Talk:United Kingdom/Subdivision name archive 1

England/Wales/Scotland/ N. Ireland

These are not countries; they are provinces. I don't want to jump in and edit a locked page, so this needs discussion :P

Thanks Cmjrees (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest you look through the archives at this issue? Simillarly, this is a very well established consensus you're challenging, one that has far reaching implications well beyond this article. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We've discussed this so much it should really be an FAQ. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's quite a good idea. I know Talk:United States has a good one. I'd endorss that idea. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A summary of past major discussions would help new comers to the article to have some background of how we arrived at what we have today and hopefully steer them away from bringing up the same things again. Keith D (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I did something similar, though not as thorough and complete, in the Scotland page called Talk:Scotland#Just the facts Ma'am -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has been changed recently to say first it is a country and then that it is just a political union. It is not a political union, the European Union is a political union, the UK is a country with 4 constituent countries. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 15:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been changed back again. Good. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a small start on what an FAQ might look like at User talk:DJ Clayworth/UKFAQ. Feel free to comment here or on my talk page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. We need to up the citation a bit there (I think User:UKPhoenix79 might be able to help with that), and also, I'd advocate that we mention the UK is also a country, and described as such. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow thanks Jza84 for the praise, but most of the references pertaining to this subject are already on the Scottish Talk page so take all the references you need. If anythings missing just let me know and I'll do my best to help :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"The article has been changed recently to say first it is a country and then that it is just a political union. It is not a political union, the European Union is a political union, the UK is a country with 4 constituent countries." - the UK is a country that is a political union of other countries - surely that's not disputed is it? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not me, but it does seem a step backwards, editorially speaking, to include it the way it is, with citation and brackets, and in the middle of a long-standing lead section. I'd suggest a revert/rethink. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that better? - I've now avoided the use of brackets. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better, to my tastes and sensibilities anyway! Thanks Fishiehelper2! --Jza84 |  Talk  22:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would never call it a politial union. The overall power in the UK is parliament, one single political institution which oversees all of the constituent countries. Some low-level basic stuff has been devolved, mostly trivial stuff but in no way shape or form are the devolved assemblies equal to parliament which is what a union suggests. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 01:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The devolved assemblies/parliaments have major executive powers, on education, health and justice, and a range of other issues - more than, usually, many English (inhabitants!) realise. The UK is a country, but it is built on political union (see History of the formation of the United Kingdom and Template:UKFormation). --Jza84 |  Talk  01:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

They have small minor domestic powers with no influence on world politics. They just like them to think they are more important because they will kick up a stink if they think they are not. The real power lies within parliament, deciding where to build a new school is not real power. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 01:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joshii. The UK is a political union because that was how it was formed and not because there happen to be devolved institutions today in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Treaty of Union is the key to all this: sovereign countries agreed to form a single, sovereign country. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My two cents on the matter would be that the UK was formed by a political union, but to say 'the UK is a political union' would be dubious and POV.--Breadandcheese (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't quite follow the logic of your point. If the UK was formed by a political union, which you concede, then why would it no longer be a political union now? Indeed, the reason why politicians choose to call themselves 'unionist' is because they wish to defend the union. Anyway, the article political union gives the United Kingdom as an example of a political union which suggests that others take a similar view on this matter. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone care to cite sources stating this one way or another? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two references at the political union article. I've also found this quote (from what appears to be University notes from Sweden!) - "The United Kingdom is a political union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (originally included the whole of Ireland). Sovereign title is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." - still looking! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

When they formed the union (of constituent countries) they surrendered their political power over to parliament and it is only recently that some small powers have been given back to the other countries but overall parliament is the ruling government of the UK. Thats why we have the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the head of state is the Queen of the UK and her Commonwealth realms. The UK represents iself in the EU as a country with one leader, not a union with a leader for each constituent country. The term politial union is thrown about quite alot as it simplifies the complex system of government in this country but overall parliament rules, not England rules, parliament represents the whole of the UK. Maybe it was thought that bringing the counties together would be a political union but it is not like that today and when Scotland and England joined it was the joining of crowns, not political union. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 22:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Union of the Crowns forced a personal union; a (as opposed to the) enlarged political union came a century later. The Parliament of the United Kingdom is the top-tier deliberative assembly for the UK, and has supreme power, but it has devolved powers to the national/sub-national (<- take your pick) bodies. OK, these devolved parliments/assemblies are basically there for domestic issues. I'm not sure what it is that is up for debate here though; is it that "political union" be removed from the lead? If so (and I don't really feel strongly about it eitherway), why so? Certainly the source (i.e. an article from The Telegraph) would benefit from a substitution as a minimum here. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this started when I changed the phrase order to clarify a clumsy wording and further well-meant changes cascaded from it. I will try again. Howard Alexander (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you intentions are good, but you seem to have removed the important claim that 'the United Kingdom is a political union' without any explanation. I added the phrase because I feel it is important for any reader to understand that the UK was formed as a result of sovereign countries agreeing to join as one, but of course, it could break up again in the future. It appears that everyone accepts that the UK was formed by political union but some are not sure about describing the UK as a political union. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My revert has since been reverted by another editor, without any sort of explanation. In an attempt to find consensus I've made a minor change instead to describe the UK as 'a Union' rather than as 'a political union' - there a loads of sources to show that this description is both valid and frequently used. Hope this satisfies everybody! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not reverted or amended at all. Is it a question of approach though? The heading describes the United Kingdom in brief terms, including its position and rough extent. The history of how it was created is a separate matter and not really a matter for the heading. The mention of the constituent countries (an unofficial term of mere convenience) is useful for context and because it would be expected, but it is not the right point in the article to try to do a summary analysis of history or politics.

If we say "these traditional areas are recognized to exist geographically and as the extent of separate legal systems" that is fine and accurate. If one tries to hint that they have some legal status as extant if dormant states waiting to leap out again, that is incorrect; read the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1800.

Howard Alexander (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howard Alexander. I think you are putting your interpretation on things here: I think you'll find that the Republic of Ireland is an independent country despite the wording of the Acts of Union - the reality is that the United Kingdom is a democracy and it is accepted that Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland (or England for that matter) could leave the Union if that was the wish of the people in those countries. That puts the constituent countries of the UK in a different position from States in the USA which do not have a right to secede. That the UK is a Union is more that a historical point - it is as much a key point about the nature of the UK as to say that the UK is a democracy or to say that the UK is a monarchy. I really don't see why this point appears to be causing particular concern. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, just to butt in: democratic theory is inherently opposed to nationalism and secession. Moreover, if the constituent countries of the UK wanted to depart, they could only do so with the consent of the UK Parliament: they certainly have no 'right' to secede. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Breadandcheese. I don't know where you get the view that 'democratic theory is inherently opposed to nationalism and secession' - maybe that's for another discussion! However, while you are correct that the UK Parliament would have to approve Scottish independence, it has been accepted by the leading politicans of the main parties that Scotland could have independence if that was the will of the people. This position stands in contrast to say the situation of the Basques in Spain who have been told that Spain is indivisible and the Basque Country will never get independence whether they want it or not!

Perhaps we are getting away from the point - the UK is one of a very small number of countries that was formed by sovereign states agreeing to merge into a new country. This Union is more than just a historical point - it is a major issue in elections in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales - therefore the fact that the UK is a Union must be a significant point to make! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely technically a union of 3 Kingdoms not countries: 1) England with Wales, 2) Scotland and 3) part of Ireland Also, whatever the consensus it is quite clear that constitutionally Wales is not a country (even though I am Welsh and believe it should be), it is a principality .Domminico (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't go here. It was debated for a month on the Wales page and multiple evidence was assembled to the effect that Wales is a country. The original union was three kingdoms (not part of Ireland, there was no partition at that time). from that point it is a Kingdom (united). UK Government web sites establish that Wales is a country. At the opening of the Welsh Assembly the constitution monarch addressed Wales as a country. Look back at the archives to see the evidence, and note the sheer energy we all had to waste on sock puppets. --Snowded (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am going to regret wading into this one, but I couldn't let that go. Being a principality does not preclude being a country. Monaco and Andorra are principalities and are countries; more importantly, Wales was a principality and country before it was conquered by England and was administered by the Prince of Wales (when there was one) after the conquest. Clearly it retained some sort of distinctiveness within in the Kingdom of England after it was conquered It is not unreasonable to maintain that it retains that "country" status even though the Prince's role its administration is long since ended. -Rrius (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hallo people, I'm new to this (and I don't kow what I'm doing) but thought it worth voicing my thoughts before attempting an edit, only to discover that this issue is as sensitive as the history that formed it! I have not read everything, so please forgive me if I have duplicated anything. Is it not so that The United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is, in fact, not a country but a nation? I see that it has already been established and for the most part, accepted that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all countries. Britain is the large island, comprising England, Scotland and Wales. These things are often confused. The political part I shall stay out of, as the issue of territory was my beef. I have read here that the U.K. is and island country. Surely Great Britain is an island nation and the U.K. is a united kingdom and dare I say it... a political union. The point that I hope I have made is that the U.K. is not a country and therefore, should not be referred to as one and that this should be reflected on the page. Are we all in agreement? (It's 03:50 here in England) (Zippstar (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC))

