Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom

Sports

Just having a look at the intro referring to sports. The current intro, Paragraph 2, 2nd sentence has: “However, England, Scotland and Wales have separate national governing bodies for sport, meaning, they can compete individually in international sporting competitions; in sporting contexts, England, Northern Ireland (or all of Ireland),[5] Scotland and Wales are known as the Home Nations.” 1. Northern Ireland also has separate national governing bodies for sport. 2. An Ireland team should be noted in the lead. 3. The term Home Nations is only used in certain contexts e.g. when the teams are all playing against each other. I propose a change to: “However, the countries of the UK each have separate national governing bodies for sports, and compete as individual nations in international sporting competitions. In some sports Northern Ireland compete alongside the Republic of Ireland as an Ireland team. In sporting contexts, England, Northern Ireland (or all of Ireland),[5] Scotland and Wales are sometimes known as the Home Nations.” Any objections or amendments? Daicaregos (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Dai, I agree that Ireland and NI should come into the equation. However, I'm a bit concerned that the current text doesn't really account for the fact that a number of sports are organised on a UK or British basis: I'm thinking about UK Athletics, the British Boxing Board of Control, British Cycling, the Lawn Tennis Association etc. I think we should say separate national governing bodies for many sports in para 2, 2nd sentence.Pondle (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No objections to adding the word many. Although, as the UK compete at some events i.e. the Olympics, as a single entity there are bound to be UK wide institutions, many of which also pre-date their national body. But in reality, there are very few sports (in Wales anyway) that do not now have their own national governing body, see here. Also, here is a reference for the Sports Governing Bodies in NI. Daicaregos (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, I think its good to discuss this (and change it to better suit all POVs). I'm, as you may guess, a little concerned about NI: what do you mean by a "governing body". Yes, NI does have a governing body for sport (i.e. logically greater than 0 in number) but in most context the governing body is all Ireland. Similarly, saying that England, Scotland and Wales have separate governing bodies for sports hide UK- and GB-wide governing bodies.

I think the problem really isn't what we want to say, but (like Matt notes above) saying so much in a condensed space. I think we should consider growing these sections, where by we can discuss things in greater detail, rather than trying to replace them with equally dense sentences that give a slightly different slant. --RA (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland doesn't have a governing body for sport. It has a whole bunch - see here, (as do each of the others). You can see that there are many NI specific governing bodies as well as Ireland-wide governing bodies. Daicaregos (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, logically greater than 0 in number. (Though a greater number on that page refer to branches of the all-Ireland body or the all-Ireland body itself.) My point is that I think we have become fixed on replacing one dense text with another. That simply changes the focus from one POV to another when we need more space to explain the complexities - both on Great Britain, on Ireland, and across the United Kingdom. --RA (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how repeating the term 'logically greater than 0 in number' helps in any way. "a governing body for sport" means "one governing body for sport". Are there any specific objections or amendments to the proposed text in the lead: “However, the countries of the UK each have separate national governing bodies for many sports, and compete as individual nations in international sporting competitions. In some sports Northern Ireland compete alongside the Republic of Ireland as an Ireland team. In sporting contexts, England, Northern Ireland (or all of Ireland),[5] Scotland and Wales are sometimes known as the Home Nations.''”? Perhaps you would prefer "... In many sports Northern Ireland compete alongside the Republic ... " or perhaps we should expand the Sports section first and summarise it. Daicaregos (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain: if Daicaregos has one apple then Daicaregos has an apple. If Daicaregos has 20 apples then Daicaregos has an apple. The indefinite article "a" is not the same as the numeral "one". In any event, the sentence you propose does not use the indefinite article, it uses a plural (logically greater that one) and the word "many" (which implies a relatively large number).

The statement, "the countries of the UK each have separate national governing bodies for many sports", is correct since each of the constituent parts of the UK have national governing bodies for sport that number greater than one (I'm deliberately ignoring "many"). The unfortunate thing is what it does not say. An equally correct sentence could read, "UK-wide bodies govern many sports in each of the constituent countries of the UK".

My point is that we are just swapping one logically correct sentence for another but not addressing the POV issues raised by any variant - just swapping one POV with another. We need more space to go into the details and give an NPOV description of the situation.

