flag, creating confusion, but since there are two templates maybe individual pages could decide or, a template could be created with both. Many Thanks. --Ash online 17:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Settlements in England, Scotland, Wales and NI are also in the United Kingdom. Can we find a way of expressing this? Normalmouth 18:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How about an infobox that shows the Union Flag AND the flag of the relevant home nation? Matthew 19:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Support wholly. I'd be in favour of removing the 'England' bit entirely, but I doubt that would be very popular. Dmn € Դմն 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Support (and, in fact, support
    Bastin
    02:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is the England Infobox being singled out here? The user who is pushing for for this, openly states on their user page that they wish to remove every reference to England and the reasoning used on this page was suggested by another user. The fact that each infobox for England, Scotland & Wales states that each is the constituent country and the UK is the sovereign states seems to be being ignored here.

To avoid any possible misunderstanding - the comments below this are mine, the ones above this are not. It would avoid confusion if every editor signed their comments.

Are you also suggesting removing the Scottish and Welsh flags from the infobox for Scottish and Welsh settlements? If not, then English entries should surely stay as they are. Alternatively, every entry could have both the relevant nation flag (English/Scottish etc) and the UK flag, as Majab suggested. Presenting English settlements as UK settlements and Scottish settlements as Scottish settlements would not reduce confusion about the difference between England and the UK (or Britain), I think.

Yet another place where pointless wee flags cause unneeded hassle... WP:FLAGS. Thanks/wangi 13:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am

       for: either both flags

       or : remove flags from tables altogether

there is no need in my view to stick flags on EVERYTHING! It just creates arguments and hastle, especially over a divisive issue like the UK and the status of its parts/home nations. Not all countries have flags in their town templates. However, it's really not that important, since as one user said the template does recognise the UK as sovereign. Lofty 15:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If Scotland articles stick a Scottish flag at the end of every fact box then UK and England articles should do the same. What's with the whole anti English/UK thing? Somethingoranother 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the lead paragraph, "The United Kingdom is a

Probably best asking User:eog1916 for the rationale behind this direct on his talk page, as he made this edit the other day. I did wonder at the time if he was pushing a political view, but then got busy with something else. Matthew 12:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's just something that been snuck in unnoticed while everyone's been charged up over the maps... I've reverted it back to the accurate and stable description: "The United Kingdom is a political union made up of four constituent countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". Thanks/wangi 12:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest on this point, can someone remind us of the precise status of Norther Ireland? I believe it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - does that signify that Northern Ireland has a different status to Wales and Scotland? Genuine interest, not point scoring. MarkThomas 12:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think I answered my own question. It appears that the current status is an amalgam of surviving pieces of legislation from the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and the various Anglo-Irish agreements. The precise status does not appear however to be a "constituent country", and here is the current definition from the Act:

It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland remains part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom, and it is hereby affirmed that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part of it cease to be part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1 to this Act.

It would appear to be a dominion part of the United Kingdom. Any questions? :-) MarkThomas 12:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Her Majesty's dominions" is a wider phrase referring to all the places of which she is head of state. In addition, as the quote makes clear, it will also remain part of the UK. In the official title of the UK it is mentioned separately to Great Britain simply because it is not part of Great Britain (the island containing England, Scotland, and Wales, and their outlying minor islands). TharkunColl 12:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I think what I'm casting doubt on is wether it's really a "constituent country" in the same way as Scotland and Wales are. I don't think so, it's actually got a separate status covered by the Acts and Anglo-Irish Agreements which is something like "mutually protected semi-disputed territory that is officially British until the people there decide otherwise" - not sure there's a simple phrase to cover that! The government obviously struggle too, which is why we have the "and". MarkThomas 12:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There are apparently official government websites that call it a "constituent country" (but I don't know for sure), but in normal English usage this would be very strained, and I've never heard it used. The reason is also fairly obvious - NI is not a country, it is part of a country. Calling it a province is very widespread, and this makes a lot more sense, as it is based on a traditional province (though smaller than it). TharkunColl 12:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is 6 years longer in the United then Scotland yet Northern Ireland is listed last. SGAtlantis 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And your rationale for this astonishing statement is ... Derek Ross | Talk

Because if we want wikipedia to be with all the correct facts we should have the countries in order when they joined the united. SGAtlantis 11:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, but you have just made the astonishing statement that "Northern Ireland is 6 years longer in the United then Scotland" and I'd like to know why you believe that. -- Derek Ross | Talk

The table states that Welch and Cornish are de facto official languages too. Isn't that confusing officially recognised minority languages with

I can accept that Welsh and perhaps Cornish are respectively de facto languages of Wales and of a county of the UK, but is it right to say that they are de facto languages of the UK as a whole? Matthew 09:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A similar discussion has been held on

Frisian language. The consensus was that it is an official language in the Netherlands, but not an official language of the Netherlands. For more on this, see Talk:Netherlands#Frisian is NOT an official language. Aecis^Brievenbus

09:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is confusing, especially considering that Cornish is NOT widely spoken in Cornwall, in fact less than 100 people are known to speak the language fluently, therefore it cannot possibly be considered a de facto official language Angryafghan 16:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The article states;

London is by far the UK's largest city. After that, the definition of largest is dependent upon the criteria used, but no one city stands out as larger than the others.

I don't understand this. As anyone who has spent long periods in various urban centres round the UK knows, Birmingham is significantly larger than it's nearest rivals in both size and population. Is this easily verifiable and common fact some bone of contention here? Because it shouldn't be.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 09:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is no doubt a product of the "Manchester is the second city" POV pushers. In fact, of course, Manchester is less than half the size of Birmingham. I suggest that the article be amended. TharkunColl 10:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look around and found this rather strange. Apart from the statistics which show Birmingham to be far larger than other cities, the scale and size are immediately evident if one were to travel around a bit and take an objective view. I checked the archives and someone was touting Leeds! Despite the fact that the distance between the centre of Leeds and the outskirts is perfectly walkable in an hour or so. The Manchester conurbation perhaps rivals Birmingham city itself, excluding Leigh and various other disconnected towns, but the continuous Birmingham conurbation including the Black Country and the Boroughs (Solihull, Sutton Coldfield etc) is larger than the Machester conurbation again. I assume the latest inflated statistics for Leeds, which is still smaller than both of the above, includes disconnected towns such as Otley and Keighley. Basically, Birmingham is the second largest city on all counts by a "country mile" and I've never understood why this is an issue.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 11:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear! Rednaxela 12:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Depends if it means "largest by area", "largest conurbation" - Manchester and Birmingham are so close on this that the difference lies within the error margins assigned by National Statistics to their own data, "largest local authority" - that's Birmingham but does not cover the conurbation comparisons, "travel-to-work-areas", or "contiguously built-up conurbations not officially defined but existing - on this latter point Leeds/West Yorkshire does have a good claim. One of the problems is that people having this argument frequently use shorthand terms ("Leeds" / "Manchester" / "Birmingham) when really they mean something more complicated. There is considerable debate and this is described at the article Second city of the United Kingdom. MarkThomas 12:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, editor TharkunColl is listing Glasgow as third-largest city in the UK, which is obviously wrong. He states on

List of English cities by population specifically does not base its figures on local authority boundaries. Please read what it says. TharkunColl

13:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

To just take this in the introduction of United Kingdom as fact gives a very misleading impression. There is debate about which is second and third, but the usual contenders for that title are Birmingham and Manchester, not Glasgow. MarkThomas 13:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confusing "city" with "conurbation". TharkunColl 13:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is not if I confuse it - the point is what the average reader of Wikipedia coming to this article thinks it means. Specialists argue about what it means - you are taking one narrow interpretation of it and dumping it into the article because of your intense pro-Birmingham POV. I even agreed in my edit that the conurbation of Birmingham is second-biggest and you deleted that and replaced it with a narrow and distorted view. Most average people don't think it means "ONS scientifically-adjusted LA boundary+related towns" - they think it means the biggest and most important urban areas and that in Britain means either Birmingham or Manchester. MarkThomas 13:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

But your pro-Manchester POV doesn't allow you to admit that most people can indeed understand the difference between a city and a conurbation. It's not rocket science. TharkunColl 13:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a pro-Manchester POV any different to a majority of the British population who poll after poll shows consider Manchester to be Britain's second city. And your latter point was exactly what my edit attempted to explain, which you deleted! MarkThomas 13:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Your POV is obvious (see your various diatribes on Talk:Birmingham for example). And, for once, we are talking just about size here, not "second city" (which you imagine to mean something different). The City of Birmingham is more than twice the size of the City of Manchester, and in a list of cities this is a basic truth that you cannot squirm out of. TharkunColl 13:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My POV is that Brummies tend to be slightly over-confident that they are the second city of Britain - that's different to a pro-Manchester POV, but it's a difference you don't get, which is fine. And the criteria you draw on for a list of city populations are misleading to average readers, since even a quick glance at a map shows Manchester is far bigger than Glasgow. Now we should stop this and leave it to other editors to decide, but I would ask editors to review TharkunColl's change to this and see if you think it's correct. Thanks. MarkThomas 13:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick glance at a map might indeed show that the Manchester conurbation is bigger than Glasgow's, but - once again - we are talking cities here, not conurbations. You are deliberately conflating conurbation with city - presumably because the City of Manchester is so small. TharkunColl 14:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm with TharkunColl on this one (subject to the wording on the UK article), as the section of the article is purely about the size of the cities and not of their conurbations or of the areas that they influence. For instance, my home village is of comparable size to others around it, but it benefits from being the hub village, so it has many services that the villages around it, despite being of comparable size, just do not have. Just because there are places around it that influence what my home village has on offer does not mean that the size of the village should be inflated to take this into consideration. In size terms it's nothing more than the other settlements around it. Compare with cities such as Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, etc. that have other settlements around them, such as Wolverhampton, Stockport, Paisley, etc., each with their own identities. Matthew 14:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

NB the usual stereotype is the other way round - anecdotally, Manchester is seen as having a swagger and being very capable of blowing its own trumpet, and of having a council that talks the place up. Birmingham, on the other hand, is typically self-effacing, and has a council that enjoys petty political points scoring and infighting more than serving the people of the city! Matthew 14:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

One problem with the TC edit is that he's not using UK figures - he's using English City ONS figures + a figure from Glasgow based on different criteria. If we're going down this path, we should be using this page as the source: List of metropolitan areas of the UK. MarkThomas 14:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't like that metropolitan-areas page at all as it doesn't list a single source, plus the article mentions London's city size and not its metropolitan area, which arguably encompasses the whole of the UK, we're that centralised as a nation! :-) If Glasgow's being measured differently then it would perhaps be easiest to list Birmingham as the second-largest city and mention the population of approximately a million, thereby demonstrating the gulf in size from London to the other cities of the UK, and then say that beyond that there are around half a dozen cities with populations of approximately half a million. Matthew 14:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that seems reasonable. The Glasgow figure, by the way, is based on its current unitary authority. According to Politics of Glasgow, this is smaller than the previous local authority district that existed until 1996, so I thought it was a reasonable approximation to the ONS list. Nevertheless, I'm happy with your suggestion. TharkunColl 14:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Co-incidentally, Manchester has been voted Britain's second city, getting 48% compared to Birmingham's 40%. See BBC story here. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 14:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mm, I've just written something in consideration of this here. Matthew 15:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The BBC article states "This is despite Manchester being far smaller than the Midlands city". Which pretty much sums up my point in the higher thread. Why on earth would our article carry the line "no one city stands out as larger than the others" when Birimingham clearly is larger than the others? An objective verifiable fact well known and obvious to anyone who has lived in various cities including Birmingham and Manchester. "Second city" refers to cultural impact, Manchester being the "capital of the north" etc, and has no relevance to this point.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 15:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Entirely agree, where we are showing the populations of the cities. Matthew 15:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the question then is which figures? What about for example

List of conurbations in the United Kingdom

- that would be more in line with what I suspect most people think of when they think "size of city". That gives the top five as:

• Greater London Urban Area
  - 8,278,251
• West Midlands conurbation - 2,284,093
• Greater Manchester Urban Area
  - 2,240,230
• Greater Glasgow - 1,749,154
• West Yorkshire Urban Area
  - 1,499,465

I think it would be interesting to have this. MarkThomas 17:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Tried a new edit which hopefully takes the above discussion points into account. MarkThomas 17:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not too on the use of the populations of conurbations. Going to the London article, for instance, tells me that there are 7.7 million people and not over 8 million. But I think that the gist of the edit is fine. Matthew 17:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

NB before too long we'll be able to cite Wikipedia talk pages for the 'considerable dispute' that you mention! :-) Matthew 17:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope everyone's happy with the change I've just made. It should now be clear that the figures given are those of conurbations, with links to the conurbation pages given. It also mentions the cities within each conurbation, and so avoids the Birmingham = West Midlands and Manchester = Greater Manchester error, which is demonstrably false, but avoids using any figures for the actual cities, whether Local Authority (like

Someone's already been in to change it! Matthew 18:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know - I've just changed it back since that contributor claimed that Liverpool was the third largest UK city - which is not the case using either Local Authority or Urban sub-area figures! Fingerpuppet 18:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good edit and it's more in line with city size comparisons elsewhere in WP, where they usually take Metropolitan Urban Areas as the criteria. MarkThomas 18:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It does make clear that the figures given are for conurbations, but that section of the article is about cities. Cities are not the same as conurbations. Feel free to add in a section about conurbations if you want to! Using conurbation figures for the section of the article dealing with cities is confusing, even if you explain it in the article. Conurbation figures should be in a different section, possibly subheaded conurbations. In any case, the population for cities should be in there somewhere. I will put the population figures for cities back in, using the Office of National Statistics population figures gathered from the 2001 census. If anyone feels those figures are unreliable, please explain which statistics are more reliable, and why, and we'll use those. But it doesn't make any sense to say that city population figures are wrong because they show the populations of cities and not something else.

Hobson

23:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am posting my edit here so people can see it in case it gets reverted. If this version does not seem reasonable then perhaps it could be discussed a little. I hope we can at least agree that the the city populations should be used in a section dealing with city populations - if conurbations are also important, we can have that too.

(cities section below)

The four capitals of the United Kingdom's constituent countries are London (England), Edinburgh (Scotland), Cardiff (Wales) and Belfast (Northern Ireland). London is by far the UK's largest city, with a population of more than seven million. Birmingham is next with around 970,000, followed by Glasgow, with a population of around 578,000.

