Talk:Scotland

Template:V0.5

Please observe official Wikipedia policy on No personal attacks. In particular, please note the clear instruction: "... some types of comments are never acceptable: racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets directed against another contributor... or using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". Any such personal attacks will be immediately removed from this talk page (see Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks). Using ip sockpuppet or meatpuppet addresses, or edit summaries, to make personal attacks is particularly frowned upon. Please log in to your account.

Discussions opened by 122.105.217.71

An identical discussion doubting the "country" likeness has been opened by the same anonymous 122.105.217.71 for talk:Wales#It is not a Country, talk:England#It is not a Country, talk:Northern Ireland#It is not a Country as well as talk:Scotland#It is not a Country. The focus has been on the "definition" according to the wiki article and has sparked extended debate. As the law of the UK clearly states these regions are countries I would strongly suggest to close it here, as no argument on Wikipedia is going to change UK law. Arnoutf (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the law of the UK doesn't state anything of the sort. --Breadandcheese (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't feed the Trolls would be my advice. Rab-k (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarify, Trolls? GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You may find Wikipedia:What is a troll? helps. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think I'm a troll? 122.105.217.71 (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is what you do Arnoutf (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Give me one example of me doing that. 122.105.216.1 (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that WP:GOODFAITH is going out of the window here. --Breadandcheese (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. This question will be opened again and again as IMHO many people outside the UK and espeshially outside Europe regard the UK to be the country and that Scotland is an administrative subdivision of that country. So when the articles states Scotland to be a country it clashes with their general impression or education. Naturally some of those will ask if a mistake has been made. It is also natural that most of the contributors to this article are Scottish and it is my impression that most of them do regard Scotland to be a country. It is then natural for them to be a bit offended when someone suggests otherwise. In this situation it is impotant to assume good faith. Inge (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

While I don't agree with calling people trolls unless there is a cast iron reason (and I didn't see one here, so I didn't partake in this strand of discussion), I think there has to be some realism as well here. The contribs are a bit OTT on the mass talk postings, and some comments are just a short circuit on the entire point of a talk page. The editor has a bee in their bonnet about something - fair enough - there are ways of dealing with that that doesn't spread to posting identical text to the talk pages of half a dozen articles just to make your point - that is just WP:POINT. If reality "clashes with their general impression or education" then there isn't much that can be done other than politely point the editor in the right direction as to why that impression is wrong. That was done in this case, multiple times by multiple editors in a polite fashion - and the answer coming back was "no you are wrong". There isn't really anywhere left to go after that in terms of a constructive discussion. SFC9394 (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

How am i disrupting wikipedia? 122.105.216.1 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Follow my lead IP address editor. Don't bother anymore; simply leave this article alone. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you have said, SFC9394. I would just like to point out if I may (and hope it will be taken as contructive) that your formulation "If reality "clashes with their general impression or education" ..." is coloured by a certain POV. It illustrates the point that this question is fundamental. It even makes communicating more difficult. Generally speaking: From a non-scottish or non-UK POV "the reality" is that Scotland is one of the subnational entities of the UK (like a county or province). How the UK decides to administer its subnational entities makes no difference. For instance the Norwegian county of Hordaland is the land of the Hords like Scotland is the land of the Scots. It also used to be a kingdom but was incorporated into the new state of Norway hundreds of years ago. Through the centuries Hordaland survived as an administrative unit with court districts, church districs and a governor. Distinct customs, culture, music, dialects and traditional clothing are present. In the 20th century the Norwegian central government decided to devolve some powers to Hordaland and a representative assembly was elected and a county government governs on devolved issues based on it. However Hordaland is never regarded as a country. Now most Norwegians do know that there is a difference between Hordaland and Scotland so I don't think Norwegians will be the ones to protest here. The situation is perhaps more similar to that of the German bundesländer or the Spanish autonomous regions. So would an average scot/brit describe say Cantabria as a country or as a part of Spain? Since this will be a recurring problem I am just trying to bring in a perspective so this issue can be better understood by both sides. Inge (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

New additions to history section

The history section has just about doubled in size recently with the addition of largely unreferenced content on early modern Scotland, "Union of Crowns", etc. It goes into far too much detail for this article, and is more fitting for History of Scotland article. I say restore the earlier stable version, or at least trim the new material into good size and add cite tags. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment Deacon. I thought the same but as nobody jumped in, (as I expected they would to be honest), I tweaked it a little to include wiki-links. Personally, I too didn't have any difficulty with what was there before, but I agree the current version needs a trim. Any volunteers?Rab-k (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The 17th Century section was QED. The Treaty of Union section stills needs citations that I don't have to hand. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Give me one example of me doing that. 122.105.216.1 (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Translation of the motto into Scots

I know that what remains of modern Scots is highly colloquial, and I'm sure that "Wha daur meddle wi me?" is roughly accurate but it doesn't really carry the gravitas of a motto. It is a liberal translation (it's a question whereas the Latin is clearly a statement) and the English would be "Who dares meddle with me?" which is hardly something you'd write in an engraving. I would suggest something like "Naebody chowe me athoot bein brankt" although my Scots is appalling. Wee Jimmy (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the various discussions in Archive 13. Archives 10-13 Thanks. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have actually seen this Scots version used. I think the Gaelic version is more likely to be a simple translation and hence inappropriate. --Breadandcheese (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive navigation

As the volume of archive grows ease of access becomes an issue. The 'archive-nav' templates were not working on nos 8-15 so I have moved the pages to enable them. For future reference the archive page names need to be e.g. "Talk:Scotland/Archive 15" as opposed to "Talk:Scotland/Archive15" i.e there needs to be a space between 'Archive' & '15' etc. I bet you didn't know that. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it was working - now on some of them e.g. Archive 11, the forward link on the {atn} template opens Archive 12 in edit mode. No idea why. A minor glitch. 15 and 16 are using the {archivenav} template that seems to work OK. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Something amiss in Scotland

A conversation about the current maps used to represent the constituent countries has been started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Something_amiss_in_Scotland. This discussion is hopefully to resolve issues that have been raised and to try to set a standard within the UK. For all those that wish to comment on this, your input is requested. Thank-you :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought the point raised before was that Scotland refers to a country that existed before union with England, Wales and Ireland, so there was a logic in having it as an individual country Alastairward (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

However, what Scotland was and is, are two different things. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am about to leave this forum Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Something_amiss_in_Scotland as life demands my attention. If someone else wishes to champion the current concensus, be my guest. Rab-k (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

history

216.236.125.18 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Change map

Following the discussions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography with the almost unanimously conclusion that the map in the info box for Scotland should give reference to its inclusion in the UK, I would like to call your attention to this issue.

We are advocating this change mainly to warrant consistency with respect to other comparable articles. The current state appears misleading in the sense that readers might interpret the map that Scotland is an independent state, that is because it uses the same style Liuzzo map as many articles on European nations that are sovereign states. The current map further deters consistency within the UK articles, where maps for England, Wales, and NI all tone reference to the UK, which corresponds nicely with wikipedia's practice on almost all sub-national entities.

As there was no sustainable argumentation presented for the current use of the map, we are looking forward to discussing the issue here, and potentially change the map. Tomeasy (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tomeasy for having the decency to class my opinions as unsustainable. IMHO many of the counter arguments I experienced fell easily into that category, however I declined to refer to them as such. I would suggest that before anyone takes the plunge and enters into this discussion they take 10 minutes to go over the arguments on the Something amiss in Scotland page in order to save going over old ground.Rab-k (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and if you ignore Red King, Sarah and Rab, everybody was in agreement. But advocate away, although Wikiprojects have no ownership over articles. Really it's just the usual suspects plus you. Paint me unimpressed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ususal suspects? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the sustainable argumentation. It was an inappropriate POV. It reflected my feeling that I had from a discussion with many people arguing for a certain thing with different arguments against one person whose arguments got more and more strange. However, it was the wrong place to put this sentiment.

About Red King and Sarah, they left the discussion early after people had replied to their arguments, so I did not consider them as still opposing. Again, sorry, if was to fast with that.

Now, please abstain from criticizing my biased opening and focus on the matter itself. Tomeasy (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I m not sure if I should take offense of that. I am one of those who believe the map should be changed. Just thought I should mention it in case the owners of this article deem my opinon to be worthy.Inge (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you were making up a list of editors who'd be discomfited by a UK-less map, it would be easy enough: your illustrious self, GoodDay, Astrotrain, UKPhoenix ... the usual suspects. I'm sorry if Inge is disappointed not to make the list. Early days yet!

It's just a convenient shorthand, and not a suggestion that there are nefarious motives or dark conspiracies involved here. Reasonable people can and will disagree. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO the discussion on the UK geography page did not produce a valid reason to change a consensus on this page. As far as I could see, the only argument put forward related to consistency between the pages of the "constituent countries" of the UK. The current map is appropriate for showing the geographic position of Scotland; I can see no reason to change it. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The main point behind changing the map is that the proposed map is better. It gives more information to the reader. That is why it has been used on other similar articles. In adittion it is simple logic to treat similar problems the same way. Inge (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The map should be changed. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it should; so, I changed it! --G2bambino (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I admire your courage G2, but I fear the results. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia does support boldness, but, really, we shouldn't fear bullies. --G2bambino (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Think outside the box. Perhaps the answer to this problem, always assuming there is a problem, would be to fix the maps on England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

While I see that that would establish consistency (which I'm all for), I don't know that it's the best solution; it seems to be one in order to placate certain agenda-focused individuals rather than one that brings about the best result. Most people here seem to agree that the Scotland-within-the-UK map is superior because it graphically represents reality, whereas the Scotland-alone map makes it appear as though the nation is a sovereign state, which it, of course, is not. --G2bambino (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"we shouldn't fear bullies" and edits such as this are totally unacceptable and pure bad faith. You folks should follow the policies of wikipedia or don't bother editing. You are crossing a golden lines here. SFC9394 (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your personal opinions. --G2bambino (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

When I read a page describing Scotland I want to see where Scotland is, not England or Wales or anywhere else! I get the impression this conversation has been going on for a long long time! Does'nt there come a time when some people just think "I'm not going to win this conversation" and just leave it alone?--Jack forbes (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, Astrotrain, UKPhoenix ... the usual suspects How am I a usual suspect? I only called attention to this 2 days ago! You make it sound like I have been battling back and forward for months :-( -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore it, UKPhoenix79. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok take a look at these articles below. I have highlighted the unique parts of each TOC.

Scotland	Bavaria	Sicily	California	New South Wales
1 Etymology 2 History 3 Government and politics 4 Law 5 Geography and natural history 6 Economy and Infrastructure 7 Demography 8 Military 9 Culture 10 See also 11 References 12 Further reading 13 External links	1 History 2 Geography 3 Politics 4 Economy 5 Culture 6 Administrative divisions 7 Historical buildings 8 Miscellaneous 9 Population and area 10 See also 11 External links 12 References	1 History 2 Geography 3 Transport 4 Culture 5 People 6 World Heritage Sites 7 References 8 See also 9 External links	1 Etymology 2 Geography and environment 3 History 4 Demographics 5 Economy 6 Energy 7 Transportation 8 Government & Politics 9 California state law 10 Cities, towns and counties 11 Education 12 Sports 13 See also 14 References 15 Further reading 16 External links	1 History 2 Government 3 Administrative divisions 4 People 5 Education 6 Geography 7 Economy 8 Sport 9 The Arts 10 References 11 See also 12 External links

Now you may notice that Save California each sub-country entity shows the actual Country and its subdivisions nothing more or less. This is what I propose for the UK subdivisions. Lets follow suit! This will give a better close-up of the parts of the UK since currently it is very far away. Checking around it looks like only countries really use the current map so I believe that here lies the fault. Anyone know of a good map to use? I unfortunately wont have time to look for one. But if none are found I will look myself. Please remember the Irish when doing this and make sure that most if not all of the Isle of Ireland is shown and that N. Ireland is not the only part shown. So something more akin to Bretagne would work perfectly. I believe that this is the best option left to us! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I did notice earlier that that was one of your presented options. I've since looked at some other sub-national entity articles and see it's actually quite a common practise. So, personally, I've no issue with a map that shows the UK only and where Scotland sits within it (a format that, of course, would also be used for England, Wales and NI). The UK article can show the UK within Europe. --G2bambino (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean something like Image:UK scotland.png (and similarly for the other three articles)? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

THANK-YOU!!! It isn't perfect (I actually like the French versions more) but the fact that this already exists I think will solve everything! I have updated all 4 articles and I think they are the better for it. I hope that you all appreciate that this conversation actually had a positive effect for all four constituent countries! Heck you can even see the individual nations very easily now!!! All without a microscope! Thanks for the help everybody. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Holy smokers, that 'map' was rejected too? GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Stances

I've taken a little survey of the users involved and their positions, based on the discussions both here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Something amiss in Scotland. Please feel free to add your name to whatever list you belong to, or change any errors I've made.