If you check out country you will see that the definition includes the concept of nation. All nations are countries, but not all countries are sovereign nations. Oh and it is a political issue so you can't "stay out of it" if you raise the issue. --Snowded (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We definitely need an FAQ section. I don't have time to do one right now — does anyone? garik (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to respond. I didn't want to discuss the politics, as I said, my issue was with territory. With regard to the statement that all nations are countries; this is not strictly true, especially given that the majority of countries were created by foreign powers. People constitute a nation, a country is a territory. The Asante (Ashanti) nation exists within the country of Ghana but it is not a country, neither is the United Kingdom and this is the point that I was trying to stress. At the risk of repeating myself - given that the U.K. is not a country, it should not be referred to as one and the page should reflect that, likewise Great Britain. Are we in agreement? (Zippstar (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC))

I agree that not all nations are countries. However, I do not agree that the UK is not a country. In fact, I don't think many people at all would doubt that it's a country. As I see it, the UK is both a country and a nation. The same can be said of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. All of these are countries and nations. None of them are independent states, however. The UK is. garik (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Before The U.S.A. and other parts of the British Empire gained independence, they were still countries, were they not? The U.K. is a kingdom comprising four countries and is, therefore, not a country in itself. No? What do you call somebody from the U.K.?(Zippstar (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC))

If someone is from the United Kingdom (or Great Britain and Northern Ireland) then you call them British. Its very simple UK is listed as a country in Wikipedia, UN etc etc. Please check your facts. --Snowded (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the UK is a kingdom does not stop it being a country. Nor does the fact that it contains four entities that can be (and usually are) also called countries. There's nothing that says a country can't contain countries within itself. garik (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy smokers; this is an ancient dispute. Anways, in agreement - the UK is a country. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Centralised poll on new wording for E/NI/S/W lead sentence

Original Suggestion Poll

Note: pointers to here are cross posted to all four article talk pages

Just a quick exercise to prove a certain editor completely wrong on the merits of trying to gain talk page consensus on this issue, can we have a quick poll on the support/opposition to the the new phrase below to be used as the first sentence in each of the articles England/Northern Ireland/Scotland/Wales:

England/Northern Ireland/Scotland/Wales is a part of the United Kingdom, as a "country within a country"., to be supported by the title used in this UK government page as a reliable source.

I believe this is a better compromise than the POV positions being constantly warred over, because it fairly represents all of the disputed but equally well referenced reasonable positions, namely:

1. that each place is a 'country'
2. that stating 1. is not a mortal sin when written as above
3. that simply stating 1. without clarification upsets people
4. that each place is part of the United Kingdom
5. that the United Kingdom is a country
6. that the UK government recognises each place as a "country within a country"
7. that the article constituent country is never going to get renamed to country within a country

Yes, even some of the above statements are extremely opposed by some, but I think for the majority that recognise the need to represent the neutral point of view which have all been supported by references many times over, the above is a reasonable compromise, and represents a consistent approach that can be reasonable defended and enforced across all four pages, without the need to monitor the 'stability' of four different pages, i.e. who is winning on which article at the time, or whether 15 references trumps 14, and is a decent explanation toward anyone boldly going and then recieving the royal wiki finger of the 'take it to the talk page' explanation, when in this case that is patently an ultimately dead end but well travelled road (the current situation as I understand it, is England is a country (piped to CC), Wales and NI are constituent countries (unpiped), and Scotland is fully protected on the wrong version).

I do believe this is an exercise doomed to failure as a train wreck, but I am assuming good faith for now, so please, no moves to close as a a sensible suggestion masquerading as making a point, or selective deafness. And absolutely no mention of not feeding the troll shaped editors, as I will merely point out I've never touched this subject with a bargepole until now, with in my opinion very good reason. MickMacNee (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

•Support

• MickMacNee (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• This, like so many imbecilic neverending fights on WP, is based in nationalistic jingoism instead of a desire to build a factual encyclopedia. Either they can all declare independence and war about it, or shut up and accept the status quo, which is constituency. A reading of any of the histories makes clear that that's the case. ThuranX (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For someone attempting to get an agreement you seem happy to make highly provocative remarks. Not all the arguments for "country" are jingoistic by any means, no more than the arguments against are a "unionist" agenda. Language like this seems designed to satisfy your need to sound off, rather than being an attempt to build a consensus --Snowded (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the term "country" is not going to be used. It exhibits a strong nationalist POV. Equally, the term "province" (as has been advocated by some), shall not be used either, as that implies a unionist POV. "Constituent country" however, adopts a NPOV, and that is what we should be striving for. Fonez4mii (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support Since it appears to annoy equally both those who advocate "country" alone and those who advocate "constituent country", I see this an excellent option, as in arguing against it, both sides are effectively agreeing with each other for the first time. So what if they may be equally fed up with the new name; maybe everyone else is fed up with the constant edit-warring that takes place on these articles. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 14:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding. It isn't "country" at one end and "constituent country" at the other. It is "country" at one end and "province" at the other. "Consituent country" IS the compromise. This proposal is a compromise of a compromise. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support - Sounds like a very fair and accurate description of the UK's constituent countries instead of the war of independance being fought here on Wikipedia by some nationalists. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 15:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

•Oppose

• That is a reliable source; however, it is just an attempt to explain the situation on that one site. There are several UK government sources that call them constituent countries as well in official documents and communication. For an encyclopedia, I think country within a country is a little awkward. Kman543210 (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• An attempt to get agreement is a good one, but you have to look at the overall position. Wales was OK with constituent country, England comes and goes, Scotland regards using constituent country as vandalism. Some editors will insist on country, so country within country will not be accepted. Hence by suggestion of country. It may well be a waste of time trying to get some agreement on this but its worth an attempt. However a vote is premature. --Snowded (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Although I agree a solution is much needed for this, "country within a country" sounds a little too awkward. I don't see why we aren't just going for the most neutral "Constituent country", since

a) That is the name of the article you are linking "countries within a country" to anyway.

b) There are no sources which say it is not a constituent country, unlike using "country", meaning it is the most NPOV thing to say.

c) "Constituent country" is the most technical term, since they are after all, constituent countries.

Fonez4mii (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Constituent country will not get through an consensus process. It has been tried. Country is very important to some people. I am trying for a compromise that makes country visible, but refernences constituent country so that people will understand what it means. --Snowded (talk) 07:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been tried during POV enforced discussions. The fact that country is important to some people is irrelevant, and is certainly POV. It is important to me that Tibet has independance - but it doesn't mean I go edit Tibet and claim it is a country, despite the numerous sources suggesting it is, simply because that would be a POV and that serves no place on wikipedia. Thank you. Fonez4mii (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - it is very awkwardly phrased. Snowded says Country is very important to some people. The fact that it is important to some editors should be ignored. It is POV if it is "important" to someone. We are here to get the most neutral and correct intro.Pureditor 07:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There are clear POV positions on both sides. Unionists and Nationalists yes. But also evidence based approaches for both positions. You would be best to engage with those and seek a common approach --Snowded (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In having observed Snowded and Jack Forbes, both seem to adopt a very nationalist POV, and from reading the archives from all four pages, have been pushing it for quite some time. A nationalist POV is that they are "countries". A unionist POV is that they are "provinces". A NPOV is that they are "constituent countries".Fonez4mii (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That is name calling, your opinion (POV) and not helpful. I have if you check the record been happy to support constituent country and my current proposal incorporates it, but attempts to reach a compromise with those who find it difficult. I have defended attempts to replace country with "parts" or "provinces" in the main against Sock Puppets. To move from that to an accusation of POV when you agree with the position is a nonsense and fails to assume good faith. Please try and address the issues and avoid attacking the person (its one of the pillars)--Snowded (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The two extremes we are dealing with are "country" and "province", neither of which should be used, since there are sources for and against each one. "Constituent country" is the medium alternative that neither exhibits preference to "country" or "province", primarily for the fact that if you read constituent country, you will find that the definition of "country" or "province" is not clear cut, and that is likely the cause of the debated sources, meaning that the only applicable NPOV phrase we can use is "constituent country". Fonez4mii (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

An opinion which is advanced and has support, but is not accepted by all. My solution uses both but I have put it out to see if it attracts support. In the mean time your POV accusation should be withdrawn. --Snowded (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My vote is that we use the totally neutral expression "Scotland/England.. is a country within the United Kingdom" as this both makes clear that each country is a country, but also makes clear that each is not sovereign as it is within another country. However, for those who believe that 'constituent country' is a really important concept to get across, I would even be willing to stretch to an expression like "Scotland is a country in north west europe that is a constituent country of the United Kingdom" - does that not satisfy all sides? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are people still arguing for "country"? That is out of the question, for the reasons above. We are not allowing "country" or "province". 89.242.147.30 (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The intro should read is a country within the United Kingdom which states the facts and avoids any confusion about Scotland or England being sovereign --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 11:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No it should not read "is a country", as we have all already explained on the Scotland page, that is a POV. The most NPOV thing to say is "is a constituent country within the United Kingdom" Fonez4mii (talk) 11:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It is looking like no agreement is going to be reached on this. I believe, like Barryob, that is a country within the United Kingdom is absolutely accurate, non point of view and fully backed up by reliable sources. I also believe that the phrase 'constituent country' IS trying to push a point of view by denying that Scotland is a country despite all the evidence to the contrary. If those pushing 'constituent country' can not accept is a country within the United Kingdom or "is a country in north west europe that is a constituent country of the United Kingdom" there is no way out of this. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

