Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions about United Kingdom. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

New proposal for name

I try not to get involved in discussions that are outside my area of competence, but perhaps because I am an outsider I can better see the ramifications of the various arguments from an encyclopaedic, rather than a nationalist or legalistic, point of view. It seems to me (1) that the names of the state in all the languages of the state are going to be of interest to the reader; (2) that the name in one language should not be given precedence simply because legislation is at a more advanced stage in regard to that language; and (3) that any added content should be in context with the article, and not just wedged in because 'it needs to be there'. What I'm proposing therefore, is a "Name" section to be added as the first section of this article. This is not unprecedented for country articles. The section should discuss the English name as well as listing the Scots and Celtic names. It should not discuss the languages themselves, or the degree of 'officialness' of the names; that can be dealt with elsewhere. I am adding a draft text below. Obviously, it could do with expansion; for instance, a brief history of the names of the British states would not necessarily conflict with the history of the state itself which would be in the next section. Anyway, do you think it would work?

Name

The name of the state, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was established by the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. The act recognised the independence of the Irish Free State and the consequent reduction in the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The name in Welsh is Teyrnas Unedig Prydain Fawr a Gogledd Iwerddon; in Scots Unitit Kinrick o Great Breetain an Northren Ireland; in Scottish Gaelic An Rìoghachd Aonaichte na Breatainn Mhòr agus Eirinn a Tuath; in Irish Ríocht Aontaithe na Breataine Móire agus Thuaisceart Éireann; and in Cornish Ruwvaneth Unys Breten Veur ha Wordhon Gledh and in Manx Reeriaght Unnaneysit ny Bretyn Mooar as Nerin Hwoaie.

Scolaire (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Can't see any obvious drawbacks in the short term. Fmph (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The way in which issues like this are dealt with in main intro text seems to vary quite a bit. Netherlands for example is quite close to the type of thing you are talking about, as it has a second lead paragraph devoted to it's name(s). I think the main problem in the context of the UK is that is a country made up of countries, each of which has more than one language, which is a somewhat unusual (almost, but not quite, unique) situation in the world and that makes it much harder to plan these things out in a "uniform" way. Something different in the way we treat this would probably be a good thing, so I quite like this type of approach. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As the Isle of Man is not part of the UK, Manx should not be included. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

An interesting and innovative proposal which I support. For the avoidance of doubt the proposal as I understand it would mean that Name would become a proper 'section' of the article, and not merely part of the lede, i.e. it would take the place currently occupied by the History section, with that section (and all others below it) pushed a bit down. Please correct me if I am wrong in this understanding. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a separate section is what I am proposing. I think Jamesinderbyshire may have misunderstood, since he talks about the "main intro". Scolaire (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I like the look of that but I agree with Ghmyrtle in that Manx shouldn't be included as the IOM belong to the Crown not the UK same as we don't have it in Jèrriais, Guernésiais and Sercquiais. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not a problem. Scolaire (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer - I understood that Scolaire was describing a new section - I was speculating that in fact we could just have a slightly extended intro para instead, as in the Netherlands example. I am not strongly one way or the other, but having it in the intro would tend to emphasise the complexity of the situation to our much-loved "casual" visitor. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have advocated a Name section from the start for this information so i will back that proposal. Though just looking at the article and i am surprised the article doesn't already have a name section to put it into. I took it for granted that it already had one. It definately should have one. Also Manx shouldn't be included. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is an acceptable compromise. -- Alarics (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've created the section, but I'll revert if there are any objections in the next 24 hours. Scolaire (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to the fact the Cornish language spelling of this country is now considered so important it is the first section of the article. I have no problem with a name section that explains the background, but it does not need to give the name of the UK in every regional language. The English language article is not a place to promote minority languages, as far as im concerned that is all this whole exercise has been about. If people want to know the Welsh name of the United Kingdom they can go to the Welsh wikipedia, or cornish wikipedia, or Scots wikipedia etc. I dont want to spark an edit war so i wont revert + i support the first sentence in the new section. But its certainly disproportionate to have different language names for the UK right at the top of this article after the introduction. Do people honestly think this is what the vast majority of views of this page will have an interest in when they are trying to find out information about the United Kingdom? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as the infobox is left alone, no probs. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've always wondered if this article would have a name section. Be nice to include historical information such as that discussed in the debate above about the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" vs "Kingdom of Great Britain" etc. Would it be possible to change the second paragraph into some sort of table? Right now, in my opinion, it looks like an ugly sprawl of characters, probably due to italicization. Keep the 5 languages there, they are the ones recognised by the EU if any standard is needed for inclusion/exclusion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea and very happy with it. Two caveats: (1)I'm less happy about Cornish (because no one has spoken it as a first language since the 19th century) and Scots (because I'd like to see a source that any living Scots-speakers do actually refer to the country as the "unitit kinrick" as opposed to it only appearing in a Scots dictionary). I don't think we should be so hung up on languages in the European Charter.It's not the case they are recognised by the EU. The languages are nominated by member states so that they can make certain commitments on how they are going to help the languages in question. (2) The in dependence of Ireland wasn't "recognised" by the Act - that happened earlier. "Took account of" would be more accurate. DeCausa (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if putting it in was not a bit hurried? It sounds like it probably needs some modifications and further discussion. I like the basic idea. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The reference to the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act and the independence of the Irish Free State replicates information in the History section, which now comes right after the Name section. Not sure this is optimum. I agree with James that this is a bit hurried. The basic idea of including all the translations in the text is sound. Precisely how we do that needs more discussion, in my view. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Shall we take it out for now and bring it back here to refine the final version? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Scolaire indicated that they would be willing to do that. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Scolaire is a he, and he has. Scolaire (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, and I can't think of any other reference work which sees the need to translate the names of countries dealt with in articles into regional or minority languages. The page even has links at the side to parallel articles in those languages. If this proposal goes ahead, I see another problem with translating more than the article title, which is that United Kingdom provides a lowest common denominator, covering more than the period since the departure of Southern Ireland. Fond though I am of Cornish, it's eccentric to give it any prominence here, and if that does happen please be aware that there are more ways of writing Cornish than you would think. If Cornish, why not Norn? Or, indeed, Romany? To me, this is political correctness gone mad. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that including Cornish is questionable. With Welsh, we know that there is a significant number of people (a rather small fraction of UK residents, but still a significant number in absolute terms) for whom Welsh is genuinely their native tongue and English a second language. I am not sure about Scots Gaelic. I am sure it is not true of Cornish. -- Alarics (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether people speak it is a first language or not should not be required for a name section. These languages are recognised by the UK as regional languages. Even if there were no native speakers of any of these minority languages at all, there are many who can as a secondary language. They have been recognised, and are still being learnt by people interested in learning them. There is a Scots-Gaelic television channel. There are Irish Gaelic television programs shown in NI on BBC2. There is even a Welsh language television channel (though it does get next to no viewers most of the time). Scots and Ulster-Scots are still spoken to various degrees - only thing is it sounds that much like "bad" English you can't tell other than certain words and even then most speakers don't even know they are speaking it. Irish Gaelic is taught in Irish speaking primary and medium schools in NI, and according to my sister who works for the Scottish education board, primary school kids there have Scots classes.

Of course any translation for the UK needs be sourced. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "recognition" and what is the logic of limiting it to the European Charter? What about bi-lateral treaty agreements with the Irish Republic which cover Ullans and Irish Gaelic (See Irish language in Northern Ireland and Ulster Scots articles for quite good summaries). They are treaty obligations in the same way as the Charter is. Both these sets of international agreements use the same weasel words (i.e. recognise that [language x] is an expression of the cultural wealth of [country y]" and don't really mean much. None of them are very good criteria for saying they have any sort of "recognised" status and are not legally binding on the goverment. I think the criteria should be: is the language recognised as having a role by any legislation in the UK (whether UK parliament or devolved legislature). This means Welsh (Welsh Language Act 1993, Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2010), Scottish Gaelic (Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005), Irish Gaelic (s.15 Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006 and Ullans (same legislation as Irish Gaelic). DeCausa (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DeCausa's proposed criteria. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It does not change the fact that this is the English language wikipedia. There is not meant to be endless translations of everything, if the UK was like Canada with two official languages French / English then it would make sense. But english is the defacto national language of the United Kingdom. only a minority within the respective regions or nations in question speak these other languages, let alone throughout the UK in which it is an extremely tiny minority. Having the basic translation in the top of the infobox with the hide feature was better than this current proposal to have the first section of the article provide an extensive list of alternative language translations. If there is a name section it should detail the situation relating to the name, not provide translations. It should describe what United and what Kingdom stands for, how it came about, the union with Ireland and then partition and the impact that had on the name. The difference between UK / Britain / Great Britain etc. Thats what is needed if there is to be a name section. If it was just welsh, being the only alternative language which is becoming far more widespread then i would not be too concerned, but if we include Welsh we must include Scottish gaelic, then we must include scots language, and Ulster Scots and then irish gaelic, and then the most questionable of all.. Cornish. As moonraker said, what next? This is the English language wikipedia, not a site to assist in educating English speaking people about names in different languages. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the issue of the translations, I absolutely agree with BritishWatcher that all of the other information which he describes should be included in a Name section. In my view all of this information should come before any translations given in the section. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is why I've made the above point. If a language is given recognition by legislation in the UK, that is a different matter, and there is no 'what next?' (or if there is a 'what next' it's up to the UK legislatures, not Wikipedia editors. It's Wikipedia reflecting the sources - in this case the legislative position (rather than your personal preferences). DeCausa (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Guys, calm down, you're going to hyperventilate. I made a suggestion regarding something that is of interest to me, as a reader, and therefore likely to be of interest to other readers. I'm not trying to force anything down anybody's throat, I'm not looking for endless lists of anything, and I cannot see for the life of me why the content of a Wikipedia article has to be governed by legislation in the UK or anywhere else! Try and think of this as an encyclopedia for once, why don't you? Scolaire (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The basic problem is that none of this discussion is about providing information to the encyclopedia reader, it's about satisfying "recognition issues" for certain linguistic/national minorities. What I was trying to do was to use legislation to bound the scope of the question in a logical way so a compromise can be reached. DeCausa (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on the basic problem: none of the discussion above is about providing information to the encyclopedia reader. It should be. It should not be about "using legislation", "binding the scope of the question" or "reaching compromise". Would it be useful to have a "name" section? Most of the respondents seem to think it would. What should be in it? A moment's careful thought should give each of the participants an idea; you could each write it down and present it for discussion. You could modify my own draft any way you choose, or write out a new draft. Do people think that the Cornish name is one too many, or that the Scots name is never used? Leave them out, then. Nobody is clamoring to have them included, so far anyway. My proposal was not about satisfying "recognition issues", only about improving the article. Anybody who is concerned with improving the article should make a positive contribution to the discussion, instead of this unrelenting negativity. Scolaire (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure who or what your last point was directed at. I've made 2 separate proposals (with draft text) to try to solve this issue. If you carefully read through the responses you will have seen that there are editors calling for Cornish and Scots to be included. British Watcher stridently called for Cornish's exclusion. I personally have no interest in "recognition", I was trying to come up with a sound logic so that all could agree a principle as to which languages should be in there rather than just continuing to argue the toss. However, if you think it's better to just argue the toss on who wants what language...then good luck to you. I'm dropping out of this discussion.DeCausa (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see your draft text(s) for the "Name" section. Was there discussion of a "Name" section before I opened this current one? And I can't see anybody calling, stridently or otherwise, for the Cornish name to be included in the "Name" section as proposed by me. If you carefully read through my posts, you will see that the last thing I want to do is "argue the toss". What I want to do is to persuade people to build a consensus instead of arguing or wikilawyering. But I seem to be in a minority of one (or maybe two), so I'm going to drop out as well. Scolaire (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think DeCausa's suggested criteria form a logical solution, and a "line" that can be defended, if we have to have this thing at all, and I am prepared to support it as a compromise. That means Welsh and Scots Gaelic and Irish Gaelic, but not Cornish. -- Alarics (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What about Ullans? The Ulster branch of Scots that has legislation in NI? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems a bit absurd to me (it and Scots appear to be dialects of English, not separate languages) but yes, I suppose so, if it does have that legislative support. -- Alarics (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa's proposal included Ullans as it is recognised in legislation. I agree it should be included. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Alarics, Scots is not a dialect of English. That confusion easily derives from the fact that Scots and English descend from the same ancestral language, Old-English, though different dialects of that language. You should take a look here for the exact relationship and descent. Don't mistake cousins for parent and child. Just like Portuguese and Spanish descend both from the West Iberian branch of the Romance languages but are both seperate languages that are similar.

“

Notwithstanding the UK government’s and the Scottish Executive’s obligations under part II of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the Scottish Executive recognises and respects Scots (in all its forms) as a distinct language, and does not consider the use of Scots to be an indication of poor competence in English.

”

Mabuska ^(talk) 20:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the excuse for the proposed changes including half a dozen other languages is because of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Shall we take a look at and see if other country articles list the spelling of the country name in all the different languages? Look at Poland it has 15 according to that article, it certainly does not give the translations for the country name in each of those languages on the Poland article. Ukraine has 13, but they do not all get displayed on the Ukraine article and i am sure the same can be said for most of the others too. If people want to know what the name of a country is in an alternative language they have to use the alternative language sites or go to a translator site instead of wikipedia. I still strongly oppose the inclusion of any of these language names, the UK has no official alternative languages, it only has defacto English. The status of certain languages in certain parts of the UK is irrelevant. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's not take a look at and see if other country articles list the spelling of the country name in all the different languages. Let's take a look at your language instead. "If people want to know what the name of a country is in an alternative language they have to use the alternative language sites or go to a translator site instead of wikipedia." Why do they have to? Because you say so? If people want to know something why do you strongly oppose their being told it? It's a bizarre attitude from anyone who calls himself an encyclopaedia editor! Scolaire (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No, because of WP:indiscriminate. Why not in Serbo-Croat? DeCausa (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least that's encyclopaedic language (except for the silly "why not"). But it's not actually true. If there is a consensus among some editors that a small number of names be included for encyclopaedic reasons (i.e. for the reader) then by definition it is not indiscriminate. By the way, what part of that policy is this proposal supposed to violate? "Long and sprawling lists of statistics"? But nobody has proposed a long and sprawling list. Either way, the attitude of "if the readers want x they have to do y" is both silly and unjustified. Scolaire (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a question of relevance and notability. The whole point of WP:Summary Style is that if a reader wants to find detailed information, they go to another page. That's why we have main links. If something doesn't add much to the article, it shouldn't be included. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, Summary Style doesn't say that. It says that if you want to add more information you should create new articles. Do you really think there's enough on minority language names of UK of GB and NI to split it into another article? Scolaire (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I was using it to show that not all information needs to go in. The name of the UK in other languages could be relevant to another article, but I don't think it's relevant enough for this article. maybe Languages of the United Kingdom? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Scolaire, I was pointing out the lack of logic in your previous posting. If you are going to use a word like 'bizarre' about another editor then you need to be more focussed about why and avoid generalisation. DeCausa (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's bizarre because it's not what you said it is or what CMD said it is. It is simply an irrational opposition to certain facts being stated. I'm perfectly focussed, thank you. Scolaire (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There are about 38,000 serbs and croats in the UK (according to this and this). So according to you if anyone in the future suggests that serbo-croat is included, it should be. Is that right? DeCausa (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not right. If there was any sort of a consensus for it to be included, then it should be considered. But there won't be, and that's why the example is silly. Red herrings are just another form of irrational opposition. And I find this strange because you have already expressed a qualified support for the inclusion of the Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish and Ulster Scots form of the name. Why do you now feel the need to argue the opposite? More to the point, why must you represent my position as one of enlarging that small number to a long and sprawling list, when you know I have never advocated any such thing? Scolaire (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes,it is strange, isn't it (and it was/is unqualified support not qualified). If you thought it through you might get the point. DeCausa (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but life is too short and this discussion is too silly. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Politics

The section title should be simplified according to recommendations by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. The second reason should be to bring the section title in line with its main article, also an MOS recommendation. The overarching aim is to provide a useful standardized organization and naming of this country article. As most of the distinguished editors here probably know, the country articles are among the most read documents in Wikipedia. It makes therefore sense to enable the readers quick access to these very long articles. Hope you can agree on that. Italiano111 (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It would probably help your case if you specified your proposals (e.g. substitute x for y as a section header) and provided links to the specific MOS sections to which your proposal refers. Daicaregos (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The former section title "Government and Politics" should change to "Politics" like the main article "Politics of the United Kingdom" already suggests. A subsection "Government" could be created just above the paragraph starting "The UK has a parliamentary government". It would be a minor change and would enhance readability among country articles. Italiano111 (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Too many subsections kills an article. Check the already exhaustive TOC of this article. I personally think WP:COUNTRIES needs to change the recommendation from "Politics" to "Government", as to me Government seems more relevant than Politics, which in my mind is only about the internal government discussions and fights etc.

In summary, we don't need another subsection. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally Chipmonkdavis is not quite wrong with the TOC length argument. In this case obviously another section "Government" helps even to improve the design. The infobox on the right is overlapping to a large degree into the first "History" paragraphs. So new sections added to the TOC would reduce this. I also want to remind people here that a main article "Government of the UK" does not exist. An article Politics of the United Kingdom does ! The "Government" content is part of politics and not vice versa. So in order to establish a more logical organization at this article (which is already given through established standards in the subsections) there should be no problem to agree for the proposed minor enhancement. Italiano111 (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The rationale seems reasonable to me. I can support change. Marthainky (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

2nd most powerful country on the planet?

Someone's added this to end of the lede. Is this weird Chinese index notable enough to include it? I doubt it - and looks bizarre. Think it should be deleted. DeCausa (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is it weird? Because it's Chinese? This index is used by senior policy makers in the Chinese government. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The UK isn't the 2nd most powerful, if we're meaning 'militarily'. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted - loads of sources say otherwise and it would depend what precisely it means anyway. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This concept of Comprehensive National Power strikes me as rather interesting. The high place achieved by the UK in the list clearly has nothing to do with military power. I don't see a problem with including a reference to it somewhere, if a good citation can be found. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the references to that article, they all seem fairly old, but there is some recent press coverage (for example related to a wikileaks report [2]) that suggests China is still interested in the subject, or at least, some western media assume they are. The PDFs used in the article look to me like some kind of one-off paper by a Chinese academic. However, even if this does have some kind of official status in China, it isn't one of the widely accepted international coefficients of ranking. Probably best to wait and see if it becomes more widely used. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If it has a relevance it's only in the context of British-China relations (i.e. Chinese perceptions of UK) which is too specialised for this article. It's too way off base for any general comment on the UK's world 'position'. In any case, having googled it, it looks doubtful if it has any real role even in China. DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Believe me the concept plays a very big role in China, in fact one of China's central policy objectives - probably the biggest Chinese policy goal after feeding the population - is to maximise China's CNP. Of course most documents on the subject on the internet are in Chinese, but these give some idea of the concept's status: [3], [4], [5]. Of course this doesn't necessarily mean that it should be quoted on the lede of this article, but a mention somewhere in the article does not seem excessive. In the eyes of the most populous country in the world this is a very important metric of national standing, it should not simply be written off. In my view China is the second most powerful country in the world and I find it very interesting that the Chinese believe that the UK is in fact in that position. I'm sure that many other readers of this article would find it equally interesting, if we let them find out. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a case of "believing you" but the sources. I don't find the three sources you put forwards in the least convincing. The first is to the Australian media article I already discussed above. The second has a very brief reference to a 2004 academic paper. The third does not mention it at all. I think we need a little more than this. Nobody disputes that the opinions of the government of China are notable, what would be at issue is wording, context and relevance. At the moment the evidence isn't even there that this is an official Chinese government position from the available sourcing - we see back references to one Chinese academic paper and we see Western media speculation about it. As for context and relevance here in the UK article, we don't see the sort of widespread international usage that would be sufficiently noteworthy to include it. It really belongs in something like Chinese economy, Chinese government or one of their related articles. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

May we should wait until our aircraft carriers have aircraft on them? --Snowded ^TALK 08:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a joke? We've established that this is not specifically to do with military power. In reply to DeCausa, we do have a page on China – United Kingdom relations, that might be a good place for this information, subject to a good reference. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside Snowded's rather witty intervention, in fact, military power does seem to be part of that particular index, at least if the reportage of the original paper on it is to be accepted. The figures in the Wikipedia article date to 2000 and 2006, so perhaps China thought we had some aircraft left at that pre-cuts point in time. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

China – United Kingdom relationslooks about the right place...now just need to find some sources. The Comprehensive National Power article is so badly sourced I would have thought it should be up for deletion. DeCausa (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It is badly sourced, but the subject seems notable, and it's interesting. I suspect it's more subtle than Gross national happiness. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting how little information there is on this on the net. Most times it crops up, the same phrasing is used and a lot of the items track back to the pdf of the academic paper that James referred to. If this really was so influential in China, you'd have expected much analysis in the Western press, for instance. Is it a giant hoax?? DeCausa (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You must have a different version of Google to me, because I get endless pages of results even in English. Here are a few more: [6], [7], [8], [9] Rangoon11 (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the Economist ones - again, they briefly mention the term "Comprehensive National Power". They do not refer to an index, nor to the UK's status or comparison on it, nor to it's international use. Nothing here to justify using it in this article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The only issue of relevance is the level of general usage of the concept and the Economist articles are further evidence of this. I note that you ignored the Department of Defence document, and the extract from Rethinking Security in East Asia: Identity, Power, and Efficiency. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree the 2005 US Congress Report is a good source for its existence/use - the first I've seen. I didn't say you get no results if you google 'comprehensive national power' just no information (as in the Economist article). In fact if you google "Comprehensive National Power Index" you only get 7 results! DeCausa (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the focus on 'Comprehensive National Power Index' has come from but it's a red herring, the concept is simply called 'Comprehensive National Power', just like GDP is not called 'Gross Domestic Product Index', but is used as a comparator. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The lack of the 'index' on the net is still indicative of the concept's (lack of) notoriety generally. Comprehensive National Power is used mainly in a very general way to refer to China's perception of itself. The Congress report, I agree, confirms its use by China. But no one else uses it - that's clear. So I think it's pretty clear it has no function in this article (but probably does in some of the China articles or China – United Kingdom relations. DeCausa (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We are discussing the index because the index ranking was the proposed text in this article. Any general discussion as to the reality of the existence in China of the concept of CNP is outside the scope of this talk page. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a "hoax", I think it's just what happens a lot in today's media - an academic publishes a paper, it gets picked up by one outlet - then for years and years you see references to it in other media outlets as being the official position. It's just the laziness and inertia of the modern media (no money for factchecking by sub-eds who used to be there but are no longer "affordable" by the press is a contributory factor) coupled with excessive faith in the PR and musings of academics in general. It always amazes how many "stories" on, for example, the BBC, are actually just puff-pieces from university researchers looking to obtain funding for the latest fad. This does not apply to really serious long-running science stories but the odd one is always slipping through. A serious issue for us in Wikipedia is how to treat the media reportage of science stories as sources, since sometimes the fact that a "quality" outlet is reporting something is taken in WP to be proof of it's notability, when in fact it is simply proof that scientists can be good at writing press releases too. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom template

Am I correct to say that the United Kingdom template should not be used for events and people living before 1707 in England, or in Scotland, and especially not during the Middle Ages? I removed a UK template from a 12th century biography of an English crown officer, substituting an England template instead. Perhaps this has been resolved before, and perhaps I am being too picky. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bambipepe, 6 January 2011

After submitting my request for this change, I read some of the correspondence on the subject of the UK. I was astonished that some contributers are of the opinion that accuracy is only one of many options. (see the example below)

(As I said it doesnt have to be correct, a bit like the Netherlands is often called Holland which really is just one part of the Netherlands. Informal language is just that it doesnt have to be correct to be used. MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)) {{edit semi-protected}}

If WIKI claims to be an encyclopedia, of course it must contain accurate information and not 'informal language' The Netherlands is not Holland and an encyclopedia should not confuse the reader by using so-called informal language. In the same way The United Kingdom is not Britain. If Wikipedia does not contain accurate information, people will soon find a more reliable alternative source.