Hanlon's razor leads me to conclude that it's an oversight which has led you to omit Sarah777 (talk · contribs) ("Scotland should be simply represented as darker on a uniform lighter European background") and Red King (talk · contribs) ("The key message is that Scotland is not a region of the UK, it is a distinct nation"). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel their names belong somewhere, put them in. I believe that's what I suggested be done above. --G2bambino (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My assumption is, Sarah's concerns lay with the map at Northern Ireland; but I'll let her speak for herself. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My reading of Red King's contribution is different to yours (AM), but, I'm sure he/she will be along to speak soon. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

While I do agree that that the map should be changed. I wouldn't say that I was an opposing force, more like a negotiator trying to discover whats going wrong & work with those around me to improve the article. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Scotland in UK map

1. User:UKPhoenix79
2. User:GoodDay
3. User:Jza84
4. User:Inge
5. User talk:Tomeasy
6. User:G2bambino
7. User:Drachenfyre
8. User:Mr Stephen
9. User:Andrwsc
10. User:Cameron

Scotland alone map

1. User:Rab-k
2. User:Jack forbes
3. Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to conduct a straw poll (yet again) I suggest you count the views of the editors of this article rather than those of others. Furthermore, my suspicion is that your views would tend to be treated more seriously if you had heretofore made any serious attempt to actually improve the article, rather than re-starting a debate that has been gone over several times already, often involving strong feelings bordering on incivility. It would also at least be more interesting if a new idea or view was being presented rather than just a re-hash of all the old stuff. Do some people actually enjoy this or is it a compulsion? - ( I ask myself). Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that seriously your commentary on this matter? Opinions about a map on this article are opinions about a map on this article, regardless of where they're expressed. Perhaps it's easier for you to set arbitrary requirements so as to knock off as many of your oponents as possible? --G2bambino (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I seriously don't understand a few of you don't realize that there is obviously a problem people have with the old map being used. The fact that this has apparently been a conversation that has been going on for the better part of a year should let editors know that this is an issue, even if you don't believe it yourself. Why have you dug your heals in so much on this minor point, when editors like myself believe that this small change will improve the article? I have made a Wikipedia:Requests for comment hopefully someone will have a good suggestion. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict> There obviously isn't a consensus on the map so stop referring to that. I have yet to see any convincing arguments why we should have the present map. I only see questionable tactics used to drive off new contributors or anyone with a differing opinion. I again object to the notion that some wikipedians are worth more than others. I have as much right to edit this article as any. My opinion counts just as much towards a consensus as any. You should read WP:OWN and take it to heart. If you want to retain this map give arguments, dont just revert and point to a non-existent consensus. Please also read WP:CONSENSUS in which you will find "Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice." So if you insist on keeping this "eccentric" solution I at least expect to be met with respect and arguments. If the guardians of this article find that debating with other users is a chore then just stop and let fresh heads give it a go. Inge (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"when editors like myself believe that this small change will improve the article?" - it has little to do with this article though, doesn't it? All those arguing for change seem to have is that all 4 must be the same. You replaced a map that indicated the location of Scotland at a continental level - something clearly identifiable - to one that enforced the reader to know where the UK was for them to know Scotland's location (and even then have to read tiny 8 point text to find out what bit Scotland was). That doesn't seem like "an improvement" to me - that seems like an absolute hindrance - which is why I can't take your comments at face value (p.s. can you please sign your comments with 4 not 3 tildes, that makes identifying people much easier) SFC9394 (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your entire argument up to now has been that the editors are smart enough to know that Scotland is in the UK. Now your saying that they aren't smart enough to know that the UK is in Europe? I guess that County Cork has a problem because I don't know where Ireland is??? Really this is your argument now??? Seriously??? Please what is your real reason! Please open up the dialog and convince us that your point.... well has a point! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

My argument has been nothing of the sort - the map should display the location of the article subject - nothing more nothing less - no contentious political information, no enforced "standards". Stop mis-characterising others views. SFC9394 (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your incivil activities are unacceptable - is this edit fine? - removing my entire comment. The RFC text you have included "discussion on what map should represent Scotland in the UK" - that is not NPOV - that is a very specific statement to reach an end goal - the same as the "discussions" at your UK project "poll". The dispute is what the infobox map should be and that is all there is - no little political bylines - no statements to reach a specific goal. You have changed it twice now - I won't change it back - but I will make it known that you are not upholding the rules from day one on this - and I can't be bothered with editors like that. SFC9394 (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't call me uncivil YOU edited MY comments! That is called Wikipedia:Vandalism Modifying users' comments - Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged. I reverted YOUR changes to MY comments please remember that. It was not your position to do that and if you would have asked for a change or given a better suggestion that would have been one thing but your actions were uncalled for. Especially since I have acted with nothing but respect to everybody here and that shows a high level of disrespect when you then make comments about my reversal of YOUR edits to MY comments. I imagined that you didn't know better hence my edit summary, but making comments on the talk page and making me look like the bad guy for reverting YOUR edits to MY comments... thats just too far :-( -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"YOU edited MY comments!" - I edited an RFC statement - it is not "your" comment - it is meant to be a neutral explanation of the problem - your version is as far from as is neutral as is possible. Along with reverting my change you also deleted my entire comment, as shown by the diff above - and didn't add it back - check the history of the page - there is no slight of hand, you deleted it. If it was an honest mistake then all you needed to do was say so - instead you are now pretending you didn't delete anything. SFC9394 (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok now you just made me feel bad... I had no idea that I removed your comment. Sorry about that. No I didn't know that I removed that at all, I wouldn't pretend either I just thought that you were being asinine by saying I removed your edits to my comment... I didn't realize that there was more too it then that... sorry! But please ask people before you edit their comments, because they were my comments that I placed in the RFC after all. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by Your incivil activities are unacceptable [...] the same as the "discussions" at your UK project "poll". and You have changed it twice now - I won't change it back I have no clue what you even mean. I haven't made a poll... though I now think we should. I actually followed the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle exactly to the guidelines when I originally came to this article and that is what alerted me to this ongoing issue. So how could you say that I am not upholding the rules from day one on this? From day one I have done everything exactly the way that Wikipedia recommends that I do it! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would've had more to say on this whole topic (the map)? But, one of the editors (though not at this discussion) has 'twice' declared me a troll. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

PS- a new map has been added to the articles England, Northern Ireland and Wales, it shows only the British Isles. So far, there hasn't been any objections to it, on those 3 articles. I hope this article will adopt it, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection

As this old content-dispute has grown so lively again of late, I've stuck a three day protection on it. In that period at least we can keep the argumentation confined to this talk page, keep users out of trouble, and hopefully come closer to general understanding in the mean time. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for coming to help, any chance that you'd like to make a comment on the situation or even get some others here to join the discussion? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna hold back for now on this time-sucker of an issue, been through it so many times. Sent a message of sorts to a guy on WP:Working group, but we'll see if their involvement becomes necessary. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I respect your decision to stand aside and I thank you for trying to bring more people to this discussion. Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's regrettable but necessary (the page being locked). So little (but intense) resistance over a 'map change' - very frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Stances Cont'd

I can understand that some people feel unhappy with the map that has recently been introduced showing only the British Isles. In deed, geographically it is less descriptive and we should anyway wait for this discussion to come to an end before we change the map.

My proposition would be to use exactly the map that we have right now, improved by light orange shades for the territories of England, Wales, and NI. This way the the full geographical meaning will be restored and the discrepancy with maps shown for other sub-nationals would be abrogated. Tomeasy (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I fear both proposed maps will continue to be resisted here. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever map gets chosen this on is a big no no due to the fact that the European mainland seem to have migrated south. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know how to show the 'three' Scotland map example for this discussion? I think it would help to have them here, for all sides to study. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a template that was used in the lengthy Talk:Scotland/Archive 14 debates. As I recall, maps placed on this gallery were removed by editors who felt they were losing the argument so there are probably a few gaps. I assume that the request :indicates that you are unfamiliar with the lengthy history of this debate... I realise that everyone is entitled to their say, but it would be just dandy if users who want to re-open old wounds would at least take the trouble to do a little research first. How fine the day when someone new comes along and writes: 'having studied the arguments a, b and c for, and d, e and f against I wonder if anyone has ever considered g?' instead of just jumping in feet first brandishing their point of view. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 17:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I do know of the past discussions on this 'map' topic & how there was no consensus then. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed a contentious debate which did not result in anything resembling a formal decision. On the other hand, the current map, or one very similar to it has been in place for some considerable time. It is not everyone's first choice, but the very least you can say is that it has emerged as the 'least worst' option, supported or tolerated by the majority of regular editors.

Its main advantage is clarity, and of course it suits those of us for whom the concept of 'Scotland' is as or more important than the concept of 'Scotland-within-the-UK'.

Its main disadvantage is that it suggests to some a national sovereignty that does not reflect the constitutional reality of the UK and by extension it does not suit those of us for whom the concept of 'Britishness' is as or more important than the concept of 'Scotland' as an semi-independent entity.

In reality it is not a question of 'either/or' but rather 'both/and'. Scotland is a holon - a country within a country. We can of course attempt to address the wording of the article to reflect this complexity, and perhaps we have succeeded in achieving something accurate and acceptable there. So far as I can see a map is never going to be able to convey this. It is either going to show other parts of the British Isles (sorry Sonic-youth) in relation to Scotland, or it isn't. It is hard to imagine a situation where a sizeable minority does not take umbrage. I can only encourage those of us who are in the majority to treat those whose views are not currently reflected in the map with both consideration and firmness. Similarly, I hope those who are, or may be in a minority, will act with both a robust defense of their position, but an acceptance that there is a body of opinion to be swayed rather than an assumption that a hard-won consensus is somehow a mistake or the work of those who wish them ill. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There seams to be 4 solutions to this

Choice 1

Keep the map. This option is to highlight only the constituent country in question and to show an expanded view of Europe as a whole.

• 

examples from other countries (currently none known)

Please comment by following this format:

* - <your comment> -- ~~~~

• Geographical map which clearly locates Scotland. (The geographical role is paramount, but the deficiencies of the alternative options are clear in their privileging of the UK political Union over visible context for Scotland's other trading and political links over the centuries, such as Ireland, Norway, France, Veere, Gdansk.) AllyD (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Factually incorrect - see Wallonia. AllyD (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I went to the Belgium#Communities and regions page and then followed the link saying 3. The three regions: clicked on Flemish Region and it showed Image:Vlaams GewestLocatie.png. I checked Walloon Region the official region page found that there was a broken image link to Image:Wallonia (Belgium).png, fixed that. Even Brussels-Capital Region shows a close up map Image:BelgiumBrussels.png but it kinda has too doesn't it! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• I do not like this option, since it is inconsistent with maps of other sub-national entities and users might be mislead to the interpretation that Scotland is an independent state. Tomeasy (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Change the map

Choice 2

This option is to highlight all of the UK and have a different colour for the constituent country in question and to show an expanded view of Europe as a whole.

• 
• 
• 
• 

examples from other countries (currently none known)

Please comment by following this format:

* - <your comment> -- ~~~~

• It correctly show Scotland as a part of the United Kingdom & its location with Europe. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• To paraphrase from an above vote for the Scotland-only map: Geographical map which clearly locates Scotland. (The geographical role is paramount, but the deficiencies of the alternative option is clear in its dismissing of the fact that a country's boundaries are political by nature, and a constituent country should be graphically represented as a subset of the larger political union to which it belongs; context for Scotland's other trading and political links over the centuries, such as Ireland, Norway, France, Veere, Gdansk are irrelevant to a map.) --G2bambino (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• The scale is too small to make this option worthwhile except to show, in only the vaguest sense roughly where the places one wants to highlight are.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• This is what I argued for in the first place, though I have to agree that the region of interest ends up a little bit too small. Nevertheless, this would go for me. Tomeasy (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Choice 3

To show only the country and its constituent parts keeping in line with other countries allow people to go to the main country page to get a wider geographical location.
3A

• 
• 
• 
• 

3B

• 
• 
• 
• File:UK north ireland.png

3C

• 
• 
• 
• 

examples from other countries

• 
• 
• 
• 

Please comment by following this format:

* - <your comment> -- ~~~~

• - My second choice -- Davidkinnen (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Some greater context needs to be shown for this, though not so much as to make it worthless (as would be the case if a europe-wide map were chosen.)  DDStretch  (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• I find this choice problematic. As you've already seen, you come into trouble whether of not to include Ireland. If you leave it out, the result is comparable to Bavaria, Sicily, or NSW--a map without reference to its location, which I do not like.