How in god's name does constituent country deny that Scotland is a country? --G2bambino (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How about writing country but linking to constituent country? --Cameron (T|C) 11:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That was suggested by snowded and, I believe, rejected by those pushing constituent country. I could accept that as a reasonable solution. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is unnacceptable. Fishiehelper has now clearly explained that he/she only considers one option and that there is "no way out of this" unless we comply. And saying "constituent country" is certainly not a POV. It appears you don't even know what one is, so please have a read. "country" is not going to be allowed for all the reasons already given by the majority of people here and on the pages. Fonez4mii (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please let's not let this discussion degenerate into a mud flinging session. This discussion should be the basis for a positive, productive dicussion to establish a consensus for a term to be used throughout the England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales pages. = ) --Cameron (T|C) 12:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

To summarize, there are no sources which say it is not a constituent country, but there are ones which say it is. However, the ISO, EU, and UN along with others have stated that they are not countries, while other sources say they are. That means the term "country" is not allowed since that would be choosing one set of sources over the other. This means that the only term that can be used which is both correct and POV is "constituent country". Fonez4mii (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it surprising that you continue to issue ultimatums and POV accusations. You are insisting on your solution. Yu have not handled my proposal (which has some support) and which deliberately uses both in an attempt to gain a NPOV consensus. We will get no where if you carry on like this. Your position is stated, now try and engage with others to find a solution. --Snowded (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The ultimatum was not from me, if you noticed. It was from Fishiehelper, who so kindly told us that unless we complied, "there is no way out". Using "country" to link to "constituent country" is still pushing the POV that it is a "country", and as already stated by several users to you now, the term "country" is a POV. Fonez4mii (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear here - I have issued NO ultimatum. I have now indicated support for THREE perfectly reasonable suggestions that are neutral and verifiable but it appears that some others are suggesting that it MUST be 'constituent country' and that nothing else is acceptable. That sounds like the ultimatum to me! I have to go out now, so can not continue this debate, but I hope that some compromise breaks out - sadly, as I ststed above, if one or two people continue to insist on their version despite widespread opposition, I don't see this debate getting anywhere. Have a nice day! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"If one or two people continue to insist on their version despite widespread opposition, I don't see this debate getting anywhere"

You are precisely right, so use the advice. There is a clear majority advocating for "constituent country" so far. Also, i think that IPs should not be allowed to vote in the poll, since users may log out and in to inflate one side. If an IP wants to contribute, then can make an account. Fonez4mii (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - All four territories are simply "parts" of the United Kingdom. That is the term that would be most appropriate. No need to call them countries etc. The term is particularly unsuited to Northern Ireland for the many reasons I am sure have been well set out here or elsewhere. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Constituent country says the exact same thing, just far more clearly and succinctly. --G2bambino (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

•We don't need no stinking poll

Who wrote that section heading? I can't smell it from here.

Anyway, I don't see why the four articles should have uniform lead sentences anyway. Each of the four has a different constitutional position, and is described differently in normal usage. For example (and there are lots of others):

• England is a country ... and presumably a constituent country, perhaps a region, but surely not a province
• Scotland is a country ... and perhaps a region (and presumably a constituent country)
• Wales is a principality, and a country ... and perhaps a region, (presumably a constituent country) and perhaps, in the mind of an extreme unionist, a province
• England and Wales are so closely linked (thanks to conquest) that they are some kind of entity in themselves
• Northern Ireland was created as a province in the Government of Ireland Act, though province is somewhat loaded and should not be used today without qualification, and probably not in the lead. Nobody calls it a country, and only a few Westminster websites call it a constituent country. It is neither unionist or nationalist to call it a country: its use often reveals a lack of research and understanding, or a sympathy with the notable Ulster independence cause. To be honest, the lead of Northern Ireland doesn't need a generic noun at all for the prose to flow perfectly well and be accurate and informative.
• Cornwall is (oh wait, let's not open that can of worms)

As an attempt at reductio ad absurdum, should the District of Columbia article start with “D.C. is a state of the United States” if we found an official source that said so (despite the hundreds of others that give it other names and descriptions?)

So, my position: no need for four uniform articles, therefore no need for a poll.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Seeing as this is going to be a massive discussion (and believe me this is going to be massive. The talks on the respective pages were huge enough...). Shouldn't we be offering options instead of just a plain old oppose/support !vote? Regards, --Cameron (T|C) 10:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My numerous attempts to acquire consistancy across the 4 articles 'England, Northern Ireland, Wales & Scotland' (in the past) were failure after failure. At the Scotland article? it was a struggle to get the (IMHO) correct map applied & to get nation removed from the introductory. But as soon as one gets those things applied, something changes at one of the other articles - England adopts country. There's too much 'political friction' in these articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Snowded's idea country sounds good to me. Jack forbes (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer constituent country being shown. However, I'll accept Snowden's idea 'if it's adopted by all 4 articles'. That's always been my main goad -across the board consistancy- on these articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If it was used across all four articles that would maybe solve this never ending dispute. Did I sound naive there? Jack forbes (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

People seem to be under the misimpression that we are finding a compromise between country and constituent country, when that is not the case. The comprimise is between country and province, which was "constituent country". What you are now demanding, is a compromise of a comprimse. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The article as it stands says country, therefore country is a compromise. Jack forbes (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still voting for "constituent country" showing and not just linked. There are plenty of government and other sites that refer to them as that, and it still calls them a country at the same time. Honestly though, even if we came to some kind of consensus on this now, it probably wouldn't stop it from coming up in the future. Kman543210 (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh but to dream - those 4-articles in sync. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The article stands as country. Some people want "province". Therefore, constituent country is a compromise. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Why is this poll & discussion at this article (United Kingdom)? Doesn't seem like the proper place. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed that one, who wanted province and for what article? Jack forbes (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, me too! The only possible article "people" could want it for is Northern Ireland, and that argument is null and void since NI has the same basis as Scotland and Wales, other then its form of devolution. Could Fonez4mii explain? --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Read through the Wales and North Ireland archive. People wanted province there. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I could find all sorts of suggestions if I trawled through the archive pages. We are talking about the discussions we have had over the last couple of days and the editors that have taken part in that discussion. I don't recall anyone suggesting province. Jack forbes (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm back! Could I just add to the debate that I think Fonez4mii is mis-characterising the debate. No one - at least from what I've read - has advanced the position that 'Scotland is a province' (and if anyone did they would have difficulties finding sources that would support such a position!) The two extreme positions in this debate are between 'country' that could be interpreted as implying a sovereign entity, and 'constituent country' that could be interpreted as implying that Scotland is not a country (despite all the evidence that it is.) At least 4 compromise positions have been suggested - Surely we can all agree on one of these? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agree. And no-one has ever proposed "province" for Wales either. The only time it has ever been mentioned in its archives is Archive 1 (it's also mentioned in Archive 6, but that's referring to NI), where people have either said it is not a province, or that is may have used to have been, but now is not.
With regards to NI, the idea that it is a province comes from the mistaken belief that NI is the province of Ulster, when in fact it is only six of Ulster's nine counties. I don't think there's anyone here holding that mistaken opinion, so no need to even mention it as a possibility.
"Province" is simply not an issue, and therefore "constituent country" is not a compromise between it and "country". Next argument? --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agreed to Snowded's compromise, anyone else? Jack forbes (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Snowden's compromise is acceptable -for all 4 articles-. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should link "country within a country" to constituent country, as in country within a country. That way, it actually does still preserve somewhat of the meaning of what a constituent country actually is. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

But you just said up there that you oppose it? Anyway, I agree with Snowden's compromise. Quite similar actually to how we pipelink [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], so there is a precedent for it. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with "country within a country", and "country", but I consider "country within a country" to be an effective compromise. The word "country" alone does not carry enough meaning for what it links to, but at least country within a country has enough weight.

I mean, it wouldn't be OK for me to say: "She climbed the leaves". Fonez4mii (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be able to vote for the "constituent country" link with the "country" word. Scotland was the only that has long been country, and the other three were, until recently, "constituent country." I was curious of how other encyclopedias handled their opening statements, and I found 3 different encyclopedias. Interestly, none of them use the word country to describe them.

Encyclopedia Britanica: Scotland: most northerly of the four parts of the United Kingdom, occupying about one-third of the island of Great Britain. England: predominant constituent unit of the United Kingdom, occupying more than half the island of Great Britain. Wales: constituent unit of the United Kingdom that forms a westward extension of the island of Great Britain. Northern Ireland: part of the United Kingdom, lying in the northeastern quadrant of the island of Ireland

MSN Encarta: Scotland: one of the four national units that make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. England: political division of the island of Great Britain, the principal division of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and...Wales: part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, united politically, legally, and administratively with England and...Northern Ireland: administrative division of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, situated in the northeastern portion of the...