Please change (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain) Request change to '(commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK and sometimes mistakenly referred to as Britain)'

In the interest of accuracy and the education of readers, it should be made clear that the term Britain refers to a political entity comprising the nations of England, Scotland and Wales but does not include Northern Ireland. This change would serve to correct a popular misconception.

Bambipepe (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC) bambipepe 6th January 2011

If you check around the footnotes to this article and others like Terminology of the British Isles there's various government sources saying it's ok to call the UK 'Britain' informally. DeCausa (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

After submitting my request for this change, I read some of the correspondence on the subject of the UK. I was astonished that some contributers are of the opinion that accuracy is only one of many options. (see the example below)

(As I said it doesnt have to be correct, a bit like the Netherlands is often called Holland which really is just one part of the Netherlands. Informal language is just that it doesnt have to be correct to be used. MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)) {{edit semi-protected}}

If WIKI claims to be an encyclopedia, of course it must contain accurate information and not 'informal language' The Netherlands is not Holland and an encyclopedia should not confuse the reader by using so-called informal language. In the same way The United Kingdom is not Britain. If Wikipedia does not contain accurate information, people will soon find a more reliable alternative source.

Check Great Britain, which is what is considered EnglandScotlandWales. Britain without Great has been adopted as a shorthand for the UK, which is similar to the demonym of "British" Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's from that article I was trying to remember the reference: "In 1975 the government affirmed that the term Britain, not Great Britain, could be used as a shortened form of the United Kingdom.[Ref: Britain 2001: The Official Handbook of the United Kingdom, 2001, ONS/Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London, ISBN 011 621278 0]" Probably should go in as a footnote to this article.DeCausa (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You can call the UK topsyturvyland 'informally' if you like, but unless there has been legislation to amend The Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, any alternative informal name is inaccurate. The suggested alternative wording encourages the use of the correct wording as set out in the legislation and is therefore more accurate than any informal language. regardless of what civil servants have included in their booklets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bambipepe (talk • contribs) 16:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The 1927 act has been superseded by the acts of 1948 and 1953, and in each case they refer to the formal style and title of the crown, so not relevant to the current discussion. The term "Britain" continues to be commonly used, and more recent official instances than the 2001 example above include this example from 2007. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2011

The UK is commonly called Britain. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Even the UK Government uses Britain to describe the whole of the UK: [10], in the same way that the U.S. federal government often uses 'America' to refer to the United States: [11]. Whether a name is scientifically correct or not is not relevant to whether a name is a name. For example, the company The Carphone Warehouse does not operate from warehouses and the sale of carphones is a miniscule part of their business. A name is a name, particularly an informally used name, it does not need to be a scientifically correct description of the subject to be so. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -Atmoz (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Bambipepe is quite simply wrong here. It's not "Britain" that is the mainland island of England + Wales + Scotland, it's "Great Britain". "Britain" is the same thing as the UK, i.e. including Northern Ireland. These usages are long-standing and well-documented in many different contexts, official and otherwise. -- Alarics (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The term 'Britain' does not include any part of the island of Ireland. Brocach (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does. "Britain" in its most common usage means the UK, which includes Northern Ireland. Some people might wish that it didn't, but that's irrelevant: it just does. -- Alarics (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from MouseWarlord, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

"Countries within a country"

England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not countries, as they only meet 3 of the 8 criteria required to meet the definition of a country. Where as they could be described as "nations", an area with agreed boarders (not including boarder disputes), that shares common history, culture, religion, language or ethnic origin (official definition), but they are in no way countries, a country being, in short, a nation with a government.

Although Scotland has the Scottish Parliament, Wales has the Welsh Assembly etc, they are not classed as Governments as they are controlled by the British Government at Westminster, they are in fact (not officially) regional governing bodies, as they are not independent governments, more individual state run puppet shows to make the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Féin and other minority independency traitor scum bag parties feel more independent than they really are, and helped Labour retain power in the 1990s.

This needs to be changed, the current article as it stands is false and misleading.

Mouse.

MouseWarlord (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

They should be described as constiuent countries. PS: We'd rather you scratch out the "..traitor scum bag.." line, in your post. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You've stumbled on an old argument. You are of course correct (apart from your 2nd para which is quite silly) but there is a Wikipedia consensus on this subject which means your request won't be accepted. The reasons for the consensus are a mixture of nationalist views and using UK governmental sources (informed by the political desire not to upset the 'countries'). DeCausa (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside the rather heavy-handed trolling above, you are wrong as to some of the facts DeCausa. At least, if you agree with the assertion that Scotland has no government. What do you suppose the Scottish Government is? [12] An illusion? Expressing views like this illustrates the danger of bringing personal views into Wikipedia and using them as a basis for editing. Scotland manifestly does have a government, absolutely regardless of your opinion that it doesn't. Yes, it's a "devolved government", but it's still a government. Wales has a "Welsh Assembly Government" [13] with fewer powers than the Scottish one, so there is some debate there about international status. But this is not true of Scotland. What you are really talking about is "national independence" and "UN member state status", but there are quite a few entities widely known as countries that do not possess the latter. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(a) I was not 'trolling' (b) your comments to prove that Scotland and Wales have a government are not worth replying to and are rather pointless in 'explaining' the obvious (c)"What you are really talking about" - no, incorrect - it's governmental sovereignty...but I really can't be bothered (c) I really don't know what your referring to in relation to the "dangers" of using "personal views"; however, all editors use "personal views" in editing, otherwise all edits would be identical. In any event, I do not feel in "danger". DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with you: Scotland is a country that is not independent! Next business... Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP is also hinting at a fact. Scotland (like Wales, Northern Ireland & England) isn't independant. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a constituent country - which translates to 'country within a country'. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Country consists of four countries"

Hi all,

I realize that one of the sentences in the introduction -- "It is a country[12][13] consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales" -- was probably scrutinized/argued over again and again, and is the result of a compromise made between various editors.

But the phrase "a country consisting of four countries" is really awkward sounding and confusing. Imagine the reader who possesses no knowledge or context of the political situation in the UK -- what does it mean for a country to consist of four other countries? Nonsense!

I propose merging the sentence in question with the preceding one, forming:

"The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and unitary state, consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales."

This maintains the use of the term "country" to refer to the four constituent entities of the UK, but eliminates the awkward wording.

Thoughts?

129.173.98.127 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Strongly oppose, not just because this has been discussed at length before but because it is a plain fact that the UK itself is also country. Some things in life are complex and Wikipedia is not here to hide that complexity just because it may confuse some readers.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Constituent countries would cure alot of ills. But so far, inflexiability continues to block that solution. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We also have to be mindful of common names for things - "constituent country" is an unusual phrase not very widely in public use. The IP immediately above suggests "The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy" - it isn't, it's a nation or country whose head of state system is constitutional monarchy - it also a parliamentary democracy, a member of the EU, etc. There is no one short sentence that neatly sums it all and Rangoon is right, we have to accept the complexity and do our best to explain it. We generally start with the simplest thing we can, eg, the UK is a country. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not worth discussing again. The plain fact is that the UK is a "pragmatic", asymmetrical series of messy constitutional compromises, with some quasi-federal aspects, but not in fact a federation (if it were, the constituent bits could be called states). Since the situation on the ground is a mess, the terminology that has to be used to describe it and all its entities is also a mess, with no hard and fast rules. If you take the usage of the BBC and most politicians, when they talk about "the country" they generally mean the UK, while Scotland and Wales (and sometimes "England", wrongly in my view, but let's not get into that again here) are often described as nations. (Northern Ireland is even more problematic.) But that is only an arbitrary convention, only partly followed. There is no point in trying to lay down the law. -- Alarics (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, although the IP does make me think about one sentence a little more. The first sentence in the second para currently reads "The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and unitary state." I wonder if this is quite right. It perhaps should be "The United Kingdom has a constitutional monarchy and is a unitary state." Just a thought. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"The United Kingdom is a unitary state with a constitutional monarchy"? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Editors,

Thank you for the quick replies! My original thoughts were that it's painfully obvious to any reader that the UK is a country, and that this does not need pointing out -- an equivalent example:

"The United States is a country consisting of fifty states and a federal district."

can be reduced, without loss of clarity, to

"The United States consists of fifty states and a federal district."

But very well -- I can see that it's been decided to emphasize the UK's status as a country. Fair enough.

GoodDay, Jamesinderbyshire: You're both very right, of course, but I think there's a chance we could preserve these subtle complexities AND use clear language *at the same time*. Perhaps there is a synonym for country that we can use that would eliminate this awkward wording altogether? I noticed that the "Four countries of the United Kingdom" article uses the term "sovereign state". Would the following work?

"It is a sovereign state consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales."

Alarics: I realize the issue has been discussed before, but I feel that the issue has often been tackled from a political perspective - with pro-devolution/independence editors wanting to de-emphasize UK's status as a unitary state and with nationalists wanting to do the opposite.

I am a Canadian reader, without a lot of knowledge about UK politics or how the country operates. I am approaching this issue purely from a writing/editing perspective. I am simply trying to make this article as *clear and concise* as possible, without losing all the subtle complexities and compromises that various editors have negotiated into the article. I'm certainly not trying to set any new conventions, and I certainly don't want to set off any edit wars.

129.173.98.127 (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be this way - "It is a country consisting of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales" GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the english language has given us situations like this. What I take from the whole debate is that the word country is really just a label, but there's really no room to go into an explanation on this article. I agree constituent would make a good diambiguator though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The article must clearly state the United Kingdom is a country. It should say this in the first paragraph as far as im concerned then there would be no need for "country consisting of four countries...". But country should not be removed unless it is placed somewhere else. Some people are under the illusion that the United Kingdom is not a country, so it must say it. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I would support changing it to say the following..

First line first paragraph The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland[note 7] (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state and country located off the northwest coast of continental europe.

Second paragraph: The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and unitary state consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

I would be ok with that. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Constituent countries is more accurate & less confusing as a discriptive for E/enwiki/w/S/NI. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, groundhog day... it is not in line with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality to refer to Northern Ireland as a "country", constituent or otherwise. The term is politically controversial: in essence, it is accepted by the British/unionist majority in Northern Ireland, and vehemently rejected by the Irish/nationalist minority, roughly a 60:40 split. There is no such controversy in referring to England, Scotland or Wales as countries. Thus, to avoid clumsy constructions such as "consists of three countries and Northern Ireland", references to the four bits of United Kingdom should use neutral terms such as "parts" or "regions". It is absolutely not accurate to say that there is a "consensus" on Wikipedia in favour of countries: rather there is a small group of editors - several represented in this conversation - who are determined to maintain a politically controversial usage in relation to Northern Ireland, and who routinely revert any edit that seeks to substitute, or event insert as alternatives, neutral terminology. Brocach (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Brocach, the problem runs two ways. "Country" is, I'm sure, contentious in NI, but anything other than the single unadulterated word "country" is contentious to many editors in Scotland, Wales and England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In some circumstances it is possible to avoid using any descriptor: "The United Kingdom consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland", for example. But in general, "country" is uncontroversial in relation to the first three territories. Brocach (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Just to test the water, what would you think of a wording like: "The United Kingdom is a sovereign state, which comprises the countries of England, Scotland and Wales, together with Northern Ireland." Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Though I'd rather ya subsitute with constitient country for Northern Ireland, feel free to propose alternatives. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Regions. Parts. Territories. Brocach (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd except parts for all 4. In the meantime, no probs with changing NI's descriptive to part (or even province). GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The term "Regions" is definitely unacceptable so far as England, Scotland and Wales are concerned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Also Brocach you have been asked several times for references that say the term country is controversial in respect of Northern Ireland. We can then look at those and make a decision. Until you do, its simply your opinion. --Snowded ^TALK 21:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As you may remember, Snowded, there is a collection ^[1] of many sources that describe Northern Ireland as a "country" and many others that, often emphatically, deny that it is a "country". If that does not demonstrate that there is a controversy about whether Northern Ireland should be described as a country, what would convince you? And am I entitled to ask you and Ghmyrtle for references to back up your assertion (opinion?) that "region" is definitely unacceptable for England, Scotland and Wales? But rather than insist on that, or trot out the many official sources that use "region" for some or all of E/S/W, my preference would be that we should agree on a term that is neutral, such as "part(s) of the UK". Brocach (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The word "region" has specific connotations within England, and within Scotland. The use of that term to describe England, Scotland and Wales is not supported by sources (only one, not very reliable, source, describes them as such) and would (incidentally) be seen as demeaning given that they are viewed by their inhabitants and governments (and by many international bodies) as countries. Re NI, I agree with you - in my view the most neutral word for NI would probably be "jurisdiction". One of the underlying problems is that the UK government likes to think of the four "parts" as being in some sense equal in status. That is historically absurd, and it seems to me that the neutral WP position would be to acknowledge that absurdity, and not to insist on using the same terminology to describe each of the four. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Why can't the language be constructed to avoid the whole choice of country v region etc? eg "The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and unitary state comprising England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales." Seems easy enough DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Or multi-national state as suggested below? This discussion seems to centralize round the use of the word country in relation to Northern Ireland. Should the discussion not be taking place at that article? John Hendo (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Howabout "United Kingdom is a country comprising England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales"? GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Northern Ireland article states that it is one of the four countries of the UK. I'm presuming there must have been some sort of consensus on the wording. This is why I ask, why is this not being discussed at the Northern Ireland article? John Hendo (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've no probs with that, but such a change would need to be reflected on this article. Indeed, such a change at NI article, would encourage the adoption of my idea at this article. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it's used in this article. NI article is a different story. Ref GooDay's suggestion: Why use the word at all anywhere in the article. I can see the nationalist perspective that if you say UK is a country, then the others have to have the lable as well. Just construct the language so country, region, part etc isn't used anywhere (as in my example above) DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If England, Wales and Scotland are countries today then so is Northern Ireland. It is totally unacceptable to treat northern Ireland differently when the whole justification for calling England, Wales and Scotland countries has been down to the British government and other bodies which have called all 4 of them countries. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No discriptive for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland

If we go with just "...consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland", in the 2nd paragraph; then the prob is eliminated here & allows changes at Northern Ireland article. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As this may concern other articles such as Northern Ireland, England etc, should they not be informed of this discussion? John Hendo (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose. My proposal removes any concerns about consistancy between this article & those 4. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Strongly oppose, this does not 'avoid' the problem, it censors content in a way which is misleading. The UK is a country composed of countries. Fact. We should not make edits against consensus (and against reality) just to please a minority of persistent editors who keep bringing this issue up ad nauseum. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The UK is country which consistes of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Are you suggesting the UK doesn't consist of them? GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think he's saying that to exclude the fact that they consist of the countries of E/S/N.I and Wales is not very encyclopedic. Of course, he may not be and I'm just putting words in his mouth. :) John Hendo (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Precisely, the removal of the word countries is simply being proposed to appease a very persistent but small minority of editors.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The strongly opposing comment above is not signed but looks like it's Rangoon11; maybe he/she can tell us what 'reality' is being contradicted by challenging the use of an abstract noun. But I'd like to welcome the sensible contributions from DeCausa and GoodDay to the effect that the contentious terms can be simply avoided by constructions such as "the UK consists of E, S, W & NI". By far the best option. Hendo, you can be confident that if a way forward on this issue emerges here, it will find its way into other affected pages, on some of which these debates also occur from time to time. But no-one 'owns' this or any other page, there is no 'they' to invite over for a chat. Brocach (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The inflexiability by certain editors on the 'pro countries' side, is blocking a compromise. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not run by compromise but by consensus, there is a difference. It is not possible to please everyone all of the time and neither should effort be made to do so. Consensus on this issue is clear. Despite this the issue keeps being repeatedly brought up by a very small number of editors. They should accept consensus and move on. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No doubt it will probably continue to be brought up, until more flexiability is shown. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Brocach whether or not it is Rangoon, they are well sourced as you know by now as simply "countries". GoodDay stating "consists of E/S/W & NI" sounds like a cop-out to appease the very few nay-sayers. John Hendo's assumption does sound about right - its not very encyclopedic, especially when its a very well sourced term being erased. Constituent country whilst not very well sourced doesn't need sources if you don't treat it as a single term though... constituent has a very related meaning to "consists of" and be used solely as a descriptive term that augments the very well sourced "countries" term.

On compromises though GoodDay i see none coming from the most vocal anti-country editor here - its either no mention of country at all, constituent or not, or nothing. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If I can except constituent countries be left out? others should be just as flexiable & adopt my compromise. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You say there is a pro country faction here, which would lead me to believe there is probably an anti-country faction too. Which faction, if I may ask, are you a member of? John Hendo (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer that in the 2nd paragraph: United Kingdom be described as a country consisting of England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland. Holy smokers, the UK (like Canada, USA, Russia, Belgium, etc etc) is independent. England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland are not. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside your holy smoke (I'm not a religious man) why do you think the aforementioned places have to be independent to be called countries? If you do not accept the sources, of which I'm told there are many, why not? John Hendo (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Tell yas what, just forget it. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"If i can except constituent countries be left out?" - that doesn't make sense to me GoodDay, sorry. Also "others should be just as flexible & adopt my compromise" sounds more like a demand than anything else as if you're viewpoint and ideas are the only ones that matters. AS we all know, on Wikipedia thats not the case and concensus is needed.

Just to clarify anyways, i have no problems with your older compromise of "constituent countries" as it can be declared here if a concensus was agreed that it isn't a single term in the manner that i laid out above. This would avoid the lack of sources problem. Your other compromise does just chop the whole issue out altogether of what to call them, and whilst it does have good merit, it won't appease those that want "country" kept thus keeping the wrangling ongoing and probably getting no concensus for change.

For John Hendo here is the link to the sources. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst reading through them I noticed that on the 'not a country' section of Northern Ireland there is at least one source mentioned twice and a couple of sources by the same author. I'll look through all the sections, tomorrow. John Hendo (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Turns out two sources where duplicated for "not a country". How to treat sources by the same author is a question though. No matters, it leaves even less evidence for "not a country". Mabuska ^(talk) 13:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and unitary state, which consists of England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland". GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The introduction must clearly state that the United Kingdom is a country, at present that is first said in the second paragraphs second sentence. I cant support removing that unless country is put in the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why it just can't be left the way it is. Londonderry/Derry is a frequent problem on Wikipedia with the odd person changing it against concensus or starting a big discussion on it but in the end nothing changes despite the huge problems with it. Just because some troublesome editors have an issue with it doesn't mean they have a right to overule WP:WEIGHT and concensus. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I too would support leaving it the way it is. I don't think any case has been made for changing it. There's nothing magic about the word "country". -- Alarics (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just add clarification on NI controversy

Ok, how about this: leave it as it currently written with 'country' all over the place (so inelegantly written that it looks like someone was shoe-horning in 'country' for a political reasons) but in brackets afterwards add something like: "although the term 'country' as it is applied to Northern Ireland is considered by some to be controversial" or "is not accepted by [some in] Northern Ireland's nationalist community" or some other variation thereof DeCausa (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Reasons being DeCausa the problem with that if you haven't already noticed by how often Brocach was informed of this: if you want to state that something is controversial you need to have reliable sources that state that it is. Otherwise its just synthesis and original research based on the opinions of editors. We should avoid adding in unsourced claims into the article. Also adding in brackets after every instance of NI being labelled a country would be rediculous - a footnote would be better and less clunky. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I Oppose too. Some consider calling England, Wales and Scotland "countries" today questionable, because for most people their definition of country is a sovereign state. Not former sovereign states that have maintained part of their identity and because they created many sports are allowed to compete as separate nations. And there are plenty of sources describing Wales as a principality, so if we have an "opt out" for NI, there has to be one for Wales too. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with "consisting of four parts"? -- Alarics (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As the 4 articles say country and there is an article countries of the UK, we may as well describe them as countries in the sentence in question. My primary concern is that the UK continue to be called a country clearly in the introduction, by rights it should be in the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Also why should we fly in the fact of WP:WEIGHT in regards to the amount of surces that declare NI as a country compared to the pitiful amount that declare it as not a country. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Come of it! Let's get real here. We all know that describing NI as a 'country' is a predominantly Unionist position (or at least not a nationalist one). There's plenty of republican sources (look at the Sinn Fein website for instance) to see NI regularly described as the 'failed political entity' or the 'statelet'. (Whatever your personal view is of SF they are the 2nd largest party in NI and provide the Deputy First Minister.) It's purely a source problem because republican sources don't seem to specifically say 'we don't think it's a country' probably because it's so bleeding obvious they don't think it is! I accept we need to find a proper source to be cited to say it's controversial (and this doesn't seem to have yet happened) but please let's not pretend we all don't know it's controversial in Northern Ireland. For God's sake one Sinn Fein minister won't even use the term 'Northern Ireland' in ministerial correspondence: Republican won't admit he’s in Northern Ireland. DeCausa (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Most Northern Ireland unionists i hear usually describe Northern Ireland as a province. However if Her Majesty's Government had decided that England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland can all be described as countries that is enough for me to accept it. Some may not like the term country for NI, but not everyone likes the term country for Wales, which is also describes as a principality. It is neutral and acceptable to describe NI as one of the four countries of the UK, if the others are countries NI must be as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you've followed what's been said. It's about whether there is any controversy about it - not whether it should be described as a country. DeCausa (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa i'd like to hope that there would be a less-biased source that states its controversial rather than Sinn Fein if they ever decided to state it. All we have had was Brocach bringing the issue up all over the place. We also have an editor with only four edits on Wikipedia and then its re-raised by an IP that has only had two edits on Wikipedia, both on this talk page. It has only resulted in endless proposals being proposed when the people who raised the issues again aren't even participating anymore.