So, yes, I would support expanding the sports section and summarizing it. --RA (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors should be aware of the Guidelines. In particular this which states “Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.” And if they weren't aware of it, they are now. Although it doesn't mention it explicitly, I rather think that smarmy git posts are discouraged. Thank you for replying (eventually) to my questions. I look forward to reviewing your work on the expanded section. Daicaregos (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Where was the personal attack? Also, if you will note from my first post, my suggestion was to expand the relevant sections first for the reasons I state above.

--RA (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mention a personal attack. It may seem that the majority of NI sports people compete for a combined Ireland team, but perhaps that is because those sports are more high profile e.g. Rugby, Cricket, Basketball etc. Many of the NI governing bodies field teams in their own right e.g. Athletics Northern Ireland see here - results for the Celtic Games - (NI are noted as Ulster, and the Ireland team are noted as Athletics Ireland), Volleyball see here (note that the NI Volleyball Association field what they call a “National Team”), Archery, Pool, Netball (NI are currently world ranked 15th), among others, and, of course, the Irish Football Association. That would be greater than 0 in number then. ;) Daicaregos (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The second part of these sentences is factually wrong and misleading: <<A number of sporting bodies in the island of Ireland are 'all-island' institutions, and field combined all-Ireland teams in the international arena.[15] This is mainly true of sports that have no major presence in Northern Ireland[citation needed], although rugby union is an exception, and the tennis Davis cup team is all-Ireland too>>. Several other all-Ireland sports are very strong in NI, such as Hockey and Cricket, as well as Rugby. I propose deleting the text in italics altogether.Crc (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

History

Looking at the recent edits back and forth, trying to establish a "history" paragraph under "terminology", I'm not overly optimistic that it is possible to reach a meaningful consensus. What's more important: I think it may not be necessary, or even helpful, to the article as a presentation of Countries of the United Kingdom to try to sort out just when&how the various parts of UK was countries prior to becoming part of UK. My suggestion:

• Copypaste the lead from History of the formation of the United Kingdom to section History.
• Leave section Terminology as "legal" or "official" terminology (like it is just now), and change the first sentence to "Various legal have been used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as parts of the United Kingdom" (bolding just to emphasize changes here). No citation needed for that, as this is precisely what is elaborated in the subsections Acts of union and current legal. As it stands, this sentence makes no useful meaning at all, and the {{cn}} tag looks plain ridiculous. Various terms has been used to describe for example England, including (but not limited to) "beautiful country", "lousy place" and "a state on the east coast [of USA] somewhere"... ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You've made good points here, but I'm working towards putting the 'various terms' back in (currently linked to here in this 'refs' page). when this article was created they were at the 'centre' of the article. We'll probably need to look at it all afresh when I get them back in (I still haven't decided on how yet, maybe in a parag with selected refs - they were removed on a 'technicality' and I don't want to repeat that). Matt Lewis (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Troubles ArbCom

OK. This revert has done it for me. The changes I made were to add references and numbers to statements that were already elements, to remove a self-published source (written by primary school children!) and to add {{cn}} tags to a number of relatively source-able but non-obvious statements.

As a consequence, I've been put in the the mind to place this page under the The Troubles arbcom ruling. The most immediate effect of this for contributors here is that that the page will fall under a 1RR with an immediate block (no questions asked) for any breach.

I'm not going to put it up immediately because I want to invite comments from others on the recent editing problems first.

(I've noticed since a sourced statement (quoted even) has been replaced by unsourced statement but the reference maintained as if it supported the new statement.) --RA (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The Identity section was pertty much stable for the year or so I wasn't editing, which says a lot I think. To evoke arbcom and the 'Troubles' because your change to it wasn't accepted is a bit OTT. I don't mind using relevant hatnotes and 'citations needed' tags (within reason - your can theoretically put those eveywhere). Regarding the primary school ref, I do vaguely remember it (as being reliable), but its been through a number of pairs of eyes I can assure you. If you don't like it then look for a better ref - it's not a green light to re-write it all with diferent leanings. Reference-searching/replacing for existing text is something we should of course be prepared to do before re-writing - I'll look again at the reference I kept in the sports revision I made. I'm not saying that accurate sources aren't fully important, but the main thing here is that the text isn't iffy. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read: 1RR restrictions placed on article