The Columbia Encyclopedia: Scotland: political division of Great Britain comprising the northern portion of the island of Great Britain and many surrounding islands. England: the largest and most populous portion of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Wales: Cymru, western peninsula and political division (principality) of Great Britain. Northern Ireland: division of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland BBC Profile on England: Profile: England is the largest constituent part of the United Kingdom, and accounts for 83 per cent of its population and most of its economic activity. Kman543210 (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, per Kman above, I am now back to constituent country. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted some of these on the Wales and Scotland articles, but just in case someone wasn't involved in those discussions, here are several examples where constituent country is used (including government websites, so it's not some made-up Wikipedia term): [1]][[2]][[3]][[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]][[8]][[9]][[10]][[11]][[12]][[13]][[14]][[15]] Kman543210 (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked the first reference above and while the phrase 'constituent country' is used, the much bigger diagram has a heading 'countries of the UK' - therefore this source as much backs up using country as constituent country! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Same goes for the second reference which, the first time it mentions Wales states "It may be inevitable that a small country such as Wales is less prominent internationally than its larger neighbours..." Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be ridiculous to think a document would use constituent country all the time. Using it once at the top is enough then just using country is shorter. There is a great deal of support for using "constituent country" in those sources and it seems that mainly Scots are being rebels and using their own opinions to decide what should be used. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 17:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason, Fishiehelper, that it uses "country" for the rest, is as a short way of saying "consituent country". I think "constituent country" should be used at the beginning, with "country" used elsewhere in the article, as stated by Joshii, for reading flow. Fonez4mii (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Scots are being rebels? I suggest you apologise immediately! Such comments are clear violations of WP:Attack! --Cameron (T|C) 17:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I can say on Joshii's behalf that it doesn't constitute an attack. He is simply saying that the majority of those opposing what we consider as the NPOV seem to be predominantly from Scotland. I am sure he meant nothing racist. Fonez4mii (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So when the BBC report of backbench rebellion in commons that is the media attacking people? You think those MPs go home crying? Nope, rebelling is something people do and the English and Welsh seem to be fine with constituent so why are the Scots trying to make an exception? P.S. I'm not saying they are rebelling because they are Scottish which would be an attack. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 17:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The term has a history and should not be used. --Cameron (T|C) 18:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This "rebellious Scot" is trying to come to a compromise, and hoping others will do the same. Jack forbes (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well since its only a tiny portion of editors who are against Constituent country (and low and behold, their "home areas" on wikipedia are all Scotland), I think it's safe to say that they are exhibiting a POV stance towards wanting Scotland to be a country, while the rest of the editors have so far accepted "Constituent country". This kind of undermining of NPOV will not be tolerated, and their refusal to get the point is becoming increasingly noticeable. Fonez4mii (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the last time I will reply to your accusations, please refrain from these kind of comments. As I said on your talk page you are very welcome to report to an admin on my conduct in these conversations. Thanks! Jack forbes (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You say of those of us who disagree with you, "This kind of undermining of NPOV will not be tolerated" - sorry but you do not have the moral high ground in this debate any more than those of us who disagree with your point of view. A reasonable compromise is required and then maybe we can get on to improving articles! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's coming down to Constituent country or Country or Country. Does that seem the correct analyses? GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems a fair summary to me. I think the middle option should be a compromise that all bar a tiny proportion could accept. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree! Jack forbes (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, this solves nothing as most readers know what a country is so they will not click on country. This just hides the truth using a pipe link to keep the nationalists happy. The UK exists as a country still, no matter what any opinion polls on independence say. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 18:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem? is getting all 4 articles to accept the same solution. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should get an agreement first and then see if we can get all four articles to go along with it. Jack forbes (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not agree, as per Kman's sources. Constituent country is the only NPOV. You are clearly in the minority with what you are suggesting, so that is how you have a refusal to get the point, alongside ignoring all the sources. Fonez4mii (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Shall we have a Poll on the 3-versions, at least to see who's prefer what. I've sorta lost count. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Fonez4mii (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Err, perhaps we should be posting what whe 'support', leaving out what we 'oppose'. Kinda keep the 'negatives' under control. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Multi-Choice Straw Poll

The following is a straw poll to determine consensus for the use of a term to be used throughout all UK-country/constituent country articles. Anyone may add a new suggestion and anyone with a registered account may vote, but IP addresses may not, for avoiding inflating votes by users logging in and logging out.

Note: The outcome of the majority vote on the poll does not equate to consensus and Wikipedia is not a democracy.

•Constituent country (linking to constituent country)

1. Strong Support - The most NPOV wording available, and also, the most technically accurate. Fonez4mii (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
2. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Strong support - Fully NPOV and can be backed with a wide array of sources. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 18:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Strong support The most NPOV, considering the other encyclopedias don't even use the term country at all.Pureditor 19:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Strong support Having read the discussions, this seems to be the most NPOV.--Harkey (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Support josh (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Support- stops the POV of nationalist editors Astrotrain (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Strong Support - still calls them countries, government uses term Kman543210 (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Jabez2000 (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Support (grudgingly). Other encyclopaedias don't use either term in the definition - they call them 'units', etc, as established above - so we ought to follow suit. However, between this POV and the nationalist POV, this is the lesser of the two. Bastin 15:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Support Plenty of official references to back this up. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Strong support - two simple words solve both issues: country describes the regions using the term that nationalists wish to use, while constituent succinclty communicates that the country is part of a larger whole. --G2bambino (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    comment – country may be valued by English Welsh and Scottish nationalists, but certainly not by Irish nationalists. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

13. Tentative support - per previous comments of support. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - This is a standard term used in articles on politics and in debates in Parliament. -Rrius (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Support although I still believe that England/Scotland etc are both constituent countries and countries. --Cameron* 19:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

•...is a part of the United Kingdom, as a "country within a country"

1. This was my actual proposal. MickMacNee (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not sure who changed this heading, but kindly don't, it is now back as added it, as the original proposal (albeit with 'part' now hyperlinked). The new interpretation of my version originally put up as an option of this multi-poll, (now since replaced 3 more polls?), was not my original proposal. MickMacNee (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

•Country (linking to constituent country)

#Cameron (T|C) 18:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC) (accurate and neutral pov but also allows the reader to click the link and read about the relationship of the countries)Change to CC. --Cameron* 19:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC) #Jack forbes (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC) (Accurate and NPOV, but should also satisfy those who want linkage to constituent country)
2. Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 19:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
3. --Snowded (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC) just arrived in Seattle to all of this

•Country (linking to country)

1. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Erm, the poll is becoming rather cluttered when it should really be a quick way to determine consensus (though it is not a substitute for actually talking!). It is rather unorthodox to add 'opposes' to polls, so I propose we remove them. Further, most polls only allow a !vote in one section. --Cameron (T|C) 19:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No a poll is NOT, i repeat NOT to find out consensus in any way. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion Fonez4mii (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but it at least helps clarify who are the 'tiny proportion' Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In agreement (see above) with Cameron, the straw poll is becoming a heated dispute. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree - remove the 'opposes' Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree - a straw poll is not the place for heated discussion, and adding big fat opposes everywhere will just lead to that. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 19:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have acted accordingly. --Cameron (T|C) 19:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I appears 'versions #2 & #4' are rejected. Now we can concentrate on 'version #1 & #3'. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

We should wait for more editors to respond. This is a big topic, and there are still many more oppinions to come. Fonez4mii (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The respective talk pages have been notified so we should await the comment of the respective, regular editors. --Cameron (T|C) 19:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, even snowded hasn't had a chance to vote yet and he first suggested the country linked to constituent country 'compromise'! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have used my second vote though I actually agree with Cameron that there should only be one vote per editor. Does everyone agree with this? Jack forbes (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very much so. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 19:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am going to retract my second vote. Fonez4mii (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion- This issue will arise again and again and again. And quite frankly, it's been tiresome for quite some time. It has already been demonstrated that there are sound sources for a number of terms. It is unreasonable to try and impose some kind of conformity when there is liberty. In my opinion all editors should be free to use any phrase they wish in any part of the text, as long as it is sourced and makes sense in context.Now, let's leave this tortured debate alone.--Gazzster (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So you are happy with edit wars constantly on the articles? If we can establish a consensus of what to use on all articles then any changes can be quickly reverted. If you don't want to contribute to the discussion then don't bother commenting. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 00:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was commenting. The unreasonableness of continuing this discussion is evident. If consensus has not been reached by now, how can we hope it will be? We have World War III 3 going on already so I don't really understand the horror for edit wars. What error is committed by leaving a term, as long as it is sourced and in context, unedited? A perfectful reasonable comment.--Gazzster (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There has never been a central discussion about this conflict, there has been discussions scattered all over wikipedia. We can't use one term for one place and another term for somewhere else when they are the same thing. If you enjoy edit wars then that is your prerogative but we would rather build a consensus. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 01:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what happened to the IP who re-started all of this at Scotland? GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