There are many different statistics and debates on which cities are the UK's largest, due to differences between the administrative boundaries and metropolitan areas of cities, and because of merging of settlements into conurbations. After London, the

Looks perfectly reasonable to me - it satisfies both views. Matthew 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes - a section entitled "cities" should certainly give prominence to actual cities. It is a noteworthy phenomenon that after London, Birmingham is an order of magnitude bigger than the half dozen or so that hover around half a million. I would add, however, that the last sentence, about what constitutes the "second city", seems rather out of place. We are just talking populations here, and it has been forcibly argued by Manchester supporters that when it comes to the second city, size isn't everything. TharkunColl 23:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that too. Fingerpuppet 08:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Myself, Gwernol and Majabl have reverted the following addition by 88.109.86.234. This has been adding in again by Somethingoranother "Information given is completely backed up by references to the CIA World Fact Book. Stop pushing Pro Euro POV and denying factual information which balances the article and creates NPOV". The edit is contention is:

"However the public generally favours keeping the

economic growth rate has been faster than any other major European economy.<ref> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html#Econ</ref> <ref> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html

</ref>"

1. "However the public generally favours keeping the
   Pound Sterling
   , which is the United Kingdom's own sovereign currency" — no support in either of the sources for this claim; it's a given that the Pound is the UK's currency.
2. "Support for the Pound has been kept high due to its historically stable nature" — not supported by either of the sources.
3. "Since the
   economic growth rate has been faster than any other major European economy
   " — 1st source states that "The economy is one of the strongest in Europe" and "Critics point out that the economy is doing well outside of EMU". The 2nd source has the UK as entry #175, with the EU as a whole above it at #171 and Eurozone country Netherlands at #164 and other Eurozone countries above it (without an exhaustive search Luxembourg is at #71). None of these support the claim.

Without references that support the claims they should be removed. Thanks/wangi 23:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the UK's economy had grown faster than the Eurozone I said Since the

Then please be specific and say that the UK's economic growth has been faster than Germany, France and Italy, since "major" is open to interpretation. Further this isn't supported by the reference you

original research. It seems reasonable to say that "Support for the Pound has been kept high", but "due to its historically stable nature" is problematic. Gwernol

00:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Who said the CIA wasn't a

reliable source? I said that the CIA source did not support what you said and you needed to find a source that did. Of course the CIA Worldbook is reliable, it just didn't say what you claimed it did. Gwernol

01:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please explain why the intro says (incorrectly) that the UK is the second most populous state in the EU, yet when I go to the edit page to change it to 'third most populous', it already says third there (but not on the real page)?--Triglyph 22:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It says third in the intro for me. Maybe there's an issue with your browser? Cordless Larry 22:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I stuck in the very slightest mention of cornwall into the UK history under the section of acts of union etc, because there is a very reasonable academic debate about it's status, albeit not one with any sense of urgency. If anyone has a thought as to a better way of mentioning it discretely without distroying a well-written article, naturally, discuss. My thought is that it should be mentioned in passing at least, not least since the laws giving it in theory quite a reasonable level of autonomy are still on the statute books. Graldensblud 00:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Have added the following references regarding the

Cornish self-government movement

.

• Cornish ethnicity data from the 2001 Census
• Cornish demand tick box for 2011 Census
• Mebyon Kernow support 2011 Census Cornish ethnicity tick box
• BBC News 2001 - Blair gets Cornish assembly call
• BBC news 2003 - Prescott pressed on Cornish Assembly poll

Okay, so someone deleted the entry. Do I put it back or is someone gonna give a good reason not to? Graldensblud 18:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence in the article says the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is shortened into certain terms including the incorrect term Great Britain. The article should promulgate proper usage. If you want to keep it in, why not say incorrectly shortened to Great Britain? —The preceding

Perhaps "Casually shortened"? With the fact implied that any such casual terms are usually less particular about precise details Graldensblud 00:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it may also need to be added that the United Kingdom is very rarely shortened to "Great Britain", most people who generally shorten the names of countries and not use the official name usually shorten it just to "Britain" which, since "Britain" has no legal meaning, is not really incorrect or correct, exept for the fact that citizens of the UK are legally refered to as "British Citizens". I think maybe the article should stop saying that the United Kingdom is shortened to "Great Britain" completly, as I said, it happens very rarely. Whats more, the citation the user who wrote this comment uses to justify his claims that the United Kingdom is sometimes shortened to Great Britain has a diagram which clearly shows that Great Britain is merely one part of the United Kingdom, the other being Northern Ireland. - Supertask 23 Feburary 2007 18:14

Great Britain and the UK are different things. I agree with Graldensblud, although it should be common knowledge that Great Britain includes the Republic of Ireland and the UK does not. Ninington 16:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi The top righthand bar states that the uk top level domain is co.uk. Most sources i have read state that the tld is .uk not .co.uk. i suggest that this is changed from .co.uk to .uk

Ckeene 15:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ckeene - You are correct, it used to be .uk in the article and someone appears to have changed it back since your post - thanks for pointing it out :) Benbread 17:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

.org.co.uk, .org.uk and .dk.uk are other site URLs using .uk. You are technically correct in that .co.uk is not the only UK domain, but it is the most common.

Good idea to publicise the vote in this way. But isn't it a bit disingenuous to publicise the vote for the new maps like this while retaining only the small vote for the split between new/old? Potentially you could get a new audience of hundreds of people who prefer the old maps, who are now being told that that decision has been made and it's a case of which new map is best. Surely the process should be entirely restarted with notifications placed in the right kinds of places right from the start? Matthew 13:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Though all European countries obtained a (late) invitation, very few votes came in; hundreds of people seems optimistic. The new maps appear to have been discussed on many countries' talk pages while mentioning the relevant discussions on the WikiProject Countries talk page. The idea was to close the matter and the edit-warring that had continued to linger on for several months, and now quickly too, precisely because a temporary solution might offer a better opportunity to figure out what a series of really good maps should look like and then create such. No map so far appears to withstand proper technical scrutinizing, restart discussions for available maps would be futile; even the best conceivable maps (e.g. accurate, suitable contrast even for the colour-blind, a projection for minimal distortion of the depicted area, scalable graphics, and other factors that allow objective judgement) would still have a few choices to make (e.g. location mainly towards neighbouring countries or on a much wider scale; putting the country in the centre and thus showing its relevant environment equally far in every direction while one needs to get one's bearings for each different map, or keeping a fixed frame for a large area as e.g. Europe and thus facilitating actual location while accepting that for peripheral countries relevant neighbours may fall outside the map, showing a very plain map that offers clearest location regarding country borders and land/sea-shapes or showing great detail that offers supplementary location regarding mountain ranges and major rivers and/or for relevant countries possibly also location in EU). Continuing from an earlier poll on 'old' or 'new' maps with the survey seemed interesting to find out what preference people in general would have regarding the EU as this is discussed rather vigourously at many talk pages and will be an issue for any style of maps that depicts the entire continent, but there came no clear answer at all. Nevertheless, for nearly all (25 of the 27) EU member states, the David Liuzzo maps with EU indicated have become used and it seems resistance (if any) became subdued on many talk pages, thus a de facto consensus once one gets used to it, might appear. One thing relevant for the UK discussion is, that both the first poll and the now closed survey clearly show many contributors (regardless the preferred map) to put considerable importance on having a standard style for all countries. — SomeHuman 22 Feb2007 02:19 (UTC)

