This is an archive of past discussions about United Kingdom. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
When I had a go at this, I found that the waters were the best way for me to frame the various parts of the UK. I'm using the white-elephant 'British Isles' here for the moment. This can be discussed obviously, but I find it very hard to avoid in this particular article. Should we really use "archipelago" and not name it?
Also controversial to a group of people here will be the use of the world “constituent” before the word “country”. But again, I feel very strongly that the consensus against it is only within a particular group, and doesn't represent the wider 'community', or indeed what readers in general would find most informative.
I've pipe-linked “constituent country” to Countries of the United Kingdom, and I can't see why the England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales articles shouldn't follow suite – although it is not essential that they do. This is the 'big daddy' article after all.
I personally prefer the old short-form 'United Kingdom' beginning, as it's easier to read (and write). That's important I think.
The United Kingdom (fully titled United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and commonly termed United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign state consisting of four constituent countries, situated in the British Islesarchipelago off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The UK covers the whole island of Great Britain and the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, along with a number of smaller islands near its coasts. Waters that surround the UK are the Atlantic Ocean west of Northern Ireland, the Irish Sea between Ireland and Great Britain, the North Sea in the east towards Scandinavia, and the English Channel before the European mainland in the south. The UK has just the one land border with another sovereign state, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
The second paragraph is the same one that currently stands as I write. I think it reads better when "constituent countries" has been used in the article's opening line. My concern was mainly for the first paragraph – as I think the issues can be dealt with there (and let's face it, everyone wants the premium space).
Lastly, If there is to be a footnote after "constituent countries" - and I am philosophical about that - I think it should obviously mention the other terms like “province”, but should in no way claim that 'country' is controversial in Northern Ireland for political reasons. Ie it should never claim that 'country' is “controversial” for any reason other than because other terms like “province” are used in authoritative places too, and could arguably be more official (none of them are actually properly official). The intro of the sovereign state is no place at all to weight-in sectarian politics, and we only have a relative-few polemical texts to back up such a contentious statement anyway. Northern Ireland should not become synonymous with the Troubles.
Forgot to say; I particularly like the term "sovereign state" as the principal title for the UK, as it feels close to both "kingdom" and "country" in sense. It is an unambigous term too, unlike 'country'; where some people even argue that the UK is only one in the sense of 'sovereign state', but is a actually a 'united kingdom of countries' otherwise.
I strongly oppose mentioning the four constituent parts of the UK in the first paragraph. The current wording is acceptable. Although as we now have the fact it is a unitary sovereign state in the second sentence, i believe this article should be made more in line with other articles about countries and actually say the UK is a country in the first sentence. We dont need to say sovereign state twice, however its clear some people need reminding the United Kingdom is a country, so saying it several times cant hurt. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I was going to mention that I actually like "sovereign state", as it feels close to both "kingdom" and "country" (we all know SStates are 'countries' in the unambigous UN sense) . In fact, I think I'll append that, as it's important. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I see you are calling the constituent countries, "constituent parts". The problem British Watcher is that you are on the other polar extreme to the nationalistic editors. This is partly why the whole thing is so mad. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The United Kingdom is a country, there's no need to hide that fact. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales can be described as constituent countries, there's no need to prevent that. British Isles can be used, it's not prohibited. The worst thing that can be done? giving in to the cries "it might offend someone". GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, I don't think Sovereign State actually does hide that fact. It's hard to cram it all in - that's one of the problems. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I did say the second parag is the same edit we actually have at the moment (I know it's under scrutiny) - and the first one was my main concern. When you say "this" you are not really dealing with what I've added (ie the first parag) - and how it can support the second parag (and reader understanding in general - which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about). Matt Lewis (talk)
I think its a step backwards, introducing controversy on several fronts, I also agree with Chupmunkdavis--SnowdedTALK04:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant way to pour water on it guys - focus on what I didn't write! Snowded, it is only a "step backwards" in relation to your own personal vision of where 'forwards' is.
When I accepted "countries that are part of" for the constituent county articles, I made it as clear as I could that I was not 1) entirely happy with the wording, and 2) in any way anti the word "constituent". But consigning "constituent" to the past (or attempting to) is what a small group of people have created from that compromise. At the time, wasn't the word actually used here the UK? The compromise might have worked reasonably well at the constituent articles (and they have been reasonably - but not in shape or form - totally stable): but how can you read into that the term "constituent" has over time become unsuitable for the United Kingdom article? You go on and on about the "consensus" of a couple of years ago - but I was there, and there was no consensus at all to bury the word across Wikipedia, or indeed never use it again. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
That's not quite true. He described the union between England and Scotland as a voluntary union, but he didn't suggest that the UK consists of just those two countries, which is what you are implying - he referred to "the four nations in the United Kingdom". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
When you group have finished I am wondering if anyone new (or the some of the many people who simply wont get involved in this any more) will look at this and express an opinion? Matt Lewis (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Is this a hint that "you group" are so addled and benighted that we are unable to see the excellence of your suggestion? DeCausa (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm making the point that a group of particular editors constitute a tight and effective cabal, and have simply done so for too long. It's time to break it. I'm not necessarily saying that my above suggestion is 100% the best one - I am saying that something has got to be done to break the nationalist stranglehold on the United Kingdom article. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Cabal?!! LMAO. If there's a cabal here it's the most incompetent cabal ever. It's virtually impossible to get anything agreed. Any change is usualy a herculean task and seems to require huge screeds of debate because there's almost a different opinion for each editor. DeCausa (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
That's the most embarrassingly naive response I've seen on WP I think. Have you read the Wales archives (where consensus was supposed to be 'born', like some kind of dragon from the deep), Northern Ireland talk etc? United Kingdom is obviously the hardest to effectively influence, it always was. There is disagreement on the fringes (and the hardcore Irish nationalists are different again) - but the central pillars are to avoid "constituent", "British Isles" and "Londonderry" (the city) at all costs, and to never forget the 'cause' when Northern Ireland is mentioned. You are full of bold laughter at me DeCausa, but you actually know little about the area at all. You're a typical arrogant Wikipedian, thinking he can step into something like this and guide proceedings along with your caustic tone. Matt Lewis (talk)
Oh dear, seems I stepped on a raw nerve. It aslo seems you're talking about other articles, not this one. I'm only talking about this article, so your comments about the other articles may be true - don't know, don't care. I also think that your bandying around allegations of nationalistic bias, cabals etc (as I see you are doing in later posts) is not helpful, not constructive and verging on the disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Verging on disruptive? I'm essentially pointing out form of disruption aren't I? It is essential for Wikipedia to recognise its various cabals (it's not X-Files stuff, just a reality). And you should care about those other articles you know, because they are all part of the United Kingdom. And you'll be able see where I'm coming from too. Are you from the UK? (incidentally speaking - it's not a prerequisite to edit of course). Matt Lewis (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't ask where your "location" was, as asked where you were from. But you don't have to answer of course. As it happens, it is pretty obvious to me that you are not British, because you think that it is "surreal" for me to expect someone who is clearly leading the discussion on UK identity names in the United Kingdom article's Intro to at least read a little of the connected goings on in the UK country articles (typically in Wales and ongoing at NI)! Most of these so-called 'consensuses' you were going on about started there. What is really 'surreal' is your response to me here. You couldn't make this stuff up. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
At the risk of being accused (like others) of repeating the same point over and over again, what is the advantage of using the word "country" in any way in the introduction, when its use is ambiguous and/or contentious? A wording can be devised which describes the UK as a sovereign state, comprising E, S, W and NI. Further explanation in the article text and linked articles, and no need for a footnote. Simples. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the 'contentious' bit (Wikipedia can't self-reference remember) but I'd agree to a degree. But the word "country" seems to be key to many, and I think that the nationalists are just silly to be so anti the descriptive "constituent" part. They always expect for so much. What I was mainly doing with my suggested text above was to show what a 'non-influenced' introduction might actually look like. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The main problem with it is that the term "constituent country" can be interpreted as a dilution of the term "country". So, it can be interpreted as non-neutral by those who give a particular status and meaning to the specific word "country". That issue would not exist in the same way if neither "country" nor "constituent country" were used in the lede. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
@ Matt: There are British nationalists, English nationalists, Irish nationalists, Welsh nationalists and Scottish nationalists. Defining those who favour calling the countries comprising the United Kingdom "countries" as nationalists is incorrect and simplistic. It isn't just "the nationalists" in favour of using 'the C word'. Asserting some kind of monopoly on NPOV is not helpful. Wanting things to be described correctly in an encyclopaedia is not expecting too much. I also consider this a step backwards. Daicaregos (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Come on Dai, you say that to me after all the time I've spent on Wikipedia highlighting the various differences (esp regarging the Ireland naming dispute and NI's role it in)? Where they combine is the key - what they all have in common. Esp the Welsh and the Scottish. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland IS a country this is indisputable fact. It should state so in the first sentence of the article, i agree sovereign state is important but we now say that in the second paragraph. So we may as well say the UK is a country in the first sentence. I would strongly oppose any attempt to hide the fact the UK is a country in the introduction, its clear by some peoples comments above people need reminding about this fact as the FAQ on this talk page also points out. Matt is right though, there is a nationalist (as in Welsh, Irish, Scottish and English) element on wikipedia who have caused the gridlock that exists. This is not just about use of "country" for the UK or for the different parts of the UK. You can see it everywhere, with peoples nationalities being English / Scottish etc instead of what they legally are which is BRITISH. And you have the deeply offensive lists like List of British inventions where you have to choose between English, Welsh or Scottish.. As if there is not a single British invention. You can not just split people and things down these historic national lines yet because of the domination of certain nationalists. Wikipedia is blatantly anti union sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
There are many "indisputable facts" about the UK which are not mentioned in the lede, but their omission is not contentious. The word "country" is contentious. It is also ambiguous - it is not seriously contested in relation to the UK, but it is contested in relation to parts of (= "countries within") the UK, because of its ambiguity, and so its use in the introduction of this article is problematic. But, the same information can be conveyed more precisely using other words, without needing to use the specific word "country". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Just because some editors on wikipedia would like the United Kingdom destroyed is no excuse not to state the United Kingdom is a country. The idea we are not allowed to call the UK a country incase we offend some of these people is totally unacceptable. There is a dispute about the status of England, Wales, Scotland and NI as countries, but there is no real dispute about the UK being a country considering the huge body of evidence and international recognition. There for we should state clearly in the first sentence the UK is a country, the second paragraph mentions its a sovereign state still and that sort of term fits will with the unitary bit. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
You haven't addressed my point. Why do we need to address that particular "indisputable fact" (one of an infinite number) using those particular words in that particular paragraph? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
~And the reason your point hasnt been addressed is that the correct answer would involve a trifling move from the "No surrender" pov that usually accompanies such nonsense. Fmph (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
British Watcher, nobody is seeking to destroy or negate the existance of tge UK. However, and we may as well calmly face it, people from Wales, Scotland and, yes, England rarely describe themselves as British. Rather they are Welsh, Scottish and English respectively. The only exception to this are Unionists from Northern Ireland. And many of them are now opting for ULster Scots.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Jeanne you just can't say that. The UK is multicultural in a number of ways and there are plenty of people who simply call themselves British. We are not all 'pure of blood'. I happen to use both Welsh and British to identify myself, and (typically for us British) I am a mix in terms of my family background. For me it's always been 50/50 in terms of identity, though culturally I'm ultimately 'British' there is no question about that - and I'd have to accept that about myself whether I liked it or not (and fortunately I like it!). Matt Lewis (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I am being honest here, Matt. Out of all the people I have met from the British Isles, the only people to call themselves British (as their national identity) were people from Northern Ireland of a Unionist persuasion. BTW, the present wording in the lead is perfect, so why fix it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Jeanne, you have obviously led a sheltered life. (!) (Or, spent too much time discussing matters with E/S/W/NI "nationalists".) Matt is correct on that point. "People... rarely describe themselves as British" is not true, but "..increasingly describe themselves as British" verifiably is true. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
AS I said before, the only people I've met who have called themselves British have been people from Norn Iron (In fact my ex nearly fell over when I called him Irish; that's how engrained his Britishness was). A Sussex guy I came close to marrying always called himself English to the point that he gave himself the nickname of "England". But then again, my life has been quite sheltered so I really shouldn't comment any further.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm really trying hard to keep discussions here on track. Sorry Fmph and Jeanne, but your comments don't address the question of the precise wording of the paragraph, which is what we are trying to agree. No politics or WP:OR about different forms of nationalism please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This article is on the United Kingdom. Surely there for it should clearly explain what the United Kingdom is. The answer is it is a country, like France, the United States, Germany etc and this article must make that clear in the introduction. I support including sovereign state in the intro, but id rather country is stated first and seen as the current wording now mentions that it is a unitary sovereign state in the second paragraph i dont see any need for it to be mentioned in the first sentence. There are lots of facts not included, but you can not deny surely that the fact the UK is a country is probably one of the most relevant bits of information for the reader? its more relevant than where it is, what organisations it is part of etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The reason I preffer the UK being described as a 'country' in its intro, is because other sovereign state articles have 'country' as a descriptive in their intros. That its use here, might be at the expense of Wales, Scotland, England & Northern Ireland, should be irrelevant. Thou I must admit, not every sovereign state article has 'country' in their intros - see France, Japan & Russia (for examples). GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Not all sovereign state articles need to have the word "country" in their lead. If we have sovereign state in the lead, which as I'm sure everyone agrees is a synonym of one definition of the word country, then country should be implicit. We shouldn't mix the two definitions. Alternatively, we could disambiguate the two uses of country, "sovereign country" and "constituent country" if both are required. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The fact the articles of the 4 parts of the UK call themselves countries in the introductions first sentence means the UK article should too. The fact there is a FAQ of if the UK is a country on this talk page also suggests that. Most sovereign states do not need to say either sovereign state / country. Because of the internal make up of the UK it is extremely important we mention both. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
So, we have some editors arguing that the UK must be described as a country, and other editors arguing that (some or all of) E/S/W/NI must be described as countries. To cover both positions, the word "country" must therefore be ambiguous, and therefore - if the word "country" is to be used at all - there needs to be some form of clarification, to help readers and not to confuse them. One approach would be a footnote for clarification, as now. Are there any other options? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Since 'country' isn't used as a descriptive for the sovereign state, in every other sovereign-state intro, it's allowable to not use it here. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Matt Lewis, thank you for suggesting this lede,
That's the current wording of the second paragraph. Most of us are talking about the first paragraph, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Ghmyrtle thank you for pointing that out. I appreciate that indeed. The sentence in dispute is this then,
Making wholesale changes to the Intro here, while it is being discussed, is not helpful. Especially as other changes were made at the same time. I remember seeing that edit and assuming it only related to Euros in payphones. I have reverted pending conclusion of these discussions. The CIA are not our only source. Daicaregos (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of positions that have been discussed over time and the article has evolved to handle different points of view. Staring again from scratch, introducing or ommitting words which are known to be controversial is a retrograde step. As far as I can see reading the above Ghmyrtle, myself and DeCausa were working through a solution which did not use country in the lede, but had proper piplinks and a later section on Countries (and now possibly identity. That built on what we have already agreed. Some editors think that it is critical that country is in the lede sentence; a view I can understand but I don't think its necessary and having a more elaborate section later will actually be better as it will be read as opposed to skimmed over. I'd suggest we go back to working through that one and see if we can agree. OR we outline two or three proposals and then get some structure to this.--SnowdedTALK16:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Daicaregos, what's not helpful is people hiding behind lame excuses like 'discussion is ongoing' to avoid having to justify an actual revert of someone making good faith improvement along the lines that are being suggested. If you oppose the new version, give some actual reasons why it is wrong. We do not revert people just because discussions are ongoing, particularly when the discussions continue to be less than cluefull and wholly policy lite. We also do not hide behind lame invocations of BRD when there is no cluefull D on the table either. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm in favour of noting the United Kingdom consists of four countries because it is an important, unusual and interesting aspect of the UK. How many other sovereign states does it apply to? The Scottish and Welsh governments say they are countries, as do numerous other organisations e.g. Library of Congress, Commonwealth Secretariat, European Commission and Visit Britain (responsible to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport).[1][2][3][4]
It appears we all acknowledge that 'country' being used as a discriptive for anything (in this article), is a problem. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle & Snowded are quite correct: Country is the problem, because of its multiple meanings. It should be deleted from this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I've no probs with banning 'country' entirely from the intro. It's not my first choice, but what the heck. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
In their “About Britain” section, Visit Britain, a quango responsible to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, have sub-sections on History, Religion, Government, Cities and Countries; similar to Wiki's Introduction. Their Countries section begins with Britain: “Britain is full of contrasts; whichever direction you travel you will find a wide variety of landscapes and diverse cultures to explore. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all unique countries with their own customs, cultures and tradition.” It is inconceivable that they would be allowed to define Britain in those terms without the consent of the DCMS. They obviously consider that that uniquness is important enough to describe Britain that way to foreign visitors. It is notable, and should be in the lead of this article. Daicaregos (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I've requested protection for this article, as an edit-war has sprung up, over these last few hours. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, full protection from the endless petty disruption from nationalist users that occurs here over simple factual details. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The C-Word and National identity (yet another proposal, but I'm not holding my breath)
No one who has a concern to put "country" in the lead has really articulated why it's so important. Well, let's face it we all know why: because they want the recognition of "country status", as they see it, up front. I and others, are of the opinion that "country" doesn't mean that much and not much is really achieved by using the word. My suggestion is to tackle the issue of national recognition in the body of the article head on, and not coatrack it on the word "country". I think the important thing to recognize is the individual "natioanl identities" and the British national identity and not the spurious status of country. I suggest below a subsection which could go in a number of places. This obviates the need to get hung up on "country",and we can have the Ghmyrtle solution for the lead. However, the lead could, somewhere, have the sentence. "National identity in the UK is complex, and beside a British identity, a numbr of other national identities exist including English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish." In the body of the article I suggest a sub-section headed "National identity":
Although there is a single citizenship, that of the United Kingdom, the historical origins of the UK and long-standing cultural distinctions, has led England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to be described as "countries within a country".[5] With this comes a complex sense of national identity.