Subsequent to the spate of reverting that has affected the article in recent days, its clear this article is subject is affected by "Troubles"-related issues. Consequently, I've added the Troubles template to the article talk page. The effect of this is to place a 1RR rule restriction on the article with immediate blocks for violations. Please exercise caution before reverting content. Talk is better. --RA (talk)

That was just wrong of you in so many ways. Amongst other things, it blows WP:AGF out of the window. And to try and achieve 1RR to win an argument is simply the wrong reason to give this the Troubles tag. You just have no right to talk about "exercising caution before reverting", especially when this 'all-Ireland' matter regarding Sport seems to have been (rightly or wrongly) something you brought in yourself.

Everyone (except the odd IP) "talks" in this article. Apart from anything else, this Troubles cry is just plain impatience. Compromises have already been made - you simply won't get all your own way on this, whatever your (worryingly ungrammatical) reference says. Anything that looks overtly nationalistic in this article simply has to be 'disambiguated' in some way. And is this really Intro stuff?

My last edit;

"A number of sporting bodies in the island of Ireland are 'all-island' institutions, and field combined all-Ireland teams in the international arena.[1] This is mainly true of sports that have no major presence in Northern Ireland, although rugby union is an exception, and the tennis Davis cup team is all-Ireland too."

seems reasonable to me, providing we work on the All-Ireland page. You reference actually uses the "all-Ireland" term. If you don't like it then just say why. To call it 'Troubles-related' is just too disregarding of AGF, despite our open political differences (which most of us editing here hold to some degree) Matt Lewis (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

On a point of order: does any editor have the right to declare an article "Troubles"-related? And once so designated, does it remain so in perpetuity? Daicaregos (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Only an admin can do that --Snowded ^TALK 07:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I removed it. However I think that a voluntary do not revert a revert policy would make sense, with editors developing text in a sand box and then bringing it here for discussion. --Snowded ^TALK 07:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've place an enforcement request relating to this. The ArbCom ruling is that "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related." The template is merely a courtesty notice. --RA (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but no. Its not clear that the edit war here can be reasonably construed as relating to the troubles. The various edit wars over the British Isles were not so construed with it went to RFA. If you think it should be (and I think its overkill) then you should raise it at the Arbitration enforcement page, placing a notice here so it can be properly handled. --Snowded ^TALK 09:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That has been done now. See enforcement request. Daicaregos (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, I think it's related ("...Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland ... When in doubt, assume it is related."), particularly given the bones of contention, but let's see what happens.

We can agree at least there there is a problem with reverting right now? And that there are barriers to developing the article right now? I don't know about sandboxes because, without the participation of others, I see little scope for consensus below. It might help things greatly were others to comment on the discussion. --RA (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See fact tag and request below --Snowded ^TALK 10:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI - see reply Sandstein's to the enforcement request, which, if I read it correctly says, "...not actionable [because the "Troubles" 1RR restriction] is not a remedy passed by the Arbitration Committee." While not affecting (solely) this article, I'll make a request for clarification later unless someone else does first. --RA (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible inappropriate use of reference

I know I said that I would not contribute here anymore but before I go there's one piece from the current copy that concerns me.

The following sentence was added to the Sports section last Friday:

• "The Republic of Ireland's international teams of sports that have no major presence in Northern Ireland normally extend their membership there."

This statement replace an earlier one, first by changing the text (and meaning) substantially then replacing it completely. A reference that had supported the earlier statement was then re-added to support the new statement.

The original statement was:

• "For most sports, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland compete as a single international team representing Ireland. Notable exceptions include soccer..."

The quotation from the source that is provided with the reference is: "In most sports, except soccer, Northern Ireland participates with the Republic of Ireland in a combined All-Ireland team." This quotation appears to support the earlier text but does not appear to support the new text. Furthermore, I cannot find support for the newly added statement in the referenced source.

Can the editor who added the text provide a quotation from the source they cited in support of the new statement? --RA (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

OK.