So for the UK, we have a Mercator projection map, of Europe, shading the EU, without a caption to that effect. Brilliant! Really great, I like it. This is the sort of heavy going that means a lot of people can't be bothered with this stuff. I can't blame them. Hopefully whatever conclave will sort something out at some point.Stevebritgimp 15:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is just lack of editors with the right map-drawing skills and the time to create a set of maps for Europe to come forward with alternate proposals. In the meantime, infoboxes are meant to provide consistent information across related articles, which these maps do. They aren't perfect, but they're a start. If you want better maps, why not create some? MarkThomas 08:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The countries of the UK have been added to the new Category:Germanic culture by an editor. Please discuss this to ascertain whether this is appropriate or not - and act accordingly.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 13:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding the UK to Germanic Culture category contradicts the description of Germanic Culture on its own page, as it is focused around the German language. "Germanic culture (German: Deutschsprachige Kultur) is a term that refers to the heritage and worldview of the people from the German-speaking world, or Deutschsprechende Welt." UK does not belong. Hughsheehy 11:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It is supposed to focus around Germanic languages, not the German language. English is a Germanic language like Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Frisian, German, Letzebuergs. The main Indo-European language groups in Europe are the Germanic, Romanesque ('Latin languages' as French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Romanian), Celtic, and Slavonic ones. "Deutschsprachige Kultur" means German-speaking culture, which is a concept utterly different from Germanic culture. Though the English language has more loanwords from French than any other Germanic language, the structure of the language and its most common and oldest words are clearly Germanic (just think of 'Anglo-Saxon', of 'Normandy as once a country of Normans, and the many English terms that show an Old Norse origin, and the oldest Dutch writing that had been found actually in Southern England by some to have been considered Old English). Thus apart from Northern Ireland, Wales, and the Hebrides, the UK has a Germanic culture, and not just England: the Orkneyinga Saga is one of the major old scripts of the Germanic languages and when I visited Lerwick a few decades ago there had just been a gathering of people who had emigrated from the Shetlands and following the Northsea oil industry returned, it was called "Heemfaehren" (compare with English 'home', older Dutch 'heem', German 'heim' and with English 'fare' (what you paid the ferryman), Dutch 'varen', German 'fahren'). The Germanic languages and language-related culture is a lot older than Germany and all are as old and original as the predecessor of the present German. The name for this group of languages, and for the German language, and much later for the country, is derived from Germania Superior and Germania Minor (parts of Flanders, the Netherlands, Germany... that had been Roman provinces). — SomeHuman 22 Feb2007 18:56 (UTC)

I refer to the definition of the Germanic Culture category on its own page again, which would exclude the UK from the category. In any case, even if you say that English is a Germanic language (which it partly is, although English is a wonderfully mongrel language) the category is Germanic Culture. The UK does not generally have a Germanic culture, even if parts of it have a strong Nordic influence. It's not enough to have some local influences of a Germanic influenced culture to qualify as a Germanic Culture. On that ground the UK should also be in French Culture, Spanish Culture, and a zillion others too. Hughsheehy 08:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

English is technically a Germanic language, but probably the least Germanic of the Germanic languages. It's primarily an amalgamation of Germanic, French and Latin, with lesser elements from other languages, such as Greek. You COULD put British culture under Germanic culture, but that would be pushing it. Chiss Boy 12:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The individual behind these user names is causing real trouble with this article. They were responsible for the lockdown [4] that occurred a couple of days ago, because they kept reverting to "their" state of the article, over twenty times in one 24 hour period. When banned because of 3RR violations, this user simply creates sockpuppet accounts or arranges for new IPs from which to continue their edit wars.

This individual's latest unconstructive behaviour is to repeatedly add "The City of London is a major business and commercial centre, ranking alongside New York City as the leading centre of global finance", to the "economy" section, despite the fact that two paragraphs later, it says "The service sector of the United Kingdom is dominated by financial services, especially in banking and insurance. London is one of the world's largest financial centres with the London Stock Exchange, the London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange, and the Lloyd's of London insurance market all based in the city".

Any suggestions on what we can do with this contributor?

Gsd2000 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't you ban IP Addresses? JoWal 17:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It says above that this user arranges for new IP addresses to get round his bans. Matthew 17:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, presumably this user's internet provider uses dynamic IPs. Anyway, this user has shown themselves willing to create sockpuppet accounts. Gsd2000 23:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If enough evidence is collected, and this becomes a persistant problem, you can have an IP range block placed upon this user - though this is used generally for only the most problematic of users. Failing that, Semi-protection will help for a while. Jhamez84 13:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The following sentence, located at the end of the second-to-last paragraph under History, is wordy and unclear:

Following a period of economic stagnation in the 1970s after global economic downturn, and the rule of Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, for critics and supporters heralding respectively greater division and economic recovery, the preceding decade has been dominated by the leadership of Tony Blair.

It should be re-written to something more along the lines of:

The United Kingdom faced a period of economic stagnation in the 1970s after global economic downturn, which the rule of Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s attempted to assuage. Thatcher's free-market strategy for economic recovery gave way to more moderate reform. The preceding decade has been dominated by the leadership of Tonay Blair and his "third way" economic policies.

or something like that. I think the sentence as it stands is simply confusing. —The preceding

'The preceding decade' is bad wording - does it mean the 1960s? Surely, having spoken about the 1970s and 1980s, the 1990s is the following decade? Matthew 20:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

They seem to mean 'the past ten years'.

It was a rhetorical question! Matthew 22:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Under the photograph of the current monarch, the name given is "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II" "Her Majesty" needs to be removed from the caption as it suggests subservience to the British crown.

For instance, beneath the photograph of the current Dalai Lama we see the caption "The 14th and current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso (born 1935)." without "His Holiness." The current Catholic Pope is merely designated "The current Pope is Benedict XVI...". While these are religious examples, we find the lack of full-designation in the Saudi Arabia page where the current king is referred to as simply "King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia" rather than "The custodian of the Two Holy Mosques", etc. There are more examples.

This disproportionate caption was evidently created by an enthusiast, and appears to be spam.

On the current monarch's entry (under the same portrait, mind you) the less obsequious caption reads:"Elizabeth II wearing the Imperial State Crown and fur cape and holding the Sceptre with the Cross and the Orb at her Coronation (2 June 1953)"

Which is sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.234.147 (talk • contribs)

Or instead of taking this belligerent and accusatory tone, casting aspersions on other editors, and using all sorts of insulting adjectives, you could just fix the caption politely. Doops | talk 20:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; the page is protected at present so you can't; nor can I. Still, what I said about politeness still goes -- just ask nicely and somebody will fix it. Doops | talk 21:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Since this is a matter of preference rather than a matter of fact (as the next issue on the translation of the motto is). I'd rather that we waited until the article was unprotected. Having said that I think that the proposed caption would be fine. Certainly more informative than the current one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a fairly well-established custom not to use "majesty" and other styles? My suggested wording for the caption would be The present queen, Elizabeth II or, if a full sentence is preferred, The current queen, Elizabeth II, was crowned in 1953. Doops | talk 16:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying that. I think that it's a perfectly reasonable change to make. It's just that the page is already protected because of other disputes and I would rather that they were cleared up first before we introduce anything else which has even a whiff of controversy surrounding it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

On a slightly related note, can the image be changed to one from

fair use policy). --h2g2bob

16:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Dieu et mon droit" is actually an ancient spelling of "Dieu est mon droit" and therefore should be translated by "God is my right". By adopting this motto, Richard I meant that he was king of England by the grace of God and owed nothing to the king of France. See [5] for more explanations.