In England, Scotland and Wales, people can consider themselves as just British, as both British and English, Scottish or Welsh (as the case may be), or not British at all. Surveys have indicated that about a third of Scots consider themselves as Scottish and not British. Although the majority view themselves as British and Scottish, most consider they are Scottish first. In Wales, there is a similar tendency, although the proportions that do not consider themselves British or British second to Welsh are smaller. In England, however, the majority consider themselves as British first and almost half feel equally British and English.[6]'
In Northern Ireland, national identity is further complicated by the existence of two communities: Nationalist and Unionist. "British" is seen as an identity largely equated with unionism.[7] Equally, nationalists largely see themselves as having an Irish national identity.[8] Other identities are also used: "Northern Irish" is often seen as more "neutral" and tends to be chosen by the under-45s and the identification "Ulster" tends to be selected more frequently by Protestants than Catholics.[9] In a recent survey of Northern Irish people, as a first preference, 37% considered themselves British, 29% preferred Northern Irish and 26% chose Irish.[10] In another survey, 22% did not consider themselves British at all.[11]
Well, trusting all the sourcing, I think that this is far more deserving of a subsection in Culture then most of what is currently there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Er, the sourcing has gone a bit weird: notes 1-7 below are from other items on this page. It starts at 8. If anyone knows how to fix that - and put the notes above these posts - i'd be grateful. DeCausa (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
It's looking like country is gonna be completely removed from this article & perhaps all the better. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
i would support a paragraph like mentioned above however the idea that we cleanse this article of mentioning the fact the United Kingdom is a country to appease a certain group of nationalist editors is totally unacceptable. The United Kingdom is a country, if this article fails to specifically mention it then it draws into question the neutrality and accuracy of this article. The fact the UK is a country should continue to be stated in the Introduction, but it should go further and be specifically in the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I checked over other sovereign-state articles, in the last 2 days. There are quite a few, which don't use country as a descriptive. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
How many of those have a FAQ on their talk page saying they are a country? And how many of them consist of what some people call countries like the UK? If England, Scotland and Wales articles start by saying they are a country, the UK article should state the UK is a country too. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) I don't think anyone's talking about removing the word "country" completely from the article. The problem arises in the Introduction, where there is a particular imperative to be as helpful and succinct as possible. Using the ambiguous word "country" there may not help in that. But, where the terminology is explained in the article, the word can be explained - both in relation to the UK, and to E, S, W and NI. There is no doubt that the UK can be described as a "country" - but it is problematic to use that word in the introductory paragraphs because of the complexity of the explanation that needs to be given. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
As long as we clarify that UK is ... "a country in its own right[14][15]" (surprise, surprise), I do not see any problem here. Probably the lede is concise and crystal clear. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry can't help with the 'note' problem - they are always difficult on discussion pages.
I have to say that the real taboo 'C Word' is "constituent" - not 'country'. I do like "sovereign state" for the UK and I think that it is solves half the issue. To insert 'country' as well for the UK in the same area is not just overkill imo, but technically quite difficult with all the other stuff that needs to be said. I don't mind whether we use "constituent country" for the England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, or avoid using a label for them in the Intro at all. I DO think that those nations (and that word has and will never been enough DeCausa) will all benefit from using "constituent country" though, and so it makes some sense using it here at UK too. Even using "constituent country" just here (and not at Wales etc) is better than just "country" for the home nations - as that will never settle. I think that using the perfectly-legit 'Sovereign state' for UK really is the key. British Watcher might find himself relatively on his own in his insistence for 'country' over it, and I'm sure GoodDay will settle for 'Sovereign State' for the UK providing Wales et al aren't called 'countries' in the same article.
A few years ago, after I started Countries of the United Kingdom (due to the Welsh talk-page 'is a country that is part of the United Kingdom' compromise), someone suggested recreating the 'Identity' section in here (he said there was nothing like it), but there was an edit-involved admin around who didn't believe in 'multiculturalism' or indeed the Countries of the UK article at first - and I didn't quite fancy the challenge at the time. I've been aware that the Identity section there has changed quite a lot (certainly at one point the NI parts became subtly less neutral) - I'm not sure how it fares now, as I deliberately don't look at it when I re-enter Wikipedia (in part because I digress from my editing intentions enough as it is, but also because I know it will suck me right back in). Perhaps it's time to re-visit the idea, along the lines above. We will still need to sort out the shop window though - the UK Intro will always be the UK Intro (even when it's weirdly called the 'lede'). Matt Lewis (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
In the past, I've tried repeatedly to get constituent country adopted as a descriptive for E/NI/S/W, but to no avail. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
When somebody bring up 'constituent country', I'll repeat myself. As for 'not commenting' here anymore; always a heartbreaker. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, right, then you do think repeating yourself ad nauseam is a convincing argument. Good to know. Oh, and you're not breaking my heart. I was only wondering as I would like to know if I can believe anything you say. Carson101 (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I know where your talk page is. What of it? Now, would you like to explain why you think repeating yourself constantly improves this article? Carson101 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
^"Commonwealth Secretariat - Geography". Commonwealth Secretariat website. Commonwealth Secretariat. Retrieved 23 May 2011. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) is a union of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
^"About Britain". Visit Britain. Visit Britain. Retrieved 23 May 2011. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all unique countries with their own customs, cultures and tradition.
^A phrase which has been used in the past on the UK Prime Minister's website "Countries within a country". Prime Minister's Office. 10 January 2003.
OK we have two editors, Mick and Off2Rio who thinks its OK to edit the article to impose their version while discussion is taking place. Its a clear failure to follow WP:BRD especially when the current version has itself resulted from multiple discussions.
At the same time we need to find a way of making progress here. At the moment I can see three proposals: (i) The Ghymrtle proposal as modified by myself and DeCausa (ii) Matt's complete rewrite and (iii) the status quo. Can I suggest we get those summarised and then structure for comment? --SnowdedTALK18:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Assuming we're sticking to the intro, I eased off the "United Kingdom is a country", as other sovereign state articles don't use country in their intros. As you & Ghmyrtle mentioned, 'Country' is the problem due to its multiple meanings - and so it should be excluded entirely, from the UK and E/NI/S/W. "United Kingdom is a sovereign state, consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales", is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Until the discussion on the Talk page has reached a conclusion it is bad faith to be making edits to the existing version of the text in question. The lead also now looks a complete mess, with one over long second paragraph. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I will say to user:Snowded, and any ringleaders, the nationalist disruption in this sector and at this article is in its end days and I will do my utmost to remove all the disruptors from the sector - Sarah is gone and more will follow. - enough is enough. Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
You might notice that some of us are taking part in the discussion and trying to move things forward. That seems a better way forward than edit warring, making veiled threads and accusations against other editors. You do great work on BLP issues, I really wish you would bring that across to British and Irish articles and also those related to the BNP etc. --SnowdedTALK19:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Preferably you will remove yourself from the topic field - you have become a ringleader for nationalist disruption and tag team control of various articles in the similar sector, your contributions as such are almost always reverts to the controlled position - you actually contribute no content in the sector - please consider ceasing to edit in the united kingdom nationalist sector. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Again with the poison Snowded. There's been at least four editors who've had their good faith efforts at improvement reverted on this flimsy basis, who can all presumably see what I see, that the 'discussion' phase of BRD on this article is nothing but an excuse for heel dragging while several fragmented and disorganised low quality debates are as ever being conducted in a purely repetively assertive/POV manner, without much reference to policy or clue, or even an awareness of what happens elsewhere on the pedia. Just like last time. And the time before that. BRD is an essay predicated on good faith and clue. It does not protect people tendentiously and repeatedly regressing articles into states in which they have no chance whatsover of becoming Featured. You can make whatever suggestion you like Snowded, your past record of heavy involvement here with this pious and hypocritical act of yours, and with the article still in this poor state after all this time and all your insistence on reverting people while discussion is ongoing, is not a ringing endorsement of your judgement of what is and is not good discussion, good practice, or even a decent article. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It takes two to tango and an approximately same number to edit war. It can be poor form to make an edit while a discussion is on-going. However, there are quite a number of editors commenting here who argue that the article would be improved with the line removed. Their argument is that it is unnecessary and the issue cannot be dealt with properly in the introduction.
Discussion is stifled arguing one way around so let's see how the article sits with the line removed and hear the counter argument for why it (or some other change) should be added. A problem I've seen around issues like this is that something with an article is seen as a problem, the issue is raised but those who "like it" dig their heels in and cry "no consensus to change" ad nauseum. Consequently, the issue never gets addressed to everyone's satisfaction.
So, let's open the space a little to allow change to happen and consensus emerge. --RA (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
@RA - which "line" do you mean? Matt has just removed a line from the footnote, which has barely been discussed in these recent exchanges - it certainly has not been the focus of discussion. I'll revert him - but do you mean that line, or another line? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Mick and Off2Rio removed the line, "It is a country in its own right and consists of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." Including the entire footnote. ([1], [2]). Those are the edits referred to by Snowded, as opposed to Matt's, which you reverted. --RA (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for unconfusing me. I don't think anyone seriously defends "It is a country in its own right...". Anyway, I've made a proposal below amd will see what's happened to it tomorrow. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Several of us are arguing for the removal of "country" linked to some other changes. I think that is a good way forward, but we need broad consensus before we make that change. Agreeing what those options are then moving into a set of formal comments should allow a new consensus to emerge. Laying out the options is a first step to that, I don;t see much by way of new argument in the last day or so. Mick & Off2Rio, please lay of the personal attacks, I know its your modus operandi so most of us live with it for the sake of the other work you do, but its not attractive or helpful. --SnowdedTALK20:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
While you can comment about the uninvolved and BLP work that I do I can't comment about your edits in a similar manner. You are the one with a modus operandi - stop your nationalistic and political disruption in this sector - As a clear ringleader of this nationalistic disruption I suggest you go edit something that actually benefits the en wikipedia project and not your own POV. Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I wrote this because I feel it is what the Intro would probably look like without prejudice. What about it without the British Isles?..
The United Kingdom (fully titled United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and commonly termed United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign state consisting of four constituent countries, situated in an archipelago off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The UK covers the whole island of Great Britain and the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, along with a number of smaller islands near its coasts. Waters that surround the UK are the Atlantic Ocean west of Northern Ireland, the Irish Sea between Ireland and Great Britain, the North Sea in the east towards Scandinavia, and the English Channel before the European mainland in the south. The UK has just the one land border with another sovereign state, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Feel free to tweak the second paragraph (which I left as I found it) - but is it necessary?
It doesn't matter whether the England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland articles follow suite with the pipe-linked "constituent countries" - the 'United Kingdom' article stands alone, and "constituent countries" used to be in it anyway as I remember. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, if we also add in a section on the countries (per DeCausa's earlier proposal) elsewhere in the article. That can wait for this to be resolved--SnowdedTALK20:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Support (with reservations). I have a few textual quibles (I always worry that every dot gets protected with these things), and recognise what Ivor Stoughton says below about the removal of "archipelago" (on top of both "country" and "constituent"!) But if something is to be done at this juncture, then anything that uses "Sovereign State" and avoids 'country' seems to make sense for now. The second parag is bound to change though: three's a seriously awkward number here, esp after 'London' (where England will be appended in surely...!). But the first parag will suffice, the rest can be worked on. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I like that this proposal makes no reference to "an archipelago" and is nevertheless precise about the geographic components of the U.K. Is the term "national" in relation to the devolved administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales going to be acceptable? Are each of the three nations? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
If "national" is a problem in relation to NI (fair point) it could come out. I have certainly seen the term "devolved administrations". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
well there were a couple, but in essence that there is a sub-section in the article which explains the issue. One way of handling it is to have a sub-section based on the infamous foot note. latterly, I suggested the "national identity" sub-section above. I guess that's detail. the general point is no mention of the C-word in the lead, but sub-section tba covering the issue in the main body. DeCausa (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I originally added 'national' to devolved administrations a long time ago because I felt it important to draw a distinction between these administrations and regional government like the London Assembly which is also a devolved administration. Therefore I do not believe 'national should be dropped. (By the way, if Northern Ireland can have a 'national' football team, it can have a devolved 'national' administration! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but i can not support that. You can not completely remove from the introduction of this article the fact the United Kingdom is a country. I consider it blatant censorship for political reasons and if that is done will put a tag on the page questioning its neutrality and accuracy. It is grossly offensive that England , Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland are allowed to say country in their first sentence but we are not even allowed to make reference to the UK being a country in the introduction at all? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Check the proposal again. County isn't used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales either. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the UK is a country, and that the Intro should say so. England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are also verifiably countries and the Intro should say that too. The British Government, in the form of Visit Britain (a statutory body incorporated under The Development of Tourism Act 1969) consider the country issue to be an important enough aspect of Britain to state “England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all unique countries with their own customs, cultures and tradition.“ The Commonwealth Secretariat define the UK thus: “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) is a union of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.” The Law Library of Congress define the UK thus: “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the collective name of four countries, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The four separate countries were united under a single Parliament through a series of Acts of Union.” I would be interested to know why the British nationalist editors here wish to ignore these sources. Daicaregos (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Dai, what is a country? And please explain its importance for the purposes of the lead. The above references do neither. DeCausa (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Please do not deflect attention from this question, but answer it instead. Why do you wish to ignore verifiable, reliable sources? Daicaregos (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
well, I'm not a British nationalist (or nationalist of any hue for that matter) so I'm not qualified to answer your question. (Personally, I don't care if I'm ruled from London, Brussels, washington or Timbuktu, but that's just one of my pecularities I guess). I'm not ignoring your sources, but they don't answer my question. Would you care to answer mine? DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Why do you wish to ignore verifiable, reliable sources? Because almost every other line on Wikipedia does that. 'Reliable Sources' dictates that sources should be reliable - it doesn't demand that you use them! Read Weight, Verify and red flag etc - the Wikiepedia guidelines basically. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The quality of those sources (a British Government quango specialising in the subject, the Commonwealth Secretariat & The Law Library of Congress) hardly denote a fringe theory. The weighting given by each source is not of the 'oh, by the way', it's top. Daicaregos (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Ive not said that this articles introduction must not refer to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as countries, as we state they are countries on their own article it makes sense to make the situation extremely clear in this one. I just dont think EWSNI needs to be tackled in the first paragraph, i think the first sentence of this article should state the UK is a country (as the EWSNI articles do) and i think "it is a country in its own right and consists of four countries..." sounds a little odd as did the previous wording of "Its a country consisting of four countries." BritishWatcher (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The "which are "coutries within a country" thing? (ie the similar term to "constituent countries") Can you put something up here then? We need to iron all these out together or it will go on and on. What's currently in the enevitable footnote will then be in the identity section. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
How about:
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a country that includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands, located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. Created originally by negotiated political union, the sovereign state today comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which is the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another sovereign state—the Republic of Ireland. Apart from this land border the UK is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the English Channel and the Irish Sea.