If you include Ireland, you actually get into another choice (3-b if you like). You then have some, very limited geographical reference. Moreover, it seems we get trouble with some people who interpret this as an aggressive act towards Ireland's annexation, which it is of course not, if one considers the color usage. Nevertheless, I do not really like it because it shows too little around Scotland, while I prefer it to choice 1. Tomeasy (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Choice 4

To show a close up of the UK shade any nations that are not a part of the UK in a different colour. The constituent country in question will have a different colour to the rest of the UK.
4A

• 
• 
• 
• 

4B

• 
• 
• 
• File:Uk map northern ireland green.png

4C

• 
• 
• 
• 

examples from other countries

• 
• 
• 
• 

Please comment by following this format:

* - <your comment> -- ~~~~

• Personally I like this type the best. Though since I cannot find a version like this for the UK one would have to be made. In the mean time I would say that Choice 3 would be a great runner up. OK I'VE MADE THEM hehehe :-D -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Though it dosen't show all of Europe, it shows Scotland as part of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• My second choice, as it shows Scotland within the United Kingdom, but the northern coast of France keeps the UK from being a floating entity completely without context. --G2bambino (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• My first choice as it I think it is the clearest and is, I think, the most accessible. Davidkinnen (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• This seems closest (though not identical) to the colouring scheme used in local county maps used in the UK place templates. If one has to choose any of these, I guess this would be my first choice, though I do think the red colour is a bit too saturated and vivid for my liking.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  (afterthought) Would a small map insert, showing what this maps shows, in relation to Europe, be a good idea? The biggest problem with the Europe maps is that the UK and Ireland, etc are too small to make them worthwhile.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  After checking almost 200 articles on their subdivisions I can say that showing the map of the world along with style 4 is not used. It relies on someone going to the nations article to see the country's location in the world. This is to show the subdivisions location in the country. Its a rather specific task but one that is well defined. Thanks for the suggestion though please keep them coming :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks, but you may have misunderstood a little. First, I'm not bothered about consistency with other articles in this matter as much as concentrating on conveying intended information as clearly and as unambiguously as possible. The map insert was intended to show the context of the map a bit more in relation to Europe (not the world). It is similar to what has been done on (for example) Chew Stoke, where the map insert shows the local map's context within the whole of the UK. In this respect, we would have a small map insert of Europe with a similar box in it showing the limits of the area as depicted in the large map. I know it wouldn't be consistent with other maps used, but I think, in this instance, it is worth paying attention more to accuracy and clear communication rather than slavish adherence to consistency (especially since we have no way of knowing the basis by which the other maps were chosen.) In this respect, although the main aim is to show the subdivisions of the United Kingdom, there does seem to be a wish that some of the context is shown (so we have Republic of Ireland and a small part of France included) All I'm saying is that I think this context may be usefully expanded a little with no significant degradation in accuracy or ease of interpretation for the extra information conveyed (because there is plenty of slack space where the map insert could be placed.) It would also go some way to satisfying the needs of people who prefer the first two options.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  Ok I have changed the red colour now... is that what you were thinking?? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, that is better with less saturation of the red. I much prefer this colouring scheme to the green one, though.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  Ok I wasn't sure at first if I did it right. Glad I was correct -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  I've made a green one now. I think that we all will like that one :-) also I created Image:Uk map crown dependency.png for the Crown Dependency page. Yes I know I'm gloating, but I'm having fun with these maps :-D not only that I feel like I'm getting things accomplished and actually improving the articles I made these images for. Ok now back to your regularly scheduled debate... -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I like Choice 4 and that would be my first preference; choice 3 would be my second preference. I don't particularly like choices 1 and 2.Pyrotec (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Choice 4 is probably the best, though 3 has possibilities. 2 is rather too small for Scotland although could appear as a second image. 1 is just not consistent with much of the rest of the encyclopedia and contains less information needlessly Timrollpickering (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Something between choice 4 and 2 was what I had in mind. I like DDStretch's point of adding a small Europe map insert. Choice 3 has some problems in that it keeps the Republic in, but discludes France and the continent despite them contemporaneously having the same status. The colours aren't too appealing to me either. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  I have created a new version of choice 3 since it seams to be a big complaint that the Republic of Ireland is there. Personally I prefer choice 4 or 3 with the republic in, but due to popular demand here you go... Though I believe it will cause more problems than it is worth. If you want you can even show me another map that has colours you like so that I can use it as a reference and create a new version of the one you don't like. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is my preferred choice, since it displays reasonably geographical reference and also that Scotland is part of UK. As Phoenix I prefer the 2nd shading alternative as exemplified in green. Not because it is green, actually it could be any other color, but because it leaves all territory beyond the UK neutral. The first option Phoenix showed was a bit confusing since dark red did not connect with light red but with white, while light red was the rest. In the new option it is clear that dark is region of interest, light the territory it is a part of and the rest is the rest. Thanks for your efforts UKPhoenix79. Tomeasy (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for the praise. I coloured 4A that way because it seams to be the most popular colouring scheme for maps on wikipedia. If people want a different version just let me know and give me a link to another version that has that colour and I'll do my best for you all. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  What would the maps look like if you took 4A and swapped round the colours for places in the UK but not highlighted with the non-UK places? That might go some way to addressing Tomeasy's comments about the shading used conforming to a more intuitive scheme. Additionally, one might also try a version which takes the resulting very light non-UK regions and replaces that colour with what Tomeasy suggests is neutral. Could we just have a look at those, if it doesn't take up too much time? Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not following. Is there an example that you know? If not could you list your ideas using the following format

  article colour = ; other subdivision colour = ; water colour = ; other countries colour =

  that might help me understand better. Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  Ok, this for the current map style 4A. Say at the moment you have article colour = W; other subdivision colour = X; water colour = Y; other countries colour = Z. What I'm asking for is whether it would be possible to try this colouring scheme so we could just see what it looked like: article colour = W ; other subdivision colour = Z; water colour = Y; other countries colour = X. Is that clearer?  DDStretch  (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  now I understand. But that might cause confusion for people who peruse other articles. If you check Talk:Scotland#Choice_4_2 and browse through the images provided, you will see what this might lead others to believe that the wrong territory is part of the nation. If we were going to change the colours it might be best to avoid the colour X/Z entirely (not really fond of Z) and just use Grey or something that will still give the neutrality your looking for on other countries. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  Fair enough! It might be an idea to use grey then for the other countries.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Major Subdivisions list

---

Here is a list of one major subdivision (lack of a better term) of every country on the planet (193 Countries listed) Excluding the UK.

• 191 UN members (excluding the UK)
• Vatican City & Taiwan

---

Choice 1

To show an expanded view of the continent the country is on. The subdivision in question will have a different colour to the entire continent including the countries other subdivisions.

Total = 0/193

Choice 2

To show an expanded view of the continent the country is on and shade any other country in the same colour (different to the country itself). The subdivision in question will have a different colour to the rest of the country.

Total = 0/193

Choice 3

---

To show only the country and its subdivisions, no other neighbouring country shown. The subdivision in question will have a different colour to the rest of the country.

Africa = 43/52
Image:Angola Provinces Cuando Cubango 250px.png Image:Botswana-Kgalagadi.png Image:BurkinaFaso Centre-Nord.png Image:Burundi Bururi.png Image:Cameroon Extreme North 300px.png Image:Locator map of São Nicolau, Cape Verde.png Image:CAR-BasseKotto.png Image:Chad-Logone Oriental region.png Image:Mohéli in Comoros.png Image:DCongoManiema.png Image:Congo-Plateaux.png Image:Coted'Ivoire ValleeduBandama.png Image:Djibouti-Dikhilregion.png Image:Eritrea Gash-Barka.png Image:Ethiopia-Oromia.png Image:Gabon-Moyen-Ogooue.png Image:Gambia-NorthBank.png Image:Ghana-Northern.png Image:Guinea Kindia.png Image:Guinea-Bissau Oio.png Image:Kenya-RiftValley.png Image:Lesotho Districts Thaba-Tseka 250px.png Image:Libyen Wadi Al Shatii.png Image:MadagascarMahajanga.png Image:MW-Lilongwe.png Image:Mali Sikasso.png Image:Mauritania-Brakna.png Image:Mauritius-Plaines Wilhems.png Image:Mozambique Provinces Tete 250px.png Image:Namibia Regions Otjozondjupa 250px.png Image:Niger Dosso.png Image:NigeriaNiger.png Image:Rwanda-South.png Image:Senegal Tambacounda.png Image:SC-Belombre.png Image:Sierra Leone PortLoko.png Image:Somalia regions map Jubbada Hoose.svg Image:South Africa Provinces showing FS.png Image:Tanzania Mtwara.png Image:TN-18.svg Image:Uganda Kaberamaido.png Image:ZM-Western.png Image:Province of Mashonaland Central.svg

Americas = 22/35
Image:Antigua-Saint Mary.png Image:Barbados-Saint George.png Image:Bolivia-Santa Cruz.png Image:Mapa loc Antofagasta.svg Image:Camagüey Province Location.png Image:Dominica-Saint Joseph.png Image:DomRepSanJuan.png Image:El Salvador-San Salvador.png Image:Grenada-Saint Andrew.png Image:AltaVerapazGUAT.PNG Image:Guyana-Potaro-Siparuni.png Image:HondurasOlancho.png Image:Jamaica-Saint Elizabeth.png Image:Mexico map, MX-CHH.svg Image:NicaraguaRAAN.png Image:Chiriquí.png Image:StKitts-Nevis JCA.png Image:Santa lucia dennery political.png Image:SVG Saint Andrew.png Image:Suriname-Coronie.png Image:Uruguay-Florida.png Image:Venezuela-amazonas.jpg

Asia = 29/46 (including Taiwan)
Image:Afghanistan-Bamiyan.png Image:ArmeniaGegharkunik.png Image:BH-02.svg Image:LocMap Bangladesh Dhaka.png Image:BhutanWangduePhodrang.png Image:IranYazd.png Image:IraqDiyala.png Image:Israel haifa dist.png Image:Map of Japan with highlight on 14 Kanagawa 神奈川県.svg Image:Jordan-Mafraq.png Image:Kar obl.svg Image:South Hwanghae NK.png Image:Jeollanam SK.png Image:Kuwait-Al Ahmadi.png Image:KyrgyzstanOsh.png Image:Lebanon-Beqaa.png Image:Map mn dornogobi aimag.png Image:MyanmarShan.png Image:Oman Al Wusta.png Image:PakistanBalochistan.png Image:QA-07.svg Image:Saudi Arabia - Ar Riyad province locator.png Image:North Central province Sri Lanka.png Image:Homs.PNG Image:Hsinchu County Location Map.png Image:Tj1-kaart.png Image:TurkmenistanBalkan.png Image:UZ-Navoiy.PNG Image:Yemen-Hadhramaut.png

Europe = 32/43
Image:AlbaniaBeratCounty.png Image:Andorra-Escaldes-Engordany.png Image:Austria ooe.svg Image:BelarusHrodnaRegion.png Image:Vlaams GewestLocatie.png Image:BosniaCantonZenicaDoboj.png Image:Oblast Burgas.png Image:CroatiaBjelovar-Bilogora.png Image:Cyprus-Larnaca.png Image:Karlovarsky kraj.svg Image:Map DK Region Midtjylland.png Image:Ida-Viru maakond.svg Image:FI-LS.svg Image:Deutschland Lage von Bayern.svg Image:GreeceEpirus.png Image:HU county Borsod Abauj Zemplen.svg Image:Italy Regions Sicily Map.png Image:Panevezio apskritis.png Image:Latvia-Riga.png Image:District DiekirchLocatie.png Image:MKD muni nonn(Prilep).png Image:Kolašin-Position.PNG Image:Gelderland position.svg Image:Oppland kart.png Image:Wojewodztwo dolnoslaskie.png Image:LocalDistritoGuarda.svg Image:San Marino-Acquaviva.png Image:Nitrakrajloc.png Image:Pokrajine spodnja stajerska.png Image:Localización Castilla y León.png Image:Svcmap vasterbotten.png Image:Swiss Canton Map BE.png

Oceania = 7/14
Image:New South Wales locator-MJC.png Image:Aiwomap.jpg Image:Position of Southland Region.png Image:Papua new guinea east new britain province.png Image:Samoa-Gaga'emauga.png Image:Solomon Islands-Malaita.png Image:Shefa.PNG

Transcontinental countries = 2/3
Image:Egypt-Bani Suwayf.png Image:Map of Russia - Sakha (Yakutia) Republic (2008-03).svg

Total = 135/193

---

Choice 4

---

To show a close up of the country and shade any other country seen in the closeup in the same colour (different to the country itself). The subdivision in question will have a different colour to the rest of the country.

