Talk:United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Kingdom article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

United Kingdom has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

WikiProject Echo has identified United Kingdom as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Tamil language Wikipedia.

United Kingdom is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

United Kingdom has been listed as a good geography article for meeting the criteria for this category of articles. If you can expand or improve it further, please do so! If it does not meet the criteria, or has ceased to since its inclusion, you can delist it or ask for a review.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.

Archives
September 2001 – August 2004 August 2004 – April 2005 April 2005 – November 2005 November 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – May 2006 Mid May 2006 - July 2006 July 2006-November 2006
Country/State debate archives
June 2005-March 2006 April 2006-May 2006
Terminology debate archives
July - September 2006 September 2006-October 2006

Contents 1 Breakup of the UK 2 information 3 Would be interesting.. 4 Hey up, Chav!? 5 Edits made today.. 6 Ongoing unsigned POV edits 7 Definition of POV

[edit] Breakup of the UK

"However, there is at present little sign of any imminent 'crisis'"

Excuse me??? this seems woefully inaccurate, [1]. It should be changed immediately Superdude99 12:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I live here and see no signs of an imminent crisis; just because one of the candidates (well, the main one) happens to be Scottish, doesn't mean Scotland is going to secede from the UK as soon as it can. Besides, a story saying how all's well and good is hardly interesting is it? Especially if the alternative to it contains the phrase 'ethnic cleansing' RHB 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A reliable ICM poll says different, 52 per cent of Scots wanting their own country independant, 59 per cent(think about that... 59 PER CENT) of the english want independance for Scotland. [2][3] You have not been living in a cave, on mars, with your eyes shut and ears plugged? Did you read the article? Superdude99 22:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, opinion polls, you know. Up and down all the time. It's indicative but its hardly a crisis. And most Englishmen that I've ever talked to have been supportive of Scottish independence so I'm surprised that it's as low as 59% support. Very disappointing. Once the SNP start winning seats in England, it'll be time to start talking crisis. Not just because Gordon Brown might become Prime Minister -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is no "imminent crisis", but there does seem to be something brewing, otherwise why the recent dire warnings from Blair and Brown about voting SNP, which I presume is what is prompting the above? The background is that a big vote for SNP in the General Election would reduce any potential Labour majority in the House of Commons and leave a hung parliament or Tory majority more likely. This is seen as a crisis by Blair/Brown not because of concern about Scotland splitting off, which is very unlikely, but because of fear for their own majority. MarkThomas 08:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] information

what is the adress and phonenumber for big ben —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.160.247.13 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC).

The address is Big Ben, Houses of Parliament, London Town, London 1. The phone number is +44-800-800-BIG-BEN. MarkThomas 23:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would be interesting..

..to find out why Britain recieved such poor results (23rd place) in the Economist's Intelligence Unit Index of Democracy (pdf) report. I have a hard time believing that the UK would be 'less democratic' than Portugal (19th), United States (17th) and Austria (14th), to name a few. ? . Regards, --BishheartElsie 11:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's mainly down to very low political participation (lowest in developed world), and to a lesser degree recent erosions of civil liberties. Passingtramp 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey up, Chav!?

"In addition, there are a large number of Indians, mainly from northern India, who make up about 2.0% of the population.[47]" What the hell is this meant to mean? Sorry, it's just that you say 'large number' of Indians - what the hell is so large about 2%? (=0.02=1/50=MINORITY...). OK, so that quantitive assessment is probably not such an objective basis upon which to assign words such as 'large'. But still, I think that, as far as wiki goes, stating that 2% of the population comes from such a background would probably be as objective as things get (not discounting reference [41] which states the following : "Also statistics can be made to say anything.", add an ethnically unrepresentative mix of statisticians, some state racism and media manipulation, and its not too difficult to see that a significant amount of this article is probably BOGUS when it comes to accounting ethnic representation. I think that some minor edits are probably in order... --AryanNextDoor 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, make your points more gently, and make the changes yourself (you are allowed to!!) - Adrian Pingstone 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Note - you should fix you signature not AryanNextDoor but Aryannextdoor (talk • contribs) --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what the point being made is but 2% is the biggest (as far as I know) ethnic minority within the UK and so worth mentioning... --Robdurbar 08:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits made today..

...by various accounts have definitely been POV, especially the addition/removal of adjectives, with 30 edits in the last few hours alone. I would hazard a guess that there is one user using a sockpuppet/IP address to push his views, but I cant be sure, so wont say who. Thanks, RHB 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone very anti-British I think. Just rv'ed another of them - thanks for your vigilance for this important page RHB. MarkThomas 22:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing unsigned POV edits

This is ongoing, with various inflammatory extremely POVist phrases being inserted such as in the history section, and all from unsigned users - I would be grateful if other editors would monitor as well. Thanks! MarkThomas 19:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Words like stolen are too POV. The article as it stands manitains a neutal stance by mentioning "creating the modern world" on the one hand and "exploitation" on the other. I think that that is the way it should be. Viewfinder 19:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of POV

By citing Niall Ferguson who is a widely published and controversial British historian, is the atticle NPOV? I suggest the above refer to the reference they keep citing, the mentioned author is a defender of Imperialism, and this his views can not be NPOV. I insist, that if his book is to be referenced, then the part about stolen has to be too, as only then does it neutralise. Hushing up by using words like "critics of the empire" and Explitation" will not do

AJ2k —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aj2k (talk • contribs).

One author is not an adequate citation of "many", and please refrain from accusing editors who do not agree with you of vandalism. Viewfinder 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two authors who are cited, not one. Secondly if they are not acceptable, then remove the whole para, as the precedig line about contribition too isnt an NPOV (refer above, it is by a controvertial author

AJ2k —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aj2k (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

"Stolen" is a strong and controversial word. Please could we discuss this matter here before "insisting" on its inclusion in the article. Viewfinder 20:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think there are several sockpuppets here, all seem to be newly registered with few in the way of contributions, except to this article. See Parkernext and JupiterJ, although one other, Prafulo has made several recent edits, as well as some to Indian articles. Thanks, RHB 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the agenda is the British are imperialist thieving scum. This may be partially true but there is at least more than just that simple explanation to explore in the main article on the United Kingdom and it's history. :-) MarkThomas 20:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes they were imperialist thieves that forced the English language upon India. As a result, of course, India is now the leading country for outsourcing, and the UK will probably become a third world country. But that's my POV, (LOL). BTW see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Aj2k --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 20:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This particular imperialist thief has requested semi-protect on WP:RFP which will hopefully help for a while. MarkThomas 07:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)