Talk:United Kingdom

Sovereign "Country"?!

The first sentence of this United Kingdom page falsely claims the UK is a "sovereign country". The UK is not a country, it is a political union, a Sovereign State of four constituent countries (or constituent nations). Could the first sentence please be corrected? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:db83:5b01:64e4:eea1:8881:48b9 (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It is a country ruled by one sovereign. Sorry, who are you? Please sign your posts with four tildes (4x~). Britmax (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

"Sovereign country" is a compromise, reached after several discussions. Let's leave that compromise in place. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The UK is a "soverign state" and is referred to as such in official documents. This is the most commonly used term when referring to the UK and the UK governemnt is based on "Parliamentary Sovereignty". Titus Gold (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather we use "country". But as already mentioned, the current wording is a compromise. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"Sovereign country" is a term that was invented for use in this article. We should not leave that bizarre mashup in place and should instead use a term from our reliable sources, not a piece of original research. It's time to listen to all the editors who say so rather than dismissing their valid criticism with "it's a compromise". NebY (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Which word are you disagreeing with: “country” or “sovereign”. If you disagree with either…that’s just bizarre. DeCausa (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm disagreeing with the term "sovereign country". The normal term is "sovereign state". Just because "sovereign" and "country" are each normal English words, that doesn't mean we should create a novel term from them. It's contrary to Wikipedia policy and not at all helpful to readers. NebY (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

No idea why you think it’s novel. It’s a widely used pretty common standard phrase e.g. [1], [2]. DeCausa (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Those pages are only a strikingly limited set of returns from automatic searches; they're in no way endorsed by the editors of those dictionaries and they don't indicate that the phrase is widely used, common, standard or pretty, let alone that it's readily understandable or that our intention in using it rather than sovereign state is anything but perplexing to the general reader of Wikipedia. NebY (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

No one’s perplexed, it’s obvious what it means, it’s a very common phrase, not only in dictionaries and this is a non-issue: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] etc etc There are 1.3m hits on google for the phrase. DeCausa (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Internet searches allow us to find mutiple instances even of typos and misspellings; that doesn't mean they're common or proper. Indeed, far from being common, "sovereign country" appears less than 1% as often as "sovereign state"[16] and your examples above are of it being used for rhetorical effect as having more emotive impact than "sovereign state". That's fine for politicians and tubthumping in the Sun as seen in your first example[17] but it raises a big WP:NPOV flag for us, even without considering the particular POV for Scottish independence and the future of the Union of the assertion that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Irelansd together constitute a single country.

I don't know why you would say that nobody's perplexed when so many editors query it on these talk pages, or say that it's a non-issue despite so much discussion. Are we to understand that you would be quite content to see "sovereign country" replaced with "sovereign state"? NebY (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

They’re not perplexed. They are denying the UK is a country. I’m responding to you saying that the term was invented for this article. If now you’re saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT that’s a whole different discussion. But it’s equally a pointless waste of time as these WP terminolgy disputes tend to be. DeCausa (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

One denies that the UK is a country, others don't. Yes, I started by saying that it was a term invented for the sake of compromise in this one article and it does indeed give the appearance of being so. You've demonstrated that it is used elsewhere; I and others have pointed out to you that it is far rarer than "sovereign state" and problematic in other ways, and now you're dismissing that as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and persisting in calling it a waste of time to discuss it. Please, if you find it a waste of time then don't waste any more time trying to defend the term. NebY (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m not “defending” the term. I’m only saying that your claim that it’s made up by Wikipedia editors and no one understands it is nonsense. That’s it. Nothing more. It doesn’t bother me if the word “sovereign” is deleted. DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Would it bother you if we used the term "sovereign state" rather than "sovereign country"? NebY (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Sovereign state is a compound noun with a definition that applies to the UK. "Sovereign country" is a neologism created by Wikipedia editors with no defined meaning and therefore should not be in this article. TFD (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Of coursde it wasn’t created by Wikipedia editors. Did you not see the above links I provided above to dictionaries, newspapers, academic books, EU press release, Hansard (UK parliamentary proceedings), Forbes etc. Nothing to do with Wikipedia. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

You found a few examples (half of which are from unreliable sources) that show an adjective and noun put together. If it were a defined concept, there would be a Wikipedia article. it seems that most of the articles use it as a synonym for sovereign state. Can you find a legal definition of sovereign country? TFD (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

There are 1.3m examples on google. It’s not a neologism it’s a very very common phrase with a very very obvious meaning. Of course it’s a synonym for sovereign state. So what? This is such a pointless non-issue waste of time. DeCausa (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Definitely not the norm wording for the UK [18] Moxy- 22:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. It is also the least applicable of the four options being discussed. (see my table way down below in this discussion for a summary of the pros and cons of each term). I think it should be "sovereign state". Angry Candy (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

We are using a qualifier word that implies the country was not sovereign at some point. Sounds like it just got its independence from some other country....makes it sound like a new country with very little history. At the help desk this has come up a few times for here and AustraliaMoxy- 22:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

In fact most of the references are to cases like this: Ukraine, Georgia, Ireland and Cyprus. TFD (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

There’s no need to state the word “sovereign” for the UK. As Moxy says it implies there’s a doubt.DeCausa (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Above you say it's a "common phrase" and now you say that there is no need to include the word "sovereign." But a phrase is not just an adjective and noun, but has a specific meaning. Siamese cats for example are not necessarily cats from Siam. TFD (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Look, I couldn’t give a flying f**k what the terminology used is. I responded to someone saying, effectively, the phrase “sovereign country” doesn’t exist and was made up by Wikipedia editors, which is abject nonsense. It’s a very very common phrase frequently used. Do I think it’s the bast phrase for this article? I couldn’t care less. “Country”, “sovereign country”, “sovereign state” is typical Wikpedia false pedantry nonsense and I just don’t care. However, if someone wants to take the word “country” out because they want to support a POV that the UK is not a country - then i do start to care a bit because that’s a breach of NPOV. But only “a bit”. It’s still tedious. DeCausa (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• The UK is a 'sovereign state' (commonly called a 'country', on Wikipedia and everywhere else), which comprises 4 'constituent states' (usually referred to as 'constituent countries' in the UK). What's the hoo-ha here, exactly?  Tewdar  22:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  A number of editors argue that we should use the same term you do, "sovereign state", rather than the term we currently use, "sovereign country". Would you agree? NebY (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  I have no real objections to any of the options 'sovereign state', 'sovereign country', or 'country'. I would probably prefer to use simply 'country'.  Tewdar  06:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't believe "sovereign state" is an NPOV concern as DeCausa suggests, as it doesn't imply the UK isn't a country. The advantage of "sovereign state" is that it nicely distinguishes the UK from its constituent countries and it's the most common technical terminology for modern states; the advantage of just using "country" is simplicity (the UK is a country after all), but it would result in confusion for lay readers unfamiliar with the UK state's structure (a historical compromise, a country of countries). I agree with others that "sovereign" is factually unnecessary, but I can see why it was added to reduce reader confusion. I don't think "sovereign country" is wrong as such, but it's definitely less the common than the stock phrase "sovereign state", so I can also understand why it appears to some to be an artificial construct. My mild preference is for "sovereign state". Ultimately, they're all acceptable – including the status quo (or it wouldn't go unchallenged for months at a time). The issue seems to be more about what people think our wording could suggest, rather than its actual factual incorrectness. Jr8825 • Talk 00:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

There are also dependent (i.e., non-sovereign) states, such as Bermuda. TFD (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The term country in the opening sentence is the norm all over.....with statehood normally mention in 3 paragraph Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. We only have a few that differ....and those 3 have this problem all the time. It's clear what the stable wording is for every other country article.Moxy- 02:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

*One thing that puzzles me is that the sentence "The United Kingdom consists of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland" appears in the second paragraph, after the summary of the UK's political structure, the monarch, and the largest cities. Surely this is the most basic fact about the UK, and it would be much easier to explain the first sentence if it was followed directly by the introductory sentence to the constituent countries. Jr8825 • Talk 03:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Toying with ideas here, but what do editors find objectionable about the following options?

  • A The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a country in north-western Europe, off the north-­western coast of the European mainland. It consists of four constituent countries – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – and encompasses the island of Great Britain, the north-­eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands within the British Isles.
  • B The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a country in north-western Europe, off the north-­western coast of the European mainland. It consists of four constituent countries, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; together, they encompasses the island of Great Britain, the north-­eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands within the British Isles.
  • C The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a country in north-western Europe, off the north-­western coast of the European mainland. It consists of four constituent countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom encompasses the island of Great Britain, the north-­eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands within the British Isles. Jr8825 • Talk 03:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is, since it only dates back to Tony Blair and none of the countries is sovereign as they would ber in a federation. If we are referreing to the countries of the UK before devolution, it becomes more complex. England and Wales for example is a country that consists of three countries, one of which (Cornwall) is not devolved. Northern Ireland is actually part of a country (Ireland) that was partitioned. And then there are the Orkney Islands and other anomalies. TFD (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Jr8825. The problem is to describe the UK as a country. "Country" is not crazy but it is colloquial and I would say politically incorrect and maybe factually inaccurate. I would propose the compromise of "a sovereign state consisting of the constituent nations [or countries] of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales." (I motion also that the 4 nations [or countries] are presented alphabetically rather than by population numbers or perceived cultural significance (also for NPOV/political neutrality). I've expounded a little further at what is currently the bottom of this discussion. Thanks. :) Angry Candy (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The sentence "it consists of" (which is in the current text) can easily be amended to "it includes". Jr8825 • Talk 03:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