Unless MouseWarlord or the IP (which can be traced to Canada) both decide to reparticipate then i say let it lie. Or we could just go along with GoodDays older idea of "It is a country consisting of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". Mabuska ^(talk) 16:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

British Forces Image Update

Hello, the British Forces image of the Land Rovers in Afghanistan, BritishPatrolHelmand01.jpg, should be replaced as it is three years old and we no longer use the Land Rovers in Afghanistan. May I recommend the tri-service badge or Trident image from the British Armed Forces page -- SuperDan89 (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Names in other languages (more)

The Welsh and Scottish Gaelic versions given in note 7 differ with those written in a British passport which are respectively Teyrnas Gyfunol Prydain Fawr a Gogledd Iwerddon (gyfunol, not unedig) and Rìoghachd Aonaichte Bhreatainn is Eireann a Tuath (no na and no mòire). I'd assume that the passport versions are the official ones. 86.6.193.43 (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

yet another reason why we should not include something like Cornish which will not appear in a British passport and there for has the potential to be wildly inaccurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Na means The and mòire means great, so it sounds like the passport contains an incorrect Gaelic translation. Unless we actually live in United Kingdom of Brittany and Northern Ireland. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you mistaken Scottish Gaelic with Irish Gaelic by any chance? Mabuska ^(talk) 17:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nach bhfhuil Gaeilge agat a Mhabuska/a Dheiric? "Mòire" is not an Irish spelling. "Britain" and "Great Britain" mean the same thing in the English language, and similarly in Irish or Scottish Gaelic Breatain will do for either. In Scottish Gaelic however, Breatain (Britain) or Breatain Mòr (Great Britain) contrasts with Breatain Beag meaning Brittany, while in Irish an Bhreatain (or an Bhreatain Mhór) is the island and an Bhreatain Beag is Wales. Brocach (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again, Brocach. "Britain" and "Great Britain" do NOT mean the same thing in the English language. It may seem illogical, but "Britain" is a larger entity than "Great Britain". "Britain" is synonymous with the UK, which includes Northern Ireland. "Great Britain" is England + Scotland + Wales. -- Alarics (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I think Britain is just a contraction of Great Britain which the government (arguably arbitrarily) relatively recently decided to sanction as a short-hand for UK. DeCausa (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The usage I have described goes back a lot further than that. If you look at almost any issue of "The Times" in the 1950s, for instance, "Britain" is used constantly where it is clear from the context that it means the UK, not just the island of Great Britain. -- Alarics (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hence I used the word 'sanction'. In the '50s and earlier you'll find 'England' being used to mean UK. ('England expects...') It's not something that's worth being dogmatic about. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The UK is a multinational state

I'm tempted to include the fact that the United Kingdom is a multi-national state, [14][15], but in view of the different views about how the UK should be described, I thought I should canvass editors for opinions first. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd oppose that addition, England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland aren't independant. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The refs provided by Fishiehelper2 are reliable, and a statement along the lines of "the UK is a multinational state" is one that I'd happily support. The "independence" or otherwise of the four countries (or nations) is utterly irrelevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Having had a good look at the references I too would support wording along those lines. John Hendo (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Against 'multi-national', which implies either that there are several nations within the state, or that the state is under the ownership of multi-national corporations - both interesting but questionable views. Opposed especially if the context implies that the four constituent parts of the state, that is England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, are all, and equally, nations. Without wishing to go anywhere near the (respectable) arguments about whether that is true of any or all of the first three, it is a ludicrous assertion in relation to the fourth of those territories. Brocach (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brocach, calling the UK a multinational state makes absolutely no comment that could possibly cause offence to anyone in Northern Ireland. As for the Scots, Welsh and English, are you denying that these peoples are 'nations'? I'm sure the vast majority would have no difficulty recognising that these three groups of people are indeed 'nations' and it therefore follows that 'multinational state' is a perfectly accurate description. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You may underestimate the capacity we have in Northern Ireland for taking offence : ) I'm not making or denying any claims as to the 'nation' status of any part of the UK, merely saying that if the term 'multinational state' is used in contexts that imply that Northern Ireland is one of the 'nations' within the state, e.g. "four nations" in the way that some like to claim "four countries", that would be an extremely controversial usage for which it would be impossible to demonstrate either consensus (among editors) or compliance with the WP principle of neutrality. Brocach (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As Ghmyrtle says, stating that the UK is a multinational state has nothing to do with the status of the four parts of the UK. Multinational is not being used in the way Brocach believes in referring to the four parts of the UK as nations - it refers to the multi-ethnic and multinational inhabitants of the UK that come from far and wide. Its about the people not the land divisions. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska, that is not what is being proposed. The refs clearly indicate that it is the different parts of the UK that constitute the "multinational" aspect of the UK - it has nothing to do with ethnic multiculturalism. It seems to me that the UK is multinational in the sense that it comprises England, Scotland and Wales, irrespective of what is said or left unsaid about the status of NI. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Lots of countries are multinational. Without context, the statement doesn't mean much. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

God please No! If that goes in next thing you'll have someone saying that the 'nations' of the multi-national state should be specified...DeCausa (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case Ghmyrtle i'd oppose the usage of "multinational" due to the complexities involved. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not aiming this comment at any one person above, since we are probably all guilty of it sometimes, but it would generally be best to offer up the exact sentence one is proposing in these debates about intro descriptions, otherwise the discussion gets bogged down every time in picky arguments about various views about what is and is not OK and what is and is not a compromise, etc, etc, ad nauseum. I for one am getting pretty fed up of having to wade through the same tedious debates week after week with no progress and very little on offer by way of improvement to the article. This talk page is not a blog. Please everyone, either make exact statements about proposed changes to the article, or don't bother. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. So here is my proposal: don't mention "nations" at all, it begs far too many questions. Leave the first para as it now stands. In para 2, replace "consisting of four countries" with "consisting of four parts". -- Alarics (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on para 2 should be put up in the discussion above as it has nothing to do with "multinational". Mabuska ^(talk) 13:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The term "multinational state" is an extremely questionable term which would have to be explained. its not worth the bother. Stating the UK is made up of 4 countries is enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jamesinderbyshire, you make a fair point - let me suggest the wording I have in mind: I would add the word multinational in the first sentence so as to describe the UK as a "multinational sovereign state". The word 'multinational' would be wikilinked so anyone wanting further detail or clarification could find it easily, without us having to clutter this article with those explanations (which should answer BritishWatcher's point.) Therefore, the first sentence would read, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland^{[note 1]} (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain) is a multinational,[16][17] sovereign state^[2]^[3] off the north-western coast of continental Europe." Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am opposed to "multinational" for the reasons already given above by others. My proposal is to leave the first sentence as it now stands. -- Alarics (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Strongly oppose, the current wording of the first two paragraph is less ambiguous, long standing and just plain better. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Strongly opposed. Whoever says Britain is "multinational"? It would look too much like someone trying to push a political agenda, specifically one which pretends that there is no British nation. We cannot let ourselves fall into that trap.Howard Alexander (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This guy. What often concerns me about these discussions is the undue focus on the opening paragraphs of the article - which should not present additional info not contained in the article itself - when there is plenty of scope for these matters to be addressed in the main body of the article. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to elaborate the "countries within a country" discussion, both (or either) in the section on "Administrative divisions", and/or in the section on "Devolved national administrations". Whether or not we make specific reference to the ex-PM's words is another matter, although it seems to me that what he says is a pretty fair summary of a widely-held viewpoint within the UK, and one that addresses many of the issues that keep reappearing on a perpetual basis here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC):

Hi Howard Alexander, I've added the references which describe the UK as 'multinational' to the suggestion above - hope that's helpful. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC):

It is a question of context and audience. Brown's article was entirely about the union between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and was aimed at a UK audience. A description of the UK as a multinational nation, without more and without context, is ambiguous and highly likely to be misinterpreted. 'Country composed of four countries' says exactly the same thing, but in a way which is less ambiguous. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this change. (1) I don't think there's a wide Commonname usage precedent for it - it's not in general public or media use and we mustn't invent things in WP, or use things in a headline way that are only used very rarely - in this case by Brown in 2008 and not generally picked up subsequently. (2) I believe the word "multinational" with it's corporate overtones is confusing - it makes the UK sound like an international corporation. (this may be true in reality - joke) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, Gordon Brown is a highly tribal party politician, writing that article for a political purpose. I don't think such a source is a very good one for the use of that or any other word. However, I don't like "Country composed of four countries". I propose "composed of four parts". -- Alarics (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

To describe England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland as mere 'parts' is frankly grotesque. England has a thousand year history. We are not talking about pieces of Lego Rangoon11 (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"Thousand years of history" is the kind of silly emotive language that bedevils discussions like this. "England" as a uniform political entity on its present boundaries is not nearly as clearcut as that. Pieces of constitutional Lego is quite a good analogy for what we are, in fact, talking about. -- Alarics (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies on reflection you're right - Lego is a perfect analogy for discussing the arrangements of nation states. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

For information and interest (and I'm not necessarily suggesting this discussion goes much further) there are additional WP:RS refs for "multinational state" here, here, here, here, here..... I could go on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

We do not need to include the term Multinational. There are many things the United Kingdom has been described of, the idea we must include a random term like "multinational" which can have different meanings to different peoples is pointless. It is also grossly offensive if "multinational" some how is deserving of being in the first sentence but we can not state the United Kingdom is a country. we would not want to intentionally mislead people i hope. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A failed prime minister's opinion of our country is absolutely irrelevant. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course the UK is a multinational state. It includes the English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish and Irish nations, among others. However, most states are multinational, so I don't mind whether it's added or not. ~Asarlaí 11:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

well its all very questionable because it comes down to how you define national. There is only legal nationality of the people of the United Kingdom and that is British (leaving aside the issue of people in NI being able to be Irish citizens). Also some will look at multinational as if it is meaning multicultural, like the fact London has many citizens from all over the world. The term is rarely used and could mislead or confuse without a detailed explanation there for it is just no need for it. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

@BritishWatcher: Can't quite understand why someone purporting to know something about this topic would think that the post-1998 situation in Northern Ireland is something that can be 'left aside' - as there is an international treaty underpinning the right of everyone from Northern Ireland to be British, Irish, or both, this is a rather important issue; so BritishWatcher is, as so often, wrong. There is not just one 'legal nationality' available to 'the people of the United Kingdom': that term encompasses English people who accept British nationality regardless of whether they primarily identify as English; Welsh people who accept British nationality regardless of whether they primarily identify as English, and Scottish people who accept British nationality regardless of whether they primarily identify as English. It is nonsense to claim that the term 'British' includes the Irish people who form 40% or more of the population of that region of the UK. But as that minority does not claim to be part of a 'nation' that is different from that inhabited by the majority in the Northern Ireland region (of course a majority on the island of Ireland), Brocach (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this right Brocach - you are really claiming: "It is nonsense to claim that the term 'British' includes the Irish people who form 40% or more of the population of that region of the UK."!?!?! That is a very naive and misinformed viewpoint. Whilst most Northern Irish Unionists/Protestants ignore their Irishness or Irish heritage, they too are Irish (or Northern Irish as many prefer), but they regard themselves as British. I can show you many links from immigration records and the like that show people identifying as being British in nationality but also stating that they are Irish in race. It is so very misinformed to assume that every person that considers themself as "Irish" isn't "British". I am Irish as i am born on the island of Ireland. I'm Irish as my ancestors where born when the island of Ireland encompassed the entire Ireland and all the way back over 1'000 years when they served as lords of Ailech (Clann Ó Flaithbheartaigh). I am Northern Irish as that is the country i was born in. I am British in nationality. Lord Craigavon was credited as a great Irishmen and he was British in perspective which is obvious consdering his pro-British history. You don't speak for me or him or others that are both so don't make such absurd claims. Irish or Irishness doesn't equate to nationalists or republicans alone. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would the Welsh, Northern Irish & Scottish identify themselves as English? GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

mabuska, i don't understand your point. Brocach was talking about the "40%". How does the views of the "60%" have a bearing on how the 40% regard their nationality. Or am I missing something obvious? DeCausa (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you read what Brocach said DeCausa? Brocach says that "Irish people" don't identify themselves as British. That is utter bull***t. Also did you read what i said? I stated that i am an Irish person, who is Northern Irish, but am British. So how can i be one these Irish people that doesn't identify as being British. Read everythng before commenting please. Being one of the "Irish people" has nothing to do with political alligeance, even though certain misinformed editors think so. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, he said that 40% i.e. the nationalist community don't identify themselves as British. Your talking about how the Unionist community identify themselves. And I did read everything - you're just not making any sense. DeCausa (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I modified my statement above yours inbetween editing, so reread it please. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll restate what Brocach said DeCausa for you: "It is nonsense to claim that the term 'British' includes the Irish people who form 40% or more of the population of that region of the UK." Brocach doesn't say nationalist or republican. He says "Irish people". Irish people doesn't equate to nationalism/republicanism/unionism. That is what is stupid in what he is claiming. Like i said read everything. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You want to do a little less shouting and read others coments somewhat more closely. Brocach was talking about 40% of Northern Ireland and therefore the nationalist comunity by def. If you are talking about the very small number of Catholic non-nationalists, then that is not a significant number. But I don't think you are. I think you just don't understand what he said - hence the reference to Craigavon. DeCausa (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"Brocach was talking about 40% of Northern Ireland and therefore the nationalist comunity by def." Did Brocach state that DeCausa? No he didn't, you did. He said Irish people. You may have a pre-definded idea of what thet means, but never assume anything when it's never been said. Brocach said "Irish people", how that equates to "nationalist community" i don't know, especially when they constitute more than just 40%. The term "Irish people" can mean various things out of context, that is what i am highlighting. Obviously you aren't. I only shouted what it means to me'. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Multinational state sounds an awfully lot like weasel words to me. It appears some here keep attempting to ensure that article implies that the United Kingdom is a political union like the European Union rather than the sovereign state which it is. Many sovereign states have countries within them yet I don't see the term multinational state used anywhere else on Wikipedia. Some here need to accept that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not independent states, no matter how much they wished they were. Quite vivid blur (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is not like the European Union because the United Kingdom was formed as a sovereign state and the European Union was not - it is a collection of sovereign states. It appears that many editors seem to dislike the idea that the UK is sometimes described as a multinational state in which case they may be unhappy to learn that the multinational state article mentions the UK as an example! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your little wikilink on Yugoslavia! (A completely good nonproblematic and useful edit to make) Anyway, simply put, yes it is sometimes described as a multinational state, but that doesn't mean it needs to be included in this article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that multinational state only had the UK added by an IP on 13 August, has lost most of it's material and cites the Telegraph Gordon Brown article and a piece from Devon County Council (!) as it's authorities, we can perhaps take that particular article comparitor with a pinch of sodium chloride. If ever an article looked a suitable candidate for deletion.... 14:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Anybody ever get the feeling that the EU is aspiring to be like the UK? I.e. a sovereign state. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Na, it'd want to maintain its sui generis status. More pull in the UN etc. with more votes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It already has its own currency, flag, a parliament, high court and laws. There have been musings on a EU army and this crack about a "President" of the EU. It's a gradual process but it's getting there. We could call it a multinational state no problem. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

But technically! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is intended for discussion about how to improve the United Kingdom article, not for exchanging personal opinions about the nature of the European Union. -- Alarics (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Motto

Moto should be added by a confirmed user : | devise=Dieu et mon droit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.104.123.248 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 14 January 2011

This has been discussed on multiple previous occasions. The motto is that of the monarch, not of the state. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The monarch is the monarch of the UK, how is it irrelevant? Mabuska ^(talk) 02:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The arms are also those of the sovereign. Fitting, since the sovereign is the personification of the state. I don't see why the motto shouldn't be included in the infobox. It is at Canada, where the arms and motto of Canada are also those of the monarch. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly say they are the monarchs Miesianiacal. "A mari usque ad mare" isn't a motto of the British monarch and doesn't owe its existence or usage to the monarch. Also that isn't the coat of arms of the monarch, its the coat of arms of Canada. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

It is technically the United Queendom. I was going to add this but it's protected. Can somebody please add it? 86.177.61.119 (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't, so, no. See Royal and Parliamentary Titles Proclamation 1927. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

any objection to me deleting this section as extra silly? Brocach (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It may have been raised in good faith, who knows? See WP:TPO. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No! He/she's taking the p... DeCausa (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately no matter how silly it is, i think only an admin has the right of place to delete talk page sections or comments. We have right of place for our own talk pages though :-) Though the IP did raise a good point in technicality, even though legally the name of the UK doesn't change just because a king is replaced by a queen. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've closed my eyes and walked into a dispute involving some political unit in the group of islands to the northwest of continental europe and the dispute is about...terminology! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska, it's not 'legally', it's the English language! there's no such word as 'Queendom'! DeCausa (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Republic is quite gender-neutral. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol @ GD. Hmm depends DeCausa whether we can trust Wiki: Queendom redirects to Monarchy, whilst Wikitionary gives a defintion for Queendom :-P Mabuska ^(talk) 18:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Did you see the other definitions the IP that created the Queendom page contributed to?! DeCausa (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Lmao i've just seen them lol Mabuska ^(talk) 19:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Politics

I'd like to point out that now that the former "Government and politics" section has split off a government subsection, the section now reads "Politics: The United Kingdom is a unitary state under a constitutional monarchy. Queen Elizabeth II is head of state of the UK as well as of fifteen other independent Commonwealth countries. The United Kingdom has an uncodified constitution..." etc. That doesn't sound like politics. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That was as a result of Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 22#Politics. People have been fiddling around with the headings in last few days. The version (just undone) by Marthainky is close to how Italiano 111 left it. There are lots of ways this could be done and I'm sure everyone's going to have a different view. Italiano 111's point was standardization across all country articles (and his suggestion followed the guidleine). Let's stick to that. DeCausa (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Italiano unilaterally changed those guidelines and went around articles changing them to follow his new guidelines. Anyway, the guidelines had a couple of contradictions among themselves and most FA country articles (I hesitate to say all just in case, but I doubt it, I've noted all the FA country articles and looked at their structure on a user subpage) ended up differently. In lieu of that, I opened an RFC on the organisation, please comment with your views. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chipmunkdavis, the current headings are counter-factual and plain wrong. In British English (and so far as I am aware, American English too) politics refers to political parties and the process of political debate. It does not refer to the constitutional arrangements of the UK, nor to Government in its broad sense i.e. including such institutions as the civil service (which is also explicitly non political). Under the UK system the monarch is explicitly not a political figure, and is 'above politics'. Nor is the monarch a part of the government - it is Her Majesty's Government, but the Queen is not part of the government. Yet presently we have a picture of the monarch underneath the heading 'Politics'. The only heading appropriate to contain details of the monarch is Constitution and Government. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree - I think we should revert to the long-standing status-quo for now and discuss it at the RFC Chipmunkdavis has helpfully raised. I think the problem here was a newish user being slightly gung-ho with a perceived guideline change which has rather complicated ramifications that need thinking about. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chipmunkdavis, Rangoon11 (for once!) and Jamesinderbyshire. DeCausa and Italiano are surely mistaken about this. The article as it now stands, with "Government" as a subheading of "Politics", is obviously not right. -- Alarics (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked the definitions here (Politics) and here (Politics of the United Kingdom). I can´t find a mistake to include an order that summarizes everything under Politics. The monarch, the elections, the parties, foreign policies, everything seems to fit here. Marthainky (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A few points: (1) The Politics article which you quote actually starts 'Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions' - that definition does not include constitutional structures, does not include the process of decision execution by the civil service, and does not include a constitutional monarchy. (2) I expect that you are referring to the History section of that article, which is in fact headed 'The history of politics is reflected in the origin and development of the institutions of government.' That section addresses the broader area of government rather than merely politics. Why is a question for the editors of the article. (3) That article covers every country, and the whole of human history. We are concerned with one country, and with the present day only. (4) The Politics of the United Kingdom article has the wrong name, it should be titled 'Government and Politics of the United Kingdom'. Two wrongs do not make a right however. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There is already a Government of the United Kingdom article. I started a talkpage discussion on the politics article, perhaps can be looked at when an agreement is found here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't revert back to the way Marthainky had it because I especially support that format (the 'Italiano 111 format') and don't necssarily disagree with much of what has been said above. The detail of 'what politics means' etc I don't really think matters that much. To me the main thing is that there should be consistency across all the country articles - to avoid just this sort of discussion. That's why I reverted. It's the sort of topic where everyone has got their own idea. However, it seems I was wrong (as I understand it from what's been said) because the Italiano 111 country template hasn't been generally accepted anyway, and he unilaterally changed it. In which case, if that's so then all bets are off - although I quickly glanced at Germany, France and Spain and they seemed to follow it. (Chipmunkdavis, re: your comment on saudi arabia! I do have an explanation in reply which I'll post on my talk.) DeCausa (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The MOS template recommendations by the Wikproject Countries concerning the title "Politics" have been in place for a long time. Consult [18] for this matter. It has not been unilaterally altered single handedly by myself. The accusations made by ChipmunkDavis are wrong and inaccurate therefore. I do believe that every country article should figure out by itself what the content should look like. But because of the scope "Country" and because of the articles given prominence in Wikipedia I do believe some naming conventions within these articles are useful. Almost all country articles have main-sub-articles called "Politics of ...." which are intended to present the entirety of the politics related issues. Because of this defacto widespread name regime, I do believe it makes sense to have this in place here as well. It gives the reader quicker access to the country article because of recognizable titles. Italiano111 (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The MOS directly contradicted the MOS at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countries (although it doesn't anymore, due to the most recent change by Italiano111). Things like the position of geography above politics was what was completely changed in both MOS's. I can provide diffs to back up my "accusations" if anyone want me to. I'm hoping the RFC will make the defacto standard somewhat dejure by consensus or change it. Either way I'm happy, as long as it is sorted out. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Name

Should the name not be changed to its correct form of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.104.192 (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the article title, then WP:COMMONNAME states that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". That's why the article on the United States of America is at United States and that on the French Republic is as France. The full, official country name is stated in the infobox. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Island Country?