I've not got the time to address this right now, but I will correct a mistake in your comment:

The original statement (actually) was:

• For most sports, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland compete as a single international team representing all Ireland. The last all Ireland association football team was fielded during the 1970s, and Commonwealth Games.

Two big differences there! You had linked the term "All Ireland" to the poor All-Ireland article (not just written 'Ireland'), and there was no "notable exceptions include soccer" line at all, just an irrelevant statement on soccer in the ROI. In that existing version there was also a gramatically broken line on the Olympics, and an actually factually incorrect line on NI soccer the 70's. In short, I was entitled to edit it.

As I said in my edit note: "This is a little misleading, as if certain sports were bigger in NI they would probably have their own teams." Then when removing 'All Ireland' , "ce, and more specific last line. Not sure of 'all-Ireland' article."

I'll comment more tomorrow if I can. I agree this particular ref can be improved (though it still broadly fits - depending on how you read its ambiguity), but you pressured me for a ref on an admins page, although there is no rule on sourcing line-by-line on Wikipedia. Certain types of 'afirmative' statements can be notoriously hard to find refs for. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. A slight correction, though I believe you "in spirit":

The original statement was as I described. It was added by me at 13:17, 30 March 2010. The text was changed to what you describe as the "original" text by Jza84 on 16:14, 30 March 2010. Jza84's change did not alter the meaning of the text substantially and did not inappropriately attribute sources. No one is disputing that your are "entitled to edit", just please don't misattribute references (also in this case the statement attributed to the reference is inaccurate).

Do you have any problems with simply removing the sentence all together and moving the reference up to where this is mentioned in the introduction (a place it should go anyway)?

(BTW, with respect to the "factual inaccuracy" - though not cited in this article, the IFA brokered an exception to the FIFA ruling in the 1950 so that "Ireland" teams could continue to be fielded for the Home Nations Championship, the last of which was played in the 1970s. This is referenced in Ireland national football team (1882–1950), though I don't know what the references there supports. Incidentally, though under the name of Shamrock Rovers XI to avoid the FIFA ban on Ireland team outside of the Home Nations Championship, an all-Ireland team played Brazil in 1973. Since then there has been no all-Ireland international soccer teams though there have been numerous all-Ireland cups, the latest being the Setanta Sports Cup.) --RA (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding removing the sentence in the Sport section - nothing should be in the intro that isn't also in an existing correspoding section in the main article. I don't approve of the "for most sports" line that has been added to the intro - I've just not had the time to look at it yet. It's just too potentially misleading to say that NI and the ROI untite as 'Ireland' in 'most sports'. Other than rugby what is there? And we have to be better (cleverer, really) with language than that in WP. The current line: "For most sports, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland compete as a single international team representing Ireland (exceptions being Northern Ireland national football team and Northern Ireland at the Commonwealth Games)." suggests that 'Ireland' becomes 'one nation' for most sports! But an ROI team that stretches its membership to NI does not necessarily make it a combined "NI and ROI" team. I actually don't think this detail is really intro stuff anyway (it wasn't included the last time I read it, or for most of its history as far as I remeber), so I'm deleting it from the intro and am adding a line on rugby union to the Sports section. What else is there other than rugby union?

Regarding the line on NI football in the 70's, the line was just plain wrong - the 1950's was the fair and honest date to put the 'brief' focus on (of the two dates), not the 1970's. But it (like rugby union history) has a complicated history (being Northern Ireland - yes?). It was just misleading way of expressing a complicated situation. That is what can happen, and we have to avoid it. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"It's just too potentially misleading to say that NI and the ROI untite as 'Ireland' in 'most sports'. Other than rugby what is there?" Cricket, basketball, hockey, water polo, tennis ... like the reference says: most sports. There are some exceptions. Soccer is the most notable.

"...an ROI team that stretches its membership to NI does not necessarily make it a combined 'NI and ROI'" That's not how it works. Look at the reference: there one Ireland team for most sports. It is not the ROI team extending it's membership to NI.