That’s WP:OR. There’s no linkage between devolution and references to “country” in the UK context. It’s a cultural not a legal phenomenon. England and Wales is a legal jurisdiction and (since 1707) is/has not been referred to as a country. The word country has historically been referred to the trio of E, S and W. More recently, for the sake of symmetry as well as poltical reasons NI has had the same description. Cornwall, Orkney etc is in a different category. To describe those as countries is a particular political POV and is not generally accepted in the same way - and actually NI is in a somewhat similar position. There’s no hard and fast “rules” in this. It’s largely about cultural identity, politics, usage, tradition which is why it’s a minefield. There are endless debates in the archive over nearly 2 decades and whatever the outcome of this thread I have no doubt there will be endless future debates for as long as WP exists. DeCausa (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

References

To weigh my thoughts in, to refer to it as a sovereign country is probably as close to NPOV as the article can get. "Sovereign country", which is recognised in the article Sovereign state as another name for a sovereign state, does two things. First, it recognises the UK as a country in the common use of the term. Country/Nation is widely used as a synonym of sovereign states. As Wikipedia is supposed to inform people who don't know about a topic about a topic, particular regionalised uses of terms are less helpful. "Sovereign" country allows a distinction between the two terms as they are used - for sovereign states and constituent parts of sovereign states. If the use of country as a synonym for sovereign states as a general convention on Wikipedia changes, then it could be considered to change this lead sentence. However, until that time, not calling the UK a country in line with convention is not in line with NPOV. Jèrriais janne (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I basically agree with Jèrriais janne, country is the standard term to refer to pretty much every modern sovereign state in the world regardless of its structure or political situation. In that context using any term other than country could easily be interpreted as expressing a clear view that the UK is fundamentally different to every other sovereign state and ultimately about its legitimacy as a political entity which whatever you think about the Union doesn't belong being inserted in the first sentence of the UK's Wikipedia page. I was involved in an argument on this talk page a couple of years ago where I objected to the use of the phrase "Sovereign Country" for similar reasons but I'm now of the view that its a reasonable way of distinguishing between the different ways the term is used in relation to the UK particularly as it is also used elsewhere. Llewee (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Giving away my age here...James, Alan (1984). "Sovereignty: Ground Rule or Gibberish?". Review of International Studies. 10 (1). Cambridge University Press: 1–18. ISSN 0260-2105. JSTOR 20096996. Retrieved 2022-05-23. Moxy- 21:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I can only see the superfluous inclusion of the word "sovereign" as verging on the jingoistic, in the wake of leaving the European Union. All countries are "sovereign". Does the article on the United States of America begin by stating that it's a sovereign country? I doubt it. Is there a belief that the United Kingdom of Great Britain didn't used to be sovereign, but was a vassal of some great empire? I doubt it. Are the countries of the EU each sovereign? Of course they are. Do they have it stated in their Wiki articles? Of course not; it's not necessary. Francis Hannaway (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Francish7: Not all countries are equally sovereign: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland covers two, three or four which are not. I think the mess here precedes leaving the EU and is mostly due to the make-up of the UK as a country of four countries (with one of those "countries" having some other problems, and another seemingly non-existent), rather than any attempt at jingoism. Replacing "country" with "state" to give "a state of four countries" gives rise to further confusion if compared with confederations of states, so it's been expanded to a "sovereign state of four countries" which is where we're at now. I apologise for none of this and agree with you that simply stating that it's a "country" in the lead would suffice, leaving the torture for the main article. Bazza (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The UK is one of the few countries in the world made up of entities that are also described to varying degrees as countries. As the articles for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland describe each as countries, a vital a distinction is made on this article by stating sovereign country rather than just country. This issue was debated extensively for many years and that is the compromise that was reached, as it covers the fact the UK is both a sovereign state (unlike England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland), and a country. Despite a few discussions over recent years, this has been very stable for many years, and i strongly oppose any alteration to this wording. It has nothing to do with the EU, and there are different formats followed for different countries. The sovereign bit relates to the fact the UK is a sovereign state and yes each member of the EU is a sovereign state to. This is nothing to do with Brexit and was agreed before that happened. There is no need for any change. RWB2020 (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This discusdion isn't discussing whether or not the parts of the UK are countries, but whether it's necessary to use a word like 'sovereign'. As far as makes sense to me, one head of state, one government (devolved governments are a second tier of government - like Boroughs in County Councils),one army, one currency. To me it looks like one country. Take the example of the US. 50 States, each with a governor. The government of each state in the US has more power and independence than each of the devolved government of Scotland, the principality of Wales (never a country), and the province of Northern Ireland (an annexed part of another country). Yet they are known as states. In other countries they'd be known as semi- autonomous provinces/states, as exist in several European countries. But this is all another issue. The country is the sum of all of these. It's called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. All citizens are equal, and have freedom of movement, with one passport. Francis Hannaway (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Surely no one is arguing that it's not a country. I think the point being raised is that it's a country of countries, or a country with countries, or a state of countries, or any number of other confusing descriptions. Perhaps a similar article would be Kingdom of the Netherlands, which is described as a sovereign state. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:zzuuzz. Actually, this discussion is precisely based on the motion that the UK is not strictly a country. Please see the first post. England is a country, as are Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The UK is a union of four countries and we're looking for the best way to describe that relationship factually and apolitically. "Sovereign state" and "sovereign country" are proposed as compromises. I personally favour "sovereign state." I do not see "sovereign country" as a compromise but potentially a Unionist POV and as such politically (and maybe factually) incorrect. Angry Candy (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The trouble is, the terms 'country', 'sovereign country', and 'sovereign state' are often used with identical meaning. In this sense, the UK is a country, but its four so-called 'constituent countries' are not countries. 'Country' is very commonly used to mean 'sovereign state', which is why I'd prefer to use this term.  Tewdar  20:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it wouldn't be crazy to say it's a country in an everyday sort of way. To avoid saying "it's a country of 4 countries" (which I agree is ungainly and confusing), we should use "sovereign state." That is still factually accurate and politically correct. I realise now that's what you're saying. I agree with you. Angry Candy (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• I would like to concur with the original poster (User:NebY) that "sovereign country" is not correct, nor is it a compromise as per User:Britmax. It strikes me as politically incorrect as well as factually inaccurate. I would accept "sovereign state (which is a real thing) comprising of the four constituent countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." The issue is that "country" is colloquial, "sovereign country" is very strange and could be misconstrued as an overly Unionist POV (the equally unacceptable and politically incorrect anti-Unionist counterpart to this POV would be something like "a political union between the four constituent counties of..."), while "sovereign state" makes sense across the colloquial, factual, official, and as an apolitical compromise. It is very strange to me that "sovereign country" is being described as a compromise when "sovereign state" would be the compromise for the reasons I state here. How do we move towards a consensus? Angry Candy (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  Some editors are saying that "sovereign country" (for the UK) is a way to distinguish against "constituent country" (used for England, NI, Scotland, and Wales). But this is back to front in addition to encountering the problems I outline above. In defining what the UK is in this opening paragraph, we should not be defining it against the smaller units of those constituent countries but the larger units of, well, everything else on Wikipedia. We should be briefly answering the question "What is the UK?" with reference to everything else, not with reference to things within the UK. Angry Candy (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Just 'country' would be fine. 'State' would also be fine, and would mean the same thing in this context. 'Sovereign state' and 'sovereign country' are both also fine. Personally I'd prefer just 'country', but I'm not that bothered really.  Tewdar  20:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The standard opening for almost every country article on wp is "X is a country in...", some have a qualifier like "transcontinental country" or "island country". I think Monaco and the Vatican are pretty much the only ones with something different: "...is a city state". Australia has "is a sovereign country" too. It's just fine as it is. Threads like this are a colossal waste of time. DeCausa (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It's only a waste of time if you're happy with the status quo. Angry Candy (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "country" would be fine, or "sovereign state". They're familiar terms, especially "country", whereas with "sovereign country" we risk pulling our readers up short while they try to figure out why we haven't simply said "country" or "sovereign state". What point are we making? NebY (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Much of the discussion above was before the May 2022 discussion now in the archives, Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 36#Intro minor change proposal: moving one sentence on "four countries" to initial UK summary, where a lot of workshopping resulted in this change Among other things, we discovered we could simply say "It comprises England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland," so we no longer use "constituent countries" in the first paragraph. NebY (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• A simplified argument in favour of changing the current wording to "sovereign state" by Angry Candy (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC). (I invite you all to discuss this tabular argument using indents beneath the table with reference to the table and without restating above positions):

	Factually accurate	NPOV	Colloquial	Commonly used in Wikipedia
Country	Maybe	Maybe	Yes	Yes
Sovereign country	Maybe	No	No	No
Sovereign state	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Political union	Yes	No	Maybe	Yes

Depends what you mean by "politically correct". For some who are pro-union and pro-sovereignty, anything but "Sovereign country" is an WP:NPOV-breaching dilution. The idea that English has only one "natural language" is ... novel. There are many registers, far more than "colloquial" and "Wikipedia". "Sovereign state" is normal within plenty of them and more common in them than "sovereign country". (Also, re "without restating above positions", telling people you're arguing with or trying to persuade that from now on they've got to discuss it your way didn't do Socrates a lot of good.) NebY (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh come now! He was seventy, a ripe old age for a Greek of that time. The only way we know much about him is through Plato, who was so wrought by the injustice that he spent the rest of his life writing dialogues with Socrates as a key character. The execution ofd Socrates was the making of the man, not his downfall. --Pete (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Based on your comments I've changed "politically correct" to NPOV (which is the real issue there) and "natural language" to something more, well, natural. I also upgraded "political union" to a maybe in that category. For what it's worth, I think we would both prefer "political union" from a purely factual basis but there are other issues to consider that will likely to lead us to a compromise instead. The current compromise is apparently "sovereign country" but as you can see from my table argument I do not see it as an adequate one. Angry Candy (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I would not prefer "political union". Wikipedia's target audience varies - look at some of our maths articles - but imagine a 14-year-old in the US reading this to learn about the difference between England, Britain and the United Kingdom, finding "political union" in the first sentence and wondering just how limited a merely political union is. NebY (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, there is actually a good page for political union and the UK is included on it as an example of "incorporating union." So the term is used on Wikipedia and we can link to it without changing the terminology. I've updated the political union row of my table to reflect this.