I just want to point out the absurdity of describing the UK as an island country when it shares a land bored with another state/country. Granted the wikipedia article on island countries defines them as countries whose primary territory is on an island but I think this needs to be changed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.111.232 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

All of the UK is on islands. The country it borders is also on an island. That prima facie suggest to me it is an island country. Anyway, current assertion has a source. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst in all technicality the UK is an island country as all of its parts lie on islands, i can understand the IP's confusion. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd call Indonesia an island country, but I'm pretty sure it has three land borders. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure "island nation" is a very encyclopaedic turn of phrase anyway. It sounds too churchillian, and given to varying interpretations (as demonstrated by this thread). The linked article (island country) is pretty unconvincing - and has a citation needed tag for the definition. The source cited for the UK being an 'island nation' is an aside in a document about energy policy i.e. just a 'literary flourish' rather than a substantive point in the document. The UK's connection to 'islands' is obvious from the article in any event. I suggest it should be deleted as it doesn't really add anything and sounds, well, too flowery. DeCausa (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it was used just to get the word nation in the lede. If people are okay with removing it, that's fine. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP brought up "island country" not "island nation", though how wouldn't the UK be a nation anyways? Mabuska ^(talk) 00:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP was nice enough not to be pedantic about terminology. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with removing it. I don't think it adds anything useful. -- Alarics (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Last discussion I could find is this one, but since new consensus is that it is unneeded I will remove it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Universal state education ... in 1870?

The section on education states: 'Universal state education in England and Wales was introduced for primary level in 1870'. What does this actually mean?

In the 1870s some kids of of 'primary school' age were getting private education, many were getting state-aided church education and many were getting no education at all - and many were getting half-time education under the various Factory Acts. The 1870 Elementary Education Act did not introduce 'universal state education in England and Wales ... for primary level'. It set up school boards to provide sufficient elemenary school places in areas where the number of existing school places was considered inadequate (mainly the larger towns and cities). These school boards were allowed, but not required, to make education compulsory between ages 5 and 10. Half-time education for kids covered by the Mines and Factories Acts did not end till 1922(!). See Charles Birchenough, History of Elemenary Education in England and Wales ... , 3rd ed., University Tutorial Press, London 1938: for more detail on the 1870 Act see pp. 105-7 and, on the issue of attendance in the last third of the 19th century, pp. 120-3.

It really seems to me that a reformulation is called for. Norvo (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds too fragmented to cover in one sentence. Maybe it should just be deleted - unless you can summarise it in a pithy way? DeCausa (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The point is accurate. How about: "Universal education began to be introduced in England and Wales from 1870"? perhaps then leading into the Butler Act of 1944. I agree if its much more complicated that that perhaps we should drop it. I should also point out that this is not much of a claim to fame as many European Countries had pretty universal coverage centuries earlier.--SabreBD (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a go at reformulating the sentence in the next day or so. (I was not suggesting that the article should go into detail). Norvo (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's 'not much of a claim to fame' ... I would suggest this unless it is felt that it is too long: 'The move towards the univeral availability of state elementary schooling in England and Wales began in 1870 and proceeded piecemeal till 1921, when education (not necessarily schooling) was made compulsory, without exception, for all children aged 5-14'. Norvo (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't free schooling be covered? How about: "Universal free state education was introduced piecemeal between 1870 and 1944, with education becoming compulsory for all 5 to 14 year olds in 1921." DeCausa (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine. That covers it and is neater than any version that I suggested. Norvo (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, are the sources you gave above good for this still? DeCausa (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What? Perhaps you could name some of these European countries. The only ones that I am aware of are Scotland which introduced it in the 17th century and Prussia which introduced it in the late 18th century. Neither of which is exactly centuries earlier. Before that you have to go back to Sparta in Ancient Greece to find universal education. No, I would say that the provision of universal education in northern Britain from the 17th century and in southern Britain from 1870 is fairly significant. Its existence in Scotland from the 1600s onward allowed the UK as a whole to punch well above its weight in the scientific, engineering and philosophical spheres during much of the 18th and 19th centuries. So if you are going to say that universal education was commonplace in European countries for centuries earlier, let's see which ones. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources will need changing or expanding. Of course, the remarkable position in Scotland should be mentioned, too. Norvo (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Scotland's already mentioned (later). Can you supply the changed/expanded sources? DeCausa (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Urbanization section edit

As it is common for country articles to have pictures of there largest cities around the box which contains the information about the largest cities. I think we should change this to help it be similar to other country articles. For example the People's republic of china includes this. Can someone please change this? Rctycoplay (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll add an image - does it help? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a unique template, which I think is the difference. {{Infobox largest cities}} seems to be a common one, showing 14 cities only instead of the UK's 20 shown. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

China's includes 21 cities so perhaps we could use that template ? Rctycoplay (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Education - References

My apologies for not getting back with the references earlier. There's a clear summary in a long footnote in J C B Gordon, Verbal Deficit: A Critique, Croom Helm, London, 1981 (ISBN 0-85664-990-30) p. 44 note 18. (This footnote is lengthy and quotes and refers to Birchenough 1938). For 1944 I'd suggest referring to the Act itself - Education Act 1944. The relevant sections are in Part II and are as follows: Section 8 ('Duty of local education authorities to secure provision of primary and secondary schools'), Sections 35-40 ('Compulsory attendance at Primary and Secondary Schools') and Section 61 ('Prohibition of fees in schools maintained by local education authorities ...') Norvo (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put it in but the Act, as a primary source, isn't really what we should use (per WP:Primary) - but I've put it in anyway. (If there were a book ref that would better.) Thanks for this. DeCausa (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Population density map

I suggest making a map that shows the population density of the UK. Examples of this kind of map is the Spanish map- File:EspDens2.jpg and also the French map - File:France population density 40pc.png Also note how both maps include the territories of each of the countries respectively. Rctycoplay (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if it can be sourced. I have no clue how to make such a map. (By the way, the spanish map doesn't include any territories, they're all integral to Spain!) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest someone makes a request to this workshop. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Religion

Given that various judges have ruled that people cannot wear a crucifix at work and it is easier to get planning permission for a mosque than a church, shouldn't the UK be included in the Islam portal? 213.7.227.207 (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think somebody has been spending too much time reading the Mail and Express. -- Alarics (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Timing-wise, maybe his reading is more this aligned with this. (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Northern Ireland being the only part of the UK sharing a land border with another country

Doesn't Gibraltar share a land border with Spain? 81.36.97.149 (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Note 8 implies Gib and Akrotiri are part of UK, which they aren't. I don't know the note's history but at first sight it should be deleted. DeCausa (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Gibraltar is a crown dependancy, its not part of the UK. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Overseas Territory. --George 2001 ^hi 20:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, so Note 8 should be deleted. DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

now deletedDeCausa (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Technically England has a land border with France, midway through the three Channel Tunnel bores - in practice there's a bit of "England" at the French end of the tunnel and vice-versa. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant as the UK shares an underwater land border with the Netherlands, the Faroes, Denmark etc. The channel tunnel is likewise underwater. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure about that. Territorial waters only go out 12 naut. miles. Only France is close enough for our "underwater land borders" to actually meet. DeCausa (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "underwater land border". But I'm Bwitish (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well probably but Arwel Parry points to an anomaly. DeCausa (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the closest distance between The UK and France I know of is in the Strait of Dover. And if (using the above example) that both country's territorial waters go out 12 miles and the English Channel at the Strait of Dover is 21 miles so there are more likely to be overlapping waters, it's not as if theres a border line all across the English Channel so you can't really call that a border. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the Channel Tunnel article the undersea portion is 23.5 miles. Territorial waters extends out 12 nautical miles (which equals 14 miles). As the tunnel length is less than 28 miles, the "border" would be halfway along the tunnel at about 11.75 miles out. DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I know there is no such thing as an underwater land border, unless somewhere actually has one defined. It was just an example as to the irrelevance of the Channel Tunnel as a land border. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The United Kingdom within the EU map

Is File:EU-United Kingdom.svg corrupt? It displays as a wikilink on my monitor. --George 2001 ^hi 20:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

File:EU-Luxembourg.svg has the same problem. It's simply not displaying on my browser. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, none of the EU ones are working. Are these messable-around with somehow? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've sought help at Wikipedia talk:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

According to a reply you got this problem only applies to English Wikipedia. Anti-EU sabotage?? DeCausa (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The file now displays, well for me it does. It was probably related to the recent MediaWiki update English Wikipedia had. --George 2001 ^hi 19:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes - it's always cock-up over conspiracy DeCausa (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Science and Technology

Couple of comments on this section. Firstly, it seems overly weighted to the 18th/19th century (reinforced by the pics). Obviously, that's the heyday but even so I'm not sure it gives a very clear impression of the current state of science and technology. I think it could be "modernized" a little more by someone knowledgeable on the subject (i.e. not me). Secondly, I find this quite strange: "Other advances pioneered in the UK include the marine chronometer, the jet engine, modern bicycle, electric lighting, steam turbine, electromagnet, stereo sound, motion picture, the screw propeller, the internal combustion engine, military radar, electronic computer, photography, aeronautics, soda water, IVF, nursing, antiseptic surgery, vaccination, antibiotics." It's a mixture of British inventions and some things where there has just been a British contribution (along with developments in a lot of other countries) with no sourcing (relying on the links - but some of the links have indequate sourcing). It all seems a bit random and unclear on what it's getting across (exacerbated by some of the choices: soda water?). The section should be overhauled by someone with knowledge in the area. DeCausa (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a similar problem to the literature and arts section; long lists of achievements, people or whatever, without too much explanatory text. There seems to be a clash between the desire to "get all the good bits in" and be concise. It might be better to have fewer namechecks and more general overview text in these areas. Yes, the UK is an international scientific leader in many fields. No, we don't need to mention every single field to give a proper explanation of that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Much better to have a descriptive narrative rather than lists. Looks less Ruritanian (look what we invented!). I would suggest something like a para on history - mainly industrial revolution (with 3 or 4 examples); a para on current overview (eg R&D spend statistics, internet access statistics etc); and say a para overviewing the top 3 fields (with a couple of e.g's in each): for example, pharmaceuticals, aerospace and microbiology (or whatever). DeCausa (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the section needs work, particularly much better coverage of the present, a move to full prose and some pruning of historical examples. However we must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, many of these discoveries/inventions were of huge global significance and should be mentioned. Things such as the invention of the television, jet engine, world wide web and the discovery of natural selection should in my view all stay. I would however be happy to lose the whole of the paragraph starting 'Notable civil engineering' and ending 'antibitiotcs', and to lose some examples from the list above it, essentially: the invention of the hovercraft, 'Theories in cosmology, quantum gravity and black holes, by Stephen Hawking', the theory of aerodynamics and the discovery of hydrogen. The reference to the first steam train could also be much shortened. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It is quite a problem trying to explain such a big field in a small portion of text. Perhaps one way of working it is to agree a list of "the 5 most important things we want to namecheck" for each field here and then we can each try writing some text around those and compare? I would be happy to give that a go. You can see the problem in your list of what should be in and out Rangoon for example - I would quite like the cosmology stuff in, as we have led internationally in that field. But I can well understand that others might not rank it so high. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, although five may be too low (or high) a number depending on how the fields are defined. Leaving cosmology to one side for the moment, are we agreed that the invention of the hovercraft, the theory of aerodynamics and the discovery of hydrogen could all be chopped, and the steam train reference cut to one line from the current two? Rangoon11 (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the problems with lists is that it takes a while but to get them agreed. Leaving that aside, I do think we should clearly separate the historic from the current (ie say last couple of decades). My basic reaction to reading it, as it currently is, is that it gives the impression that it's looking back on past glories to cover up lack of current technological development. DeCausa (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Fully agreed, we need more and better coverage of the present, but things like the jet engine, television, telephone, computer, world wide web etc can only be invented once. After that its incremental improvements, however clever. Those key breakthoughs should be there. It would be like discussing German music and failing to mention Beethoven, Bach, Brahms and Wagner. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Tony Blair

Editors here may be interested in assisting with the Good Article nomination of Tony Blair. The review can be found at Talk:Tony Blair/GA1. GA is reachable, but it will require hard work. Any assistance would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Country Status?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is an unanimous support for Daicaregos' proposal, which gives it a very strong consensus.

It is wholly controversial to describe the UK as consisting of four countries. England, Wales and Scotland were at different stages, countries, but during the various acts of Union, they ceased to be such, forming the new entities; England (with Wales), Great Britain, and eventually the United Kingdom, which assumed the country status. Northern Ireland has at no time been a country. It does not even have a flag of its own and makes no claim to country status. The people of N.I. largely identify with either the UK or Ireland as being their mother country. The description implies that the UK is a confederation. It is not. It is not even a federal state. It is, despite devolution, a unitary state, with one monarch, one central government and one capital.

The situation may be analogously compared to other European States such as Spain, which is (more federalised than the UK) a union of regions, some of which were also formerly countries; Castille, Aragon, Catalonia, Navarra, to name a few. The Kingdom of Spain itself was founded upon the union of the crowns of Castile and Aragon in 1469. In exactly the same way the kingdom of Great Britain was founded in 1603 upon the union of the crowns of England (with Wales) and Scotland. No difference, except that the Spain page on Wikipedia does not describe Spain as "A sovereign state consisting of three countries; Castile, Aragon and Navarre." France also consists of many former countries; Burgundy, Normandy, Brittany, Gascony etc. The same pattern can actually be consistently seen across most large States in Europe.

To still apply the status of country to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland within the UK and not to do the same with Normandy, Aragon and Bavaria is grossly inconsistent. And yet, I know that if I attempt to correct this error my edit will be scrubbed as vandalism within a matter of seconds. Bear in mind, as always, that Wikipedia is the first point of reference for knowledge for many people. To maintain such errors, whilst perhaps serving the aims of nationalists and perhaps the European Union, can warp history itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.224.245 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. The United Kingdom Government refers to the four parts as "countries" constantly and the law reflects it, so that's what Wikipedia conforms to. The version of the article you see now is the result of months of debate and research into the subject. That's all there is to it. It is highly unlikely that your objection will go anywhere. Please refer to the archived discussions. ☮KEYS767☮ ^talk 01:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The matter is not reflected in law at all, and there is no consistency in what the UK government calls these areas. --Breadandcheese (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

While the IP has quite legitamite and genuine concerns, there are plenty of sources that refer to all four parts as countries - in fact more so than those that refer to them as other things. But the archive discussions are always there to look through. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that don't refer to them as countries. Particularly NI, which is most often referred to - incorrectly I may add - as a province. Fmph (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it incorrect? Why? As can be seen in sources widely circulated on Wikipedia, the closest the law gets to providing a name for these areas is 'part [of the UK]'. Any other usages, including the relatively popular 'country', are simply by custom. There's no good reason not to call it a province, as there are verifiable sources. --Breadandcheese (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Because the etymology of the word province in this context is based around the province of Ulster, one of the 4 provinces of Ireland. NI only makes up 2/3rds of Ulster. NI is not generally seen as being a province of the UK. That's why it is incorrect. Fmph (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

On that you are incorrect, the province of Northern Ireland has nothing to do with the province of Ulster other than sharing some of the same counties. Ulster is a province of Ireland. Northern Ireland is a province of the United Kingdom. Well technically it is but most sources use country over province for some reason even though i am a proponent of province but weight over all else. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That surely can't be right! The only reason the term province is used in the context of NI is because of the four provinces of Ireland. It carried over to NI because the Unionists had been talking in terms of "Ulster" and "the province" before 1922, particularly during the Home rule crisis. It's the same reason why "Ulster" carried over to mean NI (even though 3 counties of Ulster went into the Free State). The UK doesn't have "provinces" excpt the ecclessiastical ones. DeCausa (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Its a bit narrow to just say the term is used solely because Ireland was divided into four provinces. Defintion of province going by this site: A province is a territorial unit, almost always an administrative division, within a country or state. - matches NI doesn't it, and several sources back up its use in regards to NI. Obviosuly they'd call it Ulster and a province before 1922 seeing as Ulster is a province and that part of Ireland was regionally defined as Ulster. Yes those terms no doubt carried over, probably as the unionists liked to name everything after Ulster and deep down probably still harken for the 9 counties, but it doesn't mean that Northern Ireland can't be also a province of the UK. The UK doesn't have to divide all of itself into provinces to have one. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing this seeing as i'm not proposing adding it into the article and have no intentions to? The lack of proper sources and research into the term province in regards to NI and other such things means we can't prove each other wrong, and at best we are making assumptions based on certain truths and circumstantial evidences on both ends. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Very true! DeCausa (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Terms in common use are often, in some technical senses, "incorrect". That's just the way language is. NI is not a province of the UK, and is not a province of Ireland. But, the fact is that it is often referred to as "the province". The original questioner may not be aware of the articles on Terminology of the British Isles and Countries of the United Kingdom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the original questioner based his point in part on "common use". The UK "countries" are in reality no different to many of the Spanish regions and regions of other sovereign states to which the nomenclature "country" is not applied but have the same qualities. Common usage in global English is country=Sovereign state. In the UK there is a rather self-conscious and loaded use of the word "country" in certain circumstances. Government sources can be found for its use in that way because they use it in the same loaded way for political reasons. But to most speakers of English outside of the UK it's rather baffling. And even to UK people, when "off guard" or non-nationalist (as the case may be) the answer to the question "what country are you from" is going to be UK/Britain. I've often thought that there should be a footnote in the article pointing this out - but I'm too lazy to dig up a source! DeCausa (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The frequent resurgence of this issue, here and on other pages, is the clearest possible indication that Wikipedia should avoid controversial terminology in relation to the parts of the UK; 'country' is not particularly controversial in relation to England, Wales or Scotland, but hugely so in relation to Northern Ireland. 'Region' is a fairly neutral term for Northern Ireland, but less acceptable to many in Scotland and Wales, 'province' is politically charged in NI and meaningless in relation to England, Wales and Scotland; and 'part' is probably the only term that is generally acceptable, even if it lacks precision. Brocach (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The frequent re-opening of this issue is the result of a tiny number of editors refusing to accept consensus. Period. 'Part' is entirely unacceptable. The current text is long-standing, cited and correct.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the frequent re-opening of this issue is because some editors find it an issue. Part would also be correct, if that's all that matters. I'm sure part could be cited as well. Let's not throw consensus around as a weapon. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Try this for England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland: "...constituent countries...". It would help end any confusions between those 4 & the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Chipmunkdavis...surely if it is being re-opened (and generally by passing IPs) it might indicate that "consensus" is not quite as consensual as claimed. Very often in Wikipedia a consensus is claimed because maybe a relatively small number of regular contributors agree - a dozen or so. When you think of the number of hits an article like this gets, it's quite easy to see that any consensus could dramatically change as others get involved over time. DeCausa (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Think about this.... no wording we choose will ever get unilateral consensus as someone will always find fault with province/country/constituent country/region/part or whatever we stuck in. At best we go with WP:WEIGHT of sources which means country for now, which is also the general consensus. No matter what we choose it will always be brought up again and again and all we can do is inform the user of the consensus. Just like we have to deal with Derry (city) and County Londonderry. Though on changing consensus DeCausa you need consensus for change as i've always been notified. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course. I'm just saying that the "consensus" in Wikipedia articles is established with such small numbers, it doesn't take many editors to come in or out of a group for the consensus to change. I don't think it's therefore ever appropriate to criticise the re-opening of an issue by a new contributor. DeCausa (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well said DeCausa, Breadandcheese and Fmph. This issue will not go away for so long as a small group of editors seek to perpetuate the use of non-neutral terms on the basis of a spurious 'consensus', and oppose any alternatives. Brocach (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering how long the sentence has been in the article, and how many times you have failed to get it changed, despite great persistence, I would say that the consensus is far from spurious. Please can you post some citations from reputable sources describing the UK as being composed of four 'parts', or a neutral third part source stating that the UK is composed of 'three countries and a province'. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa, the problem with IP editors who just happen to "pop in" is that there is always the chance they are a sock-puppet, and there are ways to manipulate the IP provided to Wikipedia in an edit. Though i didn't say anything about criticising a new cntributor i said inform them of consensus - just as the usual crowd like to do so to new contributors who bring up the Derry/Londonderry issue. In fact the vast majority of these IP editors only ever appear to raise the issue and then disappear while the same crowd appear to rehash old arguements. Also Brocach you've still failed to provide any source whatsoever over the past couple of months or more to back up your stance. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I would support it being changed to "constituent countries of the United Kingdom" I am not a fan of describing parts of the United Kingdom as countries, there are only really two countries on Great Britain and Ireland, and thats the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. However we do have to accept the fact "countries" is the most widely used description now for England, Wales, Scotland and NI. It should not be, but that is the case. Constituent countries would be more neutral though. One thing is for sure, if England, Wales and Scotland can be countries today Northern Ireland is too. All 4 must be called the same thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Whilst its heavily undersourced BW, there is a loophole to overcome that. Constituent can be used simply as an adjective to give context to "countries" which is heavily sourced. Thus there is technically no source problem with it, if people are willing. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to dispute that country is a widely used descriptor for NI, particularly not the MOST widely used. It may be used occasionally, but its use is not common. Province is the most common. And I have yet to see it ever used in the context of provinces of the UK. That really is a contrived context. Fmph (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom/refs begs to differ in regards to NI being called a country. Also the UK isn't divided into provinces so of course there would not be any term such as "provinces of the UK". A state can have a province without the rest of the state being divided into provinces. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that many of those are deadlinks, not one of them discusses Northern Ireland as a country out of the context of being one of 4 countries in the UK. There are no references saying that "The country of Northern Ireland is a green and pleasant land ..." or whatever. It just doesn't happen. Heres a typical quote "It must be remembered that the UK is actually four countries and that there are some differences in the education system across these four countries". Now that to me only proves that it is quite common to refer to England Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as 4 countries. Not that Northern Ireland is commonly referred to as a country. The latter is a bit synthesis. You could delete all of those references and replace them with 1, if only that one referred to NI - out of the context of 1 in 4 - as a country. And since direct rule, that won't happen anymore. Fmph (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