--156.18.19.12 22:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. You're right of course. I've fixed it for you since the page is protected (for unrelated reasons) at the moment. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Both translations seem to be quite commonly used. We really need to find a reliable source for which is correct (or mention that two translations are possible). WjBscribe 15:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of Dieu et mon droit is "God AND my right", not "God IS my right". "God is my right" would be written as "Dieu est mon droit". The words "et" (and) and "est" (is) were already clearly distinguished in medieval French writting, and were never written as the same. The link given by the anonymous IP above does not say that "et" should be interpreted as meaning "is", quite the contrary, it says that the meaning is "and". I don't understand how some people make changes to the article without even reading the document given as a reference for the change!! There are many many references that prove that "et" means "and": [6], [7], [8], etc. This practice of having a motto in two parts separated by "and" is nothing special to the English monarch. There exist many other such motto in Europe. For example: the motto of the canton of Vaud in Switzerland is "Liberté et Patrie" ("Freedom and Fatherland"), the motto of Cheshire in England is "Jure et dignitate gladii" ("By the right and dignity of the sword"), the motto of Tasmania is "Ubertas et fidelitas" ("Fertility and Faithfulness"). As for the motto of the French constitutional monarchy set up in 1791, it was "La Nation, la Loi, et le Roi" ("Nation, Law, and King"). Last but not least, the motto is not written in Old French, it is written in modern French as is explained at Dieu et mon droit. The spelling has been changed to conform to modern French. Godefroy 16:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I wouldn't use the word 'prove' so lightly, especially not for links like the ones you give. The fact is, most web references linked to here, and most found by a quick google, seem simply to assume the one translation or the other, without considering BOTH possibilities in an academic way. The queen's website goes for the standard 'and' ([9]) but as is widely-known, that website itself is ridddled with errors so we can't really trust it. Still, we'd better say 'and' for now and then, if we can ever find a serious reference arguing for 'is', mention it too with citation. Doops | talk 20:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I apologize for being a bit too eager to make the change. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies as well, Godefroy. When reverting another part, I had inadvertently also reverted your proper edit (while actually leaving in a part that should have been removed even though it did not show). I fully agree about an unusual translation requiring a proper source. When I had incidentally spotted that 'Old French' claim yesterday, I tried to find a reliable source for it, but couldn't. Curiously enough, there are lots of texts in French language stating "Dieu est mon droit", often in conjunction with "honni soit ...", while in English texts the phrase in French appears nearly always as "Dieu et mon droit". But in about an hour time I was not able to find a proper comparison between the two interpretations, other than a blog. Of course, my failing does not prove anything at all. — SomeHuman 26 Feb2007 20:42 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to standardise the terminology used in the constituent countries' articles by discussing it here in the UK talk page, rather than each individual article debating it separately. The present situation is that England is a country and constituent country, Scotland is a nation and constituent country, Wales is a constituent country and Northern Ireland is a part of the UK. These discrepancies will only lead to confusion for people trying to inform themselves about the structure of the UK. What do other people think? AlexOUK 09:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, how come in the political divisions section of this article; England is listed as a Kingdom, but Scotland is listed as a realm? I agree (to some extent) that Wales is a principality and that Northern Ireland is a province, but I don't understand why Scotland is shown in a light which is dimmer than England's? --MC 18:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit uncertain that either designation is "official". There is for example no mention of such designations on the official UK government page about the different parts of the UK. Where do these designations come from - history books? MarkThomas 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've changed Scotland back to Kingdom. The clue's in the name. Kanaye 23:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In what kind of sense the UK is a sovereign state? As part of the EU it has transfered considerable parts of politics to Brussels and other EU institutions. It should be rephrased. 84.189.97.252 00:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Among other things, a sovereign state is one that is capable of transferring a portion of its legal powers to an international treaty organisation such as the EU or NATO or the United Nations. The vast majority of sovereign states have done this to a greater or lesser extent. Non-sovereign states are incapable of doing this type of thing. So the fact that the UK has done what you say proves that it is a sovereign state in the "able to delegate its powers" sense. Contrast that with Scotland which, despite its separate legal jurisdiction and devolved parliament, is unable to delegate its powers, and hence can only be classed as a non-sovereign state at best. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Who removed country from the intro? I thought the consensus was that country was OK? I can't find any discussion regarding its removal. AlexOUK 10:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically, every

American state is also a sovereign state (though not by the UN definition). As the UK is more independent and sovereign than an American state currently, and is able to declare and conduct war unilaterally (as opposed to American states--the main point why they aren't considered sovereign by the UN definition), it easily qualifies (at least currently) as a sovereign state. Chiss Boy

12:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the small amount of info on the constitutional monarchy status could be merged somehow? Jhamez84 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've rearranged the five paragraphs into three, without taking away any information. The first covers the location of the UK, the second covers the politics of the UK and the third covers international affairs. I hope that is more in conformity with WP:Lead. Green Giant 13:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much better. I've split the first paragraph into two seperate ones as we require four paragraphs for this amount of text. Jhamez84 18:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering if the UK's sectarian constitution and the fact of an established church in England is adequately covered. Even just the fact of an established church is rare (a few Euro countries, Saudi Arabia and Iran, etc.), but the fact that the UK has a constitution that excludes the Head of State either being, or marrying anyone, from possibly the largest religious group in the country is highly unusual and surely should be covered in some depth. Hughsheehy 17:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I also thought it odd that "citation was needed" for the UK being a Christian country since it has an established church. Nickjost 00:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The UK does not have an established church, and never has done. England has an

Bastin

18:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but since England does have one and the constituent countries share a Head of State it's a somewhat grey area. The acts that require the head of state not to be or to marry a Catholic apply to all. The UK is by no means alone in this (Sweden, Denmark in Europe, Iran and Saudi Arabia - probably Indonesia, but I don't actually know), but it's still an important constitutional feature...one apparently lightly opposed by the expected next Head of State..Prince Charles. Hughsheehy 20:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The footnotes at the bottom of the infobox take up a significant chunk of the infobox. It would be better to incorporate them into the main references section at the bottom. Is there any good reason to keep them in their current location? Green Giant 13:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The largest Mountain in Great Britain is not Scaffell Pike, I'm only 15 and I know that. It is Ben Nevis in Scotland —The preceding

The article doesn't say that Scafell Pike is the tallest mountain in Great Britain. It says that Ben Nevis is the tallest mountain in the UK and that Scafell Pike is the tallest in England. Matthew 22:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

i changed the beginning to try and make it clearer and less cluttered. thank you! Why oh why not? 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this change, because you not only snipped out information, but you're going against the consensus reached after a lot of debate that can be found in the talk page history. Gsd2000 03:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I found some of the history - but what you've ended up with here reads like crap. Seriously - it's not good! I'll do a little compromise, and see what you think.... Why oh why not? 23:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, there was an extensive debate on the exact wording, and a majority decision reached after much wrangling. Please stop changing it. It doesn't "read like crap". Gsd2000 00:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry i was rude - i guess i just am. ANyhoo.. it seems to be a fucking wiki epedemic to say something and then have some bullshit explanation in parentheses - i think that makes it look goddam awful. If everyone wants it to look that way, then hey ho, whatever.... but it doesn't have to be that way. It's also really friggin' confusing because it says that UK is Britian, then it says the UK is Britain + Northern Ireland. I think there's a contradiction in there - it certainly doesn't make much sense to me... ho hum. Have a nice day. Why oh why not? 02:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between "Britain" and "Great Britain" Bluap 05:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have discovered an orphaned article on

Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just looked at the map in high resolution and noticed that whoever made it has made a fundamental error. He has shaded the Channel Islands pink, as if they were in the EU. It's odd that he should have made this error since he correctly shaded the Isle of Man white. Still, whatever the reason, we need to get rid of it. TharkunColl 14:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Not saying you are totally wrong Tharkun, but the situation regarding ownership of the Channel Islands is very complicated and not clear-cut; they are often depicted as belonging to France on maps, as for example on the map on the main Wikipedia article. To quote.... "The Channel Islands fall into two separate self-governing Bailiwicks. Both the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Bailiwick of Jersey are British crown dependencies, but neither is part of the United Kingdom." Therefore they are possibly not in the EU either and do not have representation in the EU. Most people tend to think of them as loosely under the British crown though but semi-independent, hence their status as tax havens. I think the most sensible thing would be if they were colour-coded blank as with the Isle of Man. MarkThomas 08:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the map on the France article, and it too has the same mistake. France is red, and the Channel Islands are pink, like an EU country. But they are definitely not in the EU, and should be white, like the Isle of Man. I think someone needs to have a word with the creator of these maps, because I have a nasty feeling that every single one of them is going to be wrong (and that's even ingoring the fact that Sweden is not twice the size of Spain, but is actually smaller than it). TharkunColl 14:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl, your last sentence betrays a misunderstanding of the Mercator projection. Look at a map of the world that uses this projection [10] and you'll see the same problem. It's just that the distortions of this projection become more pronounced as you get closer to the poles (e.g. compare Greenland and Africa in that map), and arguably more pointless as you zoom in (e.g. the map you dislike). In other words, the map isn't "wrong", it's right, according to its projection. It's the projection you should be arguing against, not the map. (I know you use the term "wrong" in relation to the Channel Islands, but anyway....) Gsd2000 14:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand the Mercator projection. My point is that it is wholly inappropriate for the area covered. Also, at that scale, showing rivers, contour lines, seabed depths, etc. is also rather inappropriate for what is essentially a political map. It's all too cluttered, too squashed with most countries crammed together in the middle, and now it appears to be factually incorrect as well. TharkunColl 17:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies then. There was another map that periodically this one got changed to, more of a "standard-style" WP map. What happened to it? It was much better. Gsd2000 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We've (attempted) to discuss this before, haven't we TharkunColl. Your problem is that the maps show the EU at all, not the projection. If it is the projection and the colour-coding of individual territories, why not publish a fresh draft so we can all see, comment and possibly admire your handiwork? I have also asked you to do that before and so far you have declined. MarkThomas 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have showed my maps many times. Please take a look at my user page and scroll down, where there are three different maps, each of which would be better than the current one, and two of which clearly show the EU. TharkunColl 17:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the one - the first one. All it needs is to show the UK - the EU is irrelevant. If showing the EU, why not show NATO, and the Commonwealth, and the UN for that matter? I vote we change it to Thark's first one. Gsd2000 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be my preference as well. TharkunColl 18:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As stated before in a huge discussion on exactly the same point, personally I would be against this as I prefer infoboxes to offer harmonised experiences for users moving between related articles. The current maps do at least offer that EU-wide. I meant revising the existing maps, not Tharks' maps, which for all their good points do not show the EU, which is central as it at least partly has absorbed the UK into it and is unlike any other international institution in actually partially taking sovereignty by treaty away from member nation states. MarkThomas 18:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Two of my maps do show the EU. The basic question here is which is more important, factual accuracy or harmonisation? TharkunColl 18:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realised you have done some EU ones - where are those located please? MarkThomas 18:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

All three versions of my map are on my user page. Just scroll down a bit. TharkunColl 18:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, yes, I have seen those before. The bottom one is good graphically and if you dropped the substantially irrelevant and minor EEA stuff from it would be almost there. MarkThomas 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the right to live and work in those countries is a product of the EEA, and not the EU, I would contend that it actually has more effect on our lives than the EU. It may function as a adjunct to the EU, but it nevertheless still includes Norway and Iceland. Norway, in particular, is a popular destination for Britons working abroad. TharkunColl 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the decision, make the colour scheme easy on the eyes: the bright green of the EU one requires sunglasses to view it! Gsd2000 19:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Reminded me of BBC Micro graphics c1988. Did you used to have one TC? :-) MarkThomas 19:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that one. I did it with

Paint (software). TharkunColl

21:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The UK is a collection of states in their own right. Even the '10 Downing Street' website gives: "The UK also has 14 Overseas Territories (OTs) spread throughout the globe. They range from the tiny island of Pitcairn with its 54 inhabitants, set in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, to Bermuda, which has a population of 60,000 and is one of the world's major financial centres." 87.102.19.189 13:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed that back, since the ref does not support this. As far as I know the territories are not part of the UK proper in any case. Thunderwing 14:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You answer your own question - Pitcairn etc are not countries or states but territories. Maybe you should brush up on your definitions before making future changes Mammal4 14:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're both confused.

Pitcairn Island has all the characteristics of being a distinct (island) country. But it is not a sovereign self-governing state in the correct useage of the word. it is a dependent territory (or country) of the United Kingdom (in a similar way to the countries of the Raj used to be before 1948).

In the British (, Irish and most Commonwealth) variations of English - and since the article is about a Commonwealth topic it is the British variety that should be used - a "state" is the political or administrative unit and "countries" are cultural units that may or may not have borders co-terminous with a sovereign state.

In this useage it is also possible to have two or more states composed of (part of) the same country viz: The states of North and South Korea (and the former states of North and South Vietnam or East and West Germany). There are probably a majority of current Kurds that could with justification say that their country is divided into parts under the administration of Turkey, Iran, Syria, Iraq, etc...

The UK, as its very name implies, is a collection of more than 3 separate countries. Even children collecting stamps are aware of this elementary fact.

As far as national identities go, things are even more complicated and shifting but I just don't have the time to explain this...

...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 14:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You have confused 'country' with 'nation'. Almost all usage of 'country' is synonymous with 'state' (e.g. Spain, despite Catalans and Basques; Switzerland, despite having four official languages; Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, despite their Kurdish populations; Brazil, despite its ethnicity split; conversely, the Netherlands, despite 6m Dutch-speakers living in Belgium; Saudi Arabia, despite it being one of 20 Arab-majority countries). Hence, since it agreed that the UK is a state, by the usual usage, it is a country.

The name of the United Kingdom suggests that it is a single country, since it uses the singular for 'Kingdom'. On the other hand, the plurality of the 'United States' and the 'United Arab Emirates' suggest separation, yet they're still classified as countries.

And, finally, children collecting stamps are aware that there is but one country - the United Kingdom - since there have never been any stamps issued by England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland.

Bastin

15:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - this is old well trodden ground - have a look in the archives. It is a common error (maybe made by children collecting stamps too, I don't know)to refer to England, Scotland, Wales as countries, when in fact they are constituent countries. These are not recognised as countries in there own right in any international sense, and do not fulfil many of the definitions of a country. They are only countries in a historical sense and through historic usage of the term.Mammal4 15:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't ever visit a Glasgow pub or a Philately

More seriously, you'll note my last paragraph: "As far as national identities go, things are even more complicated and shifting but I just don't have the time to explain this..."