Just describe the UK as a "country". England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland as "constituent countries". GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! 😁 We don't even need to describe the components as 'constituent countries' if we keep the current structure...  Tewdar  23:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

True. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

That's certainly an elegant solution and I for one don't hate it. The thing is though, "country" might be debatable while "sovereign state" is inarguable plus it eliminates the "country containing countries" confusion/inelegance. As you can see, I count 3 reasons to use "sovereign state" and 2 for "country" based on everything above. (Moreover and with respect, we are, here to debate the use of "country" and re-stating the status-quo isn't doing that.) Angry Candy (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, 'country' is used by everybody, from ordinary hewers of wood and drawers of water to the most erudite of political philosophers in multi-volume scholarly handbooks to mean 'sovereign nation state'. It is perfectly 'correct' to use 'country' in this manner, and avoids technical jargon and the (quite unnecessary, in my view, since this is the default) use of 'sovereign'.  Tewdar  10:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, that's why it has a yes in my "colloquial" column. It's certainly no-nonsense. But there are other issues at stake: factual accuracy, political correctness (NPOV), and something we can link to on Wikipedia without changing the term just for this page. Angry Candy (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Personally I think 'country' is factually accurate and neutral. No need to link to country, sovereign state or any other term - we can explain all the complexities later, like we do in the vast majority of our articles about other countries.  Tewdar  12:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course it's a country. Almost every "country article" in Wikipedia begins "X is a country". I don't think any (or at least hardly any) begin "X is a sovereign state". DeCausa (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that "sovereign state" is a bit weird and unnatural as a phrase but it might be the best compromise. "Of course it's a country" doesn't really pass muster. Because is it? It might be. But it might actually be a political union of four countries. I think a lot of people will come to this page with the question "is the UK a country?" in their mind. We need to be sure that the page is correct or at least not misleading. Angry Candy (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you never give up - you were part of the long resolution of this issue and know perfectly well what the agreement was. To raise it yet again without making new editors aware of the agreement is questionable behaviour ---Snowded ^TALK 11:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I've no objections to using "country" here, since we no longer use any description for England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland in the body. As for what to call E/W/S/NI? That's for their own separate pages :) GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Heh. Well, they all use "[X] is a country that is part of the United Kingdom", which is perfect and not really debatable. There's a case for the UK being not one country but four. Angry Candy (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

For two decades these arguments have gone round and round in circles with the same things said over and over again on this Talk page. There are multiple RS cites for the UK being described as a country. It's not in doubt. Where we are now is a compromise. Rehashing this yet again with exactly the same arguments is not productive. DeCausa (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the debate comes up so often suggests that the compromise is not a good one. That the claim to consensus is faulty. Angry Candy (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

There have been multiple other "compromises". This is just the latest - I think about 3 or 4 years old from memory, which is relatively quite long. If it gets changed this time (which doesn't seem likely at this point) it won't matter. Someone will pop up again at some point in the future and the whole thing will get rehashed again...same arguments and probably be changed again. Meanwhile none of the 30,000 odd daily viewers of the article notice or care...or at least not as much as the half dozen revolving WP editors that like to get stuck into this. DeCausa (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Blimey, that's so interesting. It certainly parallels discussion in the real world! My take though, is that "sovereign country" is the worst of the four options being discussed here. I'd like to see "political union" in place personally but I absolutely accept "sovereign state" is a decent compromise for the reasons outlined in the table above. Not "sovereign country", which is just terrible. Angry Candy (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Everyone who engages in a thread on this topic has their personal preference; that's why it keeps getting raised/chnaged. DeCausa (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

the compromise is not a good one[...]the claim to consensus is faulty - Pretty much sums up the United Kingdom itself...😂  Tewdar  14:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Sovereign country is not a defined term, unlike sovereign state. I would therefore omit sovereign and therefore the wording would be the same as similar articles.

There is no problem with the UK and its subnational units both being countries. For one thing, we should use the legal description of the latter, which is "constitutent countries." It doesn't bother us that the U.S. has "states," when the U.S. itself is a state, or that Canada still calls its subnational units "provinces," which is a synonym for colony. Or that Northern Ireland is referred to as a province of the UK, when in fact it is a cúige, meaning "fifth part", of Ireland (although there were only four cúiges) and province is a mistranslation. And why is Chechnya a republic of Russia, which itself is a republic?

The terminology of states and subnational units is confusing.

TFD (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to correct you there, NI has never been a "province of the UK". "Province" originates from being one of the 4 provinces of Ireland: Munster, Connacht, Leinster and Ulster with NI equalling Ulster in certain eyes. After partition the habitual reference to Ulster as a province was applied to NI. The fifth cúige was the Kingdom of Meath, later subsumed into Leinster. DeCausa (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

That's what I said. NI is not a province of the UK, was never a province of Ireland and in fact Ireland did not have provinces, if we use the original meaning of the term. Yet some people still call it a province of the UK. Nova Scotia OTOH was a province of the UK but is referred to as a province of Canada because Canada retained the description. The U.S. OTOH abandoned the term province upon independence of each province, which then called themselves states. But they continued to call themselves states even after they united into a single state. TFD (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess my point is that there are few if any unambiguous terms for sub-national units. TFD (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know "constituent country" was a legal description. Is that in UK law? It might be useful for us to know that! NebY (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

If a law, order or contract uses the term "constituent country," we know exactly what it means.

AFAIK, the UK has never legislated terms for its constituent parts but legislation and government orders frequently refer to them as "constituent countries," as for example in "The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) (Amendment) Regulations 2009": "its registered keeper may display letters denoting one of the constituent countries." The term has precision, i.e., you know that they are referring to England, NI, Scotland and Wales. You know for example, that it includes NI (which is arguably not a country) and excludes the UK, England and Wales, Cornwall and Shetland, which can also referred to as countries.

TFD (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks. Interesting that even there it's in the expanatory notes and not the regulation itself, and that's the only instance in that database of statutory instruments[19] – the other one seems to be a false positive, which uses "each of the countries of the United Kingdom" instead. NebY (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Strongly oppose any change to the opening sentence which has been stable for years. This article and the England, Wales, Scotland and to a lesser extent the Northern Ireland articles call them countries, it is therefore vital that there is a clear distinction made with the introduction of this article. The UK is both a country and a sovereign state, some prefer using either of the two, the compromise has been to use the term sovereign country which covers both. That is stable and accurate, and helps address confusion caused by the fact we call England/Wales/Scotland countries. This has been the method used for many years, there is no need to change it now when nothing new has changed the situation. If this opening sentence is changed, it is going to lead to instability on other parts of the article and other articles too. RWB2020 (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

To suggest the current wording of "sovereign country" is inaccurate is frankly nonsense. it implies that every editor of this page for many years has been satisfied with the very first sentence of the article being factually inaccurate. Which is clearly nonsense. Its also not just something that applies to the UK article seen the Australian article uses the term too. And there is no single format for every country on wikipedia, there are often descriptive words attached to it like transcontinental or island. The fact the UK is made up of four countries is a very unique situation not replicated in many countries, so this merits clarification.

Also want to just point out its not that long ago another change was made to the introduction, at the time as usual there was reassurance that it wouldn't lead to changes to the opening sentence. But as always this is a slippery slope, and now one of the changes made then is being used to justify changing this opening sentence now. This is exactly why the stable wording should remain. if we mess about with that opening sentence, it wont be long before a further change is requested or demanded. If we pick one of the two (sovereign state vs country) it immediately is going to dissatisfy one side and it provides less information to the reader. Sovereign country is a good compromise that clearly covers both. RWB2020 (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Best solution - Use "country" in the intro of 'this' page & use "...is a constituent country of the United Kingdom" for the intros of England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland pages. As long as there's refusal to use the prefix "constituent" in the intros of the four other pages? The topic of how to describe the UK, will keep coming up. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

it implies that every editor of this page for many years has been satisfied with the very first sentence of the article being factually inaccurate. Not so. Many editors have only worked on particular parts of the article rather than the lead and that does not imply satisfaction with any other parts of the article, including the lead; many have challenged the wording; some may have been put off by DeCausa's argument of futility or even your argument of jeopardy. Meanwhile, the passion with which you argue that if we change one bit we destabilise the whole would be understandable if you were a patriotic unionist talking about changing the poiltical union itself, but this is only a Wikipedia article. NebY (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

"DeCausa's argument of futility." Sounds like I should create a user subpage thus titled. DeCausa (talk)