This version describes the UK as a country in the first line, emphasises the UK is the sovereign state, and also refers to the four countries of the United Kingdom. Perhaps a footnote about Northen Ireland could explain that the term country is disputed in its case. That's my contribution - now off to bed! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Leave country out of the article, completely. It's the descriptive country, that's proven to be the root of the problem. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I would support something along those lines but agree with the "created originally by negotiated political union" would be a problem, but i do support wording it in such a way as to explain the initial creation then saying today comprises of the countries of England, Wales, Scotland and NI. Perhaps a mention of 1707 acts of union? We basically consider that the start date in the infobox / article. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
There's no need for words like "created originally by negotiated political union", but a statement like "The UK is a sovereign state which comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland..." is certainly one option - with an explanation in the main text as DeCausa has suggested. I'm not opposed to something like that if it's seen as the best way forward, though it's not my favourite wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
If there is a footnote it must IN NO WAY have sectarianism mentioned in it. That polemical nonsense of a 'political controversy' over the impossible-to-answer country/province 'officiality' issue is outrageous here (and dodgy as hell). Sovereignty first - it's the Intro of the UK for pete's sake. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Queue revert of my removal of it by RA, as it is 'based on two Reliable Sources'. It's scandalous it really is. Why did you revert me based on "consensus" Ghmyrtle? There was no "consensus" for that particular unnecessary point that I could see - so I was obliged to remove it again. Reliable Sources (esp controveral polemics) do NOT have to be used, and they do NOT equal facts. So you CANNOT refactor them into new statements, whether you put in "can" or not. It's this constant dissemination of the troubles, it's doing my head in. Don't you people read the papers? There is just no place for it here, even if it wasn't such a dubious claim. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
@Matt: We were collectively involved in a discussion which involved deleting the footnote entirely - and then, once that was established, discussing where its content (or part of its content) was to be placed in the main article text. For you to change the footnote unilaterally, in the middle of that discussion, was simply confusing the issue, as well as being contrary to the existing consensus agreed in March based on Daicaregos' wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
If we mention the word "country" in the intro, we need to explain - for our global readership - what we mean, as the word is ambiguous. For legibility, we should try to avoid non-obvious pipelinking (such as linking "country" for the UK to sovereign state), and try to avoid footnotes. We should also try to be succinct. Terms like "countries within a country" may have meaning within the UK - they may indeed be used by the UK Government when it's convenient shorthand for them to do so - but it's quite confusing to many readers globally, because the word "country" means more than one thing. Scotland, for example, is clearly a country by most meanings of the term, and is verifiably known as a country within the UK and to some extent outside, but it is not a sovereign state. (It is also not an "administrative division" of the UK.) I think it would be confusing to use the word "country" to describe both the UK and its four "parts" within the same paragraph - the explanation needed for that would be too complicated to be included in the lead/lede. We have a generally acceptable alternative term ("sovereign state") for the UK, but no generally acceptable term for the four parts. We could simply not use any descriptive term for the four parts (i.e. "The UK is a sovereign state comprising E, S, W and NI"), or we could describe them as countries (i.e. "The UK is a sovereign state comprising the countries of E, S, W and NI".) In my view, the first of those two is less confusing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This is getting quite confusing: the states of the USA each claim to be 'sovereign states' - yet Scotland has more claim to be sovereign in practice since it has the right to vote to secede from the UK if it wishes! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Ghmyrtle, I am not on a mission to confusion. I care about this article about the United Kingdom, very much indeed. You and I have had are differences in the past. I known that. I am trying to mend my ways. Progress-not-Perfection ... ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The sources don't feel the need to define each descriptive word and nor should we here. That they are reliably sourced and notable is enough. Daicaregos (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
But, what is (politically?) convenient for the UK Government is not necessarily best practice for a global encyclopaedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
You may have missed the references provided above. Not all were from the British Government. The Commonwealth Secretariat define the UK thus: “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) is a union of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.” The Law Library of Congress define the UK thus: “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the collective name of four countries, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The four separate countries were united under a single Parliament through a series of Acts of Union.” Can't see how it would be politically convenient for them to describe the UK that way. Daicaregos (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
OK. I don't think anyone denies that they are called countries in many reliable sources, wherever those sources come from. That's not the main point - the question is whether to do so here is best practice in WP terms. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the UK's use of 'country' is not really (or perhaps 'only' is a better way to put it) "politically convenient" - and not using it here is simply (for me at least) a genuinely benign form of convenience - 'country' is simply too textually problematic at the moment, which why god created the word "constituent" if you ask me. And so, because even the best of Reliable Sources do not always get used (actually decent sources too - shock horror), there is a good case not to use the word here. But then again it's clearly still being discussed. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, went to bed early last night and got up this morning...to find the whole thing completely getting out of hand yet again. There are all sorts of irrelevances and attitudes appearing which have been imported from debates from other articles' talk pages. There is a very simple question that needs to be agreed here. Is the word "country" significant enough to warrant mention in the lead. For the UK, it's an obvious and clear-cut meaning so arguably "yes". However, it is so obvious and so clear-cut that it's otiose. Having a quick look around a number of country articles there are many (a majority?, not sure) don't find it necessary. The only reason, as far as I can tell from the postings, is as a POV-push by "British nationalists" (as Dai calls them) against those wanting to beef up the Wales and Scotland status. That's not an acceptable reason given it's redundancy. For Wales and Scotland, as Ghmyrtle has pointed out very clearly, the term is so ambiguous as to either not mean much or to be confusing to, especially, overseas readers. I note that Daicaregos has steadfastly refused to explain why it is so important, and what status it confers thereby justifying its presence in the Lead. It needs to be kept in he main body where context and background can explain it. It's widespead usage doesn't justify it. Dai cites the front page of the "Visit Britain" website. That also says Heathrow is the UK's main airport - that's not in the lead. (And I'm damn sure I'll get a bigger google search return for that statement than anyrhing about "countries".) Anyway, the whole debate is pretty tedious and unimportant, I'll think I'll do some editing in the Balkans today. DeCausa (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
If certain editors want to continue to dig in their heels, then fine. The rest of us, should ignore them & adopt Ghymrtle's proposal for the lead. GoodDay (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Those who oppose Ghmyrtle's 20:30 UTC proposal from yesterday. Myself & Snowded (for example) have shown flexability, by dropping country completely. Why can't certain others? GoodDay (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that we have three options for the wording of the second sentence. Perhaps we could move to indications of support?:
Option A: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign state that includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands, located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. It comprises England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.....
Option B: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign state that includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands, located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. It comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.....
Option C: status quo (i.e March 2011 "consensus" version, proposed by Daicaregos)
My 'proposal' was accepted unamimously on 14 March 2011, following discussions which had begun on 23 February. Mabuska said at the time “I'd also like to take this moment and congratulate everyone on being able to work together on this and come to a conclusion that so far has unanimous support which gives it a very strong consensus. Hopefully anyone else who wants to raise the issue in the future will read the footnote and it helps them.“ What a waste of time and effort as, no doubt, this will be too. FWIW I would support Option B which, with luck, may last over a week. Daicaregos (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Removing so-called 'political controversy' over NI being a 'country' from a UK Introduction footnote
[Note 6] “With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences." [17]
Just before the page was locked, RA made it a direct quote.
OK. the United Kingdom article is not locked with what I consider to be a sectarian edit in a footnote leading from it's introduction. I can see no great reason for it other than to keep NI nationalist politics in the limelight as far as I'm concerned. I say this because I've not heard any other reasoning for the offensive line other than;
There 'was' a consensus for it (in the archives)
I can't find any for that specific part - I've looked.
There are two 'Reliable Sources'.
So what? I have around 6 points on that:
1) The two sources are simply too controversial within-themselves to be re-factored on Wikipedia as plain 'fact', even as a "can be considered". It's now a direct quote I notice, but I want to make this point: Found 'Reliable Sources' (which could say anything, whoever they are written and published by) do NOT automatically become Unavoidable And Absolute Facts. This does get argued sometimes, and I'm going to get something along these lines into policy one day!
2) Most importantly really: This quoted opinion is simply not suitably 'weighted' in this footnote: nationalism does not EQUAL sovereignty, esp in the UK Intro. The highly-suspect assertion of 'political controversy' does not 'balance' anything.
4) Including the terms "province", "part" etc as alternatively-used terms for NI is all that is needed here, along with the point that none of them are 'official'. The real 'controversy' is merely over which of the terms can be classed as the most official, as none of them officially are, and they are all used officially(!) So which is best? This is currently being discussed on Northern Ireland, as some Wikipedians certainly find 'country' politically rude - but Wikipedia CANNOT reference itself, and it is simply a nationalist opinion anyway.
5) Factoring-in politics over 'country' in this UK footnote suggests that 'province', 'region' or 'part' somehow inherently suggest a possible move away from the UK for NI back to an all-island Ireland. I've seen no evidence that these terms were ever intended to suggest that.
6) Any mention of political controversy (with the suggestion of 'political offence') is simply not needed at this juncture, regardless of the other points above. It merely serves to keep nationalist politics forever in the limelight. Will Northern Ireland ever be free of this sectarian brush that follows it around Wikipedia?
Much of that doesn't make sense. The statement that "nationalism does not EQUAL sovereignty" in an NI context is very silly. I'm not a Irish nationalist, nor do I have any sympathy with sectarianism. There's a very simple and obvious point: the objective of Irish nationalism remains - regardless of the Belfast agreement - a 32-county Ireland. That's not a controversial or sectarian statement. A substantial minority of Northern Irish people vote for a party that has that as this as its objective. That's not a controversial or sectarian statement. That party on its website says, in terms, Ireland is one nation and one country. That's not a controversial or sectarian statement (that that is their position, not the SF statement of course). I don't see what is controversial or sectarian about reflecting these facts of life (however unpalatable) in this article somewhere. Now I'm off to the Balkans.... DeCausa (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC
It all makes sense. The problem with you Decausa is that you don't know anything about the subject, and you have flatly refused to read up on it in the other UK/IRE articles, or even read the separate UK country articles – an idea you tell me is “totally surreal”!
Why is it “silly” for me to say that “nationalism cannot be of equal weight to sovereignty”, specifically in the NI context? This is the introduction of the United Kingdom article for crying out loud. Go and find a topic you know something about, and are actually prepared to read about – your naivety is becoming a total hindrance here.