[Constituent country|Constituent] [Countries of the United Kingdom|countries], would be a good solution. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"'The country of Northern Ireland is a green and pleasant land ... or whatever. It just doesn't happen." Sorry to disappoint, but, as they say 'never say never'...From [19] "Northern Ireland is a country of beauty and variety..." Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"'And since direct rule, that won't happen anymore.'" - Does the fact NI doesn't have direct rule anymore, instead having a devolved assembly, mean that the opposite is true? Mabuska ^(talk) 21:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The text is fine as it is, as are the links. There are lots of verifiable references to Northern Ireland being referred to as a country in its own right. Newspapers (including The Belfast Telegraph) and politicians (including Ian McCrea (House of Commons – 12:00-12:15pm), Michael McGimpsey (House of Commons – 1:30-1:45pm), Gregory Campbell, Danny Kinahan, Alastair Ross and Lord Laird) in Northern Ireland call Northern Ireland a country. Indeed, Labour (Chris Ruane) and Lib Dem politicians (Tom McNally) and even Tories (like Kenneth Clarke) call it a country. There is no reason Northern Ireland shouldn't be called a country on Wikipedia too. Daicaregos (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The only Northern Ireland sources you give are Unionist (politicians and newspaper). Brocach's point has always been that within Northern Ireland the application of "country" is not NPOV. You appear to be supporting his point. DeCausa (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are however much better sources than the ones currently listed in Talk:Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom/refs as they actually seem to 'prove' the point in question. However, I certainly wouldn't have geographia.com at the top of my reliable sources list. Its purporting to show a previous version of the official NI Tourist Board website? Sorry, but if thats true why doesnt the current NITB site say something similar? And as DeCausa says, unionist-speak is not necessarily NPOV. But the refs ARE getting better. Now all we need is a nice piece of editorial from a major (and non-unionist) source which uses that terminology and we are nearly there. Fmph (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I know I've said this before, but the problem lies with the idea of consistency. England, Scotland and Wales are clearly, by most uses of that term, countries - although we still see that point contested here sometimes, by people who use a different definition of the word, and so its use sometimes needs to be defended here. For political reasons, to indicate consistency of approach, the UK government also refers (or at least has in the past referred) to NI as a country, despite the fact that the use of that term within NI is contentious to some. It is debatable, at least, whether the UK government can be considered as impartial in its treatment of NI, given that some consider it is (still) one party in an unresolved dispute. The use of weaselly terms like "constituent countries" or "parts" to describe all four elements of the UK is seen as pejorative and misleading, and is contentious to many in relation to Scotland, Wales and England. The problem is that there is no immediate solution that suits everyone, but so long as editors like BW make comments like "All 4 must be called the same thing", the debates here will continue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"It is a country consisting of four consituent-countries" (note the 2 pipelinks & hyphen). The it's verified country crowd get what they want & the country/country, too confusing crowd get what they want. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally something constructive in this rehash. I back it, though i backed the previous proposal of BWs which wa ssimilar. Anybody care to actually discuss these proposals rather than ignore them and focusing on the same old arguements? Mabuska ^(talk) 00:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added a hyphen, for those concerned with the appearance being constituent countries. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a Canadian-style-issue, which is irrelevant-to-everyone-else. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't bother commenting when GoodDay suggested that earlier, but since he is repeating it I suppose I better make clear my opposition on a number of grounds. Firstly it is poor English to have a phrase '..consisting of four constituent..' for obvious reasons. However, the main issue to my mind is that the sources overwhelmingly use the phrase 'country' and not 'constituent country' so to change to the suggested phrase would be nothing less than to allow an article to be changed to satify political objections. That is not how Wikipedia operates. The existing wording should remain irrespective of how often the vocal minority keep raising their objections. Cheers, and goodnight! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've pipelinked to both articles Constituent country (which accurately describes England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales - in relation to the United Kingdom) & Countries of the United Kingdom which has those reliable sources you've mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe this generates so much discussion everytime it is brought up! How hard is it to refer IPs to a past discussion? Outback the koala (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We went through all of this at considerable length several years ago. For the record it was not a few editors agreeing a consensus, it was a mediated process over a period of time and was determined by a citation table. The idea of that process was to prevent this coming up again and again and again. Constituent country and a pipelink was rejected at that time from the options. It is more than open for editors to raise the question again, but they have to deal with the previous evidence base and process. I don't see anything new here from those previous discussions. Now when we settled that the position of Northern Ireland was weaker than Wales, Scotland and England. However we went through a whole process on that last year and modified the wording on that article. --Snowded ^TALK 08:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and this site, which has been given weight previously, is now an archive rather than a current statement of government position. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That source which was on the Downing Street website was the main source that i accepted justified the use of just countries, it is an important fact that it is now just an archive page yes. This issue does come up often, i think "constituent country" is the most reasonable compromise that takes into account both sides views. All 4 are still called countries, which is what some above feel strongly about, but they are given a qualification to avoid confusion or misleading people.BritishWatcher (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm personally happy to accept the current imperfect status quo in order to avoid disruption. Fmph (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm prepared to regard it as the least worst option, while recognising that Brocach and (some) others make perfectly valid points. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but they it is beholden on those who want to make a change to do their research. This is especially true where the previous consensus came from a lengthly mediated process. It is very clear that they are countries within the UK, adding "constituent" is unnecessary and is not supported by any real body of references. The Downing Street reference was just one of many discovered at the time and has not been repudiated in any way. I find it very difficult to believe that the weight of citations would not still support the use of "country", but if people really want to put the effort in and repeat the whole process I suppose we have to be open to it. However we have a stable position that has stood the test of time for several years and both accurate and supported by citation. There are better things to be working on than this --Snowded ^TALK 10:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion: wouldn't it be best to come clean with this rather than trying to pretend in the article that there is one "correct" answer, an immutable "truth". The reality is the term "country" is loaded. If it weren't, it wouldn't be such a subject of comment here. Stepping back, it seems disingenuous to have such a discussion here (and indeed, the earlier debate that generated the table of sources) and then pretend in the article that this is the only way that the description can be. So, my suggestion would be to leave the text as is or make it "constituent countries" or whatever the consensus is/was, but have a footnote explaining the debate and the alternatives. I think it's actually misleading to do otherwise. This is supposed to be about conveying knowledge, lest we forget. (Btw, I think to recognise the differences of opinion in a footnote would reduce the likelihood of people "continually" raising the issue, which seems to irritate some of you.) DeCausa (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Since we carried out the major exercise a few years ago it doesn't come up very often, and its nearly always SP IPAs when it does. The term "country" is only loaded if you take the view that country means sovereign state which it doesn't. --Snowded ^TALK 10:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That's your opnion, and entirely reasonable one at that supported by sources, and maybe even the most common opinion. But it's not the only reasonable opinion supported by sources. ("It doesn't"!!) DeCausa (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well its a simple fact that the definition of "country" does not require sovereign state status. I really don't see why we pander to IP disruption on this topic.--Snowded ^TALK 10:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a simple fact. It's a complicated nuanced fact. DeCausa (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Then make sure the complicated nuances are clear at the country article and allow the pipe link to handle it. We might also want to split out the Northern Ireland issue, which is different from the other three. --Snowded ^TALK 10:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Chicken and egg! The "non-sovereign" country issue is really just limited to the UK. The article says no other instances exist anymore! DeCausa (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure it is accurate on that but it might be, the UK is unique constitutionally. Whatever you suggestion of a footnote has merit, my suggestion is that the material is best handled in the country article and the pipelink then deals with it. --Snowded ^TALK 11:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that UK is unique constitutionally. In any case, this is nothing to do with the constitution, since use of the term "country" doesn't hinge upon any particular the consitutional arrangements. This is about a peculiarity of UK nomenclature - hence the footnote proposal for this article. DeCausa (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think thats a very good suggestion. I wonder was this raised and discarded during the original discussions? If not, then I think it might really help to reduce further disruption. Fmph (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A simple footnote giving a brief detailing of the contradicting terms that NI and company are known by would be a good idea for added clarification, along with a link to Talk:Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom/refs. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I fail to understand the resistance to using constituent as a descriptive. Constituent country, is a term used to describe a country within a country. Is that not what England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are, countries within a country? The usage of the discriptive constituent, doesn't diminish E/S/NI/W's status in anyway. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If I tell you that England is a country within a country within the United Kingdom would that make any sense? That is what you are suggesting by using the term constituent country. England is a country within the UK tells us all we need to know. Carson101 (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This article says (accurately) that the United Kingdom is a country, too. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)".

I don't understand Carson's argument. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chip and GoodDay. Outback the koala (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he's trying to say that "constituent" is redundant because "constituent" effectively equals "within" in the phrase "constituent country within the United Kingdom" and it is therefore the same as saying "a country within a country within the United Kingdom". (I think!) But that's not the phrase. The proposed phrase is "constituent country of the United Kingdom" and I don't think there's any redundancy there. DeCausa (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"constituent countries of the United Kingdom" is good enough, though a footnote would be good as well. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It currently says that the "UK consists of" which makes it very clear that the countries are a part of the UK so I think Carsen has the right of it in terms of English. Also there are few references to support the phrase "constituent country" while there are many that say county, hence the determination by weight last time in what was an exhasutive process. To GoodDay's question one could equally question why we get this intermittent desire to insert a word that adds nothing normally initiated by IPs. Reading through the above there seems little opposition to a footnote which may therefore represent a sensible way forward. Personally I would prefer to clarify the country article with any footnote text rather than a footnote as I think it would be more likely to be read and help the project overall. However that can be determined later, maybe those advocating the need can draft something. --Snowded ^TALK 08:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I'm sure Snowded means that there are many that say COUNTRY, not county. Fmph (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

oops --Snowded ^TALK 10:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a go later today (unless someone else wants to). DeCausa (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Country" Note

DeCausa's Proposal

How about this:

"A country is usually considered to be a sovereign state (or, more broadly, the term is indicative of the autonomous nature of a territory's government: see for example, The Oxford English Dictionary definition of "country"). The United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country. However, by convention, England, Scotland and Wales have historically also been referred to as countries regardless of their constitutional arrangements. For this reason, the British Prime Minister's website has, in the past, used the phrase "countries within a country" to describe the United Kingdom. With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences" (J. Whyte and G. FitzGerald, 1991, Interpreting Northern Ireland, Oxford University Press: Oxford). Describing Northern Ireland as a country may be viewed as antithetical to an Irish nationalist position. (For example, the Sinn Fein website describes the island of Ireland as "a single national unit".) The British government (as in the Prime Minister's website) and other sources, for reasons of parity with the rest of the UK, often refer to Northern Ireland as a "country" but others prefer terms such as "region" or "province". For further information see Country, Terminology of the British Isles and Constituent country#United Kingdom."

The statement on Irish Nationalism could be taken as synthesis, but I would argue it's WP:DUCK. DeCausa (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Rangoon's Proposal

In my view the position of the UK Government should come before that of Irish nationalists, and quoting the web site of Sinn Fein - until fairly recently the political wing of a terrorist group - is completely unacceptable to me, as well as unnecessary. I would propose to tweak the text as follows:

"A country is usually considered to be a sovereign state (or, more broadly, the term is indicative of the autonomous nature of a territory's government: see for example, The Oxford English Dictionary definition of "country"). The United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country. However, by convention England, Scotland and Wales have historically always been referred to as countries regardless of their precise constitutional arrangements. The British government (as in the Prime Minister's website) and other sources, often refer to Northern Ireland as a "country" to reflect its existence as a parallel entity to England, Scotland and Wales. For further information see Country, Terminology of the British Isles and Constituent country#United Kingdom." For this reason, the British Prime Minister's website has, in the past, used the phrase "countries within a country" to describe the United Kingdom. With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive of "country" "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences" and terms such as "region" or "province" are preferred by Irish nationalists. (J. Whyte and G. FitzGerald, 1991, Interpreting Northern Ireland, Oxford University Press: Oxford). Rangoon11 (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the first reads better, the second starts to introduce too many qualifications. I am neutral on the inclusion of the Sinn Fein quote --Snowded ^TALK 04:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The British government, on the PM's website, does not currently describe NI as a country. It used to, but the current site does not. The page linked to is an archive of an old page, not the current site. Please read my earlier posts about this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Rangoon's tweaks are factually inaccurate in 3 respects. (1) As Ghmyrtle says, the PM's website no longer says this. In my version I had made that clear. The change in order makes it less clear in this version. (2) Nationalists don't prefer "province", it tends to be more a Unionist phrase. In fact, tradionally, nationalists tradionally have tended to avoid any term that gives legitimacy to NI as an entity. It adds too much complication to say what nationalists prefer, which is why I avoided that in my version. (3)introduction of the word "precise" into "been referred to as countries regardless of their constitutional arrangements" is incorrect. It is completely irrelevant to the constitutional arrangements. Wales and Scotland have each been at various times some or all of the following: independent, conquered annexure, in a personal union with England, in a unitary state with no locally devolved powers, in a unitary state with a dedicated Secretary of State and in a unitary state with a govt. with devolved powers, but called "countries" throughout. Constitutional arrangements are utterly irrelevant.

Secondly, Rangoon's dislike of Sinn Fein is irrelevant and not a NPOV reason to remove the quote. I believe it's necessary to provide some sourcing as to why country is antithetical to Irish nationalism. The Sinn Fein quote is a succinct summary of the nationalist position. If you take it out, you'll have to find and include another example to source the assertion. As the largest NI nationalist party, I would suggest that Sinn Fein is a highly relevant source.

Thirdly, as a matter of style I don't like the phrase "a parallel entity". It sounds like something something out of a sci fi movie. I prefer my phrase of "parity" and not quite sure what would be wrong with that.

For these reasons, I prefer my version. DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that The Oxford English Dictionary definition of "country" does not use the term sovereign state. Daicaregos (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That is why it is noy used as a source for that statement: "more broadly, the term is indicative of the autonomous nature of a territory's government: see for example, The Oxford English Dictionary definition of "country"" DeCausa (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle's Proposal

I have reservations about both suggestions. How about something like:

"The United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country. Although England, Scotland and Wales are not sovereign states, they are also known conventionally as countries, particularly within the UK. The British Prime Minister's website has, in the past, used the phrase "countries within a country" to describe the United Kingdom. However, with regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences" (J. Whyte and G. FitzGerald, 1991, Interpreting Northern Ireland, Oxford University Press: Oxford). The use of the word "country" to describe Northern Ireland is not generally supported within Ireland. Although some UK sites refer to Northern Ireland as a "country", so according it equal official status with Wales, Scotland and England, the terms "part" (as in "the four parts of the UK"), "region" and "province" are also sometimes used, depending on context and political position. For further information see Country, Terminology of the British Isles and Constituent country#United Kingdom."

Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest it should begin: "The United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country. Although England, Scotland and Wales are not sovereign states, they are also countries and are usually known by that term, particularly within the UK." I am quite comfortable with the rest of your text. Daicaregos (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Both versions rather defeat a major reason for having the note. What needs to be said, IMHO, (and paraphrasing my original version) is that Country usually has got something to do with a territory having its own autononmous government (that's the reason for the OED quote and is consistent with the opening of the Country article). England, Wales and Scotland are exceptions to this, but it doesn't matter (and it doesn't matter why) because by convention they're still called countries.

Using phrases like "they are also countries" is unhelpful, because it just opens up the question to the reader "well, what is a country then?". (and before you say it, despite its intent, you don't get the answer from the countryarticle - it's just a summation of which territories that are conventionally called countries). Think of a non-UK reader, whose first language perhaps isn't English. He's probably using the word "country" to mean state. When he reads the article text about countries within a country, I think there is going to be a WTF reaction. All that needs to be got across is yes, that's the usual meaning but this is a specific case where convention calls these places countries as well. That's it - anything else just opens up a can of worms.

On GHMyrtle's version,if we are prepared to say this (which is unsourced anyway):

"The use of the word "country" to describe Northern Ireland is not generally supported within Ireland. Although some UK sites refer to Northern Ireland as a "country", so according it equal official status with Wales, Scotland and England, the terms "part" (as in "the four parts of the UK"), "region" and "province" are also sometimes used, depending on context and political position"

then this is more or less Brocach's position and we should be changing the text in the article accordingly not putting it in a footnote. I worded my proposal to stick to the source we had, be consistent with the article text and give some explanation of why the article text is as it is. DeCausa (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska's 1st Proposal

Might i point out that DeCausa may be canvassing at Brocach's talk page, especially seeing as they haven't informed any other editor of these proposals.

Too much waffle in them proposals, and in regards to DeCausa's first proposal, it contains too much synthesis backed up by original research and other needless or deflecting words such as "historically" - if it was historically we wouldn't have this problem. Here's a slim-lined proposal avoiding most of these problems:

"A country is usually considered to be a sovereign state. The United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country. However, by convention, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are also referred by some to be countries regardless of their constitutional arrangements. The British Prime Minister's website has, in the past, used the phrase "countries within a country" to describe the United Kingdom. With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences" (J. Whyte and G. FitzGerald, 1991, Interpreting Northern Ireland, Oxford University Press: Oxford). Other terms used in regards to Northern Ireland include "province", "region" (add any others). For further information see Country, Terminology of the British Isles and Constituent country#United Kingdom."

Far far simpler with less synthesis and more to the point. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I Like it - best version! (Caught red handed on Brocach! - (here's my reply) DeCausa (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hope my criticisms didn't sound harsh, but it did contain a lot of synthesis that would need backing up. My proposal cuts out any wording that can't easily sourced and keeps it as simple as we can make it so that we don't bamboozle an reader. Maybe we could also provide them a link to the refs so they can check them out, say maybe add this "See references for a list of sources for each definition used." to the end of it? Mabuska ^(talk) 12:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Mabuska's draft. I think that some of the comments about my revised draft above were a little unfair but I agree that the simpler, shorter version does the job better. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do we need "regardless of their constitutional arrangements"? Support Mabuska. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we do - I think it muddies the waters if there's any suggestion that the existence of devolved governmental structures has any bearingDeCausa (talk)

While I agree that a sovereign state is usually considered to be a country, I do not agree that "A country is usually considered to be a sovereign state.” Nor do I agree that the countries comprising the UK are only referred “by some” to be countries “by convention”. They are referred to as countries. It isn't as if we are short of sources to show they are referred to as countries either. Can of worms or not, the statement must be accurate. Daicaregos (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there should be no problem taking out the "some". There are enough sources to indicate it is more than "some". I think it it is difficult for you to refute the statement that "a country is usually considered to be a sovereign state". That's the basis of the Country article. In shere terms of numbers, the examples of non-state "countries" are extremely limited compared to states, (and some are questionable but I won't go into that now). I think that the words "by convention" are essential to the explanation. The underlying point is that there is no generally accepted definition of country. We cannot therefore abstractly define a country. All we know is that some territories are habitually referred to as countries and some are not - that's "by convention". To give an example, in the English language, what makes Wales a country but Catalunya not? It's only custom and practice. DeCausa (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Catalonia is a country! Didn't you know? ;) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

shhh DeCausa (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How we laughed. Anyway, back to the grown ups. Wikipedia should not be a source for itself (per WP:CIRCULAR). As for the shere terms of numbers argument: that is as good an example of synthesis as I can imagine (i.e. the vast majority of animals are invertibrates, therefore animals are usually referred to as invertibrates).

False analogy. There is a generally accepted definition of "animal". I wasn't using WP as a source, but please point out what that article has got wrong exactly. What is a country? DeCausa (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

False analogy or not, it is still synthesis. Improvements to other articles should be discussed at their Talkpages. Wales is a country. Daicaregos (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this particular line of discussion is going anywhere. Let's see what others have to say about Mabuska's version. DeCausa (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska's 2nd Proposal

The "regardless of their constitutional arrangements" is required in it as it makes it clear that though they may be referred to as a country, they may in technicality not be an actual country. We could chop out the first sentence as superfluous. Here is an amended version of my version of the proposal. I also added in that link to the references. Should we state "by many" instead of "some" seeing as the references have heavy weight towards "many"? Or just have no words between "referred to ... as countries"?

"The United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country. However, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are also referred to as countries regardless of their constitutional arrangements. The British Prime Minister's website has, in the past, used the phrase "countries within a country" to describe the United Kingdom. With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences" (J. Whyte and G. FitzGerald, 1991, Interpreting Northern Ireland, Oxford University Press: Oxford). Other terms used in regards to Northern Ireland include "province" and "region". For further information see Country, Terminology of the British Isles and Constituent country#United Kingdom. See references for a list of sources for each definition used."

More suitable? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said earlier I strongly prefer your first version (although I don't have a problem with changing "also referred by some to be countries" to "also referred to as countries". DeCausa (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I know you do, but we have to find a good overall consensus. If Daiceragos can accept this version which isn't that much different, then its all the stronger. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Daiceragos' rejection of your first version of greater weight than my rejection of your second version? Four of us wer happy with your first version only dai objected. DeCausa (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Either version is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to work with Mabuska's version here but make the language more neutral. To make the thread clear I have struck through original text and show additions in italics

"~~A country is usually considered to be a sovereign state.~~ The United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country. However England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are also countries although they are not sovereign states ~~referred by some to be countries regardless of their constitutional arrangements~~. The British Prime Minister's website has, in the past, used the phrase "countries within a country" to describe the United Kingdom. With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences" (J. Whyte and G. FitzGerald, 1991, Interpreting Northern Ireland, Oxford University Press: Oxford). Other terms used in regards to Northern Ireland include "province", "region" (add any others). For further information see Country, Terminology of the British Isles and Constituent country#United Kingdom."