I still am time poor and I agree that there are at least four nations where I live. I can cheer on the British and Irish Lions rugby team, root for Scotland in the Six nations, have the pleasure of listening to the national news on Radio 4 and, if I live long enough probably sing an EU National Anthem. Few non-mathematical human constructs are black and white and categories overlap and mingle.

My personal opinion is that the USA is both sufficiently patriotic, ignorant and mono-cultural to regard itself as one country but I really suggest you don't test your theories in either the UAE or Antwerp. The UK, like most about it, is a bit of an odd-man-out. It's one country when it wants to be (when the chips are down it fights as one country) but is lucky enough to be able to have genuine "home internationals" in football [unlike the fake "World series" of Baseball.

Countries are born and die all the time. Cornwall was a country once (and may be again, but not in my lifetime). Yugoslavia is probably dead and buried for all time. Countries and nations are predominantly creatures of emotion and feeling. If enough people are willing to shed blood (theirs or someone elses) in the cause of an entity they believe to be a country then, voila! you've got yourself a country! Germany or Israel, It's only really islands (geographic or linguistic or racial) that tend to be natural countries or nations.......Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 16:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The result of the little edit war in the intro is now a garbled sentence. It originally said (including MarkThomas's minor improvement): "The UK also has fourteen overseas territories, including Bermuda, Gibraltar, Pitcairn and the Falkland Islands which are all remnants of the former British Empire which was, at its height, the world's most extensive.", but now reads "The UK also has fourteen overseas territories, including Bermuda, Gibraltar and various archipelagoes such as Falkland, BIOT and Pitcairn all of which are remnants of the former, world's most extensive, British Empire." The original wording was much better, in my opinion: the final clause doesn't read well. Also, "BIOT" seems to repeatedly creep into this sentence - it's a completely non-notable acronym, and given that there are only fourteen, one doesn't really need to list five here. Arguably Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and Pitcairn are the most "famous" and the list can be limited to those four. I would change all of this myself except that I've already made three reversions on this article today. Gsd2000 20:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was saying earlier to Gaimhreadhan who made the most recent edit that I thought BIOT was a kind of yoghurt. :-) Whilst it is commendably comprehensive now, I also find it rather clunky. I am reluctant to edit having fought off one set of edits earlier that seemed superficially to be motivated by POV. Perhaps someone can take another look at this bit - it's worth mentioning anyway and is an important aspect of UK history. MarkThomas 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW - a "BIOT" Google search backs up my claim that "BIOT" is a non-notable acronym. The only hit in the top ten seems to be Wikipedia itself. Amusingly, another in the top ten hits reads "Biot is an enchanting village about 40 minutes outside Nice". Gsd2000 20:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(Plus, it is bad style to drop an acronym like that - if acronyms are used they should be introduced first, e.g. "The British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) is comprised of X islands. BIOT is presently uninhabited except for military personnel and civilian contractors.") Gsd2000 20:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Another example of bad phrasing is 'the former British Empire'. As the 'British Empire' has never existed as a formal entity, it can't sensibly be described as 'former'. Pitcairn is as much a part of the British Empire as it was in 1920, for example.--86.31.234.172 22:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Pitcairn is a

British Overseas Territory, a term introduced by the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, and replaced the name British dependent territory which was introduced by the British Nationality Act 1981. Before that, the territories were known as colonies or Crown colonies. Hope that's clear. :-) The British Empire did exist, formally or not. Queen Victoria was defined as an Empress for example, which kind of suggests the empire existed, at least as far as the British were concerned. In 1875 that was all that mattered. MarkThomas

00:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your ploy worked Gaimhreadhan! I was in awe. BIOT. BIOTICA. What could it all possibly mean? MarkThomas 08:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

However, considering that BIOT or the Chagos Archipelago is likely to be the site from which the next nuclear war is launched when the US nukes the Iran atomic development sites, I disagree fundamentally that it is non-notable (as I presume would the evicted Chagosians if they were reading this).

What do you folks think about

• "The UK also has fourteen
  overseas territories, all archipelagoes (except for Gibraltar) and all remnants of the former, world's most extensive empire
  ."

I think we need to bear in mind that most people will we be reading on-line where there will be hyperlinks to amplifying articles...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 00:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Roman Empire is the Roman Empire, not the former Roman Empire. Same goes for the British Empire. Furthermore, the fact that the British Empire was history's largest is a highly significant fact (far more than the observation that all but one of the BOTs are archipelagos), and worthy of inclusion in the introduction. I'm still not sure why you changed the last version by MarkThomas. Gsd2000 01:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I see you explained why. Anyway, this ("considering that BIOT or the Chagos Archipelago is likely to be the site from which the next nuclear war is launched when the US nukes the Iran atomic development sites") is crystal ball gazing and OR, and not a valid reason for inclusion of the BIOT! Gsd2000 01:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I sympathise with your point of view that it may at first sight be irrelevant that they are archipelagoes but in actual fact it is because of the historical power and spread of the Royal Navy that they became colonial outposts and also perhaps relevant to their current status and political wishes.

The fact that we have TWO articles on BIOT (off to cross-reference) makes my POV about notability for me.

However, I do need to criticise my first suggested sentence above as inaccurate.

It would need to be even more tortuous and long-winded to be accurate:

• "The UK also has fourteen
  overseas territories, all archipelagoes (except for Gibraltar, Akrotiri, Dhekelia, British Antarctic Territory ) and all remnants of the former, world's most extensive empire
  ."

...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 01:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It was also because of the historical power and spread of the Royal Navy that plenty of non-archipelagos became colonial outposts. It's ironic that I'm saying the same thing as the original contributor I disagreed with and that sparked this whole discussion, but remember this is an introduction, to an article on the UK. The fact that the UK held sway over the world's largest empire is a very real, material and important fact, and needs to be stated. The fact that eleven out of fourteen overseas territories are archipelagos is totally and utterly irrelevant for an intro to the UK, and any conclusion you are drawing from that fact is OR. Gsd2000 01:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Two cases in point: (1) Introduction to the CIA World Factbook entry on the UK - the size of the British Empire appears in the second sentence. (2) Encarta's entry on the UK - the size of the British Empire appears in the introduction in the fifth para. Gsd2000 01:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please state your suggested replacement sentence (or paragraph). We need to reach consensus and get rid of my monstrosity....Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 01:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Here goes: "The UK also has fourteen overseas territories, including Bermuda, Gibraltar, Pitcairn and the Falkland Islands, remnants (vestiges?) of the British Empire, which at its height encompassed a quarter of the world's surface and population". Gsd2000 02:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good effort!

Why are we mentioning those particular 4 out of 14?

Why do you wish to drop the internal links?

Personally, I would approve

• "The UK also has fourteen
  overseas territories, all remnants of the British Empire
  which at its height encompassed a quarter of the world's surface and population."

If that sentence is acceptable to you then I suggest we need to wait 100 hours to see what, if any, other POV's evangelise....Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 02:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's OK by me too. Those four territories I thought deserved a mention because they are more "notable" than the others: the Falklands for its war and ongoing Argentine claim, Gibraltar for its ongoing Spanish claim and frequency in the news for matters related to that, Pitcairn for the Bounty story and the recent news re trials of its menfolk, Bermuda as an exotic holiday destination, particularly for sunburnt wealthy Americans. Gsd2000 02:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, so until and unless someone else posts here in the next 99 hours to tell us otherwise, this is the consensus passage:

• "The UK also has fourteen
  overseas territories, all remnants of the British Empire
  which at its height encompassed a quarter of the world's surface and population."