It has a ring to it! NebY (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The introduction and especially the very first sentence is a rather important part of the article which many may notice. If it was factually inaccurate you would expect a page with 10,000s of views every day and many editors to have a lot more conversations about this issue over the years than there has been since the compromise was agreed. It comes up from time to time by a very small number of editors. The problem of destabilising is a real issue of concern. The compromise has had relative stability for years without the need for it to be escalated in a way other conflicts and edit wars on wikipedia have. The UK is a country and it is a sovereign state. Just saying one of these two things is problematic, because of the England/Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland issue and the reasonable and stable compromise is to say sovereign country which covers both terms. There is a very clear need to explicitly state the Uk is a sovereign country to distinguish it from the non sovereign countries that make up the UK. The table above suggesting its only "maybe" factually accurate to even call the UK a country demonstrates exactly where this slippery slope leads. RWB2020 (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a principle that the more editors or readers an article has, the better it obviously is, or any guidelines for what numbers of readers excuse which types of problems. Stability for its own sake is not how we resolve problems on Wikipedia. In English, when we want to say to communicate two ideas, it's poor communication to smoosh together an unfamiliar portmanteau phrase and hope everyone will make both senses of it. The table above is one editor's opinion; it is highly regrettable that you have so little faith in your fellow editors that you think it "demonstrates exactly where this slippery slope leads", once again using passionate language more appropriate to defending the Union rather than the phrasing of an article. NebY (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The point was clearly the term does not confuse people, its been in the first sentence of an introduction for many years, on an article with 10,000s of views every single day, and a large number of editors. Only a handful of people have taken issue with the term over the years. Im defending a compromise that has lasted for many years which has provided stability and accurately reflects the fact the UK is both a country and a sovereign state. Ive explained the reason this is important, because of how England/Wales/Scotland and Northern Ireland are described as countries on wikipedia so a distinction is needed. A lack of clear distinction is clearly more likely to confuse readers due to the unique circumstances of the UK being one of the few countries made up of entitles that are also called countries. Some of the attempts by some people in the past to suggest the UK isnt sovereign or the UK isnt a country may have been politically motivated because it certainly has nothing to do with NPOV or accuracy issues as the UK most certainly is a sovereign country. That is factually accurate because it is a sovereign state and a country. There is no justification for changing something that has been stable for so many years when the situation has not changed. RWB2020 (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

If we refer to the UK as a country, and England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as constituent countries, that avoids confusion. In other articles, we use the terms states, provinces and republics to refer to subnational units, because that is what they are called, not because that is what they actually are. Those terms came into use because that is what they had been historically, just as England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales were each countries in the complete sense. TFD (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

They are still referred to just as countries on those other articles. The current wording of the opening sentence on this article has helped bring about stability not just on this article but on the 4 parts of the UK articles too. Many have in the past had a problem with saying "constituent country", and ensuring this article refers to the UK as a sovereign country was a suitable compromise to avoid the need to use the qualifying term for England/Wales/Scotland and Northern Ireland. We should just keep the status quo otherwise it unpicks issues that have been stable across several articles for years. RWB2020 (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

TFD - The use of 'constituent' was a hugely contentious issue - occupied far too much energy and was eventually resolved by Admin mediation collating all the sources. GoodDay is being irresponsible in not making people aware of that prior process and its been an obsession for him for years to the point where he had to stay off British Isles articles for some time. I've got no objections to adding Sovereign Country, although failing nation state might be more appropriate at the moment :-) ---Snowded ^TALK 11:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Support using the description failing nation state Cambial — foliar❧ 11:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "failing nation state" has a chance of being adopted. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Heh. But re "I've got no objections to adding Sovereign Country" - that is what we've got now. Re "resolved by Admin mediation", it might be rather useful if you could point to that. I'm not sure where to look, because "admin mediation" isn't really a thing these days. WP:DRN's not admin-run, ditto the old WP:MEDCOM, WP:ANI and WP:ARBCOM aren't for content issues, RFCs aren't really mediation – so many places! NebY (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

We avoided Arbcom (just) with all active editors involved and there were a lot. It was resolved in the basis of weight of citations and its been stable for a decade or more. Like Derry for the town, Londonderry for the county its removed a lot of heat ---Snowded ^TALK 12:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and glad it stayed out of Arbcom, but that table's only about what to call the parts of the United Kingdom (i.e. Countries of the United Kingdom) and not what to call the United Kingdom itself. Was there another mediation, do you remember?NebY (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Sorry, I've now re-read what you said and what you were responding to. Striking. NebY (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps an RFC should be opened on this, with 'two' options. Use "sovereign country" or use "country". Now that we no longer use descriptions for England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland, in this page. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The introduction may no longer say that England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are countries, but the article still does. Also those other articles do in their opening sentence so the problem remains. We have recently given England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland more prominence on this article by mentioning it in the second sentence. There is still the need to provide the distinction. RWB2020 (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

If another editor or IP, brings up objections to the usage of "sovereign country", again? I'll be opening an RFC on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind an RfC on this. Should be fairly straightforward, no? 😁👍  Tewdar  22:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

RfCs usually work best when there's a starightforward yes/no answer. There's at least 4 different options mentioned in this thread which would have to be posed in the RfC plus, no doubt, creative WP editors will, during the course of the RfC, come up with more (..."Union State" has some academic backing...). But I'm sure an RfC on this would go very......smoothly. DeCausa (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I can think of atleast half a dozen formulations that would need to be considered and not only are there many different options for what to say in this opening sentence, it has far wider implications if a change is made for other articles too which adds many more options that need to be considered. if this article starts by just saying the UK is a country or that its just a sovereign state instead of country, it will immediately lead to arguments over on the England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland articles about use of country in the opening sentences there too. This is bigger than just this one article and introduction. Those articles have had stability saying country in part because this article has used the term sovereign country as a clear distinction. And there are many that do not want to go back to use of the term "constituent country" which caused even more instability than the current status quo compromise everywhere, but use of "constituent country" would certainly become more necessary if "sovereign country" isnt used here.

I do not believe a RFC is needed on this nor would it solve the issue, it would very likely risk opening up an even bigger unnecessary dispute on multiple articles. We should just stick with the status quo which has had stability for years. Especially when one of the editors pushing for a change right now in their misleading table above suggests it may not be factually accurate to refer to the UK even as a country. That is a blatant fringe view and it should not be rewarded. And yet removing country from this opening sentence and putting just sovereign state is aimed at boosting such fringe views. RWB2020 (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, at the very least, "sovereign state" is often raised and it would be prejudicial to leave it out. Is "political union"' your fourth? In this on-again, off-again discussion, I only see Angry Candy picking that up. Looking back, I also see a long discussion about "union state" but I don't think that was proposed for the lead. RFCs with three options A, B and C seem common enough and pretty workable but yes, my impression is that four-option ones get a bit more diffuse - something about there being more pairs to compare and discuss, maybe. NebY (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "political union" would definitely be an outsider. I was looking for the answer to the question you posed to Snowded about the admin-mediated mediation (which I don't remember and i've been "involved" on and off since 2011) and considered (but only briefly) constructing a history of the opening sentence and the Talk page consensuses. It didn't take much to induce me to give up in that. However, I did notice 2 things: This, I think, is the source of the current formulation (2016). About 10 years ago there was a formulation that was based on the opening sentence being the UK "..is a sovereign state..." with the second sentence then beginning "The country is...", clearly a compromise between sovereign state-ists and country-ists. DeCausa (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Aha, thanks. Total sympathy with giving up on constructing a history, but that's a clear and useful look anyway. I thought there'd been a "sovereign state ... country" formulation once, but I'd taken a wikibreak when that 2016 discussion happened. I'll take a look. NebY (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

What would the four options be, in an RFC? GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You're asking me? "Four" was DeCausa's, and I don't know how firm that was, but I can count first the main three, country, sovereign state, and sovereign country, and then the "sovereign state ... country" approach as seen at the end of September 2013 That approach, hastily patched into our current wording, might be a shift from

is a sovereign country in Europe, off the north-western coast of the continental mainland. It comprises England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

to something like

is a sovereign state in Europe, off the north-western coast of the continental mainland. The country comprises England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

It's an interesting approach, but we'd want to do some collaborative wordsmithing on it and that doesn't work within an RFC. Indeed, we might end up agreeing that no version of that approach works, allowing a simpler RFC - if an RFC is the way to go. NebY (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, I think if an RFC on this topic were to be opened? It would be best that it were arranged & opened by someone other then me. Forgive me, but I can't explain further on the latter part. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Why not just "state or country?", and "do we put the word 'sovereign' in front of it?" 🤔 Also, you're the perfect man for the job, GoodDay!😁👍  Tewdar  17:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

If an RFC was to be considered there should first be agreement on what to include in that and what wording should be used along with what options would be mentioned. This cannot just be restricted to two or 3 options, which would limit peoples responses and choice. And this doesnt just limit itself to the first sentence, if people are going to try to justify a wording based on what gets mentioned in the second sentence too. The fact the UK is a country is paramount and should clearly be mentioned in the first sentence, fobbing it off to the second sentence and just saying "The country..." rahter than explicitly stating the UK is a country, is problematic and enabled some to overlook it in the past. There is also the option of saying both country and sovereign state in that first sentence rather than just one or the other. But i strongly oppose any change to this introduction that does not make clear the UK is both a country and indeed that its sovereign (to distinguish it from England/Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland). And any rfc would have to clearly set out the cross article implications of any change and the fact this relates to the opening sentences of the other articles which simply say country. It is totally unacceptable if wikpedia has articles with opening sentences for England, Wales and Scotland saying they are countries, but the opening sentence of the UK doesnt say it. Such a change would require changes to be made to the other articles, such as by saying constituent countries instead as a compromise. I dont think a RFC is a good idea, i think it could end up creating even more problems, but if there was one it would have to be fairly worded and command confidence and be able to build a consensus that remains stable. A rigged RFC with a misleading or intentionally limited selection of options would be totally unacceptable and problematic. RWB2020 (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