Africa = 5/52
Image:DZ-01.svg Image:Benin Alibori.png Image:Equatorial Guinea-Centro Sur.png Image:Gharb-Chrarda-Béni Hssen.svg Image:Schamal Darfur.PNG

Americas = 12/35
Image:Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina.png Image:Bf-map.gif Image:BelizeStannCreek.png Image:Brazil State MatoGrosso.svg Image:Alberta-map.png Image:Republic of Colombia - Meta.png Image:Costa Rica Guanacaste.png Image:EC-moronasantiago-map.PNG Image:Haiti-Artibonite.png Image:Paraguay Presidente Hayes.png Image:Location of Loreto region.png Image:Map of USA CA.svg

Asia = 12/46
Image:Azerbaijan-Quba.png Image:Brunei-Brunei and Muara.png Image:Jilin CN.png Image:Georgia Kakheti map.png Image:India Maharashtra locator map.svg Image:IndonesiaNorthSumatra.png Image:Laos Khammouan.png Image:Kelantan state locator.PNG Image:Ph luzviminda.png Image:Thailand Central.png Image:East Timor-Viqueque.png Image:LocationVietnamQuangTri.png

Europe = 5/43
Image:Bretagne map.png Image:IrelandCork.png Image:Cahul raion.png Image:LocalDistritoGuarda.svg Image:Map of Ukraine political simple Oblast Iwano-Frankiwsk.png

Transcontinental countries = 1/3
Image:Sivas Turkey Provinces locator.jpg

Total = 35/193

---

Other 1

no major subdivisions Note that the following countries have no major subdivisions listed:
Africa = 4/52
Liberia Swaziland Togo Trinidad and Tobago
Asia = 2/46
Cambodia Singapore
Europe = 3/43
Liechtenstein Malta Vatican City
Oceania = 1/14
Fiji

Total = 10/193

Other 2

no map for subdivisions Country subdivided but no real map created specifically for one major subdivision in:
Africa = 1/52
São Tomé and Príncipe
Americas = 1/35
The Bahamas
Asia = 3/46
Maldives Nepal United Arab Emirates
Europe = 3/43
Iceland Monaco Serbia
Oceania = 6/14
Kiribati Marshall Islands Federated States of Micronesia Palau Tonga Tuvalu

Total = 14/193

---

Final data

• Choice 1 - No country uses this format for its major subdivisions
• Choice 2 - No country uses this format for its major subdivisions
• Choice 3 - 69.948% of the major subdivisions uses this format.
• Choice 4 - 18.135% of the major subdivisions uses this format.
• Other 1 - 05.181% of the countries don't have a major subdivision
• Other 2 - 07.254% of the articles don't have a specific map for one individual subdivision.

Please check my work to keep me honest and write notes or use <s></s> to notify of any changes so that it can be verified. I hope that you all like the work I put into all of this. It took over 5 hours to do all of this <phew> -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

comments

please leave any comments here.

No offense pal but maybe you should get a life. Why an Englishman who lives in America should be so obsessed with Scotland has me puzzled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.172.66 (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That was rather insulting. But I'm British (hence my username) are you saying That someone in the US from Ohio has no right to edit any information on the Connecticut article? Your argument is rather asinine! Who says that I live in America anyway? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland in United Kingdom map

This, I take it, is the place where to register a complaint about the Republic of Ireland being included in the maps of the UK? Oh, I see, the problem was that the map of Scotland didn't have the rest of the UK shaded in? Did this unease some British nationalist sentiment? Well, boo-hoo! So, by compromise you shade the Republic of Ireland in along with the UK? "Location of XXX in the United Kingdom"!? From a quick browse of the above "discussion", I see the usual British nationalist cadre are out en force to push their particular brand of jingoism. Did shading in the Republic along with your rickety little union assuage the unease set loose by rebellious Scots? I've reverted all of these offensive little nationalist scribbles. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your complaint about the apparent inclusion of the Republic of Ireland, on the British Isles map is understandable (even though it is colored different from the UK). Concerning Northern Ireland, Wales, England & Scotland howerver? I disagree with you. PS- I didn't write up the 1707 Act of Union & all those succeeding Acts, it's not my fault that Wales, England, Northern Ireland & Scotland are not independant. What's with the anti-UK stuff, anyways? Geez. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought that it would be better then showing Northern Ireland only and ignoring the rest of the Isle of Ireland. That I dare say would be a bigger insult than anything else I could think of! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the coloring is the wrong. The UK should be blue and the RoI green. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely Sony-youth must be talking only about the map in option 3. --G2bambino (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Stances Cont'd

It seems apparent to me, that there's a overwhelming majority infavour of changing the map. Also, the editors who wish to keep the current map? seem to not be participating lately in the overall discussion on the matter. Should that be considered a consensus for change? GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I would love to hear other thoughts and opinions on this topic. I have put a lot of work into researching this debate and placing the facts on the table considering this is such a minor change I don't know if that is a good thing... so please at least let me know what you think :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, I noticed this comment you made on the "Wales" article (see below) in relation to the Welsh map, in which you seemed to support the removal of the shading illustrating the rest of the UK. You seem to have a completely opposite and very outspoken view in relation to Scotland. My question is - and not wishing to seem suspicious of your "single topic" interest - WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU UP TO?!?

"Seeing as Scotland doesen't shade the rest of the UK on their map, should this article do the same? GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)"

Still here, GoodDay, and thanks for the time you've spent UKPhoenix79. As for not participating, as a member of a "gang of nationally motivated editors who've decided their narrow group creates a consensus and have taken ownership of the article in order to maintain it. Nasty indeed." and one of "the same obstinate three or four still fight for the Scotland-alone map", it seems to me that this situation has dissolved into a slagging match between two sides. What has turned me off this discussion are the comments left on individual talk pages, (claims by editors of being "driven away" or treated in a "Charles Bronson" like manner, and general sniping directed towards the supposed "Scottish Clan" - you know who you are for as pointed out in this realm your comments can indeed be read by all), which have been a real eye-opener for me on this occassion.

Leaving to one side the issue of colour and scale, there are really only two options here:

• Have the info box in the Scotland article show a map of Scotland.

• Have the info box in the Scotland article show a map of the United Kingdom (With Scotland highlighted)

I have made my opinions known and my arguments have been described as unsustainable and increasingly strange. I see little point in stating these again here, (they can be found elsewhere), and as for my preference for the map, it matters not. Rab-k (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Rab-k? ya forgot 'Chuck Norris'. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I actually had fun researching the other countries. I must say I found it rather interesting. I hope that those other comments weren't aimed at me. Being British I hope that you didn't ever think that I was attacking the Scottish Clan because that would be akin to attacking myself, and that is just not how I personally feel. I've tried to be fair and actually went to great lengths to get as many voices into this conversation as possible. I saw that this little and I mean little item was a hot issue for this page and I hope that somehow I have made an improvement by getting the issues front and center and even creating viable alternatives since none were available at the time. But without making a choice one way or another do you at least like the version I created :-D -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

They are all excellent maps, given a choice of yours alone, Choice 4 (Red) would be my preference.Rab-k (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment... I think 4 is the best also, though I prefer green, it seams that the majority like red more, oh well you cant win them all. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is worthwhile to make some comments about how to go about choosing the best kind of map display. Obviously, consensus with the rest of wikipedia plays a part, but suppose we did not have to attend to that, or it was not an over-arching requirement that "trumped" all other concerns. It seems to me from my own knowledge of psychological and cognition research into graphical displays in the past that one must strive for simplicity and clearness in the displays so that what they are intended to convey is conveyed as quickly and unambiguously as possible: immediacy and accuracy. So, this means we must first agree on what is to be conveyed (the locations of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom) Given that (I assume this is not a contentious issue), we must then turn our attention to simplicity and clearness and this means avoiding all unnecessary clutter as well as using an appropriate scale. Thus the terrain-type additions, apart from sea-land boundaries, would be inadvisable. This rules out maps 1 and 2 on this basis. Maps 1 and 2 are also ruled out by issues of clarity as the scale is too small to achieve the degree of immediacy and accuracy that is desired, I argue. Map 3 would also be ruled out as it would be inconsistent in its exclusion of continental Europe, and inclusion of the Republic of Ireland. The option where the Republic of Ireland is excluded seems to me to fail as it conveys a misleading context (that Northern Ireland is an island, and, indeed, no European context is supplied.) Map 4 does not have this inconsistency (indeed, it is largely a corrected version of Map 3). So, it seems that attention should be devoted to this option if we are considering only these for options. The residual issues remain a possible need to provide a wider European context, and the choice of colouring scheme to highlight most immediately and accurately what we want to highlight. The first can be solved by having the map-insert, as I suggested above, showing where on a greater map of Europe this particular map is located; the second can be solved by a careful choice of contrasting colours for highlighting the areas we want highlighting. In this respect, I think the adjusted red highlighting scheme for Map 4 is the better option than the green. So, as far as I am aware (and in conformance with my own preference, because I used this argument to direct my choice), I think the research would tend to favour Map four, adjust red colouring. Whether that agrees with various preferences affected by overtly political stances, or wikipedia's advice or even with its requirements is, of course, another matter entirely.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, '#2' is my preference; but yes '#4' is also acceptable. As long as Scotland is shown as being with the UK? I'm OK. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

PS- I've scratched out some of my postings at Wales, England and Northern Ireland, where I intially prefered consistancy at any cost. I'm telling ya'll this, so as to save another editor time/trouble of reporting it to you. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just when you thought things were settled? An anon comes along to edit war over the 'map'. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Scotland is nation? at beginning of article

I think that there is logical mistake. Scotland is country or land or something similar. Nation refers to set of people with some characteristics... Scots are nation.--Čikić Dragan (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you believe, nation has just been added to the begining of the England article. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Čikić Dragan I direct you to Archive 16 of the talk page. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the full name of the country. Scotland is a kingdom within the United Kingdom (UK), and forms part of Britain (the largest island) and Great Britain (which includes the Scottish islands). As the UK has no written constitution in the usual sense, constitutional terminology is fraught with difficulties of interpretation and it is common usage nowadays to describe the four constituent parts of the UK (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) as “countries”." From Scottish Parliament website "Is Scotland a country?". 195.27.13.214 (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely ludicrous. The Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist when it merged to become the kingdom of GB. --Cameron (t/c) 17:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cikicdragan is right of course! Why people (the nation?) want to assert a piece of land is a sentient group of humans is madness to me. I think this source explains the problem best. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

McCrone, David, Understanding Scotland: The Sociology of a Nation. London: Routledge, 2001, p. 47:

Scotland as nation
Whether or not Scotland is a nation evokes strong responses. On the one hand, the political nationalist takes it as axiomatic so that it is a self-evident truth. On the other hand, those who are opposed to political independence pount out that there are too many deep and abiding differences across the country to sustain an argument for cultural homogeneity. What we see in this debate is its thoroughly political context. Asking the question seems to require that one reveals political preferences, that nationhood and statehood are inextricably linked. That is not our way here. We are concerned with decoupling these terms so as to argue that it is quite proper to treat Scotland as a nation without implying that it is or should be a state.