[I hate to tell you this but, in the meanwhile, newly registered and anonymous editors have been busy with the opening section. I have to go into hospital so perhaps you would gently steer them here in my absence, Sir?]...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 03:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that Gaimhreadhan, hope you are well and in good shape to return soon! The article will I'm sure be monitored vigilantly during your absence. MarkThomas 09:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have altered the section to get rid of "former, world's most extensive, British Empire", which sounds a little as if Britain had the most extensive British Empire ever. Which is true! But silly. The word "former" is redundant, given that the piece already states these 14 territories are remnants of that empire. However, this is not my preferred wording. It's just an attempt to get rid of what I think is a badly-written sentence immediately. I would have modern geography and political history in separate paragraphs. So, for example:

• The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy composed of four constituent countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The current monarch is Queen Elizabeth II, who is also the Queen and Head of State of fifteen other Commonwealth Realms, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Jamaica. The Crown Dependencies of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, formally possessions of the Crown, form a federacy with the United Kingdom collectively known as the British Islands. The UK also has fourteen[8] overseas territories, including Bermuda, Gibraltar and various archipelagoes such as Falkland, BIOT and Pitcairn.
• Britain was the foremost great power during the 19th century and the British Empire at its height encompassed a quarter of the world's surface and population. However, the economic cost of two world wars and the decline of its empire in the latter half of the 20th century diminished Britain's status in global affairs. Today, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a nuclear power, a member of the G8 and the fifth largest economy, Britain remains an important political, economic and military world power.

I thought I should clarify, since this "edit war" resulted from my edit.

Frankly, the issue here is not so much that one paragraph or line. But the lead itself. This is a country article, on

summary style. Thus, focus on the subject is the key. British Empire is a part of it's history. And that's where this gets mentioned. Repeating it adds no value to the article. Only contributes to it's bulk. Thus, I think the paragraph in question should simply read: "The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy composed of four constituent countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The current monarch is Queen Elizabeth II, who is also the Queen and Head of State of fifteen other Commonwealth Realms, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Jamaica. The Crown Dependencies of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, formally possessions of the Crown, form a federacy with the United Kingdom collectively known as the British Islands. The UK also has fourteen[8] overseas territories, including Bermuda, Gibraltar and various archipelagoes such as Falkland, BIOT and Pitcairn, all of which are remnants of the former British Empire. It' size is already mentioned in the History section. And further details (on the BE) can be obtained from the article British Empire itself. ThanksAJ-India

05:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't agree AJ-India, I think it is roughly about the right length for a major country of Britain's historical and present-day stature. I would compare it for example with India which has a much longer introduction. Also it's important to realise that many editors and casual readers are often confused about the precise nature of the concept of "United Kingdom", "Britain", "England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland", "other territories", etc and the monarchy, so the existence of the first para is useful in exploring this. That's not to say that small changes couldn't be made but I would be against a major diminution of the lead. MarkThomas 08:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, as I think MarkThomas pointed out, the second sentence of the India introduction (an article you were suggesting was "better" than the UK one) says "(India is) the most populous liberal democracy in the world". This is then repeated in the Government section: "India is the largest democracy in the world". And repeated yet again (rather weasel wordily, in my opinion, perhaps even "pompously", to use your words) in the Government of India article, "(India) is often referred to as the largest democracy in the world, and takes pride in that designation.". This is arguably a headline fact about India, so it is right to be repeated. Similarly, the vast spread of the British Empire is a headline fact about the UK, and fully deserves to be in the introduction. Read the CIA world factbook entry on the UK, or Encarta's article on the UK, and you will see they give it very prominent mention introductions too. Gsd2000 12:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I never "suggested" India was "better". The fact that India is an FA, coupled with the fact that United Kingdom isnt, and had failed to qualify, is self explanatory. FA represent the best of Wikipedia. One of the reasons for it's non qualification was it's size. Another was the pomposity.

Now for the lead. the fact that British Empire is a part of United Kingdom's history is known. But that's where it gets mentioned. Not in the lead. Your analogy with India, and the particular line you compare is not a logical one. Let me give you a more apt one. Do you see the mention of the Mughal Empire in the lead on India? To brief you of the history of India, the Mughals ruled India for close to 3 centuries, and ruled more territory than the British ever did (on Indian soil). But still they dont get mentioned. The fact that they contributed so strongly to the culture not withstanding. My point is, because India is about the country India, the history gets it's mention in it's section. Same applies to United Kingdom. Just becuase something is a fact doesnt entitle it to get mentioned in any place.AJ-India 14:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

AJ, thanks for coming back on this. You may well potentially be right about certain aspects of the introduction on United Kingdom but you have (I hope you don't mind me saying this) a tendancy to spoil your case sometimes with wrong facts. Clearly the Mughals, powerful and impressive though they undoubtedly were, never ruled 1/4 of the Earth's surface and so your claim above that they ruled more of India than the British is rather pointless, even if accurate, since we are (attempting) to discuss if it's correct to say in this article that we should refer to the magnitude of the British Empire. In fact, the analogy between the problem you claim (pomposity) and the line Gsd2000 mentions as pompous in the India Lead is a good one. "(India) is often referred to as the largest democracy in the world, and takes pride in that designation" clearly contains an element of POV. I agree you made a good call in de-POVing the UK page previously when you deleted the "second only to the US" claim - but if you wish to be a champion of NPOV, shouldn't you also be considering the (rather pompous and POV) line in the India article? MarkThomas 23:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, a clarification. One, I never compared the Mughals with the British Empire (grand as they were, as you say, and at their zenieth, the richest in the world). I compared their significance to the respective countries. The Mughal influence is far greater than the British, on India. Yet we dont mention them. That was my point.

The line Gsd2000 mentioned. Again, being a country article, it refers to the present "republic of India", and is very relevant to the article. It is not a historical "fact" like the one in question on this article. Hence, the analogy was inaccurate. And what is a POV in that, I am not sure, as it is just a definition. If it has the largest population, among all democracies, there is hardly any debatability in that (as far as I know, or is there??!!)

Additionally, since India is an FA, I presume it has been reviewed as such. However, feel free to edit it, or if the editors there insist, you may discuss this there. My personal view on it is as above. Which is that it is in sync with the relevance of the article, on the country India, not its 3000 year history (which has enough chest thumping material to out do any other perhaps).AJ-India 04:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be used on the map to refer to a rather sickly colour that's a mixture of flesh, pink, and all sorts of things. Let's get rid of it. TharkunColl 23:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Use dictionaries if you don't know the names of colours. It's about the colour of the animal by that name. De coloribus et de gustibus non est disputantum. In other words, the tanned fleshy pink making you rather sick is no reason to get rid of it: it happens to be the colour in the David Liuzzo maps for EU countries and 'camel' happens to be one of the very few names that actually fits this particular colour (another attempt was once 'light orange' and that is not quite this colour, and furthermore it was far too long to indicate in the map location texts where you found the term). — SomeHuman 9 Apr2007 23:42 (UTC)

Canary Wharf, home of the three tallest buildings in britain.

Lies.

The tallest building in britain is now in manchester. Someone update this.

Not true.

HSBC Tower and Citigroup Centre are each 199.5 m. -- Arwel (talk

) 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly simple: Camel is a browny colour, commonly seen as the colour of a CAMEL. Ninington 11:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)