How about that? --Snowded ^TALK 19:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's even worse. Apart from the NI element, it explains nothing. To my hypothetical non-UK non-English-as-a-first-language speaker who assumes country = sovereign state, what does it add to the article text? I can see that there is intense concern from some about diminishing the significance of the "country" lable. If this is a can of worms you just don't want to open, well let's not pretend: just limit it to being a note about NI and delete the first three sentences. DeCausa (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I thought your first version was better, so I am happy to go back to it. --Snowded ^TALK 20:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? Out of interest why do you prefer that to Mabuska's first version? DeCausa (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it explains the issue generally in neutral language and an informative way . Just having a footnote about Northern Ireland is another alternative. That said I think you should take that text to the country article and expand it, which would benefit wikipedia overall and we can then pipelink the use. --Snowded ^TALK 20:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I should apologize to you for over-the stepping the mark in my comment on your version above. DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but not needed. When an editor puts in the work you do and is open to argument best to have plain speaking. SPA and time wasters are a different matter! --Snowded ^TALK 21:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm coming to the conclusion that a footnote solely about NI would be simplest and best. The last three sentences of Mabuska's (or Snowded's) draft would do it, although I'd like to see the wording "the four parts of the UK" mentioned as one that is in use. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you have a point. If we go back to the original mediated solution it was for England, Scotland and Wales and then Northern Ireland was included. Its also where there has been controversy since and the Northern Ireland article was altered while the other articles have been stable. The controversy here does relate to the outcome of the Good Friday Agreement and the Irish constitutional change which was a part of that. The recent nature of that affects the references. The nature of devolution meant that it was always going to be the case that similar language would be used for Northern Ireland (hence I think the PM web site), but it is mixed in response and use. --Snowded ^TALK 08:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is it important to mention that England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland are countries, provinces or whatever? They make up the United Kingdom, period. Let their respective articles handle their discriptives. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with Mabuska's original para, with one change (which some may see as pedantic, but I think its essential). The link to the PM website archive, should be from the words in the past, and not from the words 'British Prime Minister's website'. Fmph (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I would go along with Mabuska's original but I would prefer to leave out the 1991 quote, which predates the Irish Republic's formal repudiation of its previous constitutional claim on the whole island of Ireland. As a result of that change (which means the UK and the ROI are no longer fighting over NI), does it not become more justifiable to claim that Northern Ireland is a country, or at least a piece of territory somewhat more on a par with the other bits of the UK? -- Alarics (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the change in the Republic's formal claim really makes a difference. It doesn't mean that a "united Ireland" is no longer an aspiration of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael etc. Also, it still a basic tenet of Irish nationalism is a "single national unit", which is subscribed to by NI's largest nationalist party (and probably all NI's nationalists) DeCausa (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

@ DeCausa - "Is Daiceragos' rejection of your first version of greater weight than my rejection of your second version? Four of us wer happy with your first version only dai objected. "

No your views are of equal weight, however you stated you strongly prefer, you didn't state you rejected the 2nd one and you even stated you didn't have a problem changing one part of it so i didn't take it as a rejection. It was only a proposal anyways, both of them are there for people to like or dislike or blend. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay's proposal

NOTE: This proposal is to change article text, not the footnote

Keep it simple: "The United Kingdom is a country which consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the approach taken by Britannica. But I'm not sure why you're proposing it, I would have thought it must be pretty clear to you that it would have no hope of acceptance. DeCausa (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Its never stopped GoodDay from repetitious posting before, why should it now? --Snowded ^TALK 07:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It is simple and avoids what we call each part of the UK which is a way to avoid the whole problem altogether. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It works for me. I've read the above proposals and some of them are the most alarming gobbledegook. --Pete (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

To the editors who 'oppose' my proposal, are you all claiming that the UK does not consist of England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to read what the objections to this proposal are as well. I think some editors want to ensure that their part of the UK is explicitly stated as being a country from the offset. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going to put myself down as a "for" for this because it accords with my POV. But actually, having thought about it, that would be a mistake. The fact is that England, Scotland, and Wales are (almost uniquely amongst non-states) referred to as countries and the sources back that up. I think instead it is incumbent on us to (a) recognize it (b) but explain it i.e. one of the other options. It would be as much of a mistake, however, to have (a) without (b). DeCausa (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The discriptives of NI/enwiki/w/S/E, should be handled in their respective articles. GoodDay (talk)

That is true seeing as this article is on about the UK. This whole note thing might be better for the Countries of the UK article. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that this is the article with the high volume views and where the phrase is prominently used. DeCausa (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

My proposal doesn't make any claims or denials. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an NPOV matter, as the question of what, precisely, to call the constituent parts of the UK is one with several good views. To a large extent it depends on the definition of "nation", "country", "province" and so on. If we accept that the UK article is a summary of the several ESWNI articles in the same way that an article lead is a summary of the article, I don't think we need go into too much detail. If we do, we confuse the readers. I like GoodDay's phrasing here, but note that the matter should be addressed somewhere, as there seem to be good sources for differing views. --Pete (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay's proposal would confuse rather than inform. It leads readers to think along the lines of "The article says UK is a country - it doesn't say that England etc. are. So, they can't be. So, I need to change all the articles that say or claim they are." That is GD's often-stated agenda, and no-one should be in any doubt that that is the intention of his proposal. Unfortunately, WP:AGF is stretched to breaking point with that editor's contributions. The opportunity should be taken in the footnote here to clarify, rather than obfuscate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I highly disagree with you Ghmyrtle. How exactly does it confuse more? It doesn't state what England etc. are which means that they can be anything. It doesn't deny that they can be a country too. It doesn't state that.Rather it allows for a scope in articles or sections to detail what they are or are referred to as in other places more appropriate. I find that a strange reason against it. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought that the point of this discussion was to find a way of clarifying the position. GD's suggestion doesn't do that in any way - by omitting any clarification, it leaves the issue open to misinterpretation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mabuska here and disagree with Ghmyrtle. The only thing that is indubitably true is that the UK is a country. What you call its four constituent parts (all of which are different from each other in status) is entirely a matter of opinion. -- Alarics (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of different sources using different terms, and many (most?) of them using the word "country" which can cause confusion. If we are not prepared to clarify the position in this article, we may as well abandon attempts to do so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a need for such a declaration Ghmyrtle? This is the UK article afterall, the country in focus. We shouldn't have to explain what each part of it is from the very start or even in this section. The UK consists of E/enwiki/w/NI/S, its simple and all that is needed in the lede which is meant to be a summary of the article. We could still add a note that points the reader to the sources used for all the terms and they can make up their mind themselves. We could even still add the proposed notes from above. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a need to be helpful rather than unhelpful - that's why we're here isn't it? GD's proposal would state, correctly, that the UK is a country, but it would not state that E/enwiki/w/S, and often NI, are also countries. So it is not neutral - it favours a position (held by GD in multiple postings) which considers that those countries are not really countries at all - which is incorrect. We should not be actively unhelpful here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Let such details be elaborated at England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Nobody can deny, that the UK consists of E/S/enwiki/w/NI. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Wanna bet? ;-) Fmph (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Ghmyrtle. Not stating what they are does not imply what they are or aren't either way. It leaves it completely non-judgemental. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

...and completely unhelpful to readers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the "country" label is very helpful to readers. To be described as a "country" doesn't really mean much because there's no generally accepted meaning for the word. DeCausa (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If you agree that the country "label" means nothing (or not really much), why would you suggest a change of the article text so it begins "The United Kingdom is a country which ... "? How would it improve this article? Daicaregos (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That is inane. Even for you, GoodDay. Please answer the question without being a Dick. Daicaregos (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Take you hatred of me, elswhere. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Just answer the question, please. It is perfectly reasonable. Daicaregos (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll let others answer you, because you're only trying to bait me. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you not understand the question? I'll try to help. You agreed with DeCausa's statement here ("I'm not sure that the "country" label is very helpful to readers. To be described as a "country" doesn't really mean much because there's no generally accepted meaning for the word."). Yet you suggest here that the article text is changed to "The United Kingdom is a country which consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". Your suggestion is that the article be changed to include a description that you agree means nothing (or not really much). How would that help improve the article? Not baiting, but a legitimate question on your proposal. Daicaregos (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, I don't think saying "the United Kingdom is a country..." adds anything either. Britannica makes do with "The United Kingdom comprises the whole of the island of Great Britain—which contains England, Wales, and Scotland—as well as the northern portion of the island of Ireland." Northern Ireland doesn't even get a name-check at this point, let alone get called a country! DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This is for those who decry Wikipedia and instead hail Britannica as the Holy Tome of Encyclopedias. The most northern portion of Ireland happens to be the county of Donegal which is in the Irish Republic! So much for Britannica!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

See my comment below.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My proposal has the United Kingdom mentioned as a country (which is undisputable), because this article is about the UK. If 'country' is removed as a descriptive for the UK aswell, I won't protest. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal still uses the word 'country' as a description. Please explain why would you want to describe the United Kingdom as something you agree means nothing (or not really much). As to the amended proposal: the resulting text of would be "The United Kingdom is a which consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland" . This doesn't appear to have been given sufficient consideration. Please let me know it I have misunderstood.

Without 'country' one naturally would have "The United Kingdom consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". GoodDay (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you oppose having the United Kingdom described as a country? GoodDay (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well if Ghmyrtle read my suggestion to add to GoodDays proposal, it would be helping. I suggested we could still add in the footnote even to GoodDays proposal. Is that not helpful? Or was is ust glossed over? Mabuska ^(talk) 00:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Its not clear what you propose to add to GoodDays proposal, would you mark the diff or repeat? --Snowded ^TALK 05:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What am I supposed to have read? If you want me to do something, specifically, you'd be better off writing on my user talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: It's a shame we can't (shouldn't) use the Britannica wording (changing "..the northern portion of the island of Ireland" to "..the north-eastern portion.." or "...part..") as it has the big advantage of not using the word "country" to describe either the UK or any of its "parts", thus neatly sidestepping most of the arguments on this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be kinda strange not to use 'country' as the United Kingdom's descriptive, as this article is about the United Kingdom. Particularly, when we use 'country' for E/enwiki/w/S/NI in their respective articles. Hiding the 'c-word' for the UK on those articles & also here? Anyways, just an observation. GoodDay (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We are discussing the introductory paragraph of this article. Constitutional or administrative arrangements would be discussed in the main text of this and other articles. Use of the word "country" may be a burning issue for some WP editors, but its inclusion is not a necessary prerequisite for any article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I won't loose any sleep over its total exclusion. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Britannica entry shouldn't be used in that kind of format. It hardly appears to be objective and neutral when it doesn't even state Northern Ireland in it. Sinn Fein would use that kind of wording, or maybe with Six Counties, or Occupied Counties maybe. If we are to stick to neutral wording as Snowded kept stating above, Northern Ireland would have to be explicitly stated.

Also Ghmyrtle it looks like you would be absolutely willing to accept GoodDays proposal if we drop the "country" bit altogether as you state its not a "necessary prerequisite for any article", and suggest something that is essentially the same as GoodDays in general. GoodDay even stated above he won't protest if we drop the country bit from his proposal. So why oh why are you still argueing over it??? Your suggestion and his minus the country bit are technically the EXACT same!

For Snowded and Ghymrtle as asked:

“

Is there a need for such a declaration Ghmyrtle? This is the UK article afterall, the country in focus. We shouldn't have to explain what each part of it is from the very start or even in this section. The UK consists of E/enwiki/w/NI/S, its simple and all that is needed in the lede which is meant to be a summary of the article. We could still add a note that points the reader to the sources used for all the terms and they can make up their mind themselves. We could even still add the proposed notes from above. Mabuska (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

”

Mabuska ^(talk) 11:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. As I understand it, what you and GoodDay are now suggesting is to delete the second sentence of the second paragraph of the introduction ("It is a country consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.") and replace it with "It consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." (There is no need to use the words "United Kingdom" in consecutive sentences, and the order E/S/enwiki/w/NI is in strict order of size and follows widespread convention.) Is that the proposal? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer alphabetical order but thats a non-issue. But yes that is a proposal. I still support my proposal and GoodDay's original proposal but can accept this amended version if it gets general consensus. I'm flexible. GoodDay has stated we don't need the "country" bit, and you have stated the same. Thus we have scope for common ground between you both on this proposal. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

When you write "my proposal" I'm not clear which proposal you mean. You have two proposals for footnotes, but isn't that separate from the question of revising the article text itself? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The problem of having them both stuck in here. Can you comment on the answer to your question? Mabuska ^(talk) 13:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Replacing "It is a country consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales." with "It consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." is OK to me. ~~(Note for clarity: that is not the same as the "GoodDay tweaked" proposal in the table below, to which I'm opposed.)~~ (Apparently, it is.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats it, AGF out the window. At first Ghmyrtle i thought you where being nit-picky, now i think your just being totally and on purposely unhelpful and possibly disruptive to this whole discussion. How on Earth is the tweaked one below to change it to: "It consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." which is your wording any different from "It consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." which you redeclare????

It could hardly be the fact i say we could still add a note, which if you didn't notice appears to be a done deal no matter if the article wording is changed or not. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Belatedly, I think I see what's happened here. When I hover over the words "GoodDay tweaked" in the table below, the pop-up comes up with the wording "It is a country consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales." That wording is not acceptable. The wording "It consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." is OK. Sorry for the confusion - but the wikilink to the words "GoodDay tweaked" needs to be changed because it's wrong. Sorry, but not wholly my fault. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you not follow through the link to read the entire post? If not i'm sorry for getting a bit angered, but you should really read the whole of something before making a decision on anything. However i did state: So here we replace the second sentence of the second paragraph: "It is a country consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales." - i don't state replace it with, i say replace the second statement which i then provide for all to see. But will amend in case anyone else is basing their opinion on pop-ups which they shouldn't. That is hardly my fault. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Serious Question

I'm beginning to think maybe GDs proposal is NOT for a footnote, but tather for a change to the main article text. Is that correct? I'm afraid it isn't clear. For me, it would be rather silly to have GDs contribution as a footnote, because it is very stark and doesn't explain anything. But actually now I feel that most contributors feel it should be a change to the article text. If so, then I fear I (and DeCausa) have confused matters even more by conflating it into this discussion about footnote wordings. Perhaps it needs to live elsewhere? @GoodDay, can you clarify pls? Fmph (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a footnote it is a change of text. It wasn't in the list of options I put up - GoodDay put it in himself. It probably needs to made clear. I'll do that in the sub-section header. I think it can stay as an option here because if it were adopted it takes away the need for a footnote (I think)DeCausa (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If its not a footnote, I think it is very confusing to be considering it under #Country note Fmph (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably for GoodDay to respond rather than me. (Could change the header to "Country" note/article text change if that helps). DeCausa (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's for changing the main article text. Sorry folks, for not clarifying that earlier. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Was it not a bit obvious it wasn't for a footnote lol? Mabuska ^(talk) 00:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

~Doh! When I eventually twigged, yes. Up to then, I just thought he was being his usual obscure self. It made no sense to me at all. Eventually the penny dropped. Fmph (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

GoodDays Proposal tweaked

Due to some controversy over using the term "country" in GoodDays proposal, i'm putting forward a tweaked version of his (Ghmyrtle's wording of it) going by his and Ghmrytles discussion. GoodDay won't protest if country is dropped. Ghmrytle doesn't feel the need for country. Both have suggested similar things, and both appear happy to avoid using country. So here we replace the second sentence of the second paragraph which currently states: "It is a country consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales." with the following amended text "It consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.".

Just to make clear, this is for replacing the second sentence of the second paragraph, the source of this whole issue.

It avoids the whole issue of what they are, however a note can still be added if desired to furhter inform the reader of the terms used. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to note Ghmyrtle came up with the wording being proposed here: "It consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." - and even reiterates he favours this wording however doesn't accept this tweaked proposal despite the fact it is using the exact wording he used and backed!

The only difference is i mention a note, which appears to be a done deal in everything but what it exactly states. So whats Ghmyrtles real reasons for objecting to it? Who knows. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Cock-up on the pop-up front. That's all. WP:AGF still rules. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Statement retracted and striked. Though how could you think that i'd suggest replacing what is there with what is already there!?! lol. So do you now agree with this proposal? Mabuska ^(talk) 16:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Life indeed confuses the best of us sometimes. Yes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Fmph

This footnote proposal is just some very slight tweaks of Mabuska1

"A country is usually considered to be a sovereign state. The United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country. However, by convention, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are also referred to as countries regardless of their constitutional arrangements. The British Prime Minister's website has, in the past, used the phrase "countries within a country" to describe the United Kingdom. With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences" (J. Whyte and G. FitzGerald, 1991, Interpreting Northern Ireland, Oxford University Press: Oxford). Other terms used in regards to Northern Ireland include "province", "region" (add any others). For further information see Country, Terminology of the British Isles and Constituent country#United Kingdom."

That removes "... by some ...", and moves the BPM link to the words "... in the past ..." . Whaddya think? Fmph (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being nitpicky, but I wish there was a way to combine "A country is usually considered to be a sovereign state" with "The United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country". Since I support both of Mabuska's proposals, I won't be too fussy about this. GoodDay (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"has" is very clear, adding in "in the past" is unnecessary and seems to imply some lack of credibility. Without that its fine --Snowded ^TALK 07:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it does exactly what it says on the tin. The quoted usage does not currently exist on the website, and therefore there is a certain lack of credence associated with it. But its minor. I think you're nit-picking now. Fmph (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Nit picking to introduce it in my view and your "lack of credence" statement says it all; its clearly an attempt to denigrate the statement by unnecessary qualification. Better to get rid of the whole sentence as its not necessary anyway, country is supported by the vast majority sources. Take that out and you are more or less back to the NI only qualification that has been proposed and remains a sensible route forward --Snowded ^TALK 11:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Can we delete the words "by convention"? Also, I know that E/NI/S/W is alphabetical, but the conventional order (which also gives less prominence to NI, the main bone of contention), is E/S/enwiki/w/NI, that is in order of size. I would have previously supported "in the past", but given the Census form I think there is a case not to include those words now. On style grounds I'd prefer "irrespective" rather than "regardless" (but that, I admit, may be a trifle nit-picky). Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence "A country is usually considered to be a sovereign state." is unnecessary, as this article is about the United Kingdom, rather than country. With the other tweeks that would give:

"The United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country. However, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also referred to as countries, irrespective of their constitutional arrangements. The British Prime Minister's website has used the phrase "countries within a country" to describe the United Kingdom. With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences" (J. Whyte and G. FitzGerald, 1991, Interpreting Northern Ireland, Oxford University Press: Oxford). Other terms used in regards to Northern Ireland include "province", "region" (add any others). For further information see Country, Terminology of the British Isles and Constituent country." Daicaregos (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! ...except that it's "tweaks", not "tweeks". :-) (PS: don't wait for me - I'm offline for the next few hours.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

OK with me --Snowded ^TALK 12:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately "has" is now redundant. With the 2011 census forms stating Northern Ireland as a choice for country of birth, essentially a government department has made it clear NI is still regarded as a country. This proposal thus would need re-wording to show that. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Dai

Quite so. I suggest adding the sentence "and were described as countries on the 2011 United Kingdom Census." before the sentence on the Prime Minister's website. I also suggest the phrase 'referred to' in the second sentence be pipelinked thus: referred to. That would give us:

"The United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country. However, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also referred to as countries, irrespective of their constitutional arrangements, and were described as countries on the 2011 United Kingdom Census. The British Prime Minister's website has used the phrase "countries within a country" to describe the United Kingdom. With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences" (J. Whyte and G. FitzGerald, 1991, Interpreting Northern Ireland, Oxford University Press: Oxford). Other terms used in regards to Northern Ireland include "province", "region" (add any others). For further information see Country, Terminology of the British Isles and Constituent country." Daicaregos (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. GoodDay's suggestions below are irrelevant, as (obviously) no-one has suggested that the word "country" is "always" used for anywhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

We should be mentioning that other terms are used for England, Scotland & Wales. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The "further information" wikilinks cover that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification required: Since 1707, hasn't Wales been called a principality on occassion? Has also the dreaded word constituent be applied? [20]. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Who are they and what leads you to believe they are reliable sources? Daicaregos (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

We've also got [21] & for added confusion [22]. Ya see, not everybody calls Wales a country & only a country. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Jolly well done GoodDay. You seem to have learnt how to use Google's search facility. Perhaps you could use it to improve some articles, instead of trolling. Don't forget though: 1, not every 'one man and his dog' website would be reliable enough to use on Wikipedia. and 2, you need to read (and be able to understand) the sources - the Principality Building Society don't claim Wales is a Principality, it's just their name. By that logic the UK should be defined as a Nationwide. By the way, even if Wales were a principality (which it isn't), it wouldn't preclude it being a country. Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco are simultaniously countries and principalities. Daicaregos (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never said Wales was a principality, only that the term is applied to it. PS: You've got to learn to control your emotions. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

What would be the point? I note you haven't bothered to answer my question: Who are they and what leads you to believe they are reliable sources? p.s. I am in complete control, thank you.

You seem 'too sensative'. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's enough trolling now GoodDay. Please stop. Daicaregos (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You too, Daicaregos. Let's call a truce here. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I back Dai's proposal as its up-to-date and follows largely what Mabuska1 or 2 is. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Daicaregos' proposal

This proposed footnote is a tweaked version of Fmph's version above:

"The United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country. However, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also referred to as countries, irrespective of their constitutional arrangements, and were described as countries on in the 2011 United Kingdom Census. The British Prime Minister's website has used the phrase "countries within a country" to describe the United Kingdom. With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences" (J. Whyte and G. FitzGerald, 1991, Interpreting Northern Ireland, Oxford University Press: Oxford). Other terms used in regards to Northern Ireland include "province", "region" (add any others). For further information see Country, Terminology of the British Isles and Constituent country."