In my view, the lede sentence should clarify for readers what the article is basically about. Now, in ascending levels of accuracy, we could describe the UK as a "polity", a "country", a "state", a "sovereign state" (or "sovereign country")...etc. We just have to decide the appropriate level of detail in the introduction. As far as I can tell, options outside of (sovereign) country or (sovereign) state have very little support, and we wouldn't need to include other options in any RfC. I'm open to other suggestions though, such as "political union" or whatever. Also I'm not really interested in what other articles do. Describing both the UK and England, for example, as a country is perfectly correct as "country" is a very fuzzy term.  Tewdar  12:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"Describing both the UK and England, for example, as a country is perfectly correct as "country" is a very fuzzy term." But this is exactly the issue. The term is correct for both, but the term has a very loose definition. Which is exactly why the introduction needs to use the term sovereign country, to be more explicit about the type of country it is, to draw a clear distinction from England/Wales/Scotland and Northern Ireland. And that has been the compromise, seen as we no longer call those countries "constituent countries" as a way of distinguishing them. And it would be hugely problematic if we call those countries in their article first sentence, but we dont call the UK a country in the first sentence too, which is why just putting "sovereign state" would not work. RWB2020 (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

We've got "...of the United Kingdom", in the other articles. So, there's no risk of confusion. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

"U k" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect U k and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 28#U k until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

New PM Announced

Lis truss is now the pm of the uk 78.150.175.41 (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

No, she's the new leader of the conservative and unionist party. Be patient. Bazza (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Today she is only going to be PM. "Tomorrow [Tuesday] she will become prime minister when she visits the Queen in Balmoral for an invitation to form her UK government." (BBC News) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

She's the prime minister-designate, until she's appointed prime minister by the monarch, tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see this has been reverted. While I'm not sure "Liz Truss incoming" is the right phrase (!) I think having some sort of note in the Infobox might help to stem the inevitable tide of edits until Balmoral happens. (I don't think she's even "designate". More like "apparent".) DeCausa (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Johnson hasn't resigned as prime minister 'yet' & so Truss, hasn't been appointed as his successor. GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, not "designate". BBC headline currently has "to be " and pace WP:CRYSTAL, "Boris Johnson, to be Liz Truss" might be enough (as long as we have the comma). NebY (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

This really should not be difficult to write the factually correct detail and block the hoards of button pushing editors from jumping the gun. Whatever is done, please do not use "PM designate" Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Truss can wait until tomorrow to go in the infobox, I think...  Tewdar  13:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

We wait until Johnson resigns & Truss is appointed, tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth or Liz? (for the PM, not HM the Queen)

The list of Cabinet Ministers on the Gov.uk website (i.e. the authoritative Government list of Ministers), says "Elizabeth Truss", not "Liz Truss Fabius Planciades Fulgentius (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

We should go by the article title, because the same factors that go into article title selection (common use, naturalness, recognisability) will make it the most useful name for readers here. CMD (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Her article here is in the name Liz Truss per WP:COMMONNAME and Talk:Liz Truss/Archive 1#Requested move 24 May 2019. The UK Government doesn't dictate our usage, nor even that of the UK's broadcasters, newspapers, magazines, etc. NebY (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely 'Liz'.  Tewdar  16:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the prime minister's first name is Mary. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

New PM

The politcs section needs changing as Boris is no longer PM as of this afternoon. His photo needs changing to Liz. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.114.104 (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks.  Tewdar  16:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

PM Mention

In paragraph 2 of the introduction mentioning Elizabeth reigning since 1952, would mentioning Liz Truss as assuming office in September 2022 be elusive to add on for the reason that Elizabeth II is there because of the long reign itself? If not, would it be appropriate to add that in, thanks. :) Hi3d 2 (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the body of the article - not of its infobox and not of its pictures. If it's not in the body, it shouldn't be in the lead. Furthermore, the lead of this article concentrates on the main characteristics of the United Kingdom, which are broadly speaking, stable characteristics; its geography, its constitution, its place in the world. Its head of state for the last 70 years, the monarch, sits reasonably well within that; its prime minister of less than a day, the fourth in 7 years, would not even if WP:LEAD was otherwise satisfied. NebY (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Preceded by

There is a preceded by section of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Should it really be there, considering that it isn't on any of the other pages? It's usually on historical countries and it doesn't seem to be consistent with the other Wikipedia pages unless it was on all the country pages. Rozzli (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

New monarch

Twice in one week! Aargh!  Tewdar  17:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

English should be removed from "Official language"

I see there being no reason why English should be labeled under "official language" even if it is put as de-facto. An official language has to have actual legal priority over other languages which confirms it as the official language. The Australia article notes that Australia has no official language but does list English as a national language- despite it being the most spoken language by far (debatably). The United States, despite also having English as its national language and it being universally used in all government matters does not list English as its "de-facto" official language. Why is the United Kingdom article different? Other major Anglo-speaking nations do not have this quirk. I'll be removing English from the official languages tab for this reason. If anybody would wish to dispute, then go ahead. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

English is treated with priority over other languages. The Welsh Language Measure 2011 notes "the official status of the Welsh language is given legal effect by the enactments about...the treatment of the Welsh language no less favourably than the English language". It also requires the "Welsh and English languages to be treated on the basis of equality". CMD (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

English is used by all MPs in the British House of Commons. Welsh is not. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree it should be changed since De facto in this case means that it is unofficial. Incidentally, while English is the only language allowed in parliamentary debates, Norman French is used for communications between the two houses and for royal assent of legislation.[20] TFD (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The box is for the language of the United Kingdom, not that of its parliament. As TFD says, if it is “de facto” it is unofficial. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Theo. This argument was held before & the results is always the same. By all means, open up an RFC, if you want english removed. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Theo you are wrong to say an official language has to have priority over other languages. It has an importance as defined by what makes it official.If that is a constitution or legal statute the time and place where it is official can be quiteprescriptive, such as official "in a courtroom" (but not outside a courtroom). What makes English official in the UK is its widespread use in any situation. Ambiguity arises around the meaning of official - in writing or not in writing which is why different articals have differing approaches. Regarding theUSA, it has another reason to resist having English as the official language - new land open equally to all irrespective of origin etc. Having English as the official language makes it a touch biased to one type of immigrant. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Consider the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 16 (1): "English and French are the official languages of Canada."[21] The UK has legislated official languages for Canada, but has never done so for the UK. There is incidentally a debate in the U.S., which like the UK has no official language, to declare English its official language. TFD (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022

update the anthem , i have a file in which there are lyrics being sung instead of the instrumental, which is the current published audio. Dieplsdieplsdie (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You'll need to provide the audio file, and the license just be compatible with Wikipedia. Additionally, changing the anthem will require discussion and agreement with other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC on description of United Kingdom as a "sovereign country" in its opening paragraph

Should the current definition of the UK as a 'sovereign country' be changed? Alternative options include country and state. Angry Candy (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: Following a request from Jr8825, I have moved my opening comment/motion to the survey section below in the interests of neutrality and clarity. I have also moved comments concerning this to the object[ion] section below. Editors are asked to keep contributions to the survey brief and clear. Deeper remarks can be added to the discussion section below (or to the original "sovereign country" thread above) and any objections to this RfC can be added to the new obect[ion] section below. Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far! Angry Candy (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• The current wording of the opening paragraph describes the United Kingdom specifically as a "sovereign country." While not quite incorrect, it stands out as both arguable and unusual. Arguable in that the UK may not be a country at all but a political union of four countries (these being England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales); it is often said on this talk page that "sovereign country" is an attempt to distinguish the UK as a country from the country status of its four constituent countries. Unusual in that (a) there is no Wikipedia page for "sovereign country" and the term links instead to sovereign state, and (b) no other sovereign country (with the notable exception of Australia) mentions its sovereignty at this point; the current wording places undue importance on the UK's sovereignty with the unfortunate consequence that it risks been seen as exceptionalist, triumphalist in the ongoing context of Brexit, and as a Unionist and/or anti-EU POV and, as such, a politically-charged NPOV issue. I motion that "Sovereign country" should be changed to something less arguable and less unusual (i.e. more factually correct and more politically neutral): either to "country" (colloquial) or "state" (inarguable) or "political union of the four countries of England, Norther Ireland, Scotland, and Wales" (factual but potentially an NPOV issue from the other direction). Please note that this is a perennial discussion on the UK's talk page; consensus is often claimed but the perennial (near constant) nature of this discussion suggests widespread dissatisfaction. Angry Candy (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Change to "country" Saving it is a "sovereign country" is curious wording. It makes it sound as if there was any question about its sovereignty. It might make sense for a country that recently achieved independence, such as "St. Lucia is a sovereign country, having achieved independence in 1971." TFD (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

People have different understanding about the definition of country because it is a loose term that is used mainly for sovereign states, but also used to describe non sovereign countries of the UK. Some people strongly oppose use of "constituent country" for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Saying "sovereign country" for UK was a more stable compromise that has managed to continue for many years with relatively little editing conflicts and only come up for discussion a handful of times in recent years despite how this rigged and misleading RFC attempts to misinform people about what has happened in recent years. RWB2020 (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Use just Country and mention country type in the 3Rd paragraph as the 200plus other pages do.Moxy- 13:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Use country. Not sure why the distinction needs to be made so prominently in this case. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 14:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Change to country - more than good enough for a general-purpose encyclopedia, we can explain all the hodge-podgery later.  Tewdar  15:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Change to country good enough for our purposes. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 15:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Country – we've had many past discussions regarding discomfort with "sovereign country"; "country" is simpler and less forced (and equally accurate in the colloquial sense). It's a country of countries. Because the reality is a bit confusing, it could potentially be confusing if our first few sentences said "the UK is a country made up of the countries of", but the relatively new second sentence ("It comprises England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland") conveniently sidesteps possible confusion by avoiding the term (largely because of NI) so there's no pressure to make an immediate distinction the UK as a country and E, W & S as countries. We can save the nuances for later in the lead and the article body. Jr8825 • Talk 17:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Use Country per everyone above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Use Country as plain English per MOS:FIRST. The current "sovereign country" adds nothing and may make readers hesitate trying to figure out why we've used such a comparatively unusual phrase, rather than just get on with reading the article. That can't be justified by one editor's awful and implausible warnings that four other articles will be "destabilised". If this RFC carries on like this, it will provide clear evidence of consensus if ever the wording's questioned. NebY (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Some editors have suggested that "sovereign" is required to clarify the UK's relationship to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but

  • this is sufficiently clear from the following statement that "It comprises England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland" and expanded upon later
  • Wikipedia is an English-language encyclopedia of the world and we should begin by straightfowardly describing the UK's position in the world, rather than shoehorning in another, more obscure statement about its relationship with its parts.