Let's stick with the references and let's not delete referenced material. That's no way to build an article. If you can find a counter reference, or one to support your understanding of the topic, that can be added later. OK? I'll fix the text and add the reference to the intro. If you are genuinely interested in this topic, and interested in building this article, you won't revert relatively trivial and referenced information about it.--RA (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell me how to build/not build an article, or question my interest. I can and will delete a referenced line if I think it is not needed and/or misleading, and I created this article (as you know full well), so obviously I have a genuine interest in it.

Regarding your list of sports - my point in saying "what other sports are there (other than Rugby)?" was that those kind of sports are not big sports in NI (or even big in Ireland I would suggest, some of them), and if they were big in NI it could easily have it's own team. Creating 'Ireland' teams should not be described as a 'norm'. Hence the edit I made. I think the key to this is to develop the All-Ireland page, and to write a more balanced paragraph with that as the centre. I can't accept anything in the intro until it's sorted out, and frankly I can't see how it is really Intro stuff anyway. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Matt, if you are unwilling to accept reliable sources can you please remove the entire sentence. It is better to remove content from an article than to have counter factual and fraudulently referenced content in an article. Many thanks. --RA (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've used your source and put in the information you want - just phrased in another way. It seems to me that it's the additional clarification you are concerned with. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Level set

Can we please have a statement from each of you (Matt & RA) which either describes why the article should stay as it is or why it should be changed? The rest of us can then review and comment. I'm tempted just to revert to a prior stable version but will hold on that for the moment --Snowded ^TALK 10:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Snowded.

There is a reference in the article that states:

• "In most sports, except soccer, Northern Ireland participates with the Republic of Ireland in a combined All-Ireland team."

This is being used to support a statment (current version) that reads:

• "A number of sporting bodies in the island of Ireland are 'all-island' institutions, and field combined all-Ireland teams in the international arena."

Whilst an improvement on previous versions, this under-represents what the reference supports (i.e. it changes "most" to "a number").

Another statement, which was previously supported by the reference but is now marked (by yourself) as citation needed, reads:

• "This is mainly true of sports that have no major presence in Northern Ireland[citation needed], although rugby union is an exception, and the tennis Davis cup team is all-Ireland too."

The essence of this sentence is counter-factual and unsupported by reference.

I am happy for either:

a) i) The second sentence to be removed (unless a supporting refernce can be found); and ii) the first sentence to be ammended to, "A number ofMost sporting bodies ion the island of Ireland are 'all-island' institutions, and field combined all-Ireland teams in the international arena"; as that is what is supported by the reference.

b) Both sentences to be removed as it is better to lose content than to have inaccurate, counter-factual, and mis-cited content in an article.

--RA (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand where has all this drama come from? It would be interesting to know what your 'stable version' is, Snowded - I might agree with it, although changes that people want need to be addressed in some way eventually of course.

As I am being asked to go through my arguments afresh having been repeating them over the past few days (Wikipedia is nothing if not arduous at times!) you'll have to wait till I have time, later tonight perhaps. I'll just say this: this article is one where 'disambiguation' is paramount, and we have a duty to be as neutral as possible, and not to mislead the reader in any way. Basically I've put in what RA wants, with his reference, and added the new "mainly true" line as I'm entitled to do. I don't see what is "counter factual" about the new line, or how it is so contentious that a 'citation needed' tag isn't good enough until I find one. We have to be careful not to disallow a growing NI from developing various sports, by suggesting that the all-Ireland senario is a 'norm'.

Matt Lewis (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

At the moment Matt I am just trying to understand what the are the options being discussed rather than the arguments (that can be worked out). Its not clear as we have edits building on edit conflicts which always confuses things. Your response on RA's options a&b would be useful --Snowded ^TALK 12:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Countries?