Daicaregos (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Support (subject to tweaking "on the ...Census" to "in the ...Census", which I've just noticed). Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

So tweaked. Daicaregos (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It also needs another one-word tweak. The tense is currently wrong. It should state "and are described" as oppossed to "and were described". "Were" sounds like the 2011 census did use the term but then didn't. It also reads as past-tense and well the census hasn't been completed yet and as long as its 2011 "are" makes better sense than "were". Mabuska ^(talk) 00:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense, as there's more people to be born this year. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment I would not object Daicaregos proposal, however maybe it is worth looking into secondary reliable source for ... The British Prime Minister's website has ... , considering WP:PRIMARY. I guess this phrase is there to balance J. Whyte and G. FitzGerald somehow. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

See "Constituent Country" in Global encyclopaedia of political geography^[4] AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Be careful, constituent country is a blasphemous word for some. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally in the area of WP:OR "countries within a country" political term could also apply to Spain^[5] and Italy^[6] AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "countries within a country" may well be WP:OR, but if so it st OR by the Office of the Prime Minister, not by us. Seems notable enough to me. Daicaregos (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the content is notable per sources I've reviewed and the footnote is an elegant placement solution which would help with perpetual terminology circles. Kudos on gaining a consensus, Daicaregos. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment The Vatican is a sovereign state but a spirit of generosity is required to call it a country, so the premise of the first sentence may not find universal acceptance. AJRG (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Daicaregos' proposal is concise and to the point. We might wish to point out that some people also refer to Northern Ireland as Ulster or the North of Ireland, again depending on one's political perspective. Anyroad, his proposal definitely gets my vote.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The footnote, which has now been added to the article, says "Other terms used in regards to Northern Ireland include "province", "region" (add any others)." I propose to incorporate Jeanne Boleyn's suggestion and adding "the six counties" and "erroneously", to give:
"Other terms used in regards to Northern Ireland include "region", "the six counties" and (erroneously) "province", "Ulster", "the North of Ireland" and "The North".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daicaregos (talk • contribs) 08:18, 14 March 2011

I've now made that change - I saw the footnote had been added to the article, and assumed Dai had made the change while forgetting to add the additional terms, so I added them. I now realise that it was another editor who had made the change to the article, without seeing Dai's suggestion here. Apologies for my mistake, but hope it meets with general approval anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We could mention that some of the more extreme Irish Republican newspapers refer to Northern Ireland as the Six Occupied Counties. I personally came across it the other day in an issue of An Phoblacht.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised by that addition ("Other terms used in regards to Northern Ireland include "region", "the six counties" and (erroneously) "province", "Ulster", "the North of Ireland" and "The North".") because I see no detailed discussion/consensus for it here and it is somewhat controversial. Firstly, although I personally don't object to province being described as erroneous, I think others might (I think Mabuska, for instance, might have said something in the past that might indicate that). Secondly, it implies that the others are "correct". These terms are imprecise and, in the case of "country" undefined. There is no right or wrong, all we are doing is recording usage. Thirdly, the list is confusing names for the territory (North of Ireland, the North, the six counties, Ulster) which are equivalents to "Northern Ireland" with names for its status (province, region) which is equivalent to "country". I'm going to change the sentence to: "Other terms used in regards to Northern Ireland include "region" and "province" ". DeCausa (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

De Causa, there are plenty of publications which name Northern Ireland as either Ulster, the North, the Six Counties, the Six Occupied Counties, the North of Ireland. Irish author Dervla Murphy in A Place Apart mentions all of these temrs as well as bringing up the question of how to descibe it ( as a region, province, statelet, country, etc).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I accept DeCausa's logic - we are talking about terms used to describe NI's status, not the area itself. Perhaps the wording should be: "Other terms used to describe the status of Northern Ireland include...." Personally I would like to include a reference to the term "parts of the UK", which is, I believe, the only term used intentionally as an uncontentious alternative to the word "country". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Jeanne, I don't disagree. But my point is that it hasn't been discussed here (as the rest of the note has, extensively) and there's no consensus for it. But more importantly, it's apples and oranges. "Ulster" isn't an alternative for "country", it's an alternative for "Northern Ireland". The footnote is about "country" and its application to, in this case, Northern Ireland. It's not about the term "Northern Ireland" and alternatives to THAT term. The only alternatives to "country" in the list are "province" and "region". DeCausa (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite understand where you're coming from, and I have no problem with your change. My proposed amendment stemmed from the entire proposal being added to the article, including the phrase "(add any others)", which needed to be amended anyway. I suggest we leave the footnote as it stands now (saying "Other terms used in regards to Northern Ireland include "region" and "province" ") and that further changes be addressed elsewhere (if required). That should close this discussion, which could now be archived. Daicaregos (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DeCausa that we are on about the status of NI, not its name. Why complicate and politicise the issue (more than is needed)? Also Dai's proposal does include a link to the refs page so everyone can see for themselves the proper terms used in regards to NI and indeed all parts of the UK - in that regard we don't need to list all the lesser terms used as that article lists and sources them. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to take this moment and congratulate everyone on being able to work together on this and come to a conclusion that so far has unanimous support which gives it a very strong consensus. Hopefully anyone else who wants to raise the issue in the future will read the footnote and it helps them. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Tally of who supports what

Footnote

Proposer	For	Against
DeCausa	DeCausa, Snowded, GoodDay	Ghmyrtle, Daicaregos, Mabuska, Jeanne boleyn, Keys (Sinn Fein quote, to me, is not acceptable)
Rangoon	Rangoon	DeCausa, Snowded, Ghmyrtle, Daicaregos, Jeanne boleyn, GoodDay
Ghmyrtle	Ghmyrtle, GoodDay	DeCausa, Mabuska, Fmph, Keys
Mabuska1	Mabuska, DeCausa, Rangoon, Chipmunkdavis (with or without tweak), GoodDay, Alarics (with tweak), bjmullan	Snowded ("by some" unacceptable), Ghmyrtle, Daicaregos, Carson101, Keys (Re: "by some")
Mabuska2	Mabuska, GoodDay, Ghmyrtle, Daicaregos, Jeanne boleyn, Outback, Keys	DeCausa, Snowded, Fmph, Alarics
Daicaregos	Daicaregos, Mabuska, GoodDay, Ghmyrtle, Carson101, Fmph, AgadaUrbanit, DeCausa, Keys, Snowded, Jeanne boleyn
NI only footnote	Ghmyrtle, Snowded, Daicaregos, Jeanne boleyn, Carson101	Mabuska, GoodDay, DeCausa, Fmph, Keys

Alter article text

Proposer	For	Against
GoodDay	GoodDay, Mabuska, Pete, Fmph, Chipmunkdavis, Keys	Ghmyrtle, Daicaregos, Outback, Snowded, Carson101, Alarics
GoodDay tweaked i.e. "It consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."	Mabuska, GoodDay, Ghmyrtle, Chipmunkdavis, Alarics	Fmph, Snowded, Daicaregos, Carson101, Keys

Tally Dicussion

You probably want an oppose as well if you are trying to work out a consensus --Snowded ^TALK 17:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

True. Less clear from the above discussion. Perhaps everyone could just insert their own 'againsts'. If name doesn't appear then that's an abstention on that option. DeCausa (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've moved it into a table, which I think is easier to read. Fmph (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not been involved in the discussion but have been keeping up with the thread. I prefer Mabuska 1 and have added my vote to the table. Bjmullan (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the NI only footnote as the problem is not just with NI - some of those editors who have raised this "country" issue go on about all parts of the UK not just NI. So we shouldn't just focus it on one part of the problem. I still think adding that link to the references should be added to whatever proposal is accepted - that why a reader can see for themselves what sources use what term etc.

Also on my first proposal, i am open to having the "by some" bit dropped as i'm not sure its even needed. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Question for Snowded: if the "by some" comes out of "Mabuska 1" does that just take you out of "against" or does it make you a "For"? I suppose question for Rangoon, Chipmunkdavis, Fmph, GoodDay, Alarics, bjmullan: does the removal of "by some" affect your view of this option? DeCausa (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the body of evidence is that country is used in those cases so some is simply not accurate. Some implies a minority. It can be dropped or replaced with majority use or similar. --Snowded ^TALK 12:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if "by some" comes out, does that mean Mabuska 1 is then acceptable to you?

As a footnote yes--Snowded ^TALK 15:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Jumpin' Junipers, adjust it to "by many...", if it's that important. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

On this particular point, "...are also referred by some to be countries..." and "...are also referred by many to be countries..." are equally ungrammatical. It would be better (but not perfect) to have "...are also referred to as countries", as in 'Mabuska2'. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but it sure is alot of haggling over a tiny phrase. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The current wording is grammatically correct, and it's indefensible to change it to an ungrammatical wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"By some..", shows that not everybody calls England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland 'countries'. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I DO think "by some" is needed if we are going for Mabuska 1, even if Mabuska him/herself doesn't think so. However, if GoodDay's simpler and more elegant solution is in the running, I'd prefer that. -- Alarics (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't this analysis of sources suggest that "by some" is misleading? Would it make that much difference to delete it? DeCausa (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to hear how many sources explicitely say that Scotland, Wales and England are not referred to as countries as against the amount that do. There may be a few sources that use other terms but the authors would not deny that they are also referred to as countries. Looking at the sources given it appears that there are far more that use the term countries, so to say it is "used by some" would be very misleading. If the vast majority of sources use the term countries then would that not be the term this encyclopedia should be using? If any more text is needed then it could be along the lines of "A small minority of sources use other terms such as ....". My feeling is that the present text is just fine and a footnote would more than suffice. Carson101 (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the consensus I think. the question is more which footnoote. DeCausa (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete it or reword that bit. We could go alon with weight of sources and ust declare "often referred to as countries" instead of "by some". Sources back it up. We provide reader with the sources. Case closed. Wishful thinking. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually they are hardly ever referred to as anything else but countries so there is no need of any qualification. "are called countries" would be fine. --Snowded ^TALK 01:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We may be going round in circles here. "Are called countries" is fine for England, Scotland and Wales, but needs clarification and explanation in relation to NI. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Having had a read through the above here's a couple of comments. The United Kingdom is not unique in being made up of countries. The Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of the Netherlands have similar situations. As well as this, the UN, US and others refer to non-independent countries in their documentation so the concept of countries that are not sovereign states is well established and so not being regarded as countries accept by custom or convention is incorrect.

Trying to keep the footnote more concise this is my two pence: The United Kingdom, a unitary sovereign state, consists of the four countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The political entity of Northern Ireland formed after the partition of Ireland has variously been called a province,[23] Ulster,[24] the Six Counties,[25] the North of Ireland [26] or simply the North.--Bill Reid | (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that goes into unnecessary and contentious detail in relation to NI. How about The United Kingdom ~~, a unitary sovereign state,~~ consists of the four countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, although the use of the word "country" to describe Northern Ireland is contentious (with refs). Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: We don't need to say that the UK is "a unitary sovereign state" in the footnote, as that is stated in the opening of the second para of the article text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I go along with that. --Bill Reid | (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If we really need to change the lede then this is the least worst --Snowded ^TALK 13:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This whole issue doesn't just revolve around Northern Ireland so there is no need to focus on it in great detail. I reject this proposal on that basis. When this issue is continually raised, NI and the term "country" isn't the sole complaint with the terms usage in regards to E/enwiki/w/ and S also an issue. Why don't we just keep to focusing on the whole issue instead of fixing one part of it.

Reread the very first post in this entire discussion and what was the editors problem? Not just Northern Ireland but ALL four parts of the UK. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no "issue" over whether England, Scotland and Wales are and can be described as countries. That is not contentious - the point is only argued by those who choose to ignore the verifiable fact that the word "country" does not necessarily mean "sovereign state" (one editor here in particular). The position of NI is slightly different, in that describing NI as a country - though supported by many sources - is contentious within NI, and so it can reasonably be argued that the use of the word "country" to describe NI is not a neutral POV. The original post here stated "Northern Ireland has at no time been a country." I'm not saying that's precisely correct (as there are sources that have so described it), but it is in a different position to the other three parts of the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal focuses solely on the country issue in regards to Northern Ireland. You ignore the issue in regards to the rest of the UK. The original post didn't focus solely on NI either. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no much less of an "issue in regards to the rest of the UK". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well there is for the IP who started this discussion if you read all that he states, and not just in regards to NI. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree, and we constantly get this IP type disruption seeking the challenge issues we have resolved by citation some time ago --Snowded ^TALK 14:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree to what? Me or Ghmyrtle? Mabuska ^(talk) 16:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle sorry :-) --Snowded ^TALK 10:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska's first footnote proposal has the strongest support: 8 to 4, which is a 2/3 majority. We should consider implimenting it. GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Per the above comments by myself and Ghmyrtle it would have higher suport with modifications --Snowded ^TALK 05:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"By some..":, shall be dimissed. You've said you'd support Mabuska1, if it was. Then that would be 9 to 3. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to look again at "Mabuska 1" if that's the likeliest way of making progress. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Mabuska 1" and "Mabuska 2" as the two front-runners can be worked together, though almost half of those who object to "Mabuska 1" do because of "by some" which i myself have said isn't needed. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I give up!

I deeply regret having suggested a footnote in the first place...it shouldn't be this hard. Do what you like. As Snowded prompted me to do, I'm going to take a look at the Country article instead to see what can done there. Good luck. (One last thing: I noticed that GHMyrtle suggested the Britannica solution but with adding NI properly i.e. something simply "The United Kingdom comprises the whole of the island of Great Britain — which contains England, Wales, and Scotland — as well as Northern Ireland". Ban the word "country" from the article! Sounds good to me. Oh well.) DeCausa (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Giving up? Oh don't be so silly! ;-)

In regards to your suggestion its wrong on several fronts. We aren't stating any descriptives of E/S/enwiki/w/NI, so there is no need for it to state "as well as Northern Ireland". Secondly the grammer is mixed up as reading it you'd need to state "as well as the northern part of Ireland, Northern Ireland" to match the "island of Great Britain" bit. GoodDays suggestion minus the country bit is better wording. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added a new proposal to the table, which is essentially GoodDays minus the country bit, which should get the backing of Ghmyrtle seeing as they technically back the same thing going by their comments. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to be clear about what that proposal is, its not clear from the above. --Snowded ^TALK 11:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't give up, DeCausa. I'm still here, despite alot of bruises over the years. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the fact a couple of editors have posted small digs at GoodDay in this discussion when they can and i think it should be avoided. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I just "popped back" to endorse Mabuska's above post. some of the comments are more than just "small digs". It's one of the reasons I've dropped out of this discussion. DeCausa (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm totally confused now as to where this discussion has reached. Can somebody set out two versions between which we can choose by a vote? -- Alarics (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My 2 proposals deal with article content. The other proposals deal with footnotes. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Alarics just stick your name beside the proposals that sound good to you. I split the table into two to seperate the two different issues apart. Maybe we should concentrate on the footnote before the issue of article text? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be becoming clearer by the day that there is no consensus for any of the proposed changes to the existing wording, and it seems unlikely that one will emerge at any time soon. So, shall we abandon this attempt and move on? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

So we focus on the note then. It appears that my two proposals and the NI only footnote are the only two that have a majority backing them. Seeing as a NI only footnote is rediculous seeing as this issue doesn't revolve solely around NI - see the original post of this entire disucssion and you'll see its not just about NI - then that proposal is a non-runner and only addresses one part of the problem so is redundant. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well as far as I can see the IP (for whom the only question is whose sock) who opened it has not participated since. If you look through the above no one has provided any evidence to show that country is an issue other than in some cases in NI. If there is evidence then please show it. You have your view, but as far as I can see you can't dismiss an NI only proposals as a non-runner --Snowded ^TALK 12:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If socking is a concern, a CU check should be requested to compare against the users here who are "anti-country". Otherwise, we should AGF. I do raise the issue in the context of England, Scotland and Wales because I believe it is confusing for those not familiar with the UK (or whose first language is not English). And that's why I believed (and suggested) a clarifying footnote to the existing article text would be helpful. The NI issue isn't really of significance to that type of hyperthetical reader. A footnote on NI would be more of use to a reader a little more familiar with the UK in fact. But since I suggested it, everything's gone...kerflewy. DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate things that go Kerflewy! As I have said previously, I would not be against a footnote covering the use of the term country in respect to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but would be against any change of actual text in the article. Carson101 (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been around this issue over too many years to AGF on IP accounts raising this issue --Snowded ^TALK 13:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing is sure, the sources that use the term country are not going to vanish, so I don't understand why anyone would contest the use of the term. I know DeCausa is only asking for a footnote, and as I said, I would I have no strong objection to that. Carson101 (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(Response to Ghmyrtle) Don't give up. There's obviously 'no consensus' for the current status. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree, there's no need to get rid of country sources, in fact I fail to see why we need to dump country when refering to the home nations out of the page in the 1st place. We have the census coming up this month and on the form you do have to say which country you come from whether it's England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland or other. That to me suggests that country is the best descripton if it's used by the government as you can see here (under the 1st questionaire link) It's a word doccument so I can't link directly but you'll see what I mean. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether that form has changed since you looked at it? I can't see a question asking which country you come from. The nearest I see asks "For which UK countries/geographies do you need this information?" and of course doesn't mention Republic of Ireland in that context. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Were you perhaps looking at the census form (as mentioned below)? The link you gave us was to a "Consultation questionnaire on ethnic group, national identity, religion and language ..." - David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I was saying that since I can't link directly to it, you have to click on the 1st "questionaire" word link in the text to see it. In that link (which goes to a word doccument) it talks about the home nations as countries which I'd say is if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the census form in front of me. Question 9 says "What is your country of birth?" The available responses are England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Elsewhere. So apparently the Office of National Statistics thinks they are all countries, even including NI. I would still rather we didn't use the word country, myself, but this source counts against my view, unfortunately. -- Alarics (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

TBH, I don't see why the footenote requires mentioning 'country' atall. By not menitoning 'country', it would be neither claiming or denying UK/E/enwiki/w/S/NI's status. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely the whole point of the footnote is to clarify why describing NI as a country is valid. It would be impossible to make this clear without mentioning its country status. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just an observation. I'll let you guys handle the 'footnote' details. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If we adopt GoodDays proposal, or the tweaked one then there is no need for a footnote really. If we don't then we should have a footnote and we do have three proposals that appear to be in the running with more backers than opposers. The census forms can't be discounted either. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

We need more participants. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

On that note, I'll swan in to say that I see no problem with the present wording - it's clear and accurate. There's no problem here that needs solving. Time to decide there's no consensus for change and move on. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no consensus for status quo, either. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup GoodDay, stop trying to blow it up. There is no issue on country status for England, Wales and Scotland and until you have some evidence to the contrary you should leave it alone. THere is a case for clarification on Northern Ireland and you might be better supporting that --Snowded ^TALK 02:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're hyperventillating about. Nobody's been edit-warring over the proposals. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Who said they had been? Thanks for concerns on my health, but relaxing over chicken rice here in Singapore. To spell it out, if you want to make statements like the above you really need to show some evidence or deal with the NI issue. You know full well that consensus is needed for change, so if you want to change come up with some evidence, don't just make statements and issue opinions. --Snowded ^TALK 03:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

When there's no consensus for the status quo & proposed changes, the status quo remains. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid that for my opinion, I fail to see the need for any change because as Ivor says it's clear and accurate. Why is it that every time the issue of whether the home nations are countries always seems to boil down to Northern Ireland? I'm stopping short of saying that it's pov pushers as I can see what they are thinking but in my opinion, I don't think that a change is needed. Besides I would say that in a lot of sports for example, The Home Nations all compete as separate countries and are called such as you can see here which would say that WP:UCN would support leaving it as countries. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There's currently no consensus to change the lead, or add a footnote. If there is a need to clarify the use of the word "country" in relation to NI (as I think there is, though others may disagree), can I suggest it is best done through looking at the first paragraph of the section headed "Administrative divisions". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a general consensus for a footnote i thought? Still i reject Ghmyrtle and Snowdeds claims that the term country in relation to NI is all that needs sorted. The term country in regards to Wales, Scotland, and England has also been flagged as controversial several times. We either create a footnote that focuses on the term in regards to the whole UK or no footnote at all. No offense, but its plain to see the Welsh nationalists want Wales stated as a country with nothing included that can contradict it - ensuring a footnote focuses on NI alone achieves that. We shouldn't be putting regional nationalistic motivations into this dicussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Also in regards to this exact article, trawling through the archives. Yes the issue in regards to NI has been raised two or three times at most, however it has also been raised a couple of times not just about NI including this very discussion, and for a very old example see here. The term "country" appears to be more often raised in regards to the United Kingdom itself rather than its parts. In fact calling NI a "nation" appears to have been raised more times than "country".

If we do use Countries of the United Kingdom as an example, calling ALL parts of the UK countries is even raised as an issue, see here.

So to strongely counter SNowded and Ghmyrtle, NI is not the only problem. In fact can we really say there is a problem in this exact article seeing as it hasn't even been raised that much on this article over the past 6 years?!Mabuska ^(talk) 12:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has for many years failed in the neutrality front on many of these matters and it heavily favours the separatist viewpoint. For example it is deeply offensive that when it comes to certain lists of British people, you just get sent to a page where you must choose between English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish, rather than British people or British inventions for example. Northern Ireland is certainly not the only matter regarding the use of the term country. If England, Scotland and Wales are ok to be called a country, then Northern Ireland is too, it is just as much a country as any of these other parts of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh and it is still a problem that the first sentence of this article does not make clear the United Kingdom is also a country whilst it is sovereign state. I saw someone somewhere else yesterday question the fact the United Kingdom is a country, it blatantly is one and we should not wait until the second paragraph in a terribly worded sentence "It is a country consisting of four countries" to point this out. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been done to death umpteen times. Suggest we follow the faq at the top of the page and get back to real editing.--Bill Reid | (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact there is a FAQ and "it has been done to death" is why the matter is so controversial and needs to be seriously addressed. The status quo is clearly still problematic. I would think issues relating to country status on a country article is one of the most essential parts of the entire article, so im not clear about this "real editing" comment. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's really pointless reworking what has been, once again--done to death--many, many, many times before hence the reason for the faq in the first place. Real editing refers to getting on with building an encyclopedia instead of just talking. Bill Reid | (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bill here. I'm sure an faq can be challenged at some time or another, but if it is challenged too often it may just appear to be dragging stuff over old ground for no real purpose. I say no real purpose because it seems to be blatantly obvious that the sources for country are numerous enough and good enough for any challenge to that term to be rather futile. I also assume that the wording has been gone over many times in the past and been agreed on. I think the saying "if it aint broke don't fix it" comes into play here. If there were consensus for footnotes I would have been fine with that but, I'm not sure that there is. Carson101 (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If ya'll would adopt either of my 'content' proposals, we'd be rid of this "country" baloney. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, I'm sure we are both chilled out at the moment. :) I would though like to ask what is baloney about "country"? It's just a word that is used to describe Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland (though there seems to be a little controversy over the latter). It's a word, a descriptive used for those places, nothing more nothing less. I'm not really sure what your objection to it is. Carson101 (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The constant disagreeing over what's a country & what isn't, is baloneism. I'm able to drop 'country' as a discriptive for the United Kingdom (even though it's the subject of this article). Some other editors should be just as flexiable & drop the 'country' label for England, Northern Ireland, Wales & Scotland - let their respective articles use the term. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If flexibility means not using a term that informs the readers that country is used for S/E/W and N.I then flexibility is of no use. If the UK were to be described as a country I have no objection to that. I wouldn't understand why anyone would object to it, if that is the case. Carson101 (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

My first proposal uses 'country' for the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And I agree that the UK should be referred to as a country. I see that Daiceregos has made a suggestion which would cover the UK and E/S/W and N.I. being referred to as countries. No flexibility required, just plain old facts on an encyclopedia. Would you agree GoodDay?Carson101 (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

We wouldn't need a footnote, if my proposals were adopted for the article content. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

But would you agree with me above? Get those facts in that the UK is called a country without losing the fact that E/S/W and N.I are also refereed to as countries. Yes? Carson101 (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I just don't see the necessity in labelling England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland as 'country', 'province', 'constituent country', etc etc, at this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, GoodDay. I'm still chilled out as I always am and I'll say this in a chilled out way. You don't want England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to be called countries at all because you don't believe the term should ever be used for them. That is the strong impression I am getting here, but it is should certainly not be argued here from that standpoint. If this is what you believe then I'm sorry, it doesn't stand up against sources that do say they are countries and with those sources there is no reason whatsoever not to describe them here as countries. Carson101 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's the 'only' term. Wales (for example) is still referred to as a principality & consitutent country -see my secondary source [27], [28]. This source shows more of the confusion, [29] as it has Wales described as principality & country. PS: We should best stay clear of motive speculation. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

What the heck is motive speculation? Very low grade sources, GD, IMO but the Principality of Wales was its historic English name when it was an independent country and the country's name today is just Wales (open to correction by more knowledgable Welsh editors). Prince Charles's has a title, among others, of Prince of Wales but true principalities like Monaco have a monarchial system of government with a prince as its head of state. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that 'country' isn't the only term currently in use for Wales. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, low grade sources, but what is motive speculation?. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Motive speculation: Speculating on why an editor supports this or opposes that. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Care to comment on the below proposal Bill? Mabuska ^(talk) 18:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact i think Daiceragos proposal above in the table is the best as its the most up-to-date and is largely the same as Mabuska 1 or 2. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Daicaregos proposal is the best solution. An encyclopedia should contain facts and his proposal does just that. Get the text right and any discussion on footnotes should be simple. Carson101 (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If you'd all agree to my 'content' proposal, we wouldn't even need a footnote. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

One last shot at a proposal

Just reading the FAQ myself and i think it mor than covers it. However for the reader who mightn't go to the discussion page or notice the FAQ, we could add a footnote into the article which duplicates what the FAQ says, more specifcally Question 4 and give it a tiny re-wording at the start, and adding "Wikipedia" twice in the body of the text for clarification on the community bit, and an extra link at the end of it:

Q: Are England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales countries?