A political parties democratic objective is one thing, but for Wikipedia to claim that calling NI a "country" is 'politically controversial' is quite another. What makes you think they are linked? The Welsh or Scottish nationalist parties could not claim such a thing - because they recognise SOVEREIGNTY actually exists - as do Sinn Fein, especially today. Obviously, they want to change it - democratically. Do you UNDERSTAND this yet? And in the UK introduction nationalism does not hold equal weight to the matter in hand, which is simply about the UK being itself. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I think, but I'm not sure, that we are talking at cross-purposes. Firstly, there is no relationship between sovereignty and applying the word "country" to a territory as (as is the case with NI) it can apply to non-sovereign territories. The relevance of sovereignty v. nationalism just isn't there. Secondly, there is no such thing as an official designation as a country - in fact no where in the world except French polynesia, Aruba, Sint Maarten and Curacao. By "official" I mean constitutionally/legally enacted. This is so even if a government usage is to refer to a territory as a country. But government usage isn't law and isn't entrenched and is merely a validation of cultural usage, will change for whatever political reason. And that is the main point, describing a territory (really I'm talking about non-sovereign territories here ike Northern Ireland) is a cultural-political construct. That's all. Given these two points, I cannot fathom what you are talking about. You changed your original statement of "nationalism does not EQUAL sovereignty" to "nationalism cannot be of equal weight to sovereignty". Is what you are trying to say that because the sovereign UK government calls NI a country then a nationalist party's view on that carries no/little weight? I didn't understand that to be your argument, but if it is, it discloses such a profound lack of understanding of the word "country" and, indeed, what NPOV means in a Wikipedia context, then there's not much I can say. As for my lack of knowledge on the subject. I've looked in on those talk pages and I'm afraid they are not enlightening. As WP policies indicate: Wikipedia (and certainly not its talk pages) is itself not counted as a WP:Reliable source. Generally I prefer books to blogs. DeCausa (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the point about sovereignty is that the British government is sovereign in Northern Ireland, and that sovereignty is no longer contested by any other state or sovereignty (the Belfast Agreement is more relevant here than you perhaps allow.) And, according to various sources above supplied by Daicaregos and others, the sovereign British government does refer to NI as a "country" in a number of contexts. The question of British/Irish identity is also settled in the Belfast Agreement BTW - both British and Irish identities have parity of esteem, and people in Northern Ireland are free to consider themselves British or Irish or both, and their choices are to be accorded fullest respect. I agree with Matt Lewis that this argument feels a bit backwards-looking, towards the Troubles, which have been over for more than a decade. Not that you'd know it from Wikipedia. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The agreements between the UK and Ireland don't particularly affect the situation, because that is a somewhat different issue. Whether there is a claim of sovereignty by the Republic does not necessarily affect how a NI nationalist feels about the subject. "Controversial" doesn't just mean controversial between governments. The question is: is there a substantial number (albeit a minority) who strongly disapprove of the proposition. If you have people in Northern Ireland (15%) who reject the self-identification of "Northern Irish" (let alone "British") and another 34% who are "not very strongly" Northern Irish and 26% who say they are Irish (according to surveys in 2007 and 2008), how does Northern Ireland is a country not be "controversial". DeCausa (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, of course most NI nationalists voted for the Agreement and the main nationalist parties in NI are parties to it. The major elements of said Agreement have the force of law (including constitutional law) in the U.K. and Ireland, and indeed have further force as an international agreement between sovereigns. How any individual may feel is of interest to that individual, I guess, but the question Matt Lewis raises, as I understand it, is how much weight Wikipedia should give to "how a NI nationalist feels" about the issue, versus the comprehensive and painstakingly negotiated intergovernmental and multi-party political settlement - and associated body of law in two jursidictions -that is the Belfast Agreement. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The agreement is a settlement of the governmental arrangements, not a settlement of the underlying "national question". Look at the SF website and indeed the survey above. It's not a question of "individual nationalists" but a substantial segment of the NI population. And the point isn't about whether Wikipedia should give weight or credibility to that body of opinion, it simply supports the fact that it is controversial in NI (to the nationalist community) to attribute "national" characteristics to Northern Ireland. And that's all the footnote which Matt is so upset about said. That quite frankly is "non-controversial" (except to some WP editors apparently). DeCausa (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, no, the Agreement is quite clear on the national question: Northern Ireland remains part of the U.K. unless and until a majority of the people of NI decide otherwise in an internal referendum to be called at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, upon his determination that a demand exists for such a referendum. He has made no such determination. Also, as part of the Agreement, Ireland gave up its longstanding territorial claim on NI. The Agreement is also quite clear on the nationality question: persons in NI may be British, Irish or both, and those identities have full parity of esteem. Thus, as a party to the Agreement, Sinn Fein fully recgnises and esteems the British identity of people in NI who so identify, while the DUP, say, fully recognises and esteems the Irish identity of people in NI who so identify. They don't always advertise this on their websites, no doubt for party political reasons, but it is the case nonetheless. So Matt is right - ultimate sovereignty in NI is exercised by the U.K. government, and that sovereignty is uncontested by any other state or sovereignty. And the U.K. government describes NI as a country in a number of contexts. As Daicaregos and others point out, that must carry greater weight than the subjective feelings of groups of individuals. (My own subjective feelings run another way, BTW). This is an encyclopedia. We describe what is, not what we or others might wish for. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
No, no, no! (as someone once said). The "national question" is not resolved by the agreement, what is resolved is that it will only be changed by the democratic process. The underlying objective doesn't have to change. Are you saying that Sinn Fein now accept the Union and don't want to see a 32-county republic. Of course not. Just because you may not accept that NI is a country is not contrary to the Belfast Agreement. Again, the former issues between the UK and Irelad are not relevant. Recognition of other national identities has no bearing on my previous post, nor does the relative weights of different views (including governments). "Controversy" doesn't require opinions of equal weight. Remember, the only question is, is there controversy? The rights and wrongs, the reasonableness or unreasonableness, the backing of governments on either side is not relevant. DeCausa (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
But is there in fact real political controversy on the question of whether NI is a country? Like I say below, I have never - once - seen or heard the question even raised, let alone debated as a matter of controversy, in the context of political discourse in NI. Have you? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
That is a very good question - and is the weakness in what I've been saying (all the other points are, IMHO, irrelevancies). There is no "great debate" in reliable sources on this. There's a load of stuff in the blogosphere, but of course that doesn't count. It boils down to this: the designation "country" virtually only has a significance amongst a handful of WP editors. In the real world, people argue aboout other concepts, "nation" and there's plenty of RS on that controversy. A typical example is this news story. If the point of contention is whether NI should be called NI are you ever going to get to the stage of arguing about whether it's a country? DeCausa (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
DeCausa, Who are you to insist that Wikipedia should suggest that any Northern Irish object to calling NI a 'country', simply because they want to see that fact change!? That would be illogical to most people, and it is simply a quote from a polemical text. To give this weight in it here is sectarianism as far as I'm concerned. In reality (and I know you little knowledge about all this) Northern Ireland is very much about shared democracy now, some residual terrorism aside. It's like the last 10 years have never existed on Wikipedia, as Ivor says. I find it a total disgrace. And I know I'm not the best person to argue this too - it's just that the heaviness of Wikipedia nationalism is so oppressive that few people feel they can get anywhere. And is that any wonder reading this? And on top of everything else the line is just simply inappropriate for the UK introduction anyway - because Northern Ireland is British even if 90% of them wanted to change that. I think one problem here is that there is actually so much wrong with the line, that you can always re-focus your waffle from point to point. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
@Matt: It's people who "don't know anything about the subject" who are often the best editors of articles like this, because they may be able to take an overview better than those editors who are closely involved - often passionately. I'm not saying DeCausa is in that position (and I'm not suggesting anyone is editing non-neutrally here), but perhaps we would benefit here from more editors who are uninvolved - or at least less involved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I actually agree with that. The problem with DeCausa is that, while knowing little about the subject, he also has clear a Irish nationalist bias. It happens that way sometimes. The proof was already on my talk page where all his comments were for crow-barring Irish nationalism in the footnote no-matter what, and also obviously the extent to which he is trying to wikilawyer his was around my arguments above. The only two people who are willing to fight for this unnecessary (and offensive in itself) line are RA and DeCausa. They both reverted it with the poor arguments that I introduced this section with. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
@Matt, you saying I know "little about the subject" is a little like me saying "you are an idiot". It's a fairly meaningless name-calling exercise. However, what I am severely pissed off about is you saying I have "clear a Irish nationalist bias". Because of that, I feel I can call you a fucking idiot (with the attendant block risk for WP:NPA). You have a tiresome and petty POV to push - but nevertless your statement annoys me. I'll explain why, and it annoys me also that in order to do so I have to explain my personal political views, which I shouldn't have to. Firstly, I'm English. Secondly, I think that nationalism is a ludicrous piece of nonsense dreamed up in the 19th century. Thirdly, I believe the "nation state" is a myth sold to the gullible. Fourthly, I don't care if the part of London I live in was part of a state that was ruled from London, Ballymena, Cardiff, Brussels, Washington or Paris, so long it was run well. Fifthly, and most to the point, the concept of a "United Ireland" is a ludicrous concept and I see no reason why it should ever happen. Sixthly, I neither care whether the UK separates into its constituent parts nor stays together. In conclusion, I believe "nation" is a myth and I feel no loyalty or sympathy with any so-called "national" grouping. Got it? DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you know what the weird thing about that is? (apart from it taking you so long to say, despite all my questions prompted by the terseness I've encountered from you from the start) - the net effect of you views seem to prevent you from grasping the relatively un-complex detail within the situation. By constantly disparaging my points (esp on my talk) you have naturally appeared nationalistic - and it's hardly like you don't seem to care either way is is? Policy clearly points to excluding the dumb line - so what do you care? But if you are what you say (and I do believe you, Wikipedia being the place that it is), perhaps you should simply give more of a shit and maybe read those unread articles you find so 'surreal' that I think you ought to read. They might help you follow my reasoning. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I've glanced at them. They are (on the whole) dreary uninteresting inaccurate bogged-down-in-irrelevance articles fucked up by POV pushers, and presumably you would like to share in that credit. That's why I don't go near them, not because I'm uninterested in the subject matter (outside of WP). "By constantly disparaging my points (esp on my talk) you have naturally appeared nationalistic". Fuck's sake! No, it's because you don't AGF and you think resistance to your POV = lack of NPOV. Your reasoning isn't worth following and I have absolutely no interest in or respect for what you think I "ought" to do. DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
@Ivor - The question isn't "how a NI nationalist feels" or how much weight we should give to that perspective. It's merely that the question of what Northern Ireland is (region, province, country, etc.) is a specific problem and (as the reference states) "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences." The problem is not unique to any community and, while the 1998 Agreement settled many things, it didn't resolve this particular question.
For example, the same question post the 1998 Agreement:
"One specific problem - in both general and particular senses - is to know what to call Northern Ireland itself: in the general sense, it is not a country, or a province, or a state - although some refer to it contemptuously as a statelet: the least controversial word appears to be jurisdiction, but this might change." - S. Dunn and H. Dawson, 2000, An Alphabetical Listing of Word, Name and Place in Northern Ireland and the Living Language of Conflict, Edwin Mellen Press: Lampeter
A certain cherry picking of sources is being employed to present a picture that the UK government thinks of Northern Ireland as a "country" in the same sense as England, Scotland and Wales. That is not the case. To the UK government, what to call Northern Ireland is just as problematic a question as it is to the rest of us. In contrast to England, Scotland and Wales, Northern Ireland is rarely referred to specifically as a "country" by the UK government (except in a general sense, such as the UK if made up of "four countries"). Other turns of phrase, such as "region", "province", "part of UK", etc., are by far the common terms of both the UK government and the NI Executive in a specific sense when speaking about Northern Ireland. --RA (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The cherry-picking, RA, is all in your "political preferences" quote. Why bring in the Troubles? I know, I know, because it's reliably sourced. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "what a NI nationalist" (or indeed unionist) feels is not really the question. The question is indeed what Northern Ireland is. It may be that there is a cherrypicking of sources here as to the attitude of the U.K. government towards the question, but you yourself seem to accept that HMG refers to NI as "a country" when referring to the "four countries" that comprise the U.K. And, as it so happens, that is the very context we are dealing with here. I share Matt Lewis's view that you may be giving too much weight to one or two academic sources. Would you be comfortable, say, including a footnote as to whether Wales was in fact a country, rather than a "principality" or some such thing, on the basis of similar sources? I'm pretty sure they're out there! Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
In a general sense, I don't think many object to the constituent parts of the UK being referred to as countries. The problem, for me, only really arises when speaking about Northern Ireland in a specific sense. That is not the context here. However, I am not comfortable with referenced material being removed because it somehow threatens the UK's sovereignty. Regardless of the term used for Northern Ireland ("province", "country", "state" or anything else) these words can be controversial and can revel one's political preferences as the reference notes.
TBH I had never imagined the footnote here as being about Northern Ireland. I had always imagined that it was a note to clarify use of the word country to refer to all of the constituent parts of the UK. I had imagined that the bits specifically about Northern Ireland were simply to flag particular caution in that specific case but to say in all other contexts (Scotland, Wales, England), it was normal.
As regards sources, there are heaps in the archives of Talk:Northern Ireland (including sources from the UK government). It is not a matter of simply one or two sources, or that the sources come from one particular outlook ("country" is something that would be verifiably rejected by both nationalist and unionist community).
FYI this thread originated as a spill over from Northern Ireland after I proposed that the footnote here be added to that article to explain "country" specifically in relation to Northern Ireland. Personally, I would prefer less controversial terms to be used (e.g. "Northern Ireland is a part of the UK...") in the lead there but - being exhausted - I would settle for a clarifying note. Other editors are firmly set against any watering down of the word "country" in the introduction to that article. Hence, this article suffers. --RA (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is mentioning the Troubles except yourself, Matt.
I'm simply responding to your endless polemics. Do you think I want to do all this? Someone has to help cut it back. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
@Ivor, again - an example of the problem that what to call Northern Ireland to the UK government, here is a consideration of the legal terms used by the UK to describe Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in GFA-era legislation:
"The statuary reference to Scotland is a 'nation,' while Wales is a 'region.' The devolvement legislation for Northern Ireland refers to the province simply as 'Northern Ireland.' The word 'nation' has been defined as referring to a 'social group that shares a common ideology, common institutions and customs, and a sense of homogeneity,' with an emphasis not on territorial borders, but rather on a 'sociocultured perception of the group.' It connotes a greater cohesiveness than does the word "region". Concededly, it would stretch the imagination even of the most creative thinker to view Northern Ireland as an area with 'homogeneity.' It could well be that the legislators refusal to classify the province expressly was an appeasement measure, since 'region' would have pleased Unionists, and 'nation' have have absolutely elated Nationalists." - Carol Daugherty Rasnic, 2003, Northern Ireland: can Sean and John live in peace?
Avoidance of divisive terms such as these is a hallmark in the Good Friday Agreement era of "constructive ambiguity". -RA (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I suppose I take a different view to Ms Rasnic as to whether nationalists would have been elated to have NI described as "a nation". It might have pleased certain "Ulster nationalist" elements in the UDA once upon a time. An example perhaps of the potential pitfalls in relying upon one or two academic sources? I will observe that in decades of following NI politics I have never once seen or heard the question of whether NI is a country raised, let alone debated as a matter of controversy, between NI politicians of any stripe. If we are to say this is a political controversy, I would like to know how and where this "controversy" has actually been aired in the political arena in NI? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I was quite surprised by "elated" also but the rest of the her point holds firm.
With regard to the "controversy", it's one of those maddening Wikipedia thing, like British Isles. In real life, it's not a controversy because nobody calls Northern Ireland (in a specific sense) a country. (And noone minds all four parts of the UK being called countries because its understood not to take it so literally when it comes to Northern Ireland.) The "controversy", as it exists in real life, is between the choice of other terms - and is not so much "a controversy" but rather that the choice "can be controversial" if you get the balance wrong in one context or another.
The problem arises here on Wikipedia when it is insisted that we must introduce Northern Ireland (in that article) as a "country" lest the "country-ness" of Wales (in its article) be threatened. And then it spill over on to this article...
(For the sake of clarity also, with regard to this article, I think it would be improved if it was without the sentence that begins, "It is a country in its own right[14][15] and consists of four countries...". However, neither do I mind the sentence being there. I just think it reads poorly and unnecessarily confuses matters. Neither would I strongly object to the deletion of the entire footnote. However, I do mind referenced material being removed from the footnote for something to do with "respecting sovereignty". The question has nothing to do with the sovereignty of the UK.) --RA (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the footnote should make it clear then that the controversy is on Wikipedia rather than in real life? (It's all getting a bit head-up-our-own arses now, isn't it?) Ivor Stoughton (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This should really be a 'smell the coffee' time for you RA: I have genuinely always seen Northern Ireland as a country (why wouldn't I?), as have most British people my age (40). Do younger people see it any less so? I doubt it. I grew up with the Troubles forever in the UK news, and whether the word 'province' was mentioned or not (as 'the Principality' used to be for Wales), NI was always the British country the Irish wanted back. Just as it was the footballing country that used to have George Best in it. Did the Irish in the 70's and 80's (or even now) bother thinking as technically as you do about its origins? I doubt it somehow. Like it or not they knew what it really was, despite all the various diplomatic phraseology the British used during transition. The British split Ireland into two separate countries, so one could become independent, and the other - full of people who hade been British Irish for centuries - could pretty much run itself: Northern Ireland was always the most fully devolved UK country. The British never ever intended to give it back, and they kept that particular area because it been full of British for centuries. So they made a 'British Ireland' in the north of the island of Ireland, and called it "Northern Ireland". They created a new country in the legitimate non-sovereign sense - and if the Republic of Ireland accepted that better at the time, and the Irish republican minority in Northern Ireland wasn't so large - nobody would be remotely questioning that obvious fact. You just live in the world that you personally want to see, RA. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
behaviour
Matt, between your edit waring against established consensus and the personal attacks on other established editors there is more than enough above to get you warned if not blocked. No one wants to do this but we are not going to make progress unless you lay of the polemic. Can we have an undertaking on that please? --SnowdedTALK06:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I am pointing out SERIOUS polemic in the UK introduction Snowded, not laying it on. How dare you say I have 'edit warred' when I simply have not by any reasonably sane definition done so? Is all editing you don't like a "war" with you? I despair of the language and the attitude over this. How many edits do you see me make on these issues? You just don't give people a chance to breathe out there, and when will the "war" end? That's what I want to know.
And also - why do this in here and not on my talk page? You know full-well that you coming on like a concerned admin ("we" etc), would not exactly make me smile fondly too. This UK discussion page is now a completely-full and almost-unreadable, which is the 'old story' time and time and time again. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Matt Lewis. You are doing a good job of expressing your points. I appreciate your posts very much. Please do not let Snowded throw you off. When he senses that he is losing a debate, he pulls "crap-like-this" to fluster people. Don't be flustered my friend. You are arguing well. Keep it eh. Take care, Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Armchair, you have just come off a long ban for uncivil behaviour I suggest you exercise care. Matt, you did edit war removing material established by consensus rather than engaging with discussion on the talk page. You also made various accusations against other editors for example the Irish Republic accusation against another edit, which to anyone familiar with the debates here is nonsensical. --SnowdedTALK17:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if you've properly followed the 'extra line' debate (ie how it was lumped into another consensus) - as you've not commented here much while I've taken in on. But you do know I'm familiar with the debate, and that I wouldn't write anything actually nonsensical.