IP addresses have not been allowed to vote in this. If the user wishes to contribute, he/she must make an account. Fonez4mii (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a general comment, the vote would have to be overwhelming here to prevent edit wars and I remain disturbed at the general unwillingness to compromise with NPOV accusations being thrown around all over the place. One other issue of fact. There are no sources against "constituent country" because its largely a wikipedia term. The only issue here is to get a form of words which is accurate, and which does not cause edit wars. A further compromise might be "is a country within the United Kingdom". There is no POV in that. --Snowded (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that a threat to edit war against any consensus? I think that is POV pushing. "country" solves nothing as it still tries to make out that X is a real independent country rather than a constituent country which is what they are. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 01:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you guys paranoid? How can that be seen as a threat? Those of us who have lived through multiple edit wars (and support constituent country being in there somewhere) have seen what happens when one side pushes an opinion as aggressively as you seem to be. Saying that something is a country (referencing constituent country) and that it is a part of the UK is hardly saying it is independent. I suspect a different POV here, at attempt to denigrate national identity. Please keep to the facts, read what people write and attempt to reach an agreement. --Snowded (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Saying for exaple Scotland is a country in the United Kingdom sounds too much like the United Kingdom is a country in the European Union. You are trying to make the United Kingdom sound less like a country in itself and more of a political union like the EU. The fact of the matter is that the constituent countries are countries within a country. Scotland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom. Pipe links do not address anything as who is going to click on a link which says country? I would think that knowing what a country is was a basic piece of knowledge. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 03:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The European has never been a country. At various states Wales, Scotland, England and the United Kingdom have been. Scotland is a country within the United Kingdom (a country does not have to be a sovereign state) The Constituent Country page is very clear on the relationship and a pipelink handles any issue.. The form of words I suggest is more than adequate to make the point. It is factually accurate, not a POV and has some chance of getting a consensus. --Snowded (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we redo the strawpoll with the more neutral and less confusing "country within the United Kingdom" option? Country, while I once suggested it myself at the Scotland page now seems almost misleading. -MichiganCharms (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it took a long time to read through some of the other discussion. Seems like a lot of it on other pages was whether any type of word of "country" should be used, but at least this one has narrowed it down a bit. It's funny though how 3 other encyclopedias don't call any of them a country in the introduction paragraphs. I think "constituent country in the United Kingdom" is the best way to go about it. It still uses "country", so I'm not sure why some have a problem with it. I looked at all the sources throughout the talk pages, and many of the UK sites use either "consituent parts" or "consituent countries". I don't think linking to "consituent country" while using "country" is really doing anything, as most people would not even click on that link. Jabez2000 (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to cite Aruba as saying "A country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands". -MichiganCharms (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the United Kingdom is comparable to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, totally different setup. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 03:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It also states As a Constituent Country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the same article. Even the articles on England and Wales have changed over time, so I don't know if citing a wikipedia article really indicates anything. Kman543210 (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting to compare the two entities or cite the article as a source. Merely using the only thing close to a comparable situation as a style guide. -MichiganCharms (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everyone that there is absolutely no point in linking country to constituent country, as no one is going to click on a link that says country - because everyone knows what a country is. With regards to the several POV accusations that seem to float around at a few certain users - there are reasons these seem constantly directed at you, and perhaps you should listen to what practically everyone is telling you. Fonez4mii (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You have this rather quaint use of the world "everyone" when you are pursuing a position. I think you mean "everyone who agrees with me". Your statement at the start of this comment is factually incorrect, everyone does not think that there is no point in making the link. Not good evidence of your objectivity. Making generic POV accusations at "certain users" also represents a very poor advert for good argument. A form of WIkipedia McCarthyism? You threw the accusation at me without any supporting evidence and have not responded to the challenge, so now your resort to generic mud throwing? Everyone does know what a country is, and it is not necessarily a sovereign state. Now at the moment the Wales page includes the phrase Constituent Country. In part because editors such as myself (despite your accusations) were prepared to find compromises. Attempting to use the same phrase on Scotland results in edit wars. So you have two choices. You continue to push your opinion as to the right answer or you try and find a way forward which will gain more consensus. You are going to have to do a lot better than the current straw poll to get a common agreement (9 for CC, 5 for the compromise and 1 for the stronger position on country only). Interestingly at least one of your votes is prepared to accept my compromise if it gets a common statement across all of the pages. Now it may not be the right compromise but at least GoodDay is working within the spirit of Wikipedia. How about you put the same energy into trying to reach a result that might sustain itself? --Snowded (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

1. When i say "everyone", i talk about the clear majority.
2. No, it is certainly clear that the majority of people will not click on the word "country", meaning your "compromise" is not in the least bit helpful.
3. GoodDay, in case you have not noticed, has voted alongside us.
4. You seem to be suggesting that we must follow you. I am sorry but your "compromise" is not the kind of NPOV that we are trying to achieve. Not everyone agrees they are countries but everyone agrees they are "constituent countries".
5. And you said it yourself - it is not the right compromise. If I were to tell you I considered the UK to be simply a province of the EU, while others considered it a country, would one compromise on that? No. There is a clear NPOV option here, and most of us have selected it. Fonez4mii (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Everyone" is not an accurate statement of a 9-6 vote! Please try and be objective. Yes I had noticed that GoodDay had voted with you, I was trying to point out that one of your supporters is also prepared to seek compromises. Your statement that everyone agrees that they are constituent countries is not accurate either, several editors think they are areas! Neither did I say that my compromise was not the right one, I said it may not be. to wit I am open to new ideas (something you don't seem to be). So in one statement you make three factual areas, that doesn't build confidence. I dealt with the EU issue earlier and will not repeat myself. You really are missing the substantial point here, namely that you have decided what the NPOV solution is and you are not prepared to engage in trying to find something which will gain consensus. You have yet to apologise for POV accusations as well. One thing is clear, you do not have the support to attempt to impose a solution on the different country pages. I suggest you try and open up a bit. --Snowded (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing "coming to a comprimise" with bullying people until you get your own way. I don't see why you wish for Scotland to be treated any differently to England/Wales/NI and why you can agree that Wales is fine to use constituent country but not Scotland? Has Scotland got some special status where it's no longer a constituent country? You are not open to new ideas as your idea of a comprimise is hiding the facts using a pipelink. I'm also not sure why there is even a vote for "country" but if you just look at their userpage you can clearly see why. This is really classic nationalist vs unionist but the unionists are not fighting for anything as the union is still there so it's the nationalists that have to prove they are not constituent countries of the UK. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 14:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Accusing people of being politically motivated is not going to help this discussion. It could merely inflame the situation further. --Cameron (T|C) 14:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware I have never argued that Wales or Scotland are not a part of the UK. Making it nationalist v unionist is neither accurate or helpful. I accepted constituent country on the wales page but I am realistic enough to know it will not be accepted elsewhere. Hence the suggestion of another way forward. If you want constant edit wars go on down this route. --Snowded (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well as can be seen, there is a clear majority wanting Constituent country, so I doubt that edit wars will be such a problem except with the few editors who are still trying to push the nationalist POV. Fonez4mii (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We should use consistency on the constituent countries, if someone goes on the Constituent country article and sees that Scotland is there as a constituent country, clicks on Scotland and it says "Scotland is a country" they will think huh?! We also need consistency on the maps but that's another story! If we applied "constituent country" to all four articles then we can keep them at that and revert any changes to the phrase. We should not reduce the quality of wikipedia to keep a small number of editors happy. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 18:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish to see all 4 articles in sync (preferably with 'consitiuent country'). However, I'm dissapointed in these charges of Nationalism. When such accusation are made, the discussion becomes poisioned. We must control our emotions & remain calm. Please folks, stay cool & ride the wave. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion (Arbitrary Break 1)

Here is another possible compromise: Why not have a phrase like Scotland is a country within the United Kingdom - this may work on two levels. Firstly the words make clear that Scotland is not independent but part of the United Kingdom. Secondly, the link goes directly to constituent country for anyone who may wish further detail. Any thoughts? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that would look a real mess tbh. The first sentence of an article should not be a whole pipe link. IMHO. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 16:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, quite simply. It is simply another attempt at pushing country in one form or another. Fonez4mii (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It may appear slightly messy but better that than an endless struggle to find consensus - at least that's my opinion. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be pretty much clear on Constituent country as it stands. Fonez4mii (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No - majority is not the same as consensus. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but we are fastly reaching consensus on it, as it has the fastest growing support. Fonez4mii (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with 'constituent country'?--Breadandcheese (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Some users are exhibiting a nationalist POV and want it as "country". Fonez4mii (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I dare say some users who are pushing constituent country are pushing a Unionist agenda. I would ask them to tell me what exactly the issue with a compromise like this is:

Scotland is a country within the United Kingdom. It is located in Northern Europe...