A: This is the one of most frequent questions raised by visitors to this articles talk page, and the issue which generates the most debate. However, as a result of a lack of a formal British constitution, and owing to a convoluted history of the formation of the United Kingdom, a variety of terms exist which are used to refer to England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.[1] Reliable and official sources support use of the word "countries", and this term has broadly won preference amongst the Wikipedia editing community (note, however, that a country is not the same as a sovereign state), but "constituent country" is also used; the Wikipedia community endeavours to achieve an atmosphere of neutrality, compromise, and camaraderie on this issue. See also Countries of the United Kingdom for more details about the terms that have been used to describe England, Nothern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Also see Talk:Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom/refs for a list of terms and sources that use them.

Of course we have to add in the wikilinks and sources that are in the FAQ question, this was just a copy-and-paste jobWiki. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's alright with me. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Since it's just the FAQ wording, I agree. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the second sentence consists of assumptions which are unverified, unverifiable and possibly untrue. The first and third sentences may be helpful to a talk page reader, but are inappropriate for a footnote - they do not add any verifiable explanation. So, no - it resolves nothing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well it was deemed good enough for this articles FAQ. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No idea when, or who by. There's no reason at all to think that a variety of terms is used "as a result of" the so-called "lack of a formal British constitution", or that it's "owing to" the history of the UK's formation. Even if they are related, the language suggests causation, which is unjustified. And a footnote in article space needs to give a much more careful reasoning, and better use of words, than an FAQ answer on a talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for late entry into this discussion

I don't know if this is the correct forum for this discussion, but for what it's worth here is my two cents on this tedious discussion relating to Northern Ireland. The argument I hear is that Scotland is a country, England is a country, Wales is a country, ergo Northern Ireland is a country. My response to that is as follows: Scotland is popularly referred to as a country even though its boundaries do not coincide with those of an independent sovereign state, and there is nothing controversial about this. England is popularly referred to as a country even though its boundaries do not coincide with those of an independent sovereign state, and there is nothing controversial about this. Wales is popularly referred to as a country even though its boundaries do not coincide with those of an independent sovereign state, and there is nothing controversial about this. Northern Ireland, on the other hand, is referred to as a country, a province, a state, a statelet, and probably a lot of other names, all of which are hugely controversial. Ireland (the entire island) is popularly referred to as a country even though its boundaries do not coincide with those of a sovereign state. This may be controversial for some, but nonetheless there are people who consider the whole island to be a 'country' even if not in the strict political sense of the word, just like Scotland isn't. So if you're one of these people who insists on saying that the island of Ireland is not a country because it isn't a sovereign state, then I'm afraid you'll have to apply the same standard to Northern Ireland and stop referring to that entity as a country too. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

England, Scotland & Wales have others descriptives, other then 'country'. Like Mabuska said, we should be careful to not single out Northern Ireland. Of course, if my -amended- 'article content' proposal were adopted, a footnote would likely not be required & there'd be no more arguing over what gets described as 'country'. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

@Eamonnca1: While I understand the logic of your argument, I don't understand how this topic should be applied to this article. Daicaregos (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow the exact same thing posted in at least three places. As i refuted in one place, Ireland the island is no longer a policitcal entity. Northern Ireland is a current political entity. Thus your comparison is a non-runner. Also i wonder wether Eamonnca1 you are mistaken "Ireland" the island with "Ireland" the state that is the Republic of Ireland? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

So this is the forum where we're discussing it then? Grand so. Wales wasn't a political entity of any kind until it got its assembly, and yet prior to devolution it was still customary to refer to Wales as a country. Are you suggesting that in order to be designated a 'country' then it has to have some sort of political legislature? You could refer to the EU as a country on that basis, but that would be absurd from a cultural standpoint. The term 'country' is as much a cultural construct as a political one, and culturally the island of Ireland is in many ways regarded as a single entity. Witness the all-Ireland cricket team, rugby team, hockey administration, and of course Gaelic sports which all regard the island as a single country irrespective of political boundaries. In soccer the creation of two separate national teams was completed as recently as 1970 and had more to do with in-fighting among the soccer authorities than actual allegiances, the IFA's national team was happy to use the 'Ireland' label for decades after partition. My understanding of international sports is that international teams represent nations or countries, so as far as the world of rugby is concerned Ireland is the country that is represented in the Six Nations. There is also a multitude of organisations that consider the island to be a single entity, the relationships between both parts of Ireland go much deeper than those between two 'normal' neighbouring sovereign states. Why do you think the whole island is marketed as a single entity by the tourist authorities? And let's not forget the Church or Ireland and the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, neither of which has felt the need to divide in two to reflect partition. Even if you're from the unionist persuasion you can't help but notice the number of people from your own side who constantly refer to Northern Ireland as "the province" and not "the country." As for the comment above about why we should not single out Northern Ireland, I think we should. Northern Ireland is very different from England Scotland and Wales. ES&W all have well established national identities and there is nothing controversial about referring to those entities as countries. The same does not apply to Northern Ireland. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's England that is different from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as the latter three are countries within the U.K. which have devolved government, while England is a country within the U.K. that does not. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Eamonnca1's statements appear to be the same Brocachs in one vital element - a lack of any sources to back up their assertions. Anyways his arguements have been stated before by other editors and we work with the sources at our disposal. Might i point Eamoncca1 to Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs that show the term "Country" has WP:WEIGHT in regards to NI compared to any other term. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources that illustrate the controversy over describing NI as a "country" include those listed as sources 143-152 at Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs. No similar sources questioning the word "country" are shown for any of the other parts of the UK. I agree that most sources describe NI as a country, but it can't be denied that such a description is contentious. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So we are still going round in circles then. Sorry but I haven't the time or inclination for any more of this. -- Alarics (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Eamonnca1 on whether the whole island of Ireland can neutrally be referred to here as a country - sorry if I didn't make that clear. I don't think we're going round in circles. We are (I hope) close to agreeing Daicaregos' proposal further up the page - my comment here related to Mabuska's suggestion that there are "no sources" for Eamonnca1's (and Brocach's) comments about NI, when clearly such sources exist on the page that Mabuska referenced. That doesn't stop progress being made on the basis of consensus. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You say its contentious but I don't see much sign of it. The overall volume of refs say its a country; I think I counted that the same amount say NI is a country as do that for England. The fact is WP doesn't need the description of NI is a country even to be true as long as its verified and by that criteria the sheer volume of verifiable refs define it as country for the encyclopedia. They by far outweigh the refs that describe it as something else. Although I wasn't even aware of the discussions that took place that brought about the FAQs they did a pretty good job of it IMO. I now feel we're trying to fix something that isn't broken. -Bill Reid | (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So why continue the argument? We have a proposal by Daicaregos, up above, that at present is unopposed. I suggest we adopt it forthwith. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I reckon we gotta wait for the rest to chime in. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Just leave it as it stands. It ain't broke, don't fix it. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ya mean don't bother with a footnote? GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think the proposed footnote is unnecessary, and appears to rely mainly upon an academic source that is now 20 years old - which is to say that it pre-dates the Belfast Agreement and the provisions therein about preferred nomenclature. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If my 'article content' proposal were adopted, a footnote wouldn't be necessary. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The 1991 quote is representative only. See Constituent country article notes 11/12. The Belfast Agreement is irrelevant as the Irish nationalist position is to still describe the island of Ireland as "a single national unit" as Sinn Fein does here. That position leaves no room for NI to be a "country" per WP:DUCK. DeCausa (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not completely true, the Irish Government no longer makes that claim and there was a referendum on the subject. The nationalist position on this is mixed, although the desire for a united Ireland probably is not but that is a different thing. --Snowded ^TALK 07:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That's just the formal territorial claim of the Republic, which can change without underlying nationalist ideology changing. In any case, this is about nationalist views in Northern Ireland - and I would argue that the largest NI nationalist party is the best evidence of that. DeCausa (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

My point is that it is not a clear nationalist position, it may or may not be the majority position. Its why NI is more problematic than the other countries. You can't say the Belfast Agreement is irrelevant as it does represent a shift--Snowded ^TALK 07:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed DeCausa (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References for above

^ [1]
^ "Term used most frequently for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the modern sovereign state comprising England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland". Cabinet Office. 11 August 2010. Retrieved 12 September 2010.
^ "Institutional Affairs". European Union. 15 July 2010. Retrieved 8 September 2010.
^ M. A. Chaudhary; Gautam Chaudhary (2009). Global encyclopaedia of political geography. Global Vision Publishing Ho. p. 53. ISBN 9788182202337. Retrieved 12 March 2011.
^ Marshall Cavendish Corporation (October 2002). Peoples of Europe: Slovenia-Switzerland. Marshall Cavendish. p. 484. ISBN 9780761473879. Retrieved 13 March 2011.
^ Josephine Sander Hausam (September 1999). Italy. Gareth Stevens Pub. ISBN 9780836823103. Retrieved 13 March 2011.

WP:BRD application

I was reading the discussion above. I guess that User:GoodDay suggestion is most encyclopedic one so I've been bold with clearest and cleanest suggestion, while removing over-linking in what clearly could be supported by common knowledge. Do we really need a footnote on that? I've preserved "4 countries" via "consists" pipe. This bold edit was reverted. Let's discuss reasonably. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The very extensive discussion above was, and so far as I can see still is, proceeding towards a conclusion verging on a consensus. "Bold" edits, in those circumstances, are unhelpful, to put it mildly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, I'm not one of you guys and I am neutral. My intention is to help. I've been exposed to "Country?" type of discussions also before to know what it is about. NI conflict should be discussed in the article body and not pushed into the lead in such a strange way. Does anyone object to the wording that UK consists of E, W, S and NI? That is hardly controversial. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The only person who proposed changing the lead was GoodDay. Until then, the rest of us were and are talking about a footnote. I don't personally object to "your" wording - I was one of the five editors who supported it, with five opposed - but clearly it didn't and doesn't have a consensus, and we are inching towards a different solution. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So why do we need a footnote? I'm not interested in wikilawyering but if there is a policy based explanation for this revert, I would like to hear it. And no, WP:consensus is not about majority. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still perplexed as to why some editors 'oppose' my proposals (see table above). GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

@AgadaUrbanit In my view, your "bold" edit was just an arrogant one. You seem to think that only you know what it the right way and that only you can be neutral. There was nothing to stop you from contributing to the discussion, and there still isn't. Your behaviour has been nothing more than disruptive here. Daicaregos (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, dear friend, Daicaregos. As I've got older I've realised that I actually know very little about anything and what I thought I knew often turns out to be wrong but I tend to not let that stand in my way of contributing to Wikipedia. Still, if there is a policy based explanation for the revert, I would like to hear it. Let's talk content and not editors. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

We are not 'dear friends'. I have never heard of you before today. You devalue the term if you use it when it is inappropriate, which it is in this case. As for policy: I quoted WP:BRD already. What you did was just rude. We are trying to achieve WP:CONSENSUS here(which is hard enough on controversial subjects like this, without your sort of 'help'). And you are, of course, welcome to participate. I suggest you use that route. We have nothing further to discuss on this subject. Daicaregos (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning 'country', my proposals don't claim or deny anything about England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland. This article is about the United Kingdom. Let the articles England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland deal with the rest. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, the situation is this. There is no doubt that many reliable sources can be found to show that E/S/enwiki/w/NI are regularly referred to as countries. Of course, as I think your underlying point is, that does not automatically make it necessary for that to be highlighted in this particular article. There are, in IMHO, three arguable reasons for justifying it to be so highlighted. The first is that it is, in itself, an important piece of information that E/S/enwiki/w/NI "are countries". I've been reviewing and researching the Country article over the last few days (having dropped out of this discussion) and it is quite clear that there is no generally accepted definition of "country" nor is there any generally accepted criteria for what constitutes a "country". It is, therefore, such an imprecise term as to render it pretty meaningless. IMHO, it's difficult to put forward a strong argument that such a meaningless term MUST be mentioned in any capacity (whether in reference to the UK or any part of the UK) however many sources use the meaningless term. The second reason is it that is important to publicise to the world that these territories "are countries" (what ever that means) in order to enhance or, using perhaps a more neutral term, defend their status. Of course, Wikipedia is not to be used for advocacy so that can't truly be entertained as a reason. The third reason is that it is an important piece of information that so many consider it essential that E/S/enwiki/w/NI be described as countries. Now that is difficult to argue with and should be included. (If sourced information explaining why it is so important could be included it would lift it from being merely "must have" information to actually being interesting.) But that's not what we have now, which is a crude statement that they "are countries". It's a pity and a missed opportunity. DeCausa (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa, thank you for the summary. I reviewed some relevant sources, while discussing very similar issues in NI article. Very exciting stuff ;) I personally think that User:GoodDay idea is brilliant. We also have Countries of the United Kingdom do discuss details of relationship between UK and E, W, NI and S. Why can we just say UK consists? With all due respect, WP:BRD discussion should produce policy based reasoning for revert and current wording is, well, confusing. It is unbelievable that such a point would require a footnote or such an obsessive referencing. I'm off to bed, now, thank you everybody for constructive discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It is unbelievable. Sadly, reason no.2 (above) seems to be prevalent. DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

We are close to a consensus if we can get more thoughts on Daiceragos' proposal above. We need all you people here discussing to say whether you agree with it or oppose it. So far 6 agree and no-one objects - more votes would help. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess a wide consensus was reached on the footnote discussion above, so I've closed it for archiving AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain that my 'article content' proposals should've been archived. But, seeing as they're stuck at 50/50 & there's little chance of more participants, I won't loose sleep over it. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with User:DeCausa's analysis of the current situation. There is a support for "four countries" in the lead and then someone say "what about NI"? and everybody starts to move uneasy. It is strange nobody mentions S, since Interpretation Act 1978 nor any other current statute defines S country either. In any way, while we have a consensus above for the footnote it appears currently that while Wiki is "neutral" and "balanced", it argues with itself regarding political terminology.

Considering WP:LEAD, which states that the lead should summarize the article body and does not require strict referencing, current lead appears over-linked imho. Agree with User:GoodDay, "consists" (wiki linking Countries of the United Kingdom) is better, since it is POV-less and apolitical while providing the same info without requiring long clarification and obsessive referencing. In some cases common knowledge is acceptable.

Considering BRD application, it would be interesting to know User:Daicaregos' opinion on that or maybe their suggestion for improvement. Maybe we can do better here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There's atleast 2 contributors, who've given the impression that they'll never agree to anything that doesn't show 'country' as a discriptive for E/enwiki/w/NI/S - including my NPoV proposals. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be best if we stayed clear of "motive speculation". Don't you think? Carson101 (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't said who the 2 were or why they continued to oppose. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Be a little braver then. Are you a man or a mouse. Carson101 (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You're not 1 of the 2. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I reckon GD's doing slightly more than speculating, he has experience in these conversations. Anyway, what exactly are the objections to GD's wording? I think that his wording, adjusted per his agreement that country does not need to be said for UK either, "The United Kingdom consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland" is completely adequate. What else needs to be said? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

First off, are you saying that GoodDay is permitted to speculate and I am not. Secondly, what is wrong with the the version that states that they are referred to as countries? If they are referred to as countries, and they are, why do you object so strongly to it? Perhaps I could speculate? Carson101 (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, you can speculate. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really, but I don't think there's much speculation either way there. Where have I "objected strongly" to referring to them as countries? Anyway, speculate away about me, I don't really mind, but I prefer GD's because it will solve the continuous raising of this discussion. It would solve the Northern Ireland problem. And it would do this without losing any accuracy whatsoever. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no desire to speculate, just checking that I had the same rights as GoodDay. I think that N.Ireland may not have as strong a case as the others to be referred to as a country but, what I think and what the majority of sources say are two different things and as far as I'm aware sources will always outweigh personal opinions. For that reason I believe that removing the text stating that they are countries may still leave it accurate but it also removes important encyclopedic information. Carson101 (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"...consists..." is linked to the article Countries of the United Kingdom. Look, I can't force anybody to support my proposals. If yas want to have the 'country/country' think brought up repeatedly by editors & Ips? that's your (plural) choice. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that if I and a few ip's were to repeatedly bring our opinion to an article then our version should be accepted because it would cause less fuss to agree? I don't think that's the way it works, GoodDay. Carson101 (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this article & the constant flare-ups about 'country/country'. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)GoodDay needs to learn to leave off the innuendo and petty comments like the above. Innuendo is considered a failure to follow WP:AGF as it leaves people to deny something even though they have not been directly accused. Happy to let it go for the moment but it is wrong. I have yet to see anyone challenge the evidence that we are talking about countries here. To state that they are countries is informative and a key aspect of the UK. Its not NPOV to remove the word. The evidence is very very clear and has not been contested by any editor so far. NI is more contentious, hence the footnote.--Snowded ^TALK 17:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Informative how? It's a word which, as noted by DeCausa, doesn't really appear to have a meaning. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the article doesn't say they are "referred to" as countries. It says they are countries. What does it mean???? DeCausa (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Those 'country' discriptives are handled neatly at England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland. We don't need those 4 & the UK described as 'countries' here. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

the sources say with overwhelming force that they are countries and its notable that the UK is composed of several countries while not been a federal structure. I can't see how it can be legitimate to say the word has no meaning. We have also just been through an excessive process for this issue and agreed a route with a footnote. Why reopen a discussion just as it closes?--Snowded ^TALK 18:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

How is that notable? And what meaning does it even have? England is a country. Sure, so? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone may not have known that if you had not told them. Don't you see? Informing the reader of that is rather important, whether you believe it is or not. Carson101 (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What on earth does a reader learn if I tell them the UK is made up of countries? It's just a name, it gives no information about the way it is governed or what powers those constituent parts have. In fact, it seems to serve to confuse the ever-mentioned single purpose IP's. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

For me, it's about a missed opportunity to include interesting information in this article. There is no generally agreed meaning of "country" so saying they are countries adds not much. The lack of meaning of the word can be seen from usage and known definitions. The country article skates around this but I've been researching the point and that seems pretty clear (here's a sandbox re-write I've been working on). Given that, the interesting point and the point I believe readers would want to know is WHY are they so consistently referred to as countries when say Catalonia, Tuscany, etc aren't? DeCausa (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

They'll be well informed via the linkage at "...consists...", aswell as the 4 respective articles of E/enwiki/w/S/NI. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to hide the word country behind a link? You would think we were trying to hide something. The bottom line is, there are numerous sources stating that the UK is made up of four countries, and to hide that from the reader would be criminal. Carson101 (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Criminal? And no, the wikilink doesn't imply trying to hide something. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, criminal. Don't take it so literally. Are you honestly trying to tell me you have never read the article Countries of the United Kingdom and not found it informative? If you find it so information free perhaps you could ask for it to be deleted. Carson101 (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, that article is very informative. It discusses why they're called countries, what this actually means, and pretty much everything that saying they are countries doesn't do. You've obviously completely missed my point, which is that simply stating they are countries doesn't explain anything. The Countries of the United Kingdom doesn't simply state this at all. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about putting an end to the constant repetitive concerns brought to this article, about the confusion of country/country. Because of that concern, I've put aside my "country is more associated with sovereign states" stance, in my 2nd content proposal. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The footnote makes the issue clear, that is why it was agreed. As to the constant appearance of single purpose IPs raising an issue long resolved, the best way to handle that is to ignore them not use them --Snowded ^TALK 18:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

But they've not been, nor will they be ignored by editors, concerning this topic. Rightly/wrongly, there's no consensus for the usage of country in this article -in any form-. There's consensus for it at England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales, but not at this article & thus the continued flare-ups. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither is there consensus to remove it, and given that the references all use country I think we are on sound ground here. --Snowded ^TALK 18:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It's up to you (the opposers of my content proposals). If yas want this whole thing re-opened over & over? so be it. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There will always be a small number of editors who refuse to accept the use of country regardless of the evidence or the various community process. That will not stop with your proposed change, it will simply move elsewhere so there is no gain in terms of reducing conflict, while there is a loss of meaning. --Snowded ^TALK 18:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, it's up to you guys. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

[1] [1]

[3] "Term used most frequently for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the modern sovereign state comprising England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland". Cabinet Office. 11 August 2010. Retrieved 12 September 2010.

[4] "Institutional Affairs". European Union. 15 July 2010. Retrieved 8 September 2010.

[ChaudharyChaudhary2009-5] M. A. Chaudhary; Gautam Chaudhary (2009). Global encyclopaedia of political geography. Global Vision Publishing Ho. p. 53. ISBN 9788182202337. Retrieved 12 March 2011.

[Corporation2002-6] Marshall Cavendish Corporation (October 2002). Peoples of Europe: Slovenia-Switzerland. Marshall Cavendish. p. 484. ISBN 9780761473879. Retrieved 13 March 2011.

[Hausam1999-7] Josephine Sander Hausam (September 1999). Italy. Gareth Stevens Pub. ISBN 9780836823103. Retrieved 13 March 2011.

[1]

[note 1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]