You know Snowded, If you personally accepted the word "constituent", whatever Dai (and possibly Fishiehelper2 says), almost all of debate on this page (and at NI recently) would simply not have happened. Even RA would accept that comment. It's an incredible amount of power for one person to have, but that's Wikipedia: it just bizarrely seems to work like that. I was at that original 'compromise poll' in Wales when it was not used in the end, and since then I've seen you basically censor it from discussion over the UK pages, as if it is genuinely a offensive/controversial (sigh) word. It just flipping well isn't.
I'm finding it hard to even vote on the 'No "country" at all' proposal below, because I know that it is simply platform for 'country' to be later included by some hapless soul, simply leading to more possible edit-wars when he or she is suddenly reverted by you, Dai or possibly GoodDay. Its removal would be too-extreme a compromise to realistically enforce the 'status-quo consensus' ruling that you always favour. Only something realistic could achieve that. No-one but a rogue IP would even think to edit-war over removing "constituent" when there is a decently-demonstrated consensus behind it - so that is what I am planning to achieve. It is not a "backwards step" - it is simply common sense. The vast majority of people even on this discussion page would agree that as a descriptor, "constituent" is simply 'made-to-measure' for the UK intro - but most have been talked out of considering it largely through your ludicrous insinuation that the 'Wales Compromise' was some kind of historical event, like it needs its own date or something. Now that my friend, is 'nonsense'. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Unless I have read the above thread wrongly Matt's removal of the previously agreed text on the controversial language in respect of Northern Ireland has not attracted support from other editors. If there is no serious support I will restore the original text (or hope that Matt chooses to respect WP:BRD and restore it himself --SnowdedTALK05:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Should we keep the current introduction and focus on a new section that tackles the country/nationalities issue in detail?
Whilst i think the current wording is slightly odd the status quo is probably as clear as it is going to get without watering it down completely avoiding terms which would be counter productive or going into extensive detail about the formation of the UK. At present the introduction...
1)States the UK is a sovereign state in the first sentence of the first paragraph.
2)States "It is a country....." in the second sentence of the first paragraph.
3)Repeats the UK is a country in its own right and consists of the four countries in the second sentence of the second paragraph.
Ill support keeping the status quo if others are reasonably ok with it. Its certainly not ideal but then clearly the situation is not ideal. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
@BW: I'm curious as to what has led you to (apparently) change your position since 23:09, 23 May 2011, when you suggested: ""Initially formed in 1707 by the Acts of Union between the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland, the sovereign state today comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." That seems close to Option B. Is it that you think it is necessary to explain the historical background in the introduction, or some other reason? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I would still support something along those lines. I think it would be better if we stated country in first sentence, second paragraph saying about the two Kingdoms forming and that today it comprises of the countries England, Wales, Scotland and NI. Going into detail seems to be the most helpful to the reader but i suspect considering the amount of dispute above its going to be difficult to get the correct wording. So it may be easier to save the big detail for a new section which covers the country/nationality issue in detail which will be less contentious and quicker to accomplish. I dont have the sort of time for wikipedia i once did, BritishWatcher (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposals based on the current 1st parag, a later identity section, and some 2nd parag rewording
I'm happy enough with what exists now, provided the footnote goes and a separate section is created. At very least the sectarianism has to be removed from the footnote. I personally think that the world "countries" is crying out for "constituent" next to it - it just reads so oddly without it. The word is simply made to measure..
A Seems perfectly reasonable to me too. It pipe-links to Counties of the United Kingdom - what more could some people want? "constituent" is merely a made-to-measure descriptor - it's not an attack on Scotland or Wales. The UK article is the 'big daddy' and did used to use it. Wales etc don't have to follow suite and nor should they - the context here is the UK and it makes nothing less than sound sense to use it here. I suspect that it was pressure from Welsh and Scottish elements that got it removed from here, but it can easily come back. I was part of the Welsh-born compromise of "part of", but was never happy with losing (and bizarrely 'damning' - how did that happen?) the word "constituent". When did it actually become such a dirty word? It just makes no sense. Would anyone else like to vote on this one? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Matt Lewis. I'm sure you understand completely why 'constituent' is not acceptable. This matter has been discussed many, many times before. The bottom line here is that either the UK is composed of countries or it isn't - the overwhelming bulk of reliable sources are quite clear on this matter, whether some editors like this or not. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
What utter nonsense. I've been part of this from the beginning too, and even compiled most of the sources! "Overwhelming bulk of reliable sources"? Say what? That "constutuent" isn't allowed? What utter, utter, utter nonsense. There are loads of examples of "constituent countries" being used: it's just a flipping descriptor, not a unionist curse. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
"Pre-scribe" the word "Country" ... a Modest Proposal
In this vein-of-thought ... why not use statement (ii). for the lede of the United Kingdom article? It would satisfy all concerned.
Using Statement (ii). one can further sub-divide by using what are called Descriptors (i.e., a fancy word for a Description). By re-writting Statement (ii) we have the following,
I don't understand the [Descriptor Alpha], [Descriptor Beta] stuff. Anyways, it's best we avoid 'country' completely. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Why can't we just keep it simple without any ambiguous terms or complex mumbo-jumbo - The United Kingdom consists of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Mabuska(talk)21:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Mabuska, how can you suggest such a thing and deprive everyone of days of pointless, unconstructive, irrelevant argument? DeCausa (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but we've got atleast 1 suspected British nationalist & 1 suspected Welsh nationalist, who refuse to let go of 'country' for the UK & Wales, respectively. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
A deliberate attempt to disseminate false information to help your 'cause', or are you going to blame one of your famous memory lapses? Several editors here choose to include the fact that these places are countries: Jeanne Boleyn, Carson101, Fishiehelper2, BritishWatcher and myself. And please stop with the labels, they imply some POV. Daicaregos (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Consensus does not need to be unananimous so a couple of disagreeing editors can be "ignored" if an admin judges they are being disruptive or unreasonable or something like that. Mabuska(talk)21:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
And you should know better than to believe anything GoodDay says, without checking it for yourself. Some editors here refuse to include 'country', although apparently, they're not being disruptive or unreasonable of course. Daicaregos (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
If you want to scroll back up to the options A, B and C I suggested earlier today, one of the "disagreeing" editors has agreed to one wording, and one from the opposing viewpoint has agreed to the other. There are three words difference between those two options. Just three words - "the countries of.." Can we not see whether there are grounds for agreeing (or, as Mabuska suggests, implementing in the absence of 100% agreement) one of those two options? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
My point is that progress would be more likely if we were to focus on whether or not those specific three words should be included in that particular sentence - whether their inclusion is helpful or unhelpful to our global readership, and whether it would accord or not accord with WP policy and guidance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Why would the three words "the countries of" not accord with WP policy and guidline? I don't think there is anyone here (well, maybe one) who does not agree that they are verifiably called countries. I would be surprised if there were any policy that would prevent a verifiable fact being included here. You ask if it would be helpful or unhelpful to the global readership. I ask anyone here, why would it be unhelpful to include, forgive me for repeating myself, a verifiable fact. An extremely important veriable fact I may add. We have four countries that make up the United Kingdom, whether some people like it or not, and there are people who think it not important enough to include in the introduction! I beg to differ. Carson101 (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Country has multiple meanings & so that's why we should avoid using it for either the UK or E/N/S/W. PS- we known all about the suitcase full of reliable sources, as it's been repeated often enough. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Lots of things have multiple meanings. Are you saying that we should not use the word state for example? It needs a far better argument than that I'm afraid. I do hope your not against it because you believe that country only equates to sovereign state. That would be silly, as you now say it has different meanings. You have to make your mind up. Does country = Sovereign state, as you have previously stated, or does it have more than one meaning. You can't use both your arguments to get what you want. Carson101 (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
IMHO, country means sovereign state. But for the sake of this article, I've chosen to be flexiable - thus my reason for dropping 'country' completely. Many of us have been flexiable by allowing 'sovereign state' in place of 'country', where United Kingdom is concerned. It's time for others to be flexiable & drop 'countries' from E/N/S/W. Those that do not? hold back this article from reaching FA status & invite these discussion to re-occur. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself, can I propose either of the following as an improvement to the current wording? Indications of support for (or reasoned arguments against) these wordings would be welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose - Totally unacceptable to not call the United Kingdom a country but state England, Wales, Scotland and NI are all countries within the first paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
In both of those occasions im saying id accept "country" for EWSNI in the second paragraph as long as the UK being a country is mentioned in the first paragraph, id prefer 1st sentence but the method at present with it in the second sentence is reasonable. The above wording fails to mention anywhere that the UK is a country and it gives EWNSI status as a countries even more importance by putting it in the first paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The point of using the term "sovereign state" is that its meaning is more specific. As you know from earlier discussions, not all articles on sovereign states make a point of using the word "country". Option B does not describe E/W/S/NI as "countries", so it might be helpful if you were to indicate that you oppose it less than you oppose this option. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that its important to be clear that the UK is a sovereign state, but its equally important we make clear it is a country as some do not everyone knows all sovereign states are countries. The fact the UK is fairly unique in being made up of other countries and this articles talk page has a FAQ that mentions its a country highlights this is an important factor that must be made clear in the article. I oppose both these options and would rather stick with the status quo despite it being slightly odd wording with the Country in its own right bit. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - It's imperative that readers know up front that England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are countries, and Option A explains it perfectly and lucidly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose For the sake of clarity, because in at least one case it is challengable (if not dismissed out of hand) and because there is no imperative to use these terms or to introduce these concepts in the introduction to this article. Keep it simple. See below. --RA (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Although another option would be to dispense with this newfangled language around "countries" and "sovereign states" altogether in favour of more venerable usage. There's a very real sense in which the United Kingdom is what it says on the tin - a kingdom. So we could say something like "The United Kingdom includes the Kingdom of England (incorporating the Principality of Wales), the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Province of Northern Ireland" which would in some ways be more accurate and rooted in history than anything we have considered so far. We could do this, but you know we won't! Ivor Stoughton (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
There is a problem with the pipelinking to Principality of Wales - it's not historically correct. What existed before the "Acts of Union", which formally incorporated the whole of what we now call Wales within the Kingdom of England, were both the Principality, and the separate Marcher Lordships which were neither within the Kingdom of England nor the Principality of Wales. These were extensive areas, covering much of south and east-central Wales. There is no single article which covers that period of Wales' history comprehensively, mainly because it wasn't a single political entity at that time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to that suggestion, but if it becomes an issue perhaps we could park it and come back to it later? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - That England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries is unusual within a sovereign state, and is notable enough to mention in the Lead. Although I do have some sympathy for BW's argument that the UK should also be noted as a country. Perhaps he would care to devise some suitable amendment to this option. Daicaregos (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support This version (1) adds relevant information, (2) the articles for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are stable and have these defined as "countries," and (3) the article Country itself has a definition that does not require sovereignty as a proviso. Shiggity (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Will change to 'support' if the "constituent countries" poll fails to takes off. The most stable will in my view be an edit based-on a proper consensus for using the descriptor 'constituent', despite what some people say. This proposal here is more likely to be played-with in the future imo, but I could live with it for sure. By the way (and this is VERY important) - in these polls, only the salient parts should be considered as acheived 'consensus' - ie this cannot disallow future copy edits and discussion. Also important, I am assuming that the proposed creation of a new section on identity is combined with this proposal? We have to remove the badly-politicised 'country' footnote - no way should that be kept. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Matt how is it right that the UK introduction does not make clear the UK is a country but goes out of its way in the second sentence of the first paragraph to state England, Wales, Scotland and the Northern Ireland is a country? This proposal is grossly one sided. Allowing England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be called country but not the United Kingdom which qualifies as a country in more ways than the other parts of the United Kingdom? This proposal is far more problematic than the current wording. How some people think this is a suitable compromise i do not know, its entirely one sided. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose - England , Wales , Scotland and Northern Ireland all state in their first sentence they are countries. The idea that we fail to mention the UK is a country in the introduction on this article when it is without doubt the country that has the biggest claim to the term is again totally unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This whole situation relates around the status of these other "countries". I find it deeply offensive and unacceptable if we are not allowed to say the UK is a country despite 4 parts of the United Kingdom having their articles state they are countries. If the other articles do not matter then there is less need to mention EWSNI are countries, only reason im going along with the case for calling them country on this page is because the other articles call them it so we may as well try to explain it here. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
As a general comment, I think we should try to avoid debate about what individual editors "find... offensive", and concentrate on sources and readability in line with WP policy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
fine. This article is about a country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The article should point out that it is a country in the introduction. It is that simple really. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support There is no imperative to say that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries (if the latter even is). We should avoid these avoid these totem words in favor of clarity. Keep it simple, .... Wikipedia is not the place for national flag waving and it is no slight (or censorship) not to say that Wales - or any other part of the UK - is a country. The "countriness" (or otherwise) of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can be dealt with thoroughly in the body of the article, not in the condensed space of the introduction. It may send some editors brimming with pride to see their part of the UK called every bit as much a country as anywhere else but in at least once case it is challengable, if not dismissed out of hand, and it does nothing to aid understanding of the subject to introduce confusing terminology so early and without explanation. --RA (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - does not mention that the home nations are countries in their own right - as has been discussed many times before, the UK is a union, not a federation. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Like Ivor pointed out, this is not quite accurate and is in fact quite misleading. The United Kingdom is not a union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It's a union of the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of Ireland, from which five-sixths of the Kingdom of Ireland left. Wales and Northern Ireland do not figure in the history of the formation of the UK as "countries in their own right". And while Wales has a long history of being a country and a nation in the vernacular sense, Northern Ireland as never existed as "a country in it's own right". --RA (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - the failure to identify the four countries of the UK as such leaves the reader without the basic facts. We are here to provide informtion, not withhold it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - That England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries is unusual within a sovereign state, and is notable enough to mention in the Lead. Daicaregos (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - this version is equally good. Now can we get on and do something instead of squabbling. Fmph (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support I have no really strong feelings about the country issue and think it is probably only possible to get consensus by sidestepping the term. I have to note that I think all the stuff about the land border with Ireland should be in the next sentence - its rather confusing tagged on the end of the first one.--SabreBD (talk)17:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - As Daicaregos rightly points out, the fact that the UK is a sovereign state that is composed of countries is unusual and notable enough to mention in the Lead. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Tempting though it is at first, the reality of this now two-level-deep compromise will simply be people trying to reintroduce a commonplace word. This compromise is too extreme a stance to force-revert “country” edits per a 'status quo' I feel. So more edit-wars would be likely. Surely the only realistic compromise is to use the ready-made descriptor “constituent” (and honestly, only a couple of people will have to actually 'compromise'). No-one could edit war over “constituent country” (esp when it links to Countries of the United Kingdom) if there was a decent poll behind it. Please vote here if you are interested in using that perfectly-reasonable descriptive term: this poll below . I would also favour polling "constituent" at Northern Ireland, but leaving Wales and Scotland with "part of", as it has seemed to stick there. If Wales and Scotland do become less stable (which is supposedly the argument against using "constituent" here), then we can simply re-poll "constituent" alongside "part of" there, and re-establish an up-to-date consensus everywhere). RA? Anyone? Let's solve all this once and for all. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Greater context?