I think, no, I'm quite sure, I posted that here already. And others. Like the man said, all in the archives. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying the Scottish parliament website is wrong? Note, it also states that Scotland is a Kingdom within a Kingdom,(UK).--Jack forbes (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I do indeed. It is general knowledge that the Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist in 1701 as did the Kingdom of England --Cameron (t/c) 19:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean 1707, of course. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm getting muddled with 1801 now = ) --Cameron (t/c) 19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Being a Kingdom does not imply sovereignty --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldnt dream of implying so. But fact remains that a Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist de jure in 1707...--Cameron (t/c) 19:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist, period in 1707. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Watching the news every day I notice that when mention of the Queen is made she is invarably called the Queen of England, so the bbc and itv believe that England is a Kingdom, ergo, Scotland is a Kingdom! So with the media and a majority of English people believing this, 1707 or no 1707 you have a lot of people to convince otherwise!--Jack forbes (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This article, Kingdom of Scotland, England & Kingdom of England suggests otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't expect such "emotionfull" and fast responses. I feel I touch in very sensitive thing. I'm not such versed in circumstances in Scotland. Does it have any relation to possible separation of Scotland? In serbian language we use noun "nation" in named sense. And we learn it at high school as at university. I assume in English is different. Now I don't have time to ponder this, but I hope I will do it. Sorry if I insulted someone.--Čikić Dragan (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ach well, within the next decade these conversations will become a relic of another time:)--Jack forbes (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Sociology of a Nation"? Yes, "Sociology is the study of society" not geography! Simillarly, that's not a statutory defintion one bit. Would it not be possible that that's an illiterate, biased author.

Why don't we use Home Nations instead? To me (and clearly many others - perhaps half the editors involved in the last of the regular debates about this) "nation" just reads stupidly (Scotland is a group of people in Europe). --Jza84 |  Talk  21:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Could we use 'Home Nation' at England, Wales and Northern Ireland, aswell? If so? I'm all for it. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I imagine the term Home Nations is something we can all agree has a specific meaning, and is one that does not add or detract any value for any particular cultural/political stance. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I quote the Home Nations article: "Both British and Irish media frequently use the term Home Nations to include Ireland as a whole, often when referring to sporting events." Will you be fixing that soon? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sold, 'Home Nations' it is. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a very useful and interesting discussion, and we shouldn't shy away from it. Some very interesting things to consider have been raised:

• nation- a people sharing a set of characteristics, customs, culture and aspirations. Scotland? Check
• a kingdom? Well, as has been said, if England can be informally named a kingdom, why can't Scotland?
• a country? Well, yes, it's a convenient term to avoid the politics.

So, where does that leave us? Where Scotland itself is - in the mist.--Gazzster (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm in Glasgow and theres not a bit of mist to be seen! In fact, it's been blue sky all day. If you need any more weather forecasts for Scotland let me know, you must be looking at the wrong ones!--Jack forbes (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Home Nation is rarely used outside sporting context and then you get the whole Ireland/Northern Ireland issue so it is a bad idea to use it to refer to Scotland. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Scotland, the area of North-West Europe composed of the northern third of the island of Britain together with many smaller surrounding islands, has been a nation state and is variously described as a constituent country of the United Kingdom, a country, a nation, and also a stateless nation. Rather long-winded, yes, but complete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So much easier to simply delete 'nation'; but we've been down that rocky road before. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Or delete 'home'?--Jack forbes (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO we should delete 'nation'. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have only been here for a short time, so as an outsider it's my humble opinion that this discussion is never going to be resolved so should be left as it is, at least for a few months anyway!--Jack forbes (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain why Scotland is a nation, but the United Kingdom or the United States is not? Serious question, not rhetorical. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Serious or not, I don't see the relevance. If you can find a source that says that the United States or the United Kingdom are nations, add it to the article(s). If you can't, or if you find ones flatly denying it - easy enough for the UK - think twice. We do verifiability and neutral point of view. We don't ignore what the sources say in pursuit of standardisation. The number of Google books hits for any given phrase varies with the phase of the moon. Today, "Scotland is a nation" supposedly gets 137 hits (54 on Google scholar), and "Scotland is a country" gets 283 (69), while "Scotland is a constituent country" gets 0 (0). Who can say what tomorrow will bring, or how this will change if we restricted ourselves in time or by topic or try slightly different phrasing? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else can answer this? -- If Scotland is a nation, how are the Scottish people a nation, and is the United Kingdom a nation? See This, this and this for some interesting results. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the content of the United Kingdom article, Talk:United Kingdom is the place, and Talk:Scottish people would be the place to discuss Scottish people. This article is about Scotland, not about Britain, or the United Kingdom, or the United States, or Canada, or anything else. Just Scotland. This seems fairly obvious from the title, but evidently it needs saying as we do seem to keep wandering off-topic by bringing in other articles. If there are inconsistencies, there are inconsistencies. So long as the articles accurately represent the sources, all's well with the world and the wiki. G. K. Chesterton wrote "Scotland is a nation", a clear sign that it is good English, no matter how the phrase may sound to any of us. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

At the same time we must be vigilant against personal readings and possible misinterpretations because of ambiguity. It's all well and good to say "Scotland is a nation," and put a reference for that in a footnote, but what does it mean? "Nation" is a term with a number of meanings, we have to be clear here which one is being used. --G2bambino (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

One to throw into the mix - if, as some here insist, Scotland is not a Kingdom, (despite the Scottish Parliament stating that it is), why then at various times since the Union of 1707, (including currently), have monarchs of the United Kingdom continued to use Royal arms for Scotland distinct from those of England? Why then, assuming there is no dispute that neither Wales nor N.Ireland are kingdoms and that historically each falls within the realm of England, are a single style of arms not adopted for the United Kingdom if it is indeed a single regal entity? There are only two styles after all; that of England, (by default also that of N.Ireland & Wales), and that of Scotland. Why the continued difference? And how, (Royal Household staff presumably having been privy to the content of speeches prior to their reading), have present and past Presiding Officers of the Scottish Parliament not been dragged off to 'The Tower' for referring to HM Queen Elizabeth II during opening ceremonies "in the historic and constitutionally correct manner as Queen of Scots"? Surely this style must have some tacit Royal approval? Does this not suggest that as far as the monarchy, if not the 'state', is concerned, Scotland and England do indeed remain kingdoms within a United Kingdom? Perhaps our Canadian monarchists/royalists who show such an interest in all things British might shed some light on this? Rab-k (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

O bugger. Sorry to make things even more convoluted, but a kingdom, united or distinct, is not necessarily a nation. The former Kingdom of Yugoslavia was not a nation, but rather a union of nations, as was the Russian Empire, the Austrian Empire and Kingdom of Hungary. And indeed, as was the Kingdom of England, which includes(ed) Cornwall and Wales. A kingdom is a territorial unit. A nation is somewhat different. A nation is a people united by a common culture, social bond, language, aspiration, etc. It doesn't necessarily have to be a defined territorial unit. Discussing whether Scotland remains a distinct kingdom doesn't really help. We should be discussing whether this great land fits the definition of a nation.--Gazzster (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict>I haven't read most of this debate but I'd like to say a couple of things.

• Scotland under Kenneth I in 843 (Cináed mac Ailpín), King of the Scots, also became King of the Picts, thus becoming the first monarch of the Kingdom of Scotland.
• England united in 927 when Northumbria fell to the King of Wessex Athelstan to become the monarch of a united Kingdom of England
• Wales in 1218 Llywelyn the Great had the title bestowed upon him and his successors by his half-brother-in-law Henry III
• Wales in 1284 became Princedom inside the Kingdom of England by the Statute of Rhuddlan
• The Kingdom of Ireland formed in 1541, by the Crown of Ireland Act 1542 to replace the Lordship of Ireland, when Henry VIII realized that the Laudabiliter that gave the Kings of England authority to rule Ireland was void because this power came from Rome of which he had just proclaimed held no power.
• England and Scotland united into a new nation (Wales being an princedom of England) signifying this union by calling the New nation the United Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707.
• Ireland had no representation in parliament until another Acts of Union in 1801
• The term "United Kingdom" was originally just a shortened form for "the United Kingdom of Great Britain", the name by which the united kingdoms of England and Scotland were officially known after 1707. Ireland was always separately named in Britain's formal title--"the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland"--and this continued after the Anglo-Irish Union of 1801, with "Ireland" changing to "Northern Ireland" in 1921.[1]

Nowhere did any territory get demoted only united. So after the Statute of Rhuddlan and 2 Acts of union that means that the UK has 1 Princedom and 3 Kingdoms. The Unions did not dissolve the Kingdoms only solidified political union and ensured that the monarch would be the same for all 4 areas. Hope that helps. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know how often I have said this in the past, but it's a lot. There needs to be greater contempt for the consistency of language. Nation and country do not have fixed meanings, and Scotland is called both. The UK is also called both, as was Yugoslavia, though others deny that either is a "nation". That's as far as you can take the argument. Sadly, no-one's going to listen to me here, and probably we'll just have watch the same old chasing of shadows indefinitely. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a small point - above it is stated "England and Scotland united into a new nation" - No..united into a new 'state' or 'country', but a 'nation' can not simply be created by a political union. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agh... I'm using the uneducated common speak version of nation, where nation and country mean exactly the same thing; not the professional dictionary version where those two words have different meanings. Jeese you comment like this is an encyclopedia or something :-P -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, are we agreed then that while Scotland is not a "State", it is and can be classed as:

• A "Kingdom" (within a "United Kingdom")
• A "Nation" (including a "Home Nation")
• A "Country" (including a "Constituent Country")

And are we also agreed that these terms in relation to Scotland are not exclusive? Or, as Deacon suggests, do we keep going round in circles on this also? Rab-k (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying that Scotland is a Kingdom is more exact and professional. It is a Constituent country not a country, just read the articles I have linked they are very different things. And like I just did a second ago many people believe that a Nation is a Country not realizing the minute error in that statement. Even though the error is in the reader, I can see why other editors wish to avoid this term. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, but I'm still unsure as to whether the proposal is for the intro to changed in order to improve the article for the benefit of the reader, to clarify what Scotland the 'place' actually is, or for sake of consistency between UK articles? Rab-k (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that if there is an issue with the intro proposals of changes would be given. Not only that but seeing if the other Kingdoms/Princedom has the same problems would be a good idea. Whats good for the goose after all. I do see an issue with N. Ireland though its still a good idea to bring it up on the talk page (if needed), but I wouldn't see any issues aligning similar descriptions for the Constituent countries on the isle of Great Britain. Why should we let our cousins over the pond be more organized than us? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I read the Wales and Northern Ireland preface and I like them:

• Wales is one of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom. Traditionally a principality Wales is located in the southwest of the island of...
• Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, lying in the northeast of the island of Ireland, covering 5,459...

I found that the English and Scottish versions might be troublesome so I recommend that we at least follow the Welsh example. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that Wales's status as a principality in its own right (even if the post of Prince of Wales is nominally vacant for periods, ditto the Duchy of Cornwall exists even when there isn't a living Duke of Cornwall) within the UK seems much clearer than whether or not Scotland and England are still kingdoms, even if both the monarchy and Scottish Parliament website claim the trappings of the separate kingdoms. Unified kingdoms come in all sorts - personal union no more secure than the parrallel succession rules producing the same outcome, legislative agreement formally locking the successions together (e.g. the Queen of the UK also being Queen of Canada, ...of Australia, ...of New Zealand etc..., or at least some of the myriad of titles held by the Emperor of Austria-Hungary) and an actual merger of crowns and country together. I've never seen anything that states that the Scottish and English crowns still exist as separate entities in law, regardless of whatever gestures may be made at ceremonies. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Therein lies the joy of not having a written constitution! (The nearest we get to such being Parliamentary Acts concerning the Union of Scotland and England in 1707, the Union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801, the European Union post 1973 and devolved government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, post 1998). As for "separate entities in law", does not the role of the monarch re. English/Welsh Law as opposed to Scots Law differ, so too the role of the monarch in the Church of England as opposeed to the Church of Scotland? (Granted doesn't help resolve the issue of the article's intro, just interested). Rab-k (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, there arent that many kingdoms that exist without a monarch...--Cameron (t/c) 13:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I use the UK Parliament as an example of England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland not being nations - There's members in the House of Commons & House of Lords representing all the constituent countries. I'm assuming of course, Scotland still sends members to London. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes they do, hence the Devolved English parliament question and the famous West Lothian question...--Cameron (t/c) 14:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite all (and politics) I again think that you should not use here noun nation, because of staff in article nation --> Ambiguity in usage. I cite: "In the strict sense, terms such as 'nation', ethnos, and 'people' (as in 'the Danish people') denote a group of human beings." So in English it can mean part of land also, but in, I cite again, "daily speech". In that sense removing of "nation" is not harmful. Maybe, now the problem is what to put? There I can also read "Country denominates a geographical territory". So putting country is logical correct. Or maybe some should remake article nation. --Čikić Dragan (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. I was wondering however, does anybody have a Scottish English dictionary to hand? If so, what is the entry for nation? I have some British English dictionaries that state nation means a group people. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The learned Prof. Hugh Seton-Watson, who knew a thing about states and nations said "I am driven to the conclusion that no 'scientific definition' of a nation can be devised; yet the phenomenon has existed and exists. " He also wrote in his book Nations and State:

States can exist without a nation, or with several nations, among their subjects; and a nation can be coterminous with the population of one state, or be included together with other nations within one state, or be divided between several states. There were states long before nations, and there are some nations that are much older than most states which exist today. The belief that every state is a nation, or that all sovereign states are national states, has done much to obfuscate human understanding of political realities. A state is a legal and political organisation, with the power to require obedience and loyalty from its citizens. A nation is a community of people, whose members are bound together by a sense of solidarity, a common culture, a national consciousness.