  NebY (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Country. Bazza (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Country - because it is. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose (Summoned by bot) although I can see the need to change present wording, which is a bit 'odd'. UK is colloquially a 'country', but technically a political union of several countries and part of another. The full niceties of this are as obscure as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and even locals, like myself, sometimes get details wrong. Whilst we don't need to expound everything in para 1 - to start off with an error seems unhelpful. "State made up of the countries of … " would achieve much the same result. I just see the logic of "country made up of countries" as inherently muddling - it depends on using 'country' in two distinct meanings, and even though the text does not say this EXPLICITLY, the text is using this logic. Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Pincrete: May I ask if "oppose" is in reply to the initial question "Should the current definition of the UK as a 'sovereign country' be changed?" or specific to replacing it with "country" per TFD end the rest? Your "I can see the need to change present wording" makes me wonder if you support change, just not to "country". NebY (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not opposed to change, it's just that the logic of using country to mean 'sovereign state' - which UK clearly is - and then at some later point needing to use it in wholly different way (whatever Eng, Sc and Wales are, which is distinct peoples with distinct histories - which are proud of being distinct countries, but which are not sovereign states), seems inherently confusing. Even if the terms are not used in the same sentence, the logic of what UK is made up of is dependent on realising that Eng, Sc and Wales are countries and that NI is an historical anomaly as part of a fourth distinct country.Pincrete (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Just for absolute clarity, your preference is for sovereign state? Angry Candy (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a clear preference and would want to hear the contitutional/legal/historical arguments before making a choice. Despite being a UK person, I don't claim to understand and know all the niceties either of UK contitution, nor of the generally accepted understanding in English of country/state etc., but simply dropping the adjective and assuming that people are going to understand that 'country' is being used with a number of distinct meanings in the article is adding to, not removing confusion IMO. Non-Brits already often have difficulty in understanding the make up of the UK in my experience, why add to it? Pincrete (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yes, it is all much like trying to be clear about the Holy Trinity. NebY (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Just Country, because it is. (WP:BLUE and sources say it is any way [22], [23] etc etc). Risk of appearing POVish if the C-word isn't used: could be interpreted as messaging support for a view that the UK is artificial and should be broken up into "real countries". (I don't object to sovereign country but agree it's unnecessary.) Standard opening for almost all our "country" (i.e "state") articles across WP. No reason to single out UK and present it differently. "State", "union" etc absolutely not - messages the above POV. Only the likes of vatican, Monaco get the 'state' treatment. DeCausa (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Just Country. -- Alarics (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Country, as per above reasons. ¡Ayvind! (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• STRONGLY OPPOSE BOTH THE CHANGE AND THIS BIASED RFC* This is a totally unacceptable RFC, introduced in a totally biased way, without any attempt for a neutral opening explanation about why the current wording is used or needed, entirely 1 sided to get 1 sided outcome. The UK is both a sovereign state and a country. It is one of the only countries in the world where Wikipedia has articles that describe its constituent parts as countries in their opening sentence. It is for that reason, for many years this article has used the term SOVEREIGN COUNTRY. To distinguish between "constituent countries" England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, from the sovereign United Kingdom.RWB2020 (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Despite the rigged RFC, there is no single format used by articles across wikipedia about countries. Some start by just saying country, others use a further description to describe the individual country. USA and Russia use transcontinental country. Australia uses sovereign country. New Zealand uses island country. Sweden and Denmark both say Nordic country. There is therefore no reason why this article should only use country in the opening sentence. People may not want to admit it, but the fact the United Kingdom is made up of what we call 4 countries is confusing to many people as it is extremely unique. For that reason it makes sense to clarify the fact the UK is both a sovereign state and a country in the opening sentence, and a compromise was to say sovereign country to cover both, which has been relatively stable and has existed for many years with only a few editors sparking discussions on the subject in several years, and very few editing conflicts over it (despite the misleading RFC intentionally painting a very different picture of what has happened in recent years). The situation since the current stable wording has been used, combined with what has been agreed on the other 4 UK articles has had relative stability. Stability changing this opening sentence risks undermining. RWB2020 (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Every article uses a link to a type of country ......only here and Australia link to sovereign state in the lead sentence while most others link type of state in the government paragraph. Moxy- 11:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Country as the current wording implies it's some sort of break away state. Is this currently done because of leaving the European Union?204.237.50.43 (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The compromise wording was agreed long before Brexit and has nothing to do with the European union issue. Again, this biased and rigged RFC misleading gives the impression it might be related. The reason for the distinction is because of calling England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland countries. Country is a loose term, by saying sovereign country and linking to the sovereign state article (all EU countries are sovereign states and listed as such) provides extra clarity to what is a very unique and confusing situation. RWB2020 (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Opppose See Sovereign state A sovereign state or sovereign country, is a political entity represented by one central government that has supreme legitimate authority over territory. The premise of the RFC is fundamentally incorrect. I did a google search on the meaning of sovereign country and the first hit was the wikipedia article, not unusual because of the way google works but indicative of a lack of research on the part of the originator of this RFC. It has a specific legal meaning. And in the context of the UK, composed of four separate countries with a common constitutional monarch this is a reasonable and accurate description to use. WCM_email 07:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  While sovereign state is a legal term, sovereign country is not. That's just something that Wikipedia editors added without a source. TFD (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Although 'sovereign state' is the preferred term in, say, international law handbooks, 'sovereign country' is a perfectly acceptable and very common plain English alternative. It certainly is not something that Wikipedians just made up. Or at least if they did, a great many other people already thought of it.  Tewdar  08:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't describe "sovereign country" as very common or even common at all. It's certainly not used as often as "sovereign state",[24] NebY (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  More than 10x more common. Huh. Still, it's not a descriptor that Wikipedians invented.  Tewdar  09:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose any change. The UK has an atypical structure, being a country made up of four constituent countries. The description, which has been in the article for many years before Brexit, is to clarify the situation that although there are four constituent countries, it is only the totality which is a sovereign country. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Current proposal options fail to capture the nuance. I think if we are to change the definition to country, then the 4 constituents should be mentioned as constituent units as britannica does (You can scoff at it being a tertiary source but it is the right way). That would be in conflict with our articles on the constituents. — hako9 (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Its based on the above conversation really (and others before it). Country and state are the only sensible options that emerge. Others include sovereign state and political union. Or indeed leaving it as it is despite the problems with it: cases have been presented for each of these options. Referring to the other units as constituent would be fine, but that's a separate (albeit it closely related) decision and conversation. Angry Candy (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I notice the editor who opened the RFC says above: "Country and state are the only sensible options that emerge". That is most certainly not the case. How can the opening sentence of this RFC be neutral when the editor has only suggested two options for change that they consider to be sensible? its clearly selective to get either option they prefer, whilst ignoring other solutions and failing to link to past discussions or setting out in a neutral way the context and background of this issue and why its come up. This RFC is flawed. RWB2020 (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't our current second sentence already do this? I confused as to what you think needs to change. Jr8825 • Talk 19:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The second sentence following a change agreed in recent months does not explain what England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are. It fudges the issue by simply saying "it comprises...". It doesnt make clear they are constituent countries, whilst those other articles simply say they are countries that are part of the UK, again, rather than using the term "constituent country". This is all why its helpful to say sovereign country in the first sentence here, to maintain a clear distinction. This is also one of the reasons im so critical of the wording of this RFC, because it isnt giving an accurate picture of the situation. It does not point out this long standing compromise has also helped to bring about stability on the England/Wales/Scotland/NI articles, where just saying country in the opening line there is more acceptable because the opening line here says sovereign country, showing clear distinction. If this article simply says the UK is a country, i no longer will support England, Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland being referred to just as "country" on any wikipedia article. RWB2020 (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

As others have said, I don't see any reason why "country" here would mean we need to change "country" at E, W & S (and NI's more complex wording). In fact I think it's extremely unlikely there'd be consensus at those pages to drop country in any circumstances. I don't share your concerns about "it comprises", I think it's clear "comprises" = "constituent parts", and I don't think it's essential to say "England is a country" or "Wales is a country" in the lead here (the lead doesn't do this currently, and I'm not sure how switching from "sovereign country" to "country" would change things). I tried experimenting with different alternatives for the second sentence in the thread above (11 April), and I don't think there's a way to sandwich country into the descriptions of E, W & S without a considreable increase in length and complexity (particularly because of the perennial argument over NI). Jr8825 • Talk 13:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

In fact I think it's extremely unlikely there'd be consensus at those pages to drop country in any circumstances.