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Rather than simply stating that the UK is made up of countries as bald fact or leaving the statement out of the introduction, maybe a way forward would be to put the situation in context a little. For example:
I like RA's draft a lot - it manages to be both more elegant and more informative than what's in the article at the moment. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that neither of "my" two options above are going to achieve a consensus, and this approach seems workable in principle - subject to resolving the Wales issue I mention below. I assume, RA, that you intend to leave the first para as it is now? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It's another slant for sure, but uses "Principality" before Wales, making it seem 'less' than a Kingdom somehow - so I'll wager it won't be liked. I've suggested something above you might like above though. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is a problem with the pipelinking to Principality of Wales - it's not historically correct. What existed before the "Acts of Union", which formally incorporated the whole of what we now call Wales within the Kingdom of England, were both the Principality, and the separate Marcher Lordships which were neither within the Kingdom of England nor the Principality of Wales. These were extensive areas, covering much of south and east-central Wales. There is no single article which covers that period of Wales' history comprehensively (mainly because it wasn't a single entity) - so, I think it would be better to link simply to Wales. Not a perfect solution though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget that the first para (assuming it's unchanged) says: "The country is part of an archipelago that includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands. Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another sovereign state—the Republic of Ireland." So, NI has already been mentioned. In my view, it's not necessary to mention the secession process, however briefly, in the next para - if we do, I think it's giving the whole Ireland/NI/land border issue undue weight in the lede(/lead, whatever). Of course, the whole story can be set out in the main text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, if the UK was formed by a series of constitutional unions, when did Northern Ireland enter into union with England, Scotland and Wales? It's not merely a pedantic point. It cuts directly to the source of this debate (or at least one of them): is Northern Ireland a "country" or a part/remnant of one (or two)? --RA (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) Obviously it didn't - Ireland did. The secession process is reflected in the difference between how the UK was formed (past tense) and is now (present tense). I'm just trying to find a form of words that does not give undue emphasis in the opening two paras to one aspect (an important aspect, but nonetheless only one aspect) of the UK's history and current arrangements. Perhaps a way forward would be in some way to combine the mentions of the land border with the secession process, in a single sentence? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it's more meaningful to the question of the origins of the UK's strange make up (and the incongruent nature of Northern Ireland in that make up). But you're right that mentioning Ireland too often may give the impression of imbalance or harping on some subject. If there's no good way to put it then it can be glossed over. --RA (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Although I'm content with either options A or B above (it's not important enough to do otherwise) I support this with my 1st preference vote if it were AV. DeCausa (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hope this can be a compromise between pro and anti country partisan parties. The wording provides a fair reflection of a long discussion considering the quality of the arguments and the history of how they came about. The change is not perfect but still a streamlining improvement in direction of more clear and concise presentation of greater context. Current para #2 in the lede is OK but a bit odd and confusing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I really don't like the wording 'England (which included Wales)', which grossly over-simplifies to the point of being misleading; I think that this version fails to clearly and properly explain why the constituent parts of the UK are regarded as countries, whilst giving the impression that it has provided a definitive explanation - it is actually impossible to provide such an explanation in two lines of text; it places excessive emphasis of the monarchical aspect of the UK; and it draws far too glib an analogy between the union of England and Wales with Scotland and the later union with Ireland. This version tries to explain very complex issues in a few lines of text and in the process misleads, obfuscates and gives WP:UNDUE emphasis to certain issues. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Pretty hard to place excessive emphasis on the monarchical aspect of the United Kingdom, when it's right there in the name. Also, at the time of the Union of 1707 - which is what the draft refers to in the relevant part - the Kingdom of England did include Wales, the Principality and Marcher Lordships (as Ghmyrtle rightly reminds us) having been incorporated into the Kingdom of England some 150+ years earlier. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, since some have indicated that the wording as blocker, I'm not tied to the words. Rather, it is the approach of giving creater context to "country" that I'm suggesting. --RA (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I would support this sort of approach with it clearly being explained in the second paragraph (although i do not agree on the present proposed wording). But this is a damn sight better than the offensive compromise suggested further up this page which is a blatant one sided attack on the United Kingdom refusing to allow it to be called a country whilst 4 parts of the UK are described as a country in the second sentence of this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's "refusing to allow it to be called a country". It's recognising that the term is ambiguous, and that "sovereign state" is more precise. All sovereign states are countries. Some non-sovereign states are also countries, and so the word is also the term most commonly used for them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Your proposal refuses to call the United Kingdom a country yet calls England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in the second sentence of the first paragraph countries. This article introduction should make absolutely clear the United Kingdom IS a country to avoid any doubt, just saying it is a sovereign state is not enough. People can easily come away from that introduction just thinking - UK = Sovereign state / Countries = England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. the proposal is one sided and provides less information and clarification than the present wording in the article, even if the current wording is rather odd atleast it makes the case very clear that the UK is a country in its own right but made up of four countries. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Please try to avoid appearing to personalise this by using words like "Your proposal refuses...." I may have proposed it, but it doesn't mean I'm any more personally committed to any one form of words than any other - it's just a means to try and resolve the problem. And words don't "refuse" to do anything - they are just different words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I voted for Ghmyrtle's option A and would like to stick with that. I do however have no problem with British Watchers idea of describing the UK as a country, if it were possible keep the text flowing. Carson101 (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Smart thinking. Yes, changing sovereign state to sovereign country on option A would certainly keep the text flowing. I think it works. Carson101 (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment Just to be clear, I'm not proposing this as being any better than RA's proposal that we've been discussing, so I think it's premature (sorry!) to start "!voting" now. If it's an option that some people prefer, we can consider it alongside "my" Option B as well as RA's wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
It's out there now for people to decide if they prefer it or not, so I see no harm in allowing people to vote on it. Carson101 (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Only that it's confusing to do it outside a slightly more formalised process. I wouldn't necessarily !vote for it myself, given RA's different and at least equally defensible approach. There is a question mark in my mind about linking from non-obvious terms like "sovereign country">sovereign state. I doubt whether it would meet FA standards, for example. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bring this up again, as it is a minor point, but I don't want to have to argue about re-editing this again, if we are considering this can we please have the tidier?:
It also has the virtue of making the four parts of the UK clearer, which I (think) everyone would agree is no bad thing.--SabreBD (talk)12:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - With two provisos: (i) that 'sovereign country' be changed to 'sovereign state and country'- a state is always a country but a country need not be a state - there should be no room for doubt that the UK remains a sovereign state (I am unsure as to why there is so much concern about describing the UK as a country, but have nothing against it, it is merely duplicative); and (ii) that, 'located off the north-western coast of continental Europe' goes before 'which includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands'.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment It's fine. I think it would be even better to combine it with RA's approach, which I also think is an excellent idea (even if the specific words have to be tweaked). I think his suggestion of putting it in context really is the answer...if what we are about is giving information rather than hanging POVs on particular words. DeCausa (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with De Causa. This lanuage is fine so far as it goes, but it conveys less information than RA's draft. A bit more context is required. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - I certainly prefer this proposal to some of the ones above as it does make clear the UK is a country, but i would prefer we tackle the EWSNI = countries issue in more detail in the second paragraph (as suggested above by RA) putting it into context and where we also mention the respective capitals, it seems to make sense to put all of that together, rather than touch on it in the first paragraph and second paragraph separately. But on this wording i too would prefer stating sovereign state and country separately as Rangoon suggests above. Although i would put it "country and sovereign state", that sounds the more correct order for some reason. Another alternative would be put sovereigncountry rather than it being one link to the state page. But i do think this is a better option than some of the others. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
This wording is my attempt to integrate what seems to be suggested by my, RA's, Rangoon11's and BritishWatcher's proposals - with a few tweaks to avoid duplication:
Support - A couple of minor points though: (i) I don't think that the comma before 'located off' is necessary; and (ii) I don't think that the comma after 'continental Europe' is necessary, and the following 'that' should in my view be 'which'.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think the comma after Europe is needed, but maybe we can leave that to the copyediting process. Otherwise, duly tweaked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - with the proviso of the minor changes I have already mentioned twice. Its funny I can see what I am typing but apparently no one else can.--SabreBD (talk)13:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I did see your suggestions, but I'm afraid (given that I normally agree with you) that I preferred my wording. Assuming they are not fundamental points, can they be left to the copyediting wizards to sort out later? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - I think this is a reasonable compromise which provides the reader with more information than the current article wording. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment - the UK is not a "unitary state" (sic). It certainly claims to be a unitary state, but anybody who knows anything whatsoever about the UK's constitution knows that nothing could be further from the truth. It is Wikipedia's duty to not only present what governments want the general public to believe, but also the cold, hard facts. --Mais oui! (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Not only is the UK a unitary state, it is frequently given as a classic example of such. Devolution has not affected the sovereignty of the Westminster parliament as power was devolved from it to the devolved parliaments and assemblies. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Very true, the UK parliament within a day could abolish all local councils, devolved assemblies and parliaments if needed. It may spark a little civil war and be politically difficult, but Westminster has the absolute power to do it. So the UK is still a unitary state with all power rested in one sovereign parliament above all other things. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. There's the old axiom - I can't remember who said it, probably someone like Bagehot, that parliament can do anything except turn a man into a woman and vice versa. Of course, that's possible now too... DeCausa (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose "…is a country and sovereign state…" ̄— This is an embarrassing hodgepodge of a tautology. However, mainly I oppose because: "It comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland…" —Northern Ireland has no history of being a country in its own right and is not one today (as can be seen in discussion of this question in reliable sources from across perspectives on Northern Ireland). The constituent parts of the UK may frequently be collectively described as countries but for the specific case of Northern Ireland that needs to be taken with a good measure of salt. We don't need to repeat it here as "fact" for the sake of stressing the country-ness other parts. --RA (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC
Your republican-friendly definition of 'country' is really only one of many RA, and you know that. The different definitions of country is one of the problems here: by using Sovereign State and country at least this is in some way expressing that. It also looks a little less awkward than I thought it might. But (correct me if I'm wrong anyone) we haven't explored just using "Sovereign state" and "countries within a country" yet have we? There are good sources for that one too. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Matt, enough with the personal attacks. If you cannot contribute here without passing comment on contributors (perceived) ethnic backgrounds or political perspectives as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views, you need to leave. You were warned already by another editor. Now, I'm warning you. If you continue, I'll simply report you.
I appreciate that most of your post above was not of that sort but that does not excuse your opening comment. --RA (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it by your definition though? I mean, the politics involved are written into the footnote of the United Kingdom article - that someone's opinion of the use of 'country' for NI can reveal their politics. I'm only following Wikipedia. Do you see my point? I've not said that there is anything wrong with wishing to unite Ireland (it's simply an opinion), only in bringing a bias into the text of Wikipedia (whatever non-immediate or even unintentional way that may be). Matt Lewis (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Matt, your approach to me demonstrate a bias and a lack of faith. It is a founding principle of Wikipedia that articles be written from a neutral point of view. That means representing fairly the views of differing reliable sources, including those which you find offensive to your personal sensibilities for one reason or another. Wikipedia is no place for you to pursue your politics and talk page discussions are no place for you to repeatedly attack me. I will not warn you again. Drop it. --RA (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, NPOV. Even with the best will, we don't always get it right do we? It's not actually personal, and you are wrong to insist it is. I'm entitled to complain that an actual edit has an inference (or bias) of anything I see in it. That is what Wikipedia editing (and working towards NPOV) is all about. You shouldn't take it personally, as much as anything it works to prevent me from making the point (another issue I keep having). If I am being too personal (like my "smell the coffee" comment) then ok, fair enough, complain. I do get exasperated at times, and I do sometimes add unneeded lines like the above (as many of us can, I think). But never in my points RA: they are honestly all about making articles NPOV. They are not me "persuing my poltics", and that suggestion is kind-of personal itself. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
That's BS. You wrongly labelled me an "Irish nationalist". You're unable to distinguish between NPOV and opposing your POV-pushing. In fact, to you, opposing your POV = lack of NPOV. DeCausa (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
But what have you got to do with it? Anyone would have made that mistake given your edits and the equal-weight to sovereign/republican "controversy" comments (etc) you made on my talk page - and it took you ages to explain your highly-unusual position in all this, despite my prompts. You were raw with me from the first time you spoke to me. The above comment of mine is both genuinely honest and is solid and reasonable too. The Northern Ireland section below created by RA is proof that he just won't let-up on this 'country' "controversy" issue - ok, it's his prerogative, but imo it just isn't helping at all. It's over at NI, and now here. I'm entitled to get a bit exasperated. This is a massive page that is now almost collapsing my PC. If you want me to stop commenting here just carry on creating new sections like that! Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Matt, all you need to do is confine your comments to content issues and STOP speculating on the motives of other editors. We'd all make a lot more progress is that rule was followed by everyone --SnowdedTALK05:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The rest of the sentence following "... Northern Ireland" doesn't seem as elegant as the rest. Perhaps something like ... Northern Ireland, the only part of the UK to share a land border with another a sovereign state (the Republic of Ireland). And after "... parliamentary system," perhaps change ... parliamentary system, with; its seat of government in the capital city of London. Re: "It was originally formed through a series of constitutional unions over several centuries ... " I'm not keen on beginning a sentence with "It was", though I can't think how to improve it at the moment, and "originally" seems redundant. How about these minor tweaks: The UK's three devolved national administrations, each with varying powers, are in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh; the capitals of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland respectively. As I say minor, and certainly not dealbreakers. Daicaregos (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
"[The UK] comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland…"
Hmmm. Now, we've been through the reliable sources (at least on Talk:Northern Ireland), so let's just take litmus test of what 'sounds right'.
Consider the following:
Northern Ireland is a country in Northern Europe
Northern Ireland is a country on the island of Ireland
Northern Ireland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom
None of those sentence sit very well. Compare with:
Scotland is a country in Northern Europe
Scotland is a country on the island of Great Britain
Scotland is a country that is part of United Kingdom
All of these are on far firmer ground, regardless of whether Scotland is sovereign or not.
And that's the problem. It appears that Northern Ireland is being whipped into this "country" issue for the benefit of other parts of the UK regardless of whether the appellation "country" is suitable for it or not. The very specific and unique history of Northern Ireland within the UK should not be obtusely ignored simply because it is inconvenient. England, Scotland and Wales are all considered countries because they represent specific and identifiable nations. They were countries before the United Kingdom and have kept that distinctiveness within the UK. Northern Ireland does not have that same history. It doesn't represent a specific and unique nation and it has no history of being a country in its own right.
Yes, it is possible to doggedly refuse to accede this point by pointing to questions that appear on census forms or some other whatnot. On the other hand, sources that specifically address Northern Ireland and precisly the question of what to call it say otherwise. For example:
"One specific problem - in both general and particular senses - is to know what to call Northern Ireland itself: in the general sense, it is not a country, or a province, or a state - although some refer to it contemptuously as a statelet: the least controversial word appears to be jurisdiction, but this might change." - S. Dunn and H. Dawson, 2000, An Alphabetical Listing of Word, Name and Place in Northern Ireland and the Living Language of Conflict, Edwin Mellen Press: Lampeter
This is represents specific challenges but ignoring it does not make it go away and does not do the subject justice. --RA (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
It is clearly true that Northern Ireland has no history of being a country in its own right. However, in the context of the constitutional history of United Kingdom, it does represent a specific and unique nation: the Kingdom of Ireland. (Remember, the Crown of Ireland Act 1542 is still very much in effect in NI).Ivor Stoughton (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
And that is regardless of what reliable sources say? Or are you saying that Scotland "is not a country, or a province, or a state" either? --RA (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The specific issues of terminology in relation to Northern Ireland can and should be addressed in greater detail in the main text of the article (rather than, as now, in a footnote). But, the question we are trying to address here is, what wording in the introductory two or three paragraphs provides the best summary of - or, if that can't be achieved, the most informative and neutral introduction to - those issues, in a way which gives them due weight, without either under- or over-emphasising their importance to the UK as a whole. No-one yet, anywhere so far as I can see, has come up with a clear and succinct terminology which describes the (arguably) varying degrees of "country-ness" of the four constituent parts of the UK. So, in my view we inevitably return to the question of whether it is necessary and helpful to describe either the UK or any of its constituent parts as a "country", given that that word is both ambiguous and, to some degree, contested. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, one size does not fit all. On the specific example of Northern Ireland, it takes a great deal of undue weight to pass Northern Ireland of as a "country" in the same sense as, say, Scotland. And therein lies the problem: this is a complex and nuanced matter that is being dealt with through sweeping statements in as few words as possible.