I've no particular problem with saying Scotland (or England or Italy) is a nation because by common use, nation is used for country (United Nations; League of Nations, and others) with verifiable scholastic citations; both Bush and Brown are both fond of "our nation" statements when referring to their countries. Equally, I've no problem with saying nation is a people (Cherokee, Apache, Albanian, etc) and again with citations. In the case of Scotland both meanings could be used e.g Scottish nation would include Ulster-Scots and the opening statement would not be incompatible with both meanings. However, if this use of the "n" word is so problematic, maybe a shorter opening sentence such as "Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country within the United Kingdom in northwest Europe." would be enough. -Bill Reid | Talk 19:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that we do not need strict definition of nation here. Since we need to converge to it. It means to know as many as possible what the nation is. But that is subject of article nation. Maybe is good to be prone to authentic meaning of nation I think not involving things like "Americans are nation" and so on. Also you cite that "A nation is a community of people...", and Scotland and any other similar notion (eg. Italy, Germany) involve literaly things as land and other (eg. buldings, etc. ) on it land. I agree to your latest proposal that I also propose.--Čikić Dragan (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country within the United Kingdom in northwest Europe" sounds fine by me. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought of this churning controversy when reading the final paragraph of Brian Morton's article in Sunday's Observer [2]. So many hairs being split here about "nation" (could the Scotland article become the first to end up placing its concepts Sous rature?); frustrating in that so much more could/should be done to make real enhancements to this article, not least covering the C18-C19 history. AllyD (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone on another page stated that Scotland can't be a nation as everyone would have to belong to the same ethnicity or some such thing. That being the definition of nationality then it is a simple matter to say that the Scottish nation does exist but that many people in Scotland are nationless (obviously those who have a nation by immigration or whatnot may or may not be included in this). The nationless Scots would be the Goill described in the Gaelic language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boromean (talk • contribs) 19:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's confusing ethnic nationalism with civic nationalism. Mind you a lot of comments on this and related page suggests many people don't understand the nature of nationalism with sweeping comments that one nation/country/identity or so forth "doesn't exist". Timrollpickering (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

By the explanations of nation one can see that nationless people doesn't exist. --Čikić Dragan (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The nature, native nature of nationalism is perfectly clear. Scotland is inhabited by the subjects of the of the Queen. Scots that do not have an ethnic nationality, there or abroad, are nationless. The overlay of other, civic, things is just frippery as the european constitution demonstrates.

Nationless people may not be concievable but it is perfectly obvious that they must exist and that what denies that possibility is empire (hard or soft power) not nationality as it is actually understood and just not rationalized.

Colour names

Minor nit - the names of the colours seem to have become confused in the last few edits. Previously the colour of the UK in this image was described as camel: Image:Europe_location_SCO.png, but its described as camel for this image too: Image:Uk_map_scotland.png. They can't both be right. It doesn't help that camel isn't one of the standard colour names. The colour used for the UK now (ffffd0) is very close to the standard 'Light Yellow' (ffffe0), I'll fix that here. I'm not brave enough to label Europe 'peach puff'! UKPhoenix79, can you check the labels you've used for this elsewhere? Bazzargh (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks more like "Cream" IMHO. Rab-k (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure somewhere on wikipedia there's a battle raging over what exact shade 'mauve' means, but I won't argue with you here if you want to change it. Its not like our 'red' is some exact pantone red either. Bazzargh (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No battle desired. I guess individual monitors will affect the hue of whatever colour is used. Best left to the author to determine the description. Rab-k (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I took the name from other counties. I too think its actually something else, light yellow, cream, etc. I like light yellow since its simple for people with little knowledge of English to understand. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

Why is the reverting continuing? If it continues somebody will have to apply for another lock which, really, shouldnt be necessary. I dont see why any reverting is taking place anyway? I'd say a 10 vs 3 consensus is pretty clear? Does anyone doubt the consensus? --Cameron (t/c) 16:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I was reverting the anon, because I thought UKPhoenix79's map had been accepted (guess I was too optimistic). GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but isnt this poll exactly the same as the above? I'll take part regardless I'm just curious... --Cameron (t/c) 16:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To avoid further edit-warring: Let's make a poll to quantify the consensus that some of us are feeling:

At least one good thing has come out of the 'new' poll. We have a new 'voter'. Welcome Ddstrech! --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Option 1

(the old map with solely Scotland being highlighted.)

Option 2

(PhoenixUk's map with reference to the UK as the sovereign state that Scotland is part of.)

1. Tomeasy (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
3. --Cameron (t/c) 16:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
4. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
5.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Inge (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
7. --G2bambino (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
8. UKPhoenix79 (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

SFC dissaproves; anybody got other ideas? GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I disapprove because I want to have a rational discussion about what should be there and why it should be there. I was optimistic that an RFC would bring such discussion to the table - instead the purpose of the RFC has been ditched in favour of one editor going daft wasting 10's of hours coming up with nonsensical statistics and maps - all of which is designed to create only one answer. Even the RFC statement (which I tried to change multiple times, to no avail) has been phrased in a very biased and single minded means. Until there is a rational discussion I won't be getting involved in farcical "polls" - 3 options which produced what certain editors wanted and one option to produce what other editors want - no bias there, no sir, not at all. SFC9394 (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If anybody is interested? Jza84 has some ideas his working on, at his sandbox. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hay it was 5 hours!!! but I was fair and I actually thought that I would find some results that showed that others had done the same before. Please check my work was I wrong? Would you be annoyed with my waist of time if it would have shown that the idea you liked was the most popular one? I worked very hard to find out the truth of the matter, not knowing if I was in the wrong and I put the evidence up in an unbiased way. I even created multiple maps for people to have a wider selection. Creating maps that I even wouldn't want to use that others had asked for.-- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They're more preferences than ideas. Just a working example. SFC9394, you have barely been active in discussions but that's what you've asked for a rational discussion. Also, I'd be mindful of not using terms like "nonsensical" and "farcical" - the issue is clearly important to a great many editors. There's nothing farcical about a straw poll, though they are not binding they can contribute towards a way forwards, which is what we all want is it not? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to have a rational discussion about what should be there and why it should be there. I guess you missed most of the earlier discussion, then. Or, is this a matter of something only being rational if it agrees with your point of view? There was a good amount of back-and-forth about what was important to convey in the map, and how to create one that was most satisfactory (with the good work of User:UKPhoenix79). If you can point out anything irrational about the map that seemed to satisfy most editors here, please go ahead and try to convince us. --G2bambino (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To be more explicit, I wonder if SFC9394 missed this contribution by myself where I explicitly tried to put forward a rational basis for choosing a map which was part of the discussion. Now, if required, I can go away and begin to cite authoritative research by (amongst others) Edward Tufte on good design of graphical displays to back up my comments, and so to ignore it by implying a rational discussion has not taken place is a bit of a mystery to me. (To give a bit more context: on The Edward Tufte website we read "Edward Tufte has written seven books, including Visual Explanations, Envisioning Information, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, and Data Analysis for Politics and Policy." And he is just one of a number of academic researchers whose work I am familiar with who are involved in very practical work on the graphical display and communication of information.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Just a working example" - "There's nothing farcical about a straw poll, though they are not binding they can contribute towards a way forwards" - then those statements should be amplified for the "consensus" that was "implemented" as soon as the protection came down - along with the "implementation" on the other CC articles. When rational discussion is presented I will take part - when nonsensical statistics are presented (and yes, I will use that word - where do the stats come from - what defines where such maps are used - regions, provinces, states - the very definition isn't agreed upon, yet "definitive statistics" are being provided? Nonsensical) and loaded polls are presented (3 to 1) I won't be going near it. SFC9394 (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the statistics and polls were presented in bad faith? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am stating the statistics cannot and are not absolutely factual - and yet are presented as if they are. I am stating that the "poll" was created unilaterally (along with the RFC statement) without any discussion or agreement on the parameters. There has been no discussion at any stage - and when I attempted to change the RFC to neutral wording I get threatened with being reported for "changing another users comments". SFC9394 (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already apologized for that. It was a misunderstanding where you said I removed your comments and never anthologized and gave a link where I reverted your change to my comments and that ticked me off.... I didn't look father down and see that you actually wrote something else. It was a misunderstanding that I quickly apologized for when I realized you never intended to say what I thought you implied. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not from me. I didn't present the stats, start the poll nor have I editted the word "nation" or "the map". I haven't slurred anybodies actions either. Instead I've focussed on discussion and trying to obtain a consensus. If you had objections, instead of saying that you do, why not tell us what they are and what you'd like to see happen? Who knows, you might convince someone or find a compromise? As it stands there is clearly a desire from a large number of people who want change on this article and it doesn't make sense to ignore them outright. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well put. --G2bambino (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested it was you. The core problem I have can be honed down to the fact that 2 minutes after the protection was lifted the map was changed based on "consensus" that doesn't exist - a "consensus" that you correctly state is actually just ideas, working examples and non-binding polls. Which reiterates my entire point, I am not wasting my time entering in to "discussions" with that type of activity - it truly is just a waste of my time - an entire short circuit on the core policies of wikipedia. SFC9394 (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There was consensus for those actually working for the past 2 days to come to one. You removed yourself from the discussion early on. How are we supposed to know that you didn't want to talk or even discuss the issue. So consensus was reached it was just reached without your permission? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"There has been no discussion at any stage" I think you may be seriously overlooking some of the discussion, as I pointed out in my previous message I posted in response to an earlier message by yourself. Additionally, I haven't, like Jza84, been involved in producing stats, edited or even commented on the use of nation or state (though I did warn an anonymous IP user about his imminent breaking of the 3rr rule to help prevent him getting blocked) Please reconsider what you have read of the contributions of others and see if you still agree with what you wrote. After all, misrepresenting others' edits is hardly rational in itself, and certainly isn't factual, but I know as well as anyone else that we can all make slip-ups in the heat of the moment.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

SFC: And just who, then, is going to decide when there is a consensus? You? The map you insist on removing was created through a collaborative effort of the majority of editors involved here, through a process of - surprise, surprise - ideas, working examples and straw polls. You seem to feel it your right to sweep all that aside and declare a consensus not found. As Jza, and I, requested: state your objections and/or explain the irrationality of the new map. --G2bambino (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Third Option?