-MichiganCharms (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Scotland is part of the union of the United Kingdom, so that is a factual NPOV. Fonez4mii (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

How is there a unionist agenda? The union exists so there is no POV to push, the Union is there regardless of what nationalists think. What is wrong with "Scotland is a country within the United Kingdom." is that it hides constituent country with a pipelink and nobody is going to click country, this point has been explained several times in the discussion so please read before posting. Nobody has even explained what is wrong with the phrase "constituent country", we've explained that country alone implies, in some people's eyes, some form of independence from the union and that it is a country. The United Nations and the European Union do not recognise Scotland as a country, the recognise it as a part of the United Kingdom. "Constituent country" is a comprimise because many people would not like it to be called a "part of the UK" as domestically they are constituent countries, internationally they are just bits of the UK. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 18:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The logic is now getting bizarre! If a country is 'within another country' as in 'Scotland is a country within the United Kingdom', that makes perfectly clear that Scotland is in the union of the United Kingdom.

Anyway, to answer a separate question - I have a real problem with the phrase 'constituent country' when it is used wrongly (as I see it.) I see nothing wrong with the phrase (which I believe I added to the UK article) that the 'United Kingdom is a union of 4 constituent countries', but there is a subtle difference between that and trying to describe Scotland as a 'constituent country' in a way as to suggest it is not a country. The fact of the matter is that Scotland is a country that for 300 years has been part of a larger country. We all accept that it is not a politically sovereign entity, but that is not a requirement to be defined as a country. The phrase 'Scotland is a country within the United Kingdom' is clearly factual and an accurate description of reality, but it seems to cause offence to some editors who believe that stating this is somehow a 'nationalist' position - I actually teach politics and I can't get my head round why such a phrase could be viewed as 'nationalist'. Anyway, in an attempt to find a consensus, several alternatives have been suggested - but all are rejected out of hand. I find this quite depressing! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The UN and EU do not recognize Scotland as a independent country because that is fact but it is a country regardless, Country does not equate sovereignty some people may think that but a quite read on the article on country will tell them otherwise --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any point with us debating any further with those pushing the POV, as their arguements are cyclic and whatever we say, they go back to the same points we have already covered. We should just see how the poll comes along and allow them to argue with themselves, since they're certainly not helping us with any kind of NPOV here. Fonez4mii (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You make my point for me - there is no consensus on this! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly there is no consensus Fonez4mii is pushing a position and making claims which are not true, as well as not dealing with issues. If someone disagrees with him/her they are pushing a point of view. Any agreement is interpreted as "everyone". I must admit that I am even more sceptical having traced the history of this editor. Its difficult as s/he deletes material from the talk page, but we have a few warnings and one confession of substituting another editors name with his/her own in order to claim credit for the contribution and gain a barn star. The essence of Wikipedia is engagement with other people's ideas not assertion of your own ego.--Snowded (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And what makes you say that? There are almost three times as many supports for constituent country than everything else put together. Yes, the poll doesn't equal consensus, but its a very good indication of it. Fonez4mii (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The term constituent country indicates that they are indeed countries. Where's the problem? It tells everything in a NPOV.Pureditor 18:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems like nobody is seriously saying there is anything wrong with the term consituent country. The reasons people are opposing the term is because there has been edit wars and a consensus on one term could go some way in solving this. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 18:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We must accept that not everyone who reads Wikipedia an edits it are NPOV. If we add constituent country, there will be nationalists pouring in to edit it. If we add country, this lame edit war will continue ad infinitum. The point here is to find a reasonable alternative, not to assume bad-faith and shout "POV!" We aren't collaborating and building consensus (Votes don't count as Wikipedia is not a democracy) Tell me how "country within the United Kingdom" is not good enough, please. It means literally the same thing. -MichiganCharms (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We are not going to give in simply because of laziness to revert in the future from POV editors, as you seem to be suggesting. And although polls do not equal consensus, they can be used as an indicator of it. Fonez4mii (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Still trying!...how about "Scotland is a country that is a constituent part of the United Kingdom". Does that tick enough boxes on all sides? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wayyyyyyyy too awkwardly worded. Fonez4mii (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so in the slightest - I'd be interested if others share your opinion. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And no where near as effective as just Constituent country. Fonez4mii (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Constituent country is the perfect term in my eyes and nobody has said anything to make me change my mind. We have to assume that the reader knows very little e.g. some Americans think Manchester is a suburb of London and probably think that England and the UK are the same thing and Scotland is some random place full of kilts. The best and most effective way to describe the four places is as constituent countries with a direct link to that article. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 19:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion (Arbitrary Break 2)

13-5-1 is (regretfully) not a consensus for 'constituent country'. Perhaps we should scrap both terms (constituent country & country), with something as simple as (for example) Scotland is the northern part of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That is actually a very sensible idea. Britannica refers to it as the "northerly of the four parts", I have also head "unit" before now too. --Cameron (T|C) 20:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to do that, then it would be "is a part of the UK". Fonez4mii (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The other side of the coin: England is the southern part of the United Kingdom; Haven't thought (yet) of a write-up for 'Northern Ireland' & 'Wales'. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support this assuming the "part" would be linked to constituent country, right? Wales could be Western, North Ireland could be North Western. Fonez4mii (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "Scotland is the northern part of the United Kingdom" makes the UK sound more like a land mass than a country which contains 4 constituent countries. The British Isles are the land which most of the UK is on, excluding ROI of course. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 20:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

They (my proposals) do have an apolitical appearance to them, though. Could be worth a try? GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Would they link to "Constituent country"? Fonez4mii (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

They wouldn't link to 'anything', thus to further there apolitical nature. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I would be interested to see what other editors say. I am not decided yet, but it is a very good proposal in my oppinion. Fonez4mii (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a comprimise then, just another way to irradicate the term constituent country which is what Scotland et al are. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be much more willing to support if "part" linked to constituent country. Fonez4mii (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Fonez and provided it was rolled out across all 4 articles and also in the article the first time the word "country" is used it should say constituent country then country through the rest of the article. This is not ideal but it's better than trying to falsely claim country status. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree with mentioning "constituent country" the first time, and then "country" as an abbreviation for much of the rest, or even then, "region" could be used throughout the rest of the text as more neutral. Fone4Me 20:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the opening paragraph should say part. Then, from then on, it should simply be referred to as the place name itself - i.e. Scotland, England, etc. What do people think of that? Fone4Me 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I feel that 'northern part' is a less useful description than constituent country - but I like the fact that editors are looking for a way forward. Could there be any merit in using a slightly historical way in by saying something like "Scotland was formally an independent country but is now a part of the United Kingdom" - thoughts? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think Fishiehelper's suggestion does carry some weight. I still think that throughout the rest of the article, the placename itself should be used, to avoid controversy. Fone4Me 21:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem with Soctland/England/Northern Ireland/Wales is a part of the United Kingdom (without any links). Come on folks, if an old veteran of these discussions, can give up this much? certainly others can too. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "Scotland was formally an independent country but is now a part of the United Kingdom" if far too descriptive for the first line, you don't see India's article saying "India was once part of the British Empire but it is now an independent country" which is a similar idea. There is plenty of information about Scotland once being independent in the rest of the article. I feel "Scotland is the northern part of the United Kingdom" is the best comprimise so far. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 21:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You may a swell link to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom rather than constituent country also I am not going to comment further on this pending the result of the sockpuppet case --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The constituent country article is pretty much there for the UK so we should use it rather than the sub div article. Also if Fonez4mii is blocked that will have no effect on this discussion so your unwillingness to cooperate is frankly pointless. That case is focused on the Talk:Scotland page, somewhere I refuse to comment as I believe a centralised discussion is needed to ensure consistency. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 21:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey! where'd everybody go? Do I have bad breath? GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 01:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay good to see you involved in this. We need to get a form of words which can be agreed by everyone and as you say the assumption of a nationalist agenda is not helping. The above solutions involve different forms of words with pipelinks to constituent country and I am happy to support --Snowded (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone not from the UK, I find "constituent country" to be an important bit of vocabulary in understanding the UK constitutional structure. I think the issue is less one of people getting a misimpression of Scotland's, Wales's, and Northern Ireland's sovereignty than it is of simply skipping a link that appears to just be "country". People know what the word "country" means, so they are quite likely to just cruise past it without even thinking to click it. -Rrius (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, several points:

1. Firstly, Barryob, I have not "sockpuppeted", since I openly stated the IP address was mine as soon as I was asked about it, and did not use it to: Evade blocks or bans, evade a 3RR, inflate a poll or census, meaning I have not in fact "sockpuppeted".
2. Second, I did not use my IP address to pretend to be two different people. I simply got accidentally logged out the first time, and while i was logged out I engaged in conversation with GoodDay on my IP talkpage, and so in order to continue the conversation, I kept logging back out to get to my IP talkpage, and once or twice I accidentally forgot to sign back in for the UK conversation.
3. Thirdly, whether I am temporarily blocked or not (which from all accounts, I highly doubt I will), is irrelevant, as even without me, the numbers of people agreeing with me are by far in the majority, and if there is a block (which as I said, I doubt there will), it won't be for very long, so I would be back soon anyway.
4. Using the word "country" to link to Constituent country is not only pushing a POV but is also of no use, since no one will click the "country" link.
5. I am happy with "[E/S/NI/W] is a constituent country in the UK", or "[E/S/NI/W], is a part of the UK", or "[E/S/NI/W] is a part of the UK".
6. I think that throughout the rest of the article, neither Constituent country, Country, or Part should be used at all, and simply the name of the country should be used; e.g. Scotland engaged in many battles, rather than, The country/constituent country/part/area/region engaged in may battles.