which is why the status quo is better than the alternative proposed, according to me. The infobox also says "Constituent countries" and proceeds to list all four ignoring the argument over NI as you say. That can be solved just by saying "Constituents" instead of "Constituent countries" in the infobox. But the issue with defining UK is more pervasive. We could just copy gov.uk and skip the entire thing and just say "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a constitutional monarchy comprising of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. It is situated in Europe, off the north-western coast of the continental mainland." — hako9 (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I strongly dislike the idea of using "constitutional monarchy" as the main/first descriptor for the UK. That's only one part of its political system (a formal/constitutional aspect too, rather than where power is actually held) and you could equally say "the UK is a parliamentary democracy" or "the UK is a unitary state". Jr8825 • Talk 15:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose to any change on this, the term “sovereign” suits the unique nature of the UK in explaining its governance. The UK is a country with a central parliament, which has delegated powers to the devolved institutions. Parliamentary “sovereignty” is key to how the UK is governed because the central parliament has the ability to amend/repeal any legislation within its jurisdiction. This thread is showing the ambiguity that readers may have in understanding that fact, which is why “sovereign country” is appropriate to use as it provides a better understanding for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJosephCowan (talk • contribs)

Canada has a Parliament & 13 Legislatures, yet it's called 'country'. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose any changes; the clarification is necessary for the UK given its sui generis organization. --Jayron32 12:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Change to country. I'm reasonably well-read on international relations, 19th and 20th century history, and I'm familiar with the UK's legal structure, and I don't know what "sovereign country" is trying to say. The United Kingdom is a country. England, Scotland, and Wales are countries that are part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is...something...that is part of the United Kingdom. The lead isn't the place to get into the weeds on this concept. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Country is the most reasonable and basic plus the least vague term that clearly describes the U.K. Regardless of what it babbles about the "countries" within it, they do not fit the actual definition of a country, only the UK itself does. Bill Williams 12:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Change to country. Wikipedia is not a legal text and the lead sentence is not the place to explain the sui generis nature of the UK, especially using terminology that the general reader is more likely to find confusing rather than helpful. Although I realise it has been like this for ages, it might look like the article was trying to boost Brexit, as "sovereignty" was one of the buzzwords promoted by those who sought to leave the EU. John (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Sovereign state (singular) at the UN, with 4 constituent countries (not UN members individually). Sovereign country is possible but not that usual.Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Just confusing troublemaking. Whatever people think of the UK having countries within it that's how it is and it is better to refer to the whole country in a way that distinguishes it well from its constituent parts. How is all this supposed to reducer dissention? NadVolum (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  You are not alone in expressing the logic of distinguishing the UK as a country against its constituent countries though. However, the opening paragraph of an encyclopedia entry is not the place (in my opinion and also perhaps according to the Manual of Style) to make that distinction. It is the job of a lead paragraph to define what something is, not against its component parts, but against everything else. Surely it is both standard and best practice to start general and get specific later. Thanks for your comment but the motivation is not to confuse or make trouble, I assure you. Quite the opposite. Angry Candy (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• The RfC has been open for 3 days and has so far collected 12 responses in favour of changing "sovereign country" to "country". It has also collected 1 response seemingly in favour of changing it to "state" or "sovereign state". There has been no voice in favour of retaining "sovereign country". Thank you to everyone who has responded. I would like to end the RfC relatively soon and modify the article to reflect the consensus. Friend @RWB2020:, do you agree to honour the consensus arrived at through this survey and to not revert the change? Angry Candy (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Leave it run for a week at least, perhaps?  Tewdar  17:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. There have been several !votes in the last 24 hours alone. The discussion above started in March and wasn't the first; we can wait for other voices to be heard. If all that happens is that the consensus becomes even clearer, that's still fine and helpful. We don't normally ask editors to commit to observing consensus; all that matters is whether they edit against consensus or not. NebY (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good! This is my first RfC and I wasn't sure of normal duration. 13 responses in 3 days seemed quite good to me. Let's leave it open for longer then. Would 10 days be fair? 14? (As to my reaching out to RWB2020, I am trying to keep communications open and to avoid a future edit war). Angry Candy (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I would be in no rush to close it. The larger the participation the more likely the outcome's credibility and likelihood of sticking. I suggest waiting to see when when posts dry up. Also, I suggest you not close but wait for an univolved editor. DeCausa (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Good call. Thanks. Angry Candy (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• The 'etymology' section does a reasonable job explaining the 'countries within a country' malarky: Although the United Kingdom is a sovereign country, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also widely referred to as countries.[51][52] The UK Prime Minister's website has used the phrase "countries within a country" to describe the United Kingdom.[20] Some statistical summaries, such as those for the twelve NUTS 1 regions of the United Kingdom refer to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as "regions".[53][54] Northern Ireland is also referred to as a "province".[55][56] With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences".[57] If you're confused by this explanation (which should probably emphasise a bit more that England, Wales, Scotland and NI are not sovereign entities), adding the word 'sovereign' to 'country' in the lede is probably not going to help very much.  Tewdar  17:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Most pages deal with country type in the 3 pagaraph or govermant section of the lead and as you mention in the main section, Not sure how having the first link in the article to Sovereign state explain this article. Moxy- 04:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"Most pages deal with country type in the 3 pagaraph" No other country article on wikpedia has its constituent parts described just as countries too, and it is one of only a few countries in the world where this issue even exists. RWB2020 (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

James, Alan. “Sovereignty: Ground Rule or Gibberish?]” Review of International Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, 1984, pp. 1–18. JSTOR, Moxy- 05:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Firstly it is shameful this RFC is taking place right now, as people will be distracted with the death of the Queen. Also this RFC is etxrmeely misleading and not neutral. RWB2020 (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel no shame & there's nothing misleading about the RFC being held. It's quite straight forward - Do we want to change the description of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• A recurring argument in favour of retaining "sovereign country" is that it distinguishes the UK as a country against England, NI, Scotland and Wales being countries. The difference being that the UK is sovereign while the others are not. But the opening paragraph of an encyclopedia entry is not the place (in my opinion) to make that distinction. It is the job of a lead paragraph to define what something is, not against its component parts, but against everything else. Surely it is both standard and best practice to start general and get specific later. Angry Candy (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, we should be concentrating on this page's intro. Not the intros of the England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland pages. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Object to RfC

I strongly object to this one sided misleading RFC. It is clearly designed to get an outcome the editor favours, rather than provide a balanced explanation of the current wording and the potential different options for if there should be changes. For example, why did this proposal not also include the option of saying both sovereign state and country in the introduction rather than the limited options mentioned? This RFC also grossly misrepresents how this wording came about, why it came about, and how the compromise has been stable for many years compared to how unstable previous wording was and how it is part of a wider compromise and consensus that has maintained stability on the other articles. Considering this article's opening sentence has said sovereign country for many years, the article is viewed by 10,000s every single day, and over recent years there has only been a handful of discussions about if the wording should be changed, it cannot be as problematic as this rigged and misleading RFC makes out. RWB2020 (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

What change do you believe will make it better ? Perhaps link old talk? Do you have another wording option? As for stable...its clear this has been a point of contention and edits for a long time. Moxy- 04:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

A handful of discussions over recent years and only a few times there has had to be reverts on the actual article is very stable for something that is in the opening sentence of a major article. This is FAR More stable than the situation before the compromise was reached.

I believe the RFC is entirely biased and in no way accurately reflects the situation, its designed to get a certain outcome. It does not explain the reasons for the compromise, how the compromise came about, how relatively stable it has been for MANY YEARS, how it links with other issues of a compromise on constituent country articles.

It doesnt make clear that there is no single format for country articles, with many using different descriptions before saying country (transcontinental / island / nordic) etc. It doesnt make clear this is a unique problem for the UK because there are only a few other countries which are made up of what are considered countries, and they are not described that way on wikipedia anyway. So this is why a different wording is used than on many country articles. It is not triumphalist as this rigged RFC attempts to imply. it also tries to link it to brexit, again, entirely false considering this compromise was agreed long before brexit, and of course sovereign country links to the sovereign state article and very EU memberstate is a sovereign state, no one is suggesting otherwise.

The RFC is entirely selective about potential options too. When its opening suggestion of change suggests "state" or "country".. of course most people are going to choose country out of those two options, i would too. It doesnt suggest sovereign state, it doesnt suggest saying both sovereign state AND country. It doesnt suggest saying "Constituent country" for England, Wales, Scotland and NI instead.

Also you are right about it not linking to previous discussions too. Some people are just going to read this one sided RFC and form an impression based on that, even though its not a fair or accurate impression. It also doesnt help that this RFC is taking place right when many UK editors are obviously going to be distracted with the death of the Queen so checking wikipedia far less and may not have the time to contribute to this discussion. A rushed, biased and rigged RFC seeking to change the opening sentence of this article which has been relatively stable for many years, and its a RFC opened and proposed to be closed all during the period of mourning in the UK when some regular editors may be distracted. With all of these factors, is it really going to bring about a stable outcome if a change is made? RWB2020 (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@RWB2020: You seem to misunderstand how RfC's are structured. You say "the RFC" should "provide a balanced explanation of the current wording" and include a number of other things such as links to previous discussions. No it shouldn't. There should only be a short neutral question. Anything else should come from what the participants which to put forward in support of their response to that question. The question posed here is this: Should the current definition of the UK as a 'sovereign country' be changed? Alternative options include country and state. Angry candy's post of 13:11, 11 September 2022 is their view in response. they're entitled, like everyone else, to say what they wish to say in response. This is just the normal way RfCs are structured in my experience. The only issue you can raise is whether that question is neutrally expressed. This was discussed earlier on and Angry candy seems to me to have followed what others have said. I don't see a problem with it. There's been probably the widest participation on this issue on this page that I can remember. The RfC has brought univolved and experienced editors to comment. The previous consensus was created by a much smaller number in 2016. You may not like the outcome but that's the way WP works. I suggest you calmly put forward your arguments for what the wording should be and accept the result when this is closed. Nothing's for ever in WP and WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. DeCausa (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