This whole article is highly confusing. The united kingdom is not comprised of countries by most people's understanding of the word country. The UK government can say what it likes but that doesn't make it true. It seems to be a victory of national pride over consistent use of language to refer to Northen Ireland, Scotland, and Wales as countries. Countries are in most cases members of the UN ( http://www.un.org/en/members/ ), The UK is a member but Northen Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are not. Countries normally issue their own passports, set their own taxes, make their own laws. Northen Ireland, Scotland, and Wales do not. Attempting to redefine country to mean something other than 'nation state' is unnecessary, and against normal usage of the word. Lands or nations of the United Kingdom would be a better title. Unixtastic (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Land" is not used to describe the UK's component parts and nations are communities of people, not places. The most common use is simply 'country' and that's what is reflected here. --Breadandcheese (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Scotland is a separate legal jurisdiction and is recognised as such worldwide. This article is needed to help explain to people who would otherwise misunderstand that where countries join together to make larger, united, political entities, they do not cease to be countries just because they are now part of a larger entity. Hence the United Kingdom is, as the No 10 weebsite describes it, 'a country made up of 4 countries'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I would assume people call the parts of the UK countries because of cultural reasons, not a reference to their historic status as sovereign states. --Breadandcheese (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Breadandcheese, your comment made me do a little research to try to find an early reference to Scotland as a country - I decided to look in legislation passed by the Parliament of Scotland prior to 1707 and found a record from 1388 (18 August, Linlithgow, General Council Records) which stated "..and it would also place a heavy burden on him in such a troubled time, and [would be] useless and excessively expensive both to him and the entire country;" - This would certainly seem to imply that Scotland was described as a country while it was independent, and that this has merely continued after the Treaty of Union with Scotland now being seen as a country within the United Kingdom. Just a bit of original research!!! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Few if any would dispute the use of the word 'country' in Scotland's case - or, for that matter, in relation to England and to Wales. The only contentious case is Northern Ireland, where it is highly controversial to describe the place as a 'country'. The term is used exclusively by those on the unionist side of the main political divide in Northern Ireland and a neutral term, such as region, should be preferred on Wikipedia. Brocach (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

On a point of information, the UN link above gives a list of states, not a list of countries Fasach Nua (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe calling the parts of the UK countries will be hard to understand for a lot of people who assume that a country is an independent nation state. I can see this argument has been gone over a number of times and will concede the point. Clearly a great number of people think the current wording is correct. Fishiehelper2, that's interesting but I would expect Scotland to be a country ( or my definition of one ) whilst it was independent. Unixtastic (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia; users should expect to discover information beyond their everyday knowledge. That is its raison d'être. Because some people may be ignorant of a word's usage in other parts of the world is insufficient reason to stop using it. I thoroughly approve of educating them that 'country' and 'sovereign state' are not synonyms. The word 'countries' is linked to the country article. If a reader is unsure of its meaning they can read the article. There is no reason to change the existing wording. Daicaregos (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You're getting mixed up. England doesn't equate the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is GoodDay - no-one said England was the UK. Daicaregos and Fishiehelper2 are correct in saying that 'country' is not the same as 'state' - where I depart from them is in saying that neither term should be applied in Wikipedia to Northern Ireland, which does not have the same claim as the ancient 'countries' of England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland did not exist as an administrative, political or judicial division until 1921, just within living memory - and the term 'country' when applied to that part of the UK is not a neutral term, because within Northern Ireland it is used exclusively by those on one side of the main political/cultural/religious divide. To call Northern Ireland a 'country' here is to align Wikipedia with the British/Protestant/unionist majority in Northern Ireland and to alienate the Irish/Catholic/nationalist minority who never use the term 'country' in relation to the region. Brocach (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The UK government calls them countries & so they all are. What the Irish nationalist living in Northern Ireland like or dislike, is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the discussion above, and the similar discussions taking place in other pages referring to Northern Ireland as 'country', is that the term 'country' is the only one that is contested as non-neutral. No-one has taken issue with the use of the many neutral terms available, such as 'part' of the UK, 'region' of the UK or 'political division' of the UK. I will therefore substitute the NPOV uncontested term because it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia to advance a partisan view on Northern Ireland politics. Brocach (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a {{cn}} tag to your comment added to the article, as it needs to be sourced from a reliable source. As to you point that "country" is a non-neutral term, that may well be so, but it is the term used by the British government, and that's what the article is about - the term's use by the sovereign government. I think it would be better to keep the Lead uncluttered with such objections, and add a well-cited section on the contesting of the term to the article, probably under the "Identity and nationality" section, which covers similar issues with Scotland and Wales. - BilCat (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)