Cheers. --Fone4Me 07:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually quite like Fishyhelper2's "is a country that is a constituent part of the United Kingdom" and I can see that various other users rather like some of the others compromises that are popping up. I therefore suggest adding a subsection to the poll entitled "compromises" inwhich each user is allowed a second !vote. There is doesn't seem to be consensus for either of the actual terms so I think we're best off going for one of the compromises. I particularly like the above mentioned one as it contains links to both country and constituent country. --Cameron (T|C) 13:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with Fishiehelper's suggestion. It, again, makes reference to "country", which we have been trying to eradicate all along. I support GoodDay's proposal however, as a compromise from plain constituent country. Fone4Me 13:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to have a period of attempting to develop alternative phrases in an attempt to get something resilience enough to survive on the country pages. Such attempts are to be preferred to constantly accusing other people of POV positions. Fishyhelper2 suggestion could have a pipelink to constituent country (on country or constituent), the fact that it is immediately followed by the phrase "part of the United kingdom" means that there can be no accusation of a nationalist agenda.--Snowded (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise on "[E/S/NI/W] is a constituent country in the UK" with GoodDay's suggestions:

• "E/S/NI/W is a part of the UK"
• "E/S/NI/W is a part of the UK"
• "E/S/NI/W is a part of the UK".

Although my support still lies with my original choice. The word "country" should not be used, as it is still POV, and we have already been through all this. Fone4Me 13:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

All three of your suggestions (starting with E/S/NI/W) above represent a hardening of a Unionist position and are not supported by the multiple references (UK Government web sites and others) that call Scotland and Wales a country. This has been endlessly debating on the country pages and you seem intent on provoking conflict rather than gaining a resilient solution. There is I think a universal agreement that there needs to be a reference to constituent country, the UK is a country, and Wales/Scotland are not independent countries. Lets try and create some words around that. Fishyhelper2 has made a good start and has a track record of trying to improve all these pages which makes his suggestions more credible. --Snowded (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"you seem intent on provoking conflict rather than gaining a resilient solution": May I remind you of WP:NPA. And there is no such thing as a "unionist" agenda because they currently are part of the union of the UK, and therefore, stating this is correct. The only non-neutral pov therefore is the nationalist agenda, which "country" pushes. The clear majority of people so far have settled on "constituent country", and we are making compromise after compromise for those trying to POV push, and it is unnacceptable. There is almost a consensus in our way, and it seems that with each vote that is added, our consensus grows. You are the only small minority opposing it. Fone4Me 13:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You are really tiresome and todate have made no compromise whatsoever from your original position. You are increasingly reminding me of Wikipéire by the way, your signature following the same form and the arguments being similar. If you don't think there is a unionist agenda then you are either dissembling or being naive. The use of the word country is endorsed by the UK government and has historical links. Just to remind you (as you fail to read) I accepted constituent country on the Wales page, but I am realistic enough to know it will not be accepted as it stands on other pages. My original attempt here was to see if a compromise could be found. With your attitude it won't be. --Snowded (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me why those who want country to be used don't like the term 'constituent country? Do you not think it's better than the other encyclopedia's which call them parts? The term constituent is just there to eliminate any confusion about them being sovereign. It does not stop it being called a country.

Just to clarify my position I open to anything, but I do find the term country a bit misleading to be used in the intro. I am fine with it being used elsewhere in the respective articles.Pureditor 15:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pureditor. I'll try to answer your question though this may appear to be dancing on the head of a pin - but there is a real issue at stake.

In the phrase 'The United Kingdom has four constituent countries', (a phrase I put in the UK article, ironic as that may seem), 'countries' is a noun and 'constituent' is an adjective. In other words, the phrase I used does not suggest that Scotland is not a country - all it does is make clear the nature of the relationship between the countries of the UK and the UK itself. However, what some editors are trying to do here is say 'Scotland is a constituent country of the UK' in which the whole phrase 'constituent country' has become the noun. This has the effect of suggesting that Scotland is less than a country - it is only a 'constituent country'. That is why the use of the phrase in that way is seen as pushing a particular unionist agenda, and therefore not neutral. (As an aside, the real dispute is not actually between nationalists and unionists because many unionists believe strongly that Scotland is a country, but also believe strongly that it should be part of the United Kingdom, whereas nationalists who believe strongly that Scotland is a country believe equally strongly that Scotland should NOT be part of the United Kingdom.) Hope that helps!!! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. I still think constituent (or something like that) should be there just to clarify the status of the four. How about using the Subdivisions of the United Kingdom as the link instead of constituent country? This would make the two words less of a noun and more of an adjective and a noun like you and a few other editors want. This isn't perfect but something like: Scotland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom located.... Is that better?Pureditor 19:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"That is why the use of the phrase in that way is seen as pushing a particular unionist agenda, and therefore not neutral"

As I have stated time and time again, it is not a POV, since Scotland is still in the union.

Fone4Me 18:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly missing the point! The issue is nothing to do with Scotland being in the union - we all know that is the case and is not in dispute. The issue is how we describe Scotland. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pureditor - thanks for taking my point on board. I like your attempt to find a form of wording but it does seem a little awkward. I've been trying to think of another possible approach - How about 'Scotland is one of four countries that united to form the United Kingdom.' Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We will describe it how it is, and since it is part of the union, a union terminology shall be used.

Contrarily, a more generic option would be "E/S/NI/W is a subdivision of the UK", since no one can dispute that. Fone4Me 19:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We must all agree, people. Constituent country and Country (or links to either of them)? are non-starters. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, we could please both sides by using both. How about 'Scotland is a country in the north of Great Britain that is a constituent country of the United Kingdom'. If we all hate it equally it may be the best compromise! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

'Scotland is a semi-autonomous constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain.' -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting approach, but if the phrase 'semi-autonomous' is acceptable, maybe there will be no objection to the phrase 'Scotland is a semi-autonomous country within the United Kingdom occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain.' I know it uses the term 'country' but surely the adjective 'semi-autonomous' should be enough to make clear that Scotland is not independent or sovereign. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will object to it and seeing as England has no autonomy to speak of it will inevitably be struck down. That said, the rest of my example seems good, no? -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that one. It mentions every point while avoiding the terms that we have arguing about. I fully support the above suggestion from MichiganCharms.Pureditor 20:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the one by MichiganCharms ("'Scotland is a semi-autonomous constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain.'"). I don't like the edited version by Fishie, who has again insisted on putting in "country". We are not using country - get over it. The countless times we have been through this now. Fone4Me 20:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually think Southern Ireland has the right style, if anyone wants to take a look at that article. -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"We are not using country - get over it. The countless times we have been through this now." - I assumed you were against the use of the term country because you felt it was open to the false interpretation that Scotland was an independent country, but it appears that you are objecting to any attempt to use 'country' even when it is used in association words that make absolutely clear that Scotland is not independent. However much you hate the idea of Scotland being a country, I have to tell you 'it is!' - (get over it!) Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That is far from non-disputable. Seriously... Fone4Me 21:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "Scotland is a semi-autonomous consituent subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain" works fantastically, incorporating the links to both constituent country and subdivisions of the UK. Thoughts? Fone4Me 20:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If only it were a geographic reality...-MichiganCharms (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I put Wales instead of Scotland first. Oops. What do people think of this? I honestly think this is the best thing that has been created so far, based on MichiganCharm's great idea. Fone4Me 21:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll go along with whatever everybody else wants. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I must again urge people to read the lead on Southern Ireland:

Southern Ireland (Irish: Deisceart Éireann) was the short lived autonomous region (or constituent country) of the United Kingdom established on 3 May 1921 and dissolved on 6 December 1922.