Might a 3rd option be to allow UKPhoenix's map stand just for a week to get a "feel" for it? It does not have to be permanant. If it can be agreed that neither map is permanant, and that it can be reverted to one or the other at the end of this 'cooling off' periode, it may lessen the tension over the map. This is my point of view for the Wales page... it may come to pass that we chose there to revert the map in a week or so. Currently, we are getting a 'feel' for which map works best. Might a compromise between both sides be reached with this 3rd option?Drachenfyre (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea. A good call Drachenfyre. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Though the dispute, to me at least, seems solved. Certain editors are still reverting good faith edits. I am going to request mediation if from the mediation committee if we can not resolve this amicable. I really would like to talk but none of the editers who oppose the new changes and keep reverting seem to want to...It's a shame really because we needn't bother mediation about something as trivial as this, they have enough on their hands as it is really...--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Mediation is the next step. Problem is? will there be full participation there, from all involved. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesnt really interest me in the slightest. Non participants only have themselves to blame. Mediation always make a good job of things. --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I'm for giving Mediation a try; whatever gets the traffic moving. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation can only be requested if all involved parties sign the request. I think the best idea would be to issue a quick note to all the involved parties, what do you think? --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is the right way forwards too and would be willing to participate. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I am reluctant to get involved any more with this sad state of affairs I think sometimes we just have to bite the bullet and get on with it. So, I would be happy to be involved in mediation as well, because the alternative is becoming disruptive and not conducive to collaborative working at all.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be going this far, but given the obstinant resistance here I don't see any other way for it to end. So, I'm in. --G2bambino (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what mediation entails but I got the request and am willing to give it a go. Inge (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I got the request. I won't block it by refusing. Mr Stephen (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Good faith won't help if you don't have good sources or good arguments, it won't change the fact that Jza84 thumbing through his dictionary, or G2bambino's gut feeling as to the meaning of the word "nation", count for relatively little compared to the hundreds of writers who've committed the phrase "Scotland is a nation" to print over the years. A location map which doesn't locate the subject - and the contested one does not, but perhaps that will be remedied - is not really doing its job. Why bother then? Just have a map of Scotland and forget the rest of the world. As for the straw polls, it would be wise if those who favour them over discussion, - has anyone read this? - allowed them to run for a week or more as is traditional for such things, rather than declaring a result after a few days. I don't see mediation as being especially useful and certainly not without clarity as to what's to be mediated and why it needs to be mediated rather than discussed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not the nationhood question that is being reverted constantly, it's the map. If you want sources stating that Scotland is not a sovereign country but merely a part of the UK... I have plenty...--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, obviously the nation issue will have to wait until the map one has settled (though I think some here feel there are connections between the two matters). --G2bambino (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "A location map which doesn't locate the subject - and the contested one does not..." It locates the subject within the context of the United Kingdom, and so this claim is not true. Perhaps it does not locate it within the context you think it should, and if this is what you meant, then fine, but it is better to say that rather than being inaccurate in your criticism, surely? In fact, you will see that I, for one, suggested a small map-insert that would give a greater context, in the same way that local maps for,(e.g.) Chew Stoke and others do. If this were done, would this satisfy one of your concerns, and if not, why not?  DDStretch  (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Some French guy said that perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. The map you favour is thus not perfect. It includes something which can be taken away, specifically the boundaries of the United Kingdom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not for a long time I would say...--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

PS:The map on the german scotland page is very good.

(I'd have no objection to the German map being used at all.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

(edit conflict) And in the limit, if you blindly accept "Some French Guy's" quote without thinking critically and hard about it, you will display nothing? Perhaps you need to explain what the bases for an ideal map would be in your eyes? And, by the way, the quote does not logically entail the conclusion which you imply by the "thus" without all kinds of hidden assumptions and sub-arguments: and a enthymeme, which is what you have presented us with, is often not a perfect way to construct a discussion where both sides are striving to reach an agreement or negotiated common ground. (I can give quotes to justify that, too, if we are in the "quotation of philosopher's discourse" now.)  DDStretch  (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the irreducible minimum, the point at which nothing remains which might be removed, is a map highlighting the location of Scotland and nothing else. If I ask myself if showing the UK or the EU or NATO or the Commonwealth would help the reader in locating Scotland, my answer is that it may not help. But straw men aside, what do you see as the reasons for including additional information on the location map? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As for myself? I just want it to be shown on the map, that Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom. I'm not asking for Europe, Earth, the Solar System, Milkyway Galaxy, the Universe to be shown? just the UK. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask this way: Is there any reason for it not to be included? (This should be good, GD!) --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) (reply to Angus McLellan) Thanks for the reply. I think you need to explain just what you mean by the term "location" as you state you want "a map highlighting the location of Scotland and nothing else", whilst later on you ask "If I ask myself if showing the UK or the EU or NATO or the Commonwealth would help the reader in locating Scotland, my answer is that it may not help.", which seems to suggest you view "location" as referring to an absolute concept, when one can only use relative terms to specify an object's location (typically highlighted by the question "The location with respect to what?" on being asked "Please give me the location of X.") The burden is really upon you to explain this term "location" in concrete ways which enables us to understand exactly what you would want to be shown in the map (and by this, I don't mean an answer like "the location of Scotland", I mean, "What things would a map acceptable to you contain?") However, you asked me "what do you see as the reasons for including additional information on the location map?" and my answer is "nothing beyond what is required to show its location relative to the other places near to it." and that gets us back to our obvious different interpretations of the word "location" as that is the only way this disagreement can exist. Once that is sorted out, the extent of any context (if we agree on that) can be established, by which I mean what surrounding objects that enable us to understand its location coluld be included. I hope you can see that this all hinges on our different interpretations of "location": I have given you what I think it is, the matter is now in your hands. Thanks you.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Location? Nothing more than a coloured splotch on a map. A splotch, not a speck, so not a map of the whole world or even all of Europe. The canvas should be large enough that the reader may recognise the area from the shapes on the map without making the spot of colour easy to miss. Plain text labels - especially if grey rather than black - would be relatively unobtrusive and suffice for identifying neighbouring things. If the article needs more information in map form then more maps it can and should have, but in the appropriate place. And where would the appropriate place for a map or maps of the UKofGB[&[N]I]] be? In the government section, or in the currently unillustrated modern parts of the history section perhaps. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO {Living in Scotland} Scotland is not a nation state however there is a sense of nationality that of being scottish yet there also exists one of being British and English and Welsh etc.

Scotland is not and hopefully never will be an indpendant nation but is more of a member nation. I have never heard pm's etc refer to Scotland as a nation, more as a member or part of the United Kindom.

However thats just my 2 cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.198.139 (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Option Four?

Prehaps a forth option to the debate between the two styles of maps is a map-rotating cycle. For instance, one style of map would be adopted for April, and then it would change to the other style. Editors from both sides would have to trust the other to make these edits in good faith, but it would offer both sides the opportunity to have their style of map represented, both have good arguments both ways.Drachenfyre (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Article now fully protected (again)

Since I was concerned at the amoun t of edit-warring that was going on, I put in a request for the article to be fully-protected until the disputes are ended. I did ask that the article be put back into its state just after the previous page protection had ended, as I thought this would be a sensible way of preventing any cries of "foul" for freezing the article in a state it just happened to be in as a result of the edit-warring. I see that hasn't happemed, and since I am in favour of the state it is currently frozen in, I thought I should give you an explanation. You can see the request on WP:RFPP. I now await brickbats from all, but if you sit back and look at what has been going on, at the time of making the request, it was, I claim a reasonable thing to do, and I must say, the admin who protected the page obviously agreed. Now, can I ask that this should concentrate our minds away from throwing out petty sniping comments from either sides' advocates, and focus us all on engaging positively in the process of trying to sort out what to do.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with protection. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I was actually contemplating protecting the article anyway, ignorant of the request on RFPP. Guys, this is really silly; have a read through the archives to see how many times such issues have been trawled through in the past - both the map and the whole nation/country/region thing have been done to death ad nauseum. It demonstrates the worst of Wikipedia. Let me just leave a passing remark regarding the map - its sole purpose is to help somebody who doesn't know where Scotland is locate it - therefore the wider the context the better. Overloading it with political information (colour coding the UK, EU etc) distracts from that purpose, that information can be conveyed in a later diagram. Thanks/wangi (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Improvement suggestions for Choice 3 & 4 maps

Ok so far I have created some of the choices below and a couple (3B & 3C) I found.

3A - UK only

• 
• 
• 
• 

3B - British Isles

• 
• 
• 
• File:UK north ireland.png

3C - British Isles Home Nations

• 
• 
• 
• 

4A - Standard map

• 
• 
• 
• 

4B - Green map

• 
• 
• 
• File:Uk map northern ireland green.png

4C - Home Nations map

• 
• 
• 
• 

Are there any suggested improvements on these maps? Would it be better for me to crop out some of Ireland like found here. This is not a debate about if these are better than choice 1 & 2 maps, that can be found pretty much everywhere else. This is only for suggested improvements on choice 3 & 4 maps. Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As a mapmaker myself I think 4A is the best work listed here. It hits the spot for me (and is inline with other maps); I wouldn't make any other ammendments. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

4A all the way. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 4A. 4B is good too, but I fear the tones are too similar for anyone colour-blind or with other sight issues. --G2bambino (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point about 4B. I guess that would be the same for 4C also. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to have a blow-up box in the lower left hand side if the map showing where in Europe this map is? Additionally, prehaps we can have the Shetland's croped out of the map, there is alot of wasted space in the northern section of the map with their inclusion.12.160.89.130 (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Drachenfyre (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, you're suggesting that in order to avoid "wasted space", the map of Scotland on the Scotland article should have a chunk of Scotland "croped out", presumably to enable the likes of Kent and Cornwall to be more readily seen? From the sublime to the ridiculous... Rab-k (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well actually, just from the ridiculous to the extremely ridiculous. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Shetlands should just be shown as they are. A true scale is something very nice on maps and I do not find their location so extreme that it would support abandoning the rationale of one common scale. Or did you even argue to leave them out completely Drachenfyre? This should definitely be avoided. I think, with respect to the Shetlands the map is fine as it is. Tomeasy (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking in terms of a blow up for them too (like we do for Alaska sometimes in our maps in the US). But the main point of my post was not that (thanks for focusing on the minor point), but for the inclusion of a blow up box displaying where in Europe the British Isles are, prehaps in the Atlantic/Celtic sea region. This would further polish off the map and make it more professional looking.Drachenfyre (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be uncomfortable with loosing the Shetlands too. The answer is probably with extending the scope of the map horizontally so that a map insert can be pegged in without obstructing Britain. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You cant not have the Shetlands. Scotland without the shetlands is like fish with chips, bill without bell, the queen without her corgis...--Cameron (t|p|c) 17:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! Shetlands should be included. And, at last, I now see some others suggesting that a map-insert/blow up box would be a good thing to put more context into the map!  DDStretch  (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk Pages

My ideal for this page is dedicated group of editors, determined to see this article in all its manifestations improve. Sadly, such attempts seem all but impossible whilst this pitiful, and apparently endless dialogue continues. I realise that in this environment all editors, no matter their prior experience or qualifications, are equal. Nonetheless, does it not embarrass any of you to take up so much time pushing a nationalist point of view whilst making no attempt whatever to address the article's other deficiencies? Please note that for those of you who have had an irony by-pass, that this is a rhetorical question. I for one am not really interested in whatever justifications you may have. I trust however that you will, for the good of this encyclopedia, consider the matter in whatever spare moments you may have off from designing and discussing maps that seem destined to court further controversy.

I have a suggestion for this talk page: perhaps we should create two. One could be entirely for nationalist debates about the map and the precise wording of the opening sentence of the lead. The other could be for those tedious issues such as improving references, providing up-to-date statistics, honing syntax etc. This page (on which I now write) could then be reserved solely for a monthly update on whatever conclusions have been reached on the relevant sub-pages. Those of us keen to support the Scottish/British/UK POV, or to nobly attempt the addition of a modicum of neutrality into the debate, could then conduct our affairs without the annoyance of having to 'watch' messages appearing about 18th century history or transport. And vice-versa of course. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately we often lose sight of what's really important. We tend to get excited, in this, and other articles, about things that are fun to argue about, and can be done by simply mouthing our own opinions without the tedious effort of research. And yes, as you imply, most users fly like vampires before garlic when a verification tag appears on an article. But that's Wikipedia for you. So about the nationalist issue: since both sides can argue quite reasonably, why not avoid the term nation and just stick with the rather tame constituent country?--Gazzster (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It may surprise everyone to hear this but I find all this map and nation question rather funny. I find it funny that I actually wanted to spend 5 hours to research what other countries did (though I am proud of my work) and how people can go ape about a word. All this is done without an actual conversation only national viewpoints (irony intended) and pride are debated, not actual solutions or comparisons on other countries. How is it that the Northern Ireland with all of its troubled past in real life, has an article that is stable, yet Scotland's is not? I say if there is a dispute look at how other pages have resolved similar situations in the past and learn from them. I must admit that I am proud that I made somethings that might have a longevity here on wikipedia. But really how funny is it that a word and a map could create such strife. Imagine if we editors actually find something to really argue about :-D -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the "Nationalist" vs "Scottish/British" idea Ben MacDui. Your own POV perhaps? My politics are my politics you see, and don't quite fit your mould. You're better off sticking to the facts and not making any assumptions here as to people's political stances. (Unless of course they've plastered them all over their User Page). The choices, as I've stated previously, are for a map in the info-box of the Scotland article showing Scotland, (in other words a purely geographic map), or a map in the info-box of the Scotland article showing the UK, (with Scotland highlighted in a geo-political map). No politics necessarily involved. While we're about it, can someone fix the Prince Edward Island info-box map; it makes PEI look as though it is independent from Canada. Thanks Rab-k (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've fixed the PEI map, Rab-k. PS- I'm happy to see you've finally agreed to consistancy (and thus changing the Scotland map). GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice try GoodDay; "agreed to consistency" - no; agreed to consensus - yes. (Nice map at PEI BTW). Rab-k (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You want consistancy on the Canadian related maps; but not the UK related maps? GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