And yes, we've heard that it is imperative that (all of) these places be called "countries" in the introduction - but we have not heard what that imperative is. I don't believe that it is necessary or that it is helpful. I think it is more confusing than anything else. --RA (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Not in my book. Whilst there are sources that call northern Ireland other things, the same can be said for Wales and to a lesser degree Scotland and England. The main case for calling them countries is down to the fact things like the BBC and the Government along with certain government agencies call them all countries. If we suddenly stop saying Northern Ireland is a country then every single source that states it is one should be disqualified from being used as justification for England, Wales and Scotland being countries. That would seriously weaken their right to be called countries, and all 4 "country" articles would have to be revisited. Sources or no sources, the fact remains today as an entity Northern Ireland has just as much right to be called country as Scotland. In fact, in one way it has more right because the British and Irish governments have absolutely guaranteed they will respect the people of Northern Ireland's wish on its constitutional future. Scotland has no such assurance. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The language here ("hmmm" etc) and all the incorrect stuff (this is over at NI talk too) is a huge hindrance to following this talk page in my opinion. The tone isn't right at all, as it is so dismissive of the (almost-full) majority of people in this discussion who accept the many NI "country" sources. Can't we keep this at NI? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Tweak for NI
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a country and sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe, that which includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands. It comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (although the latter is not always referred to as a country ). Apart from a land border with the Republic of Ireland, the UK is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the English Channel and the Irish Sea.
Oppose The footnote gets too politiced, and the others aren't always called "countries" either (esp Wales, though not so much these days, like NI). I do wish you'd read up on this DC. And I thought we were creating in identity section to bypass the footnote anyway? That was your best idea. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I've read up on it plenty. There is overwhelming coverage of E/W/S being referred to as countries. Non-point. DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Strongly oppose - This crude wording gives a misleading impression of Northern Ireland having a different status within the UK than the other home nations. A textbook definition of WP:UNDUE.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose ("although the latter is not always referred to as a country") is sloppy and appears to contradict the previous description of NI as a country.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Sovereign State and "countries within a country".
The United Kingdom (fully titled United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and commonly termed United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign state in the archipelago situated off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The UK comprises the whole island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and a number of smaller islands around its coasts. Waters that surround the UK are the Atlantic Ocean in the west, the Irish Sea (between Ireland and Great Britain), the North Sea in the east, and the English Channel between the European mainland in the south. The UK has only one land border with another sovereign state, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Note, It can apply to the old text too of course, I just personally found it a bit creaky. Probably becuase it's been re-written around these problematic terms so many times. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
@Matt: I don't want to be a pain, and you may dislike my wording as "clunky" or whatever, but there are a number of wording points in your draft that just don't work, or are unnecessary. That is one reason why I haven't commented on your options before. "Comprises of" is ungrammatical. The islands are not necessarily "near its coasts" (Shetland?) The Atlantic is not "west of NI" (Donegal is), but it is west of Cornwall. "Towards Scandinavia" is unnecessary verbiage. "Before the European mainland".... ?? "Just the one" - unencyclopaedic. It is not "governed under" a constitutional monarchy. This is not intended to have a go at you in any way - just some copyediting comments really, to explain why I haven't made "my" options match "your" wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
You are right, I'm using colloquial speech. And as for "west of Ireland" - I'd forgotten how low in comparison NI was! I've removed it anyway. The island/coast idea is to specify UK islands (ie not Irish ones) - I've changed it to "around". I'll try "between" for "before" re Europe (though neither did seem perfect to me I admit). I used 'Scandinavia' so not to use England there (or repeat Great Britain) - I'll just remove it. It is an encyclopedia after all, so I've made your changes. The "governed under" line wasn't mine - I just copied and pasted it from the main article - so oviously I'll delete it. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Aren't we trying all the possible variations to see which is best? (ie with an open mind?). You used to insist on "country! Matt Lewis (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
"I want..." never got my children anything. I suggest that, here, there needs to be a justification, and it should be based on sources and WP policy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Ive stated above reasons why i believe it needs stating in the introduction so i see no need to repeat it. That is why i have supported your proposal above, it makes clear the UK is a country and sovereign state, then makes clear its made up of four countries. That looked like the thing that would get the most support as it meets most peoples criteria. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Heaven forbid i want an article on a country to say it is a country in its introduction. I know im extremely unreasonable arnt i?! BritishWatcher (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I've made many proposals.... (sigh) One option seems to be (as well as describing the UK as a sovereign state) to describe "everywhere" (both UK and E/S/W/NI) as "countries" in the lead/lede; the other option is to describe none of them as "countries". The question is, which of those is most neutral and balanced? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe the - "Attempting to integrate the proposals" one has been by far the most fair and reasonable one so far so i support that one. It provides more information to the reader than leaving off the fact the UK and EWSNI are considered countries which seems to be the next fairest option, but not saying the UK is a country in the introduction of an article on a country is unthinkable, so its not the right option. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The United Kingdom (fully titled United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and commonly termed United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a Sovereigncountry that shares the archipelago off the north-western coast of continental Europe. It consists of four "countries within a country": England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The UK comprises the whole island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and a number of smaller islands around its coasts. Waters that surround the UK are the Atlantic Ocean in the west, the Irish Sea (between Ireland and Great Britain), the North Sea in the east, and the English Channel between the European mainland in the south. The UK has only one land border with another sovereign state, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
This is based on Ghmytles' neat "Sovereigncountry" idea (a poll that seems to have been missed by people), and includes his suggestions to my prose. I've linked "Sovereign" to the 'Sovereign state' article, and "country" to the 'Country' article. There are decent sources for "countries within a country". I personally favour linking all of island of Ireland in these circumstances, as it's most unambiguous version (and this is the United Kingdom article) - but it's a small issue. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
If the lead notes that Britain can stand, pars pro toto, for the UKoGB&NI, it seems at best unhelpful not to state that England can do likewise. There seem to be sufficient sources disputing the idea that the UK0GB&NI is a unitary state to make the inclusion of this factoid in the lead questionable. If union state were found to be the commoner term - I do not believe that it is, but I haven't devoted much time to the question - this would allow the question of how to describe the components of the union to be nearly avoided by simply enumerating them as parts of the union state. The red-linkiness of that term is easily resolved since it is widely discussed.
Taking ghmyrtle's text as the basis, a very quick draught incorporating these two points would look something like:
Pure garbage, wasting (even more) space on an already farcical discussion page. We are really plumbing the depths now. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, Angus is correct. If anything England is the most commom term for the United Kingdom outside the United Kingdom; its usage is no more "right" or "wrong" than "Great Britain", and to deny this usage is burying head in sand. Even UK embassies frequently refer to their state as "England" in their own public statements! Angus is right too about the United Kingdom not really being a "unitary state". This is a bit of a fiction. France is, the UK is not. It's composed of four units, legally composed of three, which the political class and people believe to have popular sovereignty (no-one disputes that any part has the moral right to break away if they decide); the untested philosophical idea that the crown or UK parliament are the ultimate source of all lower powers is undermined by this and by the treaties which established the state, not to mention the existence of these parliaments. But Wikipedians ... we love our ideological fictions! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It is therefore difficult to resist the conclusion that Westminster is in practice no longer sovereign over the domestic affairs of Scotland and Wales; or that, at the very least, the sovereignty of Parliament means something very different in Scotland, and to some extent in Wales from what it means in England. In England, the sovereignty of Parliament corresponds to a genuine supremacy over ‘all persons, matters and things’. In Scotland, by contrast, it seems to mean little more than a vague right of supervision over the Scottish Parliament. Parliament’s sovereignty over England still corresponds to a real power to make laws affecting every aspect of England ’s domestic affairs. In Scotland, by contrast, it no longer corresponds to such a real power, but to a power-fairly nebulous in practice, one may suspect- to supervise another legislative body which enjoys the real power to make laws over a wide area of public policy. Perhaps, then, devolution is nearer to federalism than might at first sight appear.
Strong oppose. Its unacceptable. "Britain" is not an incorrect term for the United Kingdom. England absolutely is incorrect and any British government department or agency that makes such a mistake today needs to have complaints sent in about such an offensive error. England is not Britain or the United Kingdom and it will be a complete waste of time to debate this option any further. The United Kingdom is a unitary state although i accept that second point is a more valid one that is worthy of discussion at least. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't get why it's wrong either. Sure England is also a unit inside the United Kingdom; but likewise, so is Great Britain. Great Britain ceased to be the name of a state at the beginning of the 19th century, England at the beginning of the 18th, but both terms have continued to be used for what is, let's not kid ourselves, basically the same state that's existed since the 9th/10th century. If "England" is in general use for the United Kingdom, then that's just the way it is, and surely Wikipedia has to reflect that? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I dont deny it happens, it is just inaccurate and unhelpful. As for the link, alternative languages/translations is more complicated. I type in İngiltere into the Google Translator it returns United Kingdom. This is the English language wikipedia and England does not equal the United Kingdom there for it does not belong in the introduction. Ive no objection to some reference about sometimes England is used mistakenly for UK, but its not notable enough for the introduction and certainly not acceptable to suggest it has equal status to use of Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
But it does. I understand you think it shouldn't, but in practice it does.(search "England is an island" in google books, or experiment otherwise) Meaning in language is structural as much as anything else, but Inglitere in Turkish means "England" and "UK" just like in English (with England-proper being its primary meaning--check Turkish wikipedia) The difference is just that there aren't many people objecting to the "inaccuracy" in the Turkish language. As you probably have realised yourself, most English people themselves if left to it won't naturally distinguish the two concepts. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Angus has made the most astute and constructive contribution to this "debate" (sic) for donkeys years. I duly expect it to be savaged by the usual suspects who know zilch about the topic of the UK's constitution. That in itself ought to be a pointer to intelligent Users to step in now and over-ride the dafties. However, this being Wikipedia, I duly expect the UK lede and article to be a hilarious mess for many happy years to come. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It was certainly disconcerting to hear Obama refer to the "Queen of England" the other day, and there's no doubt that some people around the world do refer to the UK as England. But it's wrong for WP to give such incorrect uses equal status with the more formal correct uses, that is, the UK and Britain (not Great Britain, which is an island). We could possibly refer to the (mis)use of the term "England" in the proposed Etymology / Terminology section, but not in the introductory sentence of the article. "Union state", whether accurate or not, is a never-used neologism that is even worse than "constituent country". And the terminology in Turkish seems irrelevant here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Whilst I'm sure well-intentioned, the proposal and the supporting comments must win the prize for the most misunderstandings per line on this page. DeCausa (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, an obvious one. "the untested philosophical idea that the crown or UK parliament are the ultimate source of all lower powers". Until 1972, Northern Ireland had its own Prime Minister, executive and legislature. It probably had more local powers than the current administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It got those powers via the Westminster parliament's Government of Ireland Act 1920. In 1972, the Westminster parliament decided to take those powers back and the Northern Ireland governmental structure was got rid of in that year. The powers of the current Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Ireland administrations are similarly derived from Acts of the Westminster Parliament passed in the late 1990s. No Wesminster parliament can bind a future Westminster parliament, so, just as with Northern Ireland in 1972, those powers can be taken back by repealing (or suspending) those Acts. Now compare that with a federal system like the US. The US Congress cannot lawfully legislate to take the core powers away from a state legislature. That's because those powers are not derived from any Act of Congress but from the constitution (ultimately), which Congress can't change (by itself). That, in a nut-shell is the difference between a unitary and a federal state. As for "Union State", is there even one source that describes the UK with that term? DeCausa (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
(1) DeCausa is right. Enoch Powell said "power devolved is power retained". That is the difference between devolution and federalism. Westminster set up the 3 devolved assemblies; it could abolish them all tomorrow if it so chose.