-MichiganCharms (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I read it, and that was how I came to my point. Fone4Me 21:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

New Poll

• "England is a constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the southern two thirds of the island of Great Britain"
• "Scotland is a semi-autonomous constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain"
• "Wales is a semi-autonomous constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the west of the island of Great Britain"
• "Northern Ireland is a semi-autonomous constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the north east of the island of Ireland"

• This is the latest development, that manages to incorporate both links (constituent country and subdivisions of the UK), both of which people wanted in the opening senence.
• It does not mention Constituent country or Country, and should therefore keep all sides happy. Oppinions? Fone4Me 21:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

just to say, that you are living in cloud cookoo land with this. It flies in the face of hard fought consensus decisions on each of the country sites. I'm giving up on this discussion its a complete waste of time. --Snowded (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

•Support (new suggestion)

1. Strong Support - Best option so far. Gives both links that we were trying to use, and does not assume country or constituent country, meaning no one should be dissatisfied. Fone4Me 21:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

   Are you allowed to support your own proposition? Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   Of course you are. Anyone can vote on anything. Fone4Me 16:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Support - Looks promising. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - Best comprimise so far. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 21:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Support - I would support this as the lead sentence if constituent/national were dropped as unnecessary. Also England would be better described as "occupying most of the southern two thirds" (remember Wales), and Wales as "in the west" (remember Cornwall). To meet the objection that there is no link to UK, how about "subdivision of the United Kingdom"? Kanguole (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Tentative support Be careful with occupying in at least one of these articles—have you heard the term British occupation? I thought there was no need for common noun, but sub-division looks fine if we must have one, and per Kanguole, it is redundant with constituent. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - Best suggestion so far. --Cameron (T|C) 17:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
7. SupportPureditor 19:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - I think the word constituent adds little and could be dropped but overall it is a fair compromise and I am happy to support it for all four regions. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

•Oppose (new suggestion)

1. Yes I oppose it. It sounds ridiculous. There is no need for this sort of polysyllabic committee-thinking crap. Oh, and what does "consituent" mean, anyway? Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose - unnecessarily convoluted. There is a much more succinct way to put it. --G2bambino (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   For example? Kanguole (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   For example: constituent country. --G2bambino (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   That was what we (the majority) wanted originally, but there were still some editors that would not accept it, so this is the best compromise. Fone4Me 17:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, I know the opposition exists, but their reasoning is... well, non-existent. It's never been explained how constituent country somehow hides the status of Scotland, Wales, England, and NI, as countries. All the extra verbiage in the proposal above is really for nothing. --G2bambino (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   I agree with you totally but there were threats of opposers starting edit wars if constituent country is used regardless of any consesnsus. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 17:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   Yes G2bambino, you're in some ways right - Constituent country would have been better in some ways (although I think this one has its charms too), but there were people that wouldn't accept it, even though there were the clear majority that did support it. Regardless, this seems like a better development, and this way, no one can ever argue it has any kind of POV in it. Fone4Me 18:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   Are we to succumb to the threats of edit warriors? The making of the threats alone puts those users in contempt of WP:EW. --G2bambino (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   Well it does seem a little like that, but not entirely. Since there seem to be such massive movements for "country" or "constituent country", having either one has brought up controversies on each side, so this is the proposal that aims to do away with both sides, and bring them into one, neutral sentence. Fone4Me 18:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   I would say that it is the entire situation; we are going through linguistic acrobatics in an effort to appease a few editors who are making an argument where none exists, and threatening to disrupt the project if not given their way. Regardless, the use of both constituent and subdivision creates a redundancy; as I, and others, have outlined below, a subdivision constitutes something larger, so why use both? --G2bambino (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   So what was wrong with ...part of the United Kingdom as a "country within a country"? How is that version leaning to either of those sides so much that we need to introduce the current overlong mess of a proposal, that is now hiding two links in one meaningless long blue link: constituent of the UK. You don't get any clear meaning form that version at all without hovering the mouse over each word, and it's not a complete phrase used in any source that I've seen. MickMacNee (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose Overlong, doesn't directly link to the United Kingdom in the first sencence, unnecessarily focuses on the politics. I can see the definition of 'semi-autonomous' being the next thing to be argued over, it is way too general a term to mean anything. And geographic locations are really not needed in the first sentence, given the maps. MickMacNee (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   Not all users can see the maps. The location is certainly needed in the first paragraph, if not the first sentence. Kanguole (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose - I've not heard such a ridiculous and blatantly POV-pushing suggestion in a very long time! Wales and Northern Ireland aside, England and Scotland are clearly "countries" and are considered as such by all but a very small minority of individuals. A handful of nominally single-topic editors cannot be allowed to detract from the overall professionalism and accuracy of these articles. Considered (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose - having the phrase 'constituent subdivision' is awkward because both words mean 'part of something bigger'. Using 'national subdivision' instead would avoid this. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   It is part of something bigger, the United Kingdom. Cheers. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 15:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   Agreed, and using 'subdivision' by itself already makes that clear. As I say, 'national subdivision' is more informative than the awkward phrase 'constituent subdivision' in which 'constituent' adds nothing to the meaning that 'subdivision' already brings. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   No, the "constituent" means that it is a constituent country (showing an individuality). The subdivision means that it is a section of the UK (showing a lack of an individuality). Fone4Me 16:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   The word constituent is an adjective that means (in my dictionary) 'helping to make a whole'. Therefore, in my view, 'constituent subdivision' is a very poor phrase as both words mean virtually the same! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   I don't see a problem with the wording at all, based on that. It simply means, in effect, a "subdivision that helps to make a whole", does it not? Fone4Me 17:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, that's my point - a subdivision is 'a part of a whole', so a 'constituent subdivision' is 'a part of a whole that helps to make a whole.' Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   They are 'a part of a whole that helps to make a whole' as they are part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If Scotland was independent then it would become the United Kingdom of the Southern parts of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You see what I'm trying to say? They are all required to make the UK of GB and NI. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 18:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   "a part of a whole that helps to make a whole." - I don't find anything wrong with that. Fone4Me 18:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   Let me try to illustrate by giving a different example - its like asking someone to draw a 'round circle' (all circles are round and if its round its a circle!) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   You are right, Fishiehelper. This is the underlying point to my objection to the proposal: too much redundancy. --G2bambino (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   Actually no, in this case, we are not dealing with the same thing. A "constituent" is something that makes something larger, and is not neccessarily a subdivision. A "subdivision" is a breakdown of something, and is not neccessarily constituent. There is a subtle, but important difference. --Fone4Me 18:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   I don't agree with that at all. Subdivisions constitute something larger. Consituencies are subdivisions (hence the use of the term for electoral subdivisions of a geo-political area). They are essentially synonyms. --G2bambino (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   Then what about "is a constituent of the UK", or "is a subdivision of the UK". Both those options would deal with the redundancy whilst keeping both links. Fone4Me 18:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   Better - replace constituent with something that brings information and meaning - 'national subdivisions' seems ideal to me. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   I think either of those two options works well enough. We can't exchange the links any further than that, otherwise the pages the words link to, and the words themselves, won't be linked vocabulary-wise at all. Which of the two do you prefer? Fone4Me 19:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   Let me get this right, When rugby or football fans go see their international teams they are supporting their national subdivisions. I've never heard anything so funny in all my life, you guys should write a comedy. 86.145.109.140 (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   Removing any reference to country flies in the face of facts and is a massive POV. Get real --Snowded (User talk:Snowded)

   As the multichoice poll has already showed, those wanting "country" in are in the clear minority. Also, your comment is hardly constructive to the conversation at all. Fone4Me 21:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

New Suggestion Discussion

A bit long but it's not too horrific and does describe Scotland pretty well. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 21:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget about England, Wales & Northern Ireland. Hopefully it fits those articles aswell. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It should do. The "northern third" would be substituted for "southern", "western", and "north-western" respectively. Fone4Me 21:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What would it say for England? (with England not being semi-autonomous) Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it not just replace semi-autonomous with autonomous? And use "southern"? Fone4Me 21:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

England isn't autonomous, that would imply independence from the UK. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 21:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

'Largest constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom, occupying most of the the southern two thirds of Great Britain' Or some such thing -MichiganCharms (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

you might try posting it on the Scotland page and see what reaction you get. Sounds a bit like a Hitchhikers Guide the the Galaxy --Snowded (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We shan't take any action to put it anywhere until, and unless, it has been agreed here. Fone4Me 21:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I think you should try it out. I know you want to get an agreement here and then use the authority to impose something on the other pages. However a lot of Welsh and Scottish editors have been here so many times they are not engaged. Post it on Wales and Scotland as an idea under discussion and see what response you get. --Snowded (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So what would be the exact replacement wordings for England, Wales, and NI? Fone4Me 21:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I've put the suggestions above as to what they should be. Do people find the four of them acceptable to put forward to the poll? Fone4Me 22:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't create consistancy across the 4 articles, though. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well they can't all say "occupying the northern third of Great Britain" because they don't. Fone4Me 22:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm speaking of the semi-autonomous thing. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you could just get rid of the semi-autonomous, but anyway, I don't think that that slight difference is a problem. It would be different for a reason - because England is not semi-autonomous like the other 3, so it would only be representative of what it is saying, if you get me? Fone4Me 22:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The UK? I'm speaking of England. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry I keep doing this. Think I must be tired. Think that's my cue to head off to bed now. Night. Fone4Me 22:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but is not Northern Ireland in the north east of the island of Ireland? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes. ;) Fone4Me 22:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to get my head round this and I think I now see what I don't like - having the phrase 'constituent subdivision' seems awkward because both words mean 'part of something bigger'. Could I suggest the phrase 'national subdivision' as a better alternative? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with it. However, could you perhaps explain further what you mean, with an example of where the links etc would fit. I think that the current suggestion is fine as it is, and I don't find the two words clash personally. Fone4Me 22:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to be constructive. I was thinking of this -

• "England is a national subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the southern two thirds of the island of Great Britain"
• "Scotland is a semi-autonomous national subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain"
• "Wales is a semi-autonomous national subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the west of the island of Great Britain"
• "Northern Ireland is a semi-autonomous national subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the north east of the island of Ireland"

Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk)

Thank you for expanding. However, i am not so comfortable with "national" linking to constituent country. As it stands, i am with the suggestion as it is. Night. Fone4Me 22:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned with the different discription for England. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