May I refer you to your talk page. Rab-k (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you misconstrue me Rab. My grumble is about the "British Nationalist" vs "Scottish (Nationalist)" tone. It is virtually impossible for anyone interested in the idea of 'Scotland' not to have some take or other on the wider politics. What I find frustrating is the apparent importance this issue has taken on. As I mentioned above, I can't think of a single map solution that is going to suit everyone, and I doubt there is one that is not going to aggravate a substantial minority. So what? I can't think of any sensible reason to litter the talk page with umpteen maps, the intent of which may be to genuinely find a solution, but the presence of which is only likely to alienate the few sane editors bothering to take an interest in the page. Maybe what we need to do is call a spade a spade and add a short section about 'Scotland within the Union'. There is copious material here to draw on. Do we need a map at all in the Infobox? Maybe the two maps most favoured by both sides could inhabit this new section as an example of the conflicting views and difficulties. Difficult to achieve, certainly but perhaps not impossible. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Ben. I also feel that an impasse has been reached, but I also feel that my own opinion, (FWIW), is only shared by one or two others and that the majority here favour a map in the Scotland info-box which shows the UK, (with Scotland highlighted, in some form or another). I have had, and have taken, the opportunity to state my case but have failed to persuade others of the merit of my arguments, and likewise they in turn have equally failed to persuade me. I do feel however that the situation cannot continue indefinately and with that in mind, for the sake of the article, I hereby withdraw and shall take no further part. I shall leave the content of Scotland/UK articles to others, and wish them well. Rab-k (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly would not object to having both maps shown with a short explanation. Putting aside my political views(which perhaps I have'nt done till now, I can't pretend that Scotland is not part of the UK) I think this is a sensible compromise!--Jack forbes (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A solution at Prince Edward Island seems to be holding; if it proves permanent? perhaps such a solution could be applied here. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could show the Scotland only map at the top of the article, then further down the UK map with Scotland highlighted?--Jack forbes (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we could acheive a better outcome having a single map in the infobox to be honest. There are Scotland only topographical/geological maps later on too. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought that GoodDays compromise was an excellant idea, although as I said the Scotland map should be at the top of the page, after all the article is called Scotland! With both maps shown everyone could walk away happy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack forbes (talk • contribs) 20:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign!--Jack forbes (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If both maps were adopted for the 4 constituent country articles? The ..within the UK.. map, would have to be at the top. Just a suggestion anyways. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we could be very close to a solution with perhaps the only sticking point being the whereabouts of the maps! Could we not have the UK map directly below the Scotland map so any casual reader could see that Scotland is part of the UK?--Jack forbes (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody really believe that people don't know where Scotland is located? I can understand if people were making cases for Karagandy Province Coronie District Thaba-Tseka District Gelderland or Aiwo. But just like 70% of articles on wikipedia none of these even bother to show other territories near them let alone show another map. The closest that I found in my research was some of the Belgium regions. But what they did was show the subdivisions inside those regions directly below the main map. Scotland is one of the most well known subdivisions on the planet so well known that along with England most people believe that they are fully independent States (heck some who live there believe that now). Are we to believe that our readers need a special case for Scotland that even remote Kazakhstans subdivisions don't do, even when most people wouldn't even be able to find Kazakhstan on a map? Let alone know any of its subdivisions names or locations. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(no offence to any americans present) but many americans believe Scotland is located within England...--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been asked before if I come from London, Paris.... Yep London the capital of the country Paris... No joke! But if the Gelderland article can believe that it is great alone, why is it that Scotland, a very very famous territory, is believed that people wont be able to locate it? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If as you say, everyone knows where Scotland is, that would be a great argument for just having a Scotland alone map, but as we are trying to compromise I don't think we should go over that again!--Jack forbes (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

But most people don't realize that it is a part of another country, even those living there (my parents included)... not trying to get back into that either... but couldn't resist. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Then surely that is a good enough reason to have both maps, a map of Scotland and a map confirming it is part of the UK!--Jack forbes (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the UK conformation that Scotland is in the UK? Why re-invent the wheel? If every other country even obscure territories like Wangdue Phodrang District in obscure countries like Bhutan believe it is... then why is Scotland a special case? Is this country so unique? Or is this a pride issue like the map question in Alaska? Where some believe that the map currently used to show Alaska doesn't reflect how truly large Alaska is and want a map to show is size. I wonder why is it that editors of Rhode Island don't feel the same way... Pride is a great thing but it can cloud ones judgment. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I really am trying here! I think I will bow out of the discussion for now, maybe get a beer from the fridge and relax.--Jack forbes (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fare enough. Love to have a beer with you later and have a good conversation. Cheers! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Prehaps a forth option to the debate between the two styles of maps is a map-rotating cycle. For instance, one style of map would be adopted for April, and then it would change to the other style the following month. Editors from both sides would have to trust the other to make these edits in good faith, but it would offer both sides the opportunity to have their style of map represented, both have good arguments both ways. I find I like seeing the nation within the context of Europe, but also within the British Isles.Drachenfyre (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Or prehaps have both maps present in the info box: the map of the Scottish and Welsh nations within the British Isles, then a map of both of those nations within the contex of the EU right underneath it. Prehaps if would make the info box a tad larger, but it would alow the widest accomidation.Drachenfyre (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Again are these subnational entity's so unique or hard to locate that they have to have a special case? How is it that the outer reaches of Africa are not subject to this? Is this just national pride that is fueling this? Look I love my country but I don't think that we should make it an exception especially when countries I usually consider more prideful than us are humble enough to keep to the same MoS as all the other articles on wikipedia. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Prehaps the current situation regarding nations of the British Isles is in fact unique... and this uniqueness should be reflected on the map. My point is whatever the viewpoint, both sides of the debate will continue to edit back the map to the one they feel respresents the nation in question best. A compromise will need to be found, as both sides have valid points. In my opinion this compromise may include showing both maps, with the nation within the context of the British Isles, and the nation within the context of the European Union/EU. Or some rotating dynamic.Drachenfyre (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of 193 countries recognized by the UN I highly doubt that the UK is the most unique out of all of them. Thats pride talking before reason isn't it? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is pride. Rather, look at who has the computers, internet, and expertise to engage in wikipedia. What I mean is, prehaps those preferial nations (Africa or otherwise) have unique national structures but do not have the wikipedia presence that Scotland, England, and UK (and to a lesser degree Wales) does. They simply are not here to edit their pages that would reflect their structure better.

Because the current interest in the status of Scotland, Wales, and even England hold within the UK, some accomidation should be reached, a compromise that will alow for both sentiments to be represented. If it is possible, I feel that a two-map solution should be considered. Two maps on the info page that would give as even a weight to both points of view, but both would equally answer "where in the world is Scotland".Drachenfyre (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Point of information - according to the PM the UK is a "multinational state"

It may be of use to know that the incumbent Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown, writing last week in The Daily Telegraph, described the United Kingdom as a 'multinational state'.

"In these islands we have, over centuries, created the world's most successful multinational state because we celebrate and respect the multiple identities that enrich us all."

I would argue that this is a somewhat novel description of the UK (WP:OR on the part of the PM? :) ), but nonetheless 'multinational state' probably strikes many people as being a reasonable summary of the famously "unwritten" constitution (it is actually written down, but not codified into one, single document).

Note that the PM refers (correctly) to the UK as a 'state' (not a 'country'); and 'multinational' infers that the UK is composed of a number of distinct 'nations'. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

But are these nations the peoples or is it a geographical term? I'm yet to be persuaded. --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the defination of a nation, it can be both the people and the land geographic land which the people inhabit. So, I would suggest the PM is speaking of the four nations that currently comprise the UK.Drachenfyre (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"The" defintion? Which one? Standard British English doesn't. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

SHHHH! Dont tell the British PM that he used "multinational" out of context! Joaking of corse. According to good old fashioned Webster's (1974)... a nation is "A people inhabiting a certin territory and united by common political insitutions; the country or territory itself, an aggregation of persons and speaking the same or a cognate language, and usually sharing a common ethnic origon."Drachenfyre (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In sense of previous debate I cannot see any problem with this. In sense of "political organization" UK is state, but as geographical determinant I think it can be qualified as country.--Čikić Dragan (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I just checked a good old fashioned paper-dictionary. It seems to agree with Jza84's definition. And states that "a common history and culture are the defining point. That would make the Uk a nation too, dont you agree? --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the UK is a nation as well. And there are adhearents to a UK nationality (British) as well.Drachenfyre (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What nationality other than British is there to adhere to? (within the UK, I mean)--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In the 2001 UK Census, results released in 2002, 83% of the people of Scotland described themselves as of Scottish nationality (27% described themselves as of British nationality). http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=278&Pos=1&ColRank=2&Rank=480

There was a HUGE controversy with this too. HUGE. In England and Wales, the respondants there did not have a tickbox available to describe themselve as of Welsh or English nationality. The only tickbox available for a Welsh or English respondant was to check white-British or Irish... and understandable they wrote that they were white-British. Drachenfyre (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Id put it down to ignorance...I have never met an intelligent person to earnestly think his/her nationality to be English/Scotish etc--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the next Census is 2011, and there are dress rehearsals in the works scheduled for 2009. I anticipate it very much. I am looking for an increase in Welsh speakers myself.Drachenfyre (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait...

Id put it down to ignorance...I have never met an intelligent person to earnestly think his/her nationality to be English/Scotish etc

... are you saying that 87% of the people of Scotland are ignorant if they identify as of Scottish nationality? Or do I misunderstand you?Drachenfyre (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Id call anyone ignorant who thinks they are a nationality that doesn exist. --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A nations-state rather then a nation-state. Notice the s in the first defination. Edit: I am going to use that link on the Wales page Mais oui, that is a good quoteDrachenfyre (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeez. Candidate for Wikipedia:Lamest edit war gentlemen.--Gazzster (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you telling me that the minute the 1707 act of union was ratified the English and Scottish people immediately gave up the thought that their nationality was English/Scottish? It really takes more than a piece of paper to change peoples hearts. As long as a person is not anti English/Scottish then people have every right to be proud of their nationality whether it be Scottish, English or Welsh and it certainly does not make them ignorant! I for one am a proud Scot who has English relatives and we are all proud of our nationalitys!--Jack forbes (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, one big happy UK family. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Two-map option here

Here is an example of a two-map option found on the Afrikaans page of Wales Drachenfyre (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC) : http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallis

What I would recommend is for the map of Scotland in europe that was found on the page here already, and directly underneath a map of the British Isles with Scotland highlighted in that.Drachenfyre (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually looks really good. I thought it would look bitty but it looks really professional. --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm surprised how good that looks. The graphics are weak but our stronger versions are already set up. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Is this a "Two map solution"? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

LMAO Drachenfyre (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, let's adopt it here & at the 3 other constituent country articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As this is a compromise between the two sides, I recommend we use specifically the Scotland in Europe map that was here already (or a Scotland within the EU within Europe) Likewise, I would like to see Wales in Europe on the Wales page (but I need help making that so). Further, we can use UKPhoenix's British Isles maps too, directly underneathDrachenfyre (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it looks really good and is the most informative option of all. --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the Scottish page is currently protected, we can try this on the Wales page, if anyone knows how to do this. I can edit text but not savy enough for pics.Drachenfyre (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly agree to this compromise!--Jack forbes (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank goodness for that! If everyone is happy I will remove the protection tomorrow. Raise any objections to unprotection before then. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the Scotland two-map option on the Afrikaans page Drachenfyre (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

\http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skotland

Edit: This may mean that the size of UKPhoenix's map may need to be scaled down though. Ive been trying to work on this on the Wales page but with no successDrachenfyre (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Or cropped. I think a section along the bottom could go. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I like seeing the coast of France for context. But I am sure we may be able to see the various options.Drachenfyre (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There's 1 editor, we've yet to hear from today (editor SFC). I'm hoping he/she will accept this compromise. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to work this on the Wales page with no success. I think it is the country map info box formatting... it is different there then here. I have not found a work around.Drachenfyre (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• On a side note, in anticipation of the change, could someone create a map of Scotland within the EU within Europe, and also Wales within the EU withing Europe? And for England and N. Ireland too? These maps would also be good for any page of the nation within the EU.Drachenfyre (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)