And by the way there's nothing "rushed" about it. It hasn't closed and there's no reason to close it while comments are being made. As far as the "period of mourning" is concerned. No, that's not a legitimate reason. We don't close down discussion on Jewish-related articles on the sabbath or Ukrainian-related articles because they've been invaded. That's a fundamental misconception of WP. DeCausa (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The editor who opened this RFC included their opinion in the RFC section giving it clear prominence over any other opinion. the whole of the post in that question is why this RFC is so very biased. And its all very well that perhaps being moved now, but it was there for days, days during which support for one option was backed by quite a few editors. Even if we ignore the opinion which was placed in that section, even that opening sentence is not neutral. It gives favouritism to two proposed changes, country or state... even i would back country out of those two options. It entirely fails to even attempt to set out what the problem is, why its arisen, how it came about, how long ago and implications of such changes. If a RFC was to be established, there should have been an agreed wording first. And the person that opened the RFC, suggested maybe it should be closed after a few days, and then maybe 1 week was suggested instead. All incredibly rushed, especially considering real world events right now, and the fact this is about changing the opening sentence of a major article to say something different after many years of a stable compromise. RWB2020 (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

RWB2020, is your argument that whenever a place is described as a country, that there should be an adjective? If so, why must it be "sovereign?" Why not "island country?" And why aren't Russia and China called sovereign countries, when they also are made up of different countries? TFD (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The international comparisons are apt, e.g. Republics of Russia such as Tatarstan. Jr8825 • Talk 12:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

No im not suggesting that there always has to be something before country in every country's opening sentence. I am just pointing out that many country articles do have something there, such as transcontinental, nordic, island, sovereign in the case of Australia etc. So its not like it is unusual or not following precedent or standard practice for there to be a description there. The issue then becomes is it notable and helpful for the reader to include it. In the case of the UK, because the UK is made up of four countries (which are described as such on wikipedia), it is helpful to continue to draw a distinction by saying sovereign country as we do not use the term constituent country for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which again follows a long standing compromise and agreement, of which the opening sentence of this article has helped maintain stability on for many years. RWB2020 (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the RFC. It's merely asking, "Do we want to change the description of the UK to 'country' or 'state' or anything else, or not". GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

But that section includes the editors opinion too, it looks like its all part of the RFC which is why its so biased, as it gives prominence. And also simply suggesting country or state as options, and without setting out what the actual problem is, how its come about, why and for how long etc, is not neutral and certainly not a RFC that will command confidence and bring about a stable outcome. RWB2020 (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The RFC result, will be what it will be. GoodDay (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments concerning Angry Candy's opening comment:

I think it might be worth moving this comment to either the survey or discussion sections below, so that it's not mixed in with the brief and neutral opening question. Jr8825 • Talk 14:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

This RFC is already entirely tainted because the opinion is contained within this section, it looks like its all part of the RFC which is why i have been so critical about the biased RFC. Its been here several days, several days in which one outcome already stacked up some backing. Though even if we just take the first sentence of this RFC, i dont even think that is neutral enough considering its intentionally highlighting only two potential options, it also in no way sets out the issue. Failing to set out in a neutral way the problem... blatantly helps those wanting change, especially as there is no attempt to explain when this compromise was made many years ago. As i said during the discussion at the top of the page recently, if we were going to do an RFC, there should atleast be an attempt to ensure its neutral. The complete opposite has happened. RWB2020 (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Angry candy's comment suggests at least three possible alternatives to the status quo, and is hardly likely to force anyone to vote a particular way, but perhaps Angry candy could move it to the discussion section if it's making people unhappy... fwiw I think the RfC is neutrally worded, and flexible enough to allow anybody to propose whatever option they'd prefer.  Tewdar  10:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

How can it be neutral when they have said below that they have only included two alternative options that they view as "sensible", clearly dismissing other options, even though there may be better alternatives. Its selective and leading. Especially without any attempt to put this debate into context, nor link to past discussions. And if people agree that the original opinion should be moved to the discussion or survey section below, it clearly shows there has been a problem. a problem that existed for several days, when many of the opening responses were stated, some of whom may have only come from this discussion via the flawed RFC, with no insight into the many long discussions over recent years on this topic. RWB2020 (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Most of the votes have come from people with a long-term interest in this perennial discussion, providing detailed justification in some cases. I didn't even read the opinion section before casting my vote, for example. I only agree that it should be moved because it seems to be making (one person) unhappy.  Tewdar  11:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm suggesting it as a formality, and for clearer presentation going forward. I agree with Tewdar: most people below have been following this discussion closely and there has been extensive WP:RFCBEFORE. It suspect the main cause of unhappiness here is that early indications suggest a consensus may be forming in a way an editor doesn't like. Jr8825 • Talk 11:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The RFC is active & in motion. I'm certain all will abide but whatever its result is. These thing do last a month. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup could last for a bit. Walls of text always slow things down and normally stall things a bit..... usually to the detriment of those writing walls of text. Moxy- 21:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hi. I am the originator of this RfC and I'd like to get some remarks on the record concerning the objection:

1. This was my first ever RfC and I followed guidance to the letter. The guidance is to "place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp." It does not say that my statement should have been in the survey section. I moved it later purely as a gesture of goodwill.

2. My comment does not reflect my personal political opinion. If the page were to reflect my personal politics, it would read "political union" and not "country" at all. Note that even I described the potential NPOV problem of using "political union." My proposed edit is not politically motivated or "rigged" but motivated by a desire for important Wikipedia pages to be readily understandable, NPOV, and a reflection of thoughtful common consensus. "Sovereign country" does not achieve this for the reasons I have outlined.

3. I took pains to carefully and neutrally describe the NPOV issues concerning "sovereign country". I employed some relevant political terms in order to do this but I did not make assertive statements concerning any political position or the "sovereign country" issue under scrutiny. For example, I said "it risks been seen as exceptionalist" (not "it is exceptionalist"). Taking the political heat out of the lead is one of my aims.

4. The options I have presented are "country," "state," and "political union." These were not made up on a whim. They are the result of reading and digesting previous UK talkpage conversations on this subject. I see these as the options that these discussions have boiled down to. An additional option inherent to my opening question is to leave it as "sovereign country." Where editors have suggestions additional to these four options, they have always been welcome to raise them in the discussion.

5. The objection was raised (by the same editor who posted this objection) on the RfC talkpage and there were clear comments in favour of my RfC's wording from two experienced editors.

Thanks everyone and sorry for another wall of text. It's just that these comments might be needed when it comes to closing the RfC and, if appropriate, making a significant content change. Angry Candy (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Only one person objected to the presentation. Not bad for your first RfC, I'd say. 😁  Tewdar  11:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Tewdar! Angry Candy (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. That objection may have sprung from a very restricted experience of contributing to Wikipedia, to a great extent confined to this one talk page's discussions concerning the lead, especially mentions of country.[25] NebY (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

yes, I noticed that too. this RfC seems pretty standard to me. DeCausa (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes

Sure is a lot of changes here by new ediotrs ....many not for the best and copy pasting with ref errors. Is the article part of some sort of student assignment? Moxy- 01:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Just two sockpuppets of the banned editor Lam312321321 (talk · contribs), I think, who adds copyrighted content from outside sources and unattributed pastes from other Wikipedia articles. Sock accounts Educatead1 (talk · contribs) and 1deangreenie (talk · contribs) were both blocked yesterday, and I've now reverted their edits to this article. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

thank you Moxy- 12:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Flag ratio: 1:2, 3:5, or both?

Like I said before, the Union Flag Bill and Flag Institute say the correct ratio on land is 3:5, and at sea, it's supposed to be 1:2. Should the flag ratio be a 1:2 or 3:5 ratio? What about both ratios? Turns out, despite 3:5 being the official ratio, I didn't actually go to the United Kingdom, and I have a feeling, that only British people, Northern Irish people, or people who actually went to the UK can confirm that 3:5 is used everywhere instead of 1:2. Should we use 3:5, should we stick with 1:2, or should we keep both? (Update: Turns out when looking at Belfast protests over the Union Flag, there were a mix of 3:5s and 1:2s. Maybe this is useful?) Kxeon (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, we don't really care much, as long as it's flown the right way up. Bazza (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The Union Flag Bill, incorporating the Flag Institute's 3:5 but not 1:2, made no progress in Parliament and has no standing. The long House of Commons briefing paper doesn't specify. There are doubtless military and diplomatic conventions, but it's also a matter of practicality and aesthetics. Flags hanging downward over the Mall look good in 1:2 (and note that these are officially hung and on land), but it's easier to wave a 3:5.[26] Architecturally, we even find 1:2+.[27] Whatever works, really. As long as it's right way up. NebY (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Monarch or Museum

Hello. I am relatively new. My father always says that the monarchy is just a glorified museum now. Shouldn't the article be changed so that it points to the Prime Minister who has most of the power? Faithful15 (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Why? That doesn't make sense. The United Kingdom is a monarchy even if it is technically the Prime Minister who has the most power. Even if your father says the monarchy is just a glorified museum that doesn't mean it's actually true, that's just his opinion on it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, you have to admit, even though it's technically a monarchy the Prime Minister has a lot of the power. The Monarchy is not as powerful as it once was. Faithful15 (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, however it's a monarchy so we list the current monarch. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

True. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that HM's country is mostly ruled under the Prime Minister. (BTW I read your page and I suffer autism as well) Faithful15 (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Faithful15, are you talking about the Infobox which has both monarch and PM? The monarch is there because he is Head of state. It's irrelevant what power he has. The PM is there anyway. All Heads of State are recorded in country article Infoboxes whatever political power they have - it's quite common for a head of state to be purely ceremonial, whether monarch or president. DeCausa (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see. Faithful15 (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)