(2) The French when they write "Angleterre" usually mean "Britain". In the EU translation departments they put "Britain" or "UK" when a French document has "Angleterre". They don't put "England". A lot of foreign languages don't bother to make the distinction. You can debate whether this is just through ignorance/sloppiness or an acceptable variation in those languages. But it doesn't mean that in English we can say that England is an acceptable term for Britain. It is simply incorrect. The proposal is completely unacceptable. -- Alarics (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, DeCausa, read what I wrote in my first post. I clearly understand the thought process, but nonetheless show that it is is ideological fiction. Certain things are actually out of parliament's power, whether or not a few ideologues chose to accept that or not. Parliament can test the binding successors nonsense by, for instance, trying to revoke recognition of Canadian or indeed US independence. Let's see how that goes. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Obviously. But the withdrawal of devolved powers is not in that category, as the 1972 Northern Ireland example shows. DeCausa (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that we are at something of an impasse, in relation to the specific issue of how the introductory section describes the UK and E/S/W/NI. Take these statements (they are not suggestions for the wording of the text, just principles for consideration):
1. "The UK is a country and sovereign state [or, sovereign country] comprising the countries of E/S/W/NI"
2. "The UK is a sovereign state comprising E/S/W/NI"
3. "The UK is a country and sovereign state [or, sovereign country] comprising the countries of E/S/W/NI (but NI has special circumstances that need to be mentioned here)"
4. "The UK is a country comprising the countries of E/S/W/NI" [i.e. "countries within a country"]
It seems to me that some editors prefer using wording type 1, and some prefer wording type 2, but there is less support for wording type 3 or type 4. Is that a fair assessment, taking into account all the discussion above? And, if it is a fair assessment, is there any point in continuing the debate between the two approaches (1 and 2) here, or is there a case for requesting some form of mediation involving uninvolved editors? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The discussions, which had begun on 23 February, concluded with a table showing support for each option. One of those options was accepted unamimously on 14 March 2011 and implemented as consensus (which lasted until the current discussions). Perhaps a similar table would help now. Daicaregos (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe this is a fair summary and thanks very much for dragging it all back together. It seems the fundamental issue (but there are others) is the description of E/S/W/NI as countries. I would rather try Daicaregos return to a table as I fear any mediation will necessarily fail to satisfy some.--SabreBD (talk)12:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Per Sabrebd. And also thanks to Ghmyrtle for the above, who for some time has been doing more than his fair share in trying to get a resolution this. DeCausa (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Just one further thought. The current version, I think, is more or less than the version that was stable for a couple of months before this blew up in the last week. Everyone, obviously, has their preferences on what it should be. Clearly there's quite a lot of fatigue/irritation/frustration about the length and nature of this discussion and the apparent lack of any prospect of resolution. Is it worth putting the foot on the ball and just seeing if there is a consensus for calling a halt to this and making do with what we've got now "warts and all"? A binary question: carry on the discussion or leave as is? There was a reason why we got to where we got to before. DeCausa (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, it goes back to MickMacNee's concerns about the footnote. One alternative, perhaps, would be for you, DeCausa - as you've already started this - to draft a suitable Etymology / Terminology section which might avoid the need for a footnote (and perhaps help resolve all our other problems at the same time...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Unethusiastically: OK, but, as far as I remember only mick objected to the principle of the footnote and only Matt object to its wording. But I'll have a go. DeCausa (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, as suggested, here's a new proposal: a new terminology subsection at this link (based on the etymolgy subsection I previously proposed, some wording on "Britain" and the footnote wording); the footnote would then come out, but otherwise the Lead would be left as it currently is. (Btw, don't forget that the etymology part is part of my wider history section proposal, so the etymolgy parts then results in some deletions from the history section to avoid repetion) DeCausa (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
That looks hopeful to me, but as a side (?) issue ... I was confused by the last two sentences of your draft, and then read the Home Office document... which confused me even more. So, according to the Home Office, "the name 'Britain' or 'Great Britain' refers only to England, Scotland and Wales, not to Northern Ireland." Interesting... Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there's an imbalance of sources at the moment with just a newspaper style guide saying it = the UK and a govt. publication saying it = GB. The reality, as I think we all know, is that it can be either, depending on context. DeCausa (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
DeCausa I do not like your (and others) persistent attempts to mis-present me as someone whose mission is to confuse. I am not on a mission to confuse. I have spent YEARS studying the ins-and-outs of long-form Names and short-form Names, naming convensions, constitutional documents, styles and titles. I am not going to put up with these indirect personal attacks any further. I know what I am talking about. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
You missed an option. 5) The United Kingdom is a sovereign state and country comprising of EWSNI. (ie UK = Country, but we do not call ESWNI countries). I support option 1 though, with it clearly stating the UK is a country and sovereign state. Along with saying EWSNI are countries, we may as well say this as the other articles describe them as countries but it is good if it includes an explanation like initially formed...... etc BritishWatcher (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
There's also "United Kingdom is a country, consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales". GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Until the pro-countries of E/N/S/W crowd, starts showing flexiability -- this discussion will continually flare up. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It's called pushing for NPoV & yes, it will continue. As long as your side continues to dig in, quaurenteed the discussion will keep flairing up. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Obviously I disagree with your characterisation of your position as 'pushing for NPoV' though I accept that you may believe that to be the case. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!. No, the UK is quite unique. The EU is the product of individual sovereign states ceding some sovereignty but, for now anyway, retaining enough to argue that each remains individually sovereign. It is similar in many regards to the early stages of the USA when the individual states ceded some sovereignty while claiming they individually retained sovereignty. Of course, following the attempt of southern states to secede in the 19th century that resulted in the civil war, it is now clear that individual states do not have the right to secede - yet they each claim to be sovereign. The UK is different because at its origin, two sovereign states handed over all sovereignty to the newly created state. This act did not end these countries as legal entities as their separate legal systems continued. Scotland, therefore, was a sovereign country prior to 1707 but having yielded its sovereignty, is now a non sovereign county. This has led to the interesting - perhaps unique - situation of the UK being a sovereign country that is made up of non sovereign countries. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I think some editors here also need to understand that whilst WP consensus does not mean democracy it also does not mean unanimity. It is clear that whatever approach is followed with the lead of this article some editors will be unhappy with the text, and will be vocal about it. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
That is probably inevitably true - which makes it even more important that the process of getting there is defensible. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I am now quite confused by all this. Is there a specific proposal now on the table for discussion? Personally I would not object if the article were left as it stands now, though it's obviously not ideal. -- Alarics (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree and that's the point I made earlier (up). Ghmyrtle suggested in response that we would need to take out the footnote and replace it with some text in the body of the article. I suggested this but only Ghmyrtle made a relevant reply. DeCausa (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the introduction stays as it is unless and until there is agreement (somehow) that it be changed to something else. Someone could be bold, perhaps, and insert DeCausa's paragraphs (though I think it may need some wording tweaks) and see whether its inclusion changes anyone's mind about the opening sentences; or we agree a process for taking the next step. If people agree to have a !vote on options we can do that - though it's very highly unlikely that any proposals would get 100% support - or we agree to some form of mediation process. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"An archipelago"
This is the language presently in the lede: "The country is part of an archipelago that includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands".
I'm concerned this is a bit misleading. The country includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands. The archipelago in question includes rather more geography. Doesn't this sentence suggest that the archpelago is coterminous with the territory of the country? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
What I find misleading is that it says the country is part of an archipelago, then goes on to describe the archipelago in geographic terms that would be accurate for the country, but conveys oddly incomplete information about the archipelago. A similar-in-kind statement would be "Scotland is a country that is part of the island of Great Britain, which includes the northern-third of the island of Great Britain."Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, that is the name of the archipelago in question, yes. So we could say: "The country occupies the major part of the British Isles archipelago, including the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands." We could also leave the archipelago out all together and simply say "The country includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands." Ivor Stoughton (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Changing "that" to "and" in the current text would resolve the issue. I would advise against adding the term "British Isles". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Although, it's always sounded a rather odd statement, and not particularly useful/notable. What's wrong with just saying "The country comprises the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller adjacent islands".
Yes, that would solve the problem. If we decide to keep "archipelago" per Daicaregos below we should hyperlink to the specific archipelago rather than to the article describing what an archipelago is in general terms.Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It would be a shame to lose that information. It could be moved into the preceding sentence, where it would make more sense: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign state that is part of an archipelago off the north-western coast of continental Europe.Daicaregos (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. A state is a political construct and an archipelago is a physical feature, and I think it would be better if the two were not combined in a single sentence. The text refers to islands, and I don't think it adds much information to use the particular term "archipelago". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The north-western coast of continental Europe is a physical feature, not a political construct, but the two have been combined already in the same sentence. Daicaregos (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Archipelago - whilst technically correct - just sounds slightly OTT to describe something that is adequately covered anyway by the text in the rest of the sentence. I assume it went in at some point in lieu of the-islands-that-must-not-be-named.
"Archipelago" reads like a feeble attempt to avoid offending certain editors & readers. The 'pedia frowns on practicing censurship, so we should use "British Isles". GoodDay (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
We should actually state what the archipelago is called.. Its the British Isles. However there has been a crusade on wikipedia to rid the term by certain editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
That seems alright to me, though I am not altogether sure why we need to use the word 'archipelago' at all. Does it really add anything useful? -- Alarics (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't like linking from "archipelago" to "British Isles", which seems to contravene WP:EGG - that is, someone clicking on the word "archipelago" would expect to go to an article about archipelagos in general rather than one about a specific one. So, I think I will change that. But personally I see no benefit in linking to either archipelago or British Isles in the introduction. It may be necessary to refer to "BI" in the Terminology section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Not sure that WP:EGG weighs against linking to the specific archipelago, as the context of the usage in the sentence very obviously refers to a specific archipelago, rather than archipelagos in general. The policy seems to be that a reader "should not be surprised" after clicking on a link. Do you mean to suggest that a reader would be surprised when, after reading that the U.K. is "part of an archipelago", they clicked on a link that took them to the article about the archipelago of which the U.K. is part? But it does seem odd that the BI aren't mentioned in an article about the U.K. Surely we are concerned first with accuracy, not whether accurate information "offends anyone"? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it is bizarre not to mention the British Isles anywhere. The term exists whether anyone likes it or not, and it has a clearly recognised meaning which is in perfectly respectable use. It is our job to document what is the case, not what some people would like to think is the case. -- Alarics (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to remove the unnecessary mention of the archipelago from the introduction (which already mentions "island[s].. off the.. coast of Europe"), and to refer to the "British Isles" terminology question in the Terminology section. That would give all the necessary information. I have made no mention anywhere of anything "offending" anyone - that was GoodDay's unsubstantiated allegation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
That seems fine to me. Not sure that the Terminology section is the place to refer to the British Isles. As it is a geographical term, I think the Geography section would be the place to do it. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Edits by AgadaUrbanit, DeCausa and Ghmyrtle made this morning (28 May 2011)
As this talkpage is a nightmare to navigate, I thought it would be helpful to just draw together and highlight the edits made this morning, and the reason for them. Ghmyrtle and myself yesterday (subsequently concurred with by Alarics) were taking the view that the discussion was not heading to any sort of resolution and maybe we should just settle for what is currently in the Lead (which had been stable for a couple of months) even though it's not ideal. It was thought, however, that the footnote should come out and be put in some form in the main body of the article, combined with the etymology section I proposed (part of my suggested revisions of the History section set out in this thread: Talk:United Kingdom#History section - proposal for changes). I therefore posted a draft sub-section. AgadaUrbanit then made a bold edit putting it in. I then added the draft of the new History section (since the etymology proposal makes for a lot of repetition without it) and Ghmyrtle then removed the footnote. Although the new sections will clearly need tweaking, the hope is these additions provide enough context to enable the Lead to be now left alone. I hope this can receive consensus support. DeCausa (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
What else can you do? There are certain editors here, who are more concerned about their own preferences, then the article itself. Not accepting "United Kingdom is a sovereign state, consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales", was disruption on their part. Each & everytime, this discussion flair ups, it's own their stubborn heads. GoodDay (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
There you go again, GoodDay, making sweeping, unsubstantiated comments about other editors' purported motives without evidence to back up your claims save that they happen to disagree with you. Regarding stbborn heads, err..... your constant monotonous refrain on this talk page speaks volumes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Please stop this childish squabbling. We have arrived at a compromise solution that surely most people can live with. Let us leave it at that. -- Alarics (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
A request: let's keep this thread short and to the point. Just indicate whether you can live with this or not. No need for rebuttals, smart comments etc that's all been done to death (including by me). DeCausa (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes.. -- to losing the footnote - fine (that was my own issue with it, though it's not a great read I agree). However I do see issues with the new section, but I'm taking a few days off now, so I'll contribute when I return if need be. At least the offending line is out of the introduction - but there still needs to be work on it, per all my comments above. Quotes can be useful, but they don't patch every issue: and here we have a catagorical statement (in the "can") - within quotes! (as if a pop star said it about his love life!) But at least the stuff is in the article now, and I'm sure the right prose will eventually sort things out. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes - Im a bit late but i do support this solution. The wording is not ideal but its a reasonable compromise to maintain a stable article. Although i do think a sentence or two on nationality should also be dealt with in that section, explaining people can identify as English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Northern Irish and British, but legally all from UK are of British nationality / citizenship and the situation with Northern Ireland where they can be Irish citizens too. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Summary It seems that most of the major contributors to this lengthy debate have given there support to the recent changes. There are a few who are unhappy with what we have at the moment, but it seems that we have a general and wide consensus. Mentions in dispatches particularly to Ghmyrtle and DeCausa for patience above and beyond the call of duty. If an editor has further points on this part of the article please open up a new thread below and keep in mind the hard fought consensus we have here. Everyone else bookmark this when it goes to the archives, I expect it will rise again.--SabreBD (talk)09:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I've gripes about it, but since it's 18-2 in favour, I'm not interested in continuing the discussion. 'Til next time. GoodDay (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
People need to seriously stop calling what goes on at this talk page the forming of 'consensus'. This lastest round included, it is at best just a series of long and rambling discussions involing the 'regulars' making and repeating ad nauseum the same largely POV points, and which always bizarrely seems to end in a vote or other exercise in 1-member-1-voice form of accounting. There's not a single thing about that process which is encouraged on Wikipedia if the goal is to actually form WP:CONSENSUS. The fact that as ever the process has not a single element of independent review or summarisation, and has been as ever completely lite on policy, guideline or reference to common good practice on other peer reviewed articles, only underscores that. And right to the end we still bizarrely had claims that keeping the footnote was acceptable, due to the rather obvious fact that these unproductive rambling sessions more often than not end up with no discernable support for doing anything, so leaving the article in a state in which it could never become Featured because it's such a giant policy violating crap bag, somehow turns out to be the 'consensus'. It cannot be so, by definition. The current version still has major issues, but at least they are now out in the open in plain text, and can at some point be addressed cluefully and independently and without tedious claims that it is the 'consensus' version that can be repeatedly edit warred over to maintain. It's not, and thus it cannot. MickMacNee (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It depends what you intend to show by closing it. If you mention the c-word, I will of course object. If you want to close it without having to respond to the above post, I suggest you use some other wording. MickMacNee (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
But I appear to be the only person who has ever seemingly read WP:CON before I feel able to claim to see a 'consensus'. You can not care about whatever you like, you don't care what WP:CON says just like you didn't care what the MoS and WP:NPOV said about the use footnotes. This is Wikipedia, and such willfull ingorance of basic good practises will only get you so far. And tinkering with pages that will never be Featured, is it, I'm afraid. I'm almost tempted to put this up for FAR, to demonstrate what would happen to it. It would be ripped apart. MickMacNee (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
ah, I was forgetting you have to include a summary when you close. Well, I'm not going to get into a childish squabble with you about the summary, and SabreBD has already provided a sumary anyway. I don't think anyone can be bothered to respond to your last posts, so this will just be archived in due course. DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Great Britain
An IP tried to insert "Great Britain" as one of the alternative names for the UK, which was reverted. And I put into the new terminology section that Great Britain is never used to mean the UK. However, I'm having second thoughts on that. I think it is quite clear that there is substantial foreign (particularly American) usage of Great Britain to mean the UK. Merriam-Webster has GB as a synonym for UK. Also, footnote 6 in Terminology of the British Isles, curiously supposedly supporting the statement that GB is never UK says "Great Britain", New Oxford American Dictionary: "Great Britain: England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom." There is also the issue of the Olympics team - although that is explicable because pre-2004, the GB Olympic Association didn't technically include Northern Ireland. So that's a just a historical hangover.
I think we need to recognize this usage, and explain it as it is something that clearly crops up. I suggest the following change in the new Terminology section:
The United Kingdom is often referred to by the short-form name of Britain. Great Britain normally refers only to England, Scotland and Wales, and, particularly in the UK, is not favoured as an alternative name for the United Kingdom. (REF:Guardian Unlimited Style Guide, Guardian News and Media Limited, 2007). However, some foreign usage, particularly in the United States, uses Great Britain as a synonym for the United Kingdom (REF: Merriam-Webster.) (REF:New Oxford American Dictionary: "Great Britain: England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom.")
In addition, Britain is also sometimes used as an abbreviation for Great Britain, meaning only England, Scotland and Wales,(REF:ref name= citizenship/) as in the 1947-1997 nationalised corporation British Railways, which never included Northern Ireland.
Clearly the statement that Great Britain is never used is wrong but it not as common as it was in the 19th Century. Certainly Obama in his recent interview with the BBC used the term Great Britain three times rather then the United Kingdom[4]. But as DeCausa has said this just needs to be explained in the terminology section. Not convinced that British Railways was so named because it covered only the island of Great Britain it was just like most thing associated with the UK and uses the description British. MilborneOne (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Dont disagree that it the current view about usage of Great Britain but you cant go back and change history or stop foreigners like US presidents from using the term. As has been suggested this just needs to be explained in the terminology section. MilborneOne (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, Britain meaning UK is not "accurate" but it is widely accepted and sanctioned by governmental use. There's never any strict right and wrong in this, we just need to record usage. DeCausa (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I've gone ahead a made a bold edit (and added something on national identity as well as discussed above) DeCausa (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
"I've often heard the United Kingdom called Great Britain" says GoodDay. I haven't often, but I have very occasionally - but only by people who don't know what they are talking about. Do we have to validate everybody who ever says anything, however incorrect? The fact that officially "Great Britain" means England, Scotland and Wales is surely shown once and for all by the fact that the full proper title of the UK is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". If "Great Britain" already included Northern Ireland, there would be no need to put "and Northern Ireland". -- Alarics (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
You could say the same thing about Britain, which after all is just a contraction of GB - it's just more widely used in the UK. I think that 2 dictionaries equating UK with GB and widespread "incorrect" use in the US justifies a mention. DeCausa (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the OED puts it quite well:
"Great Britain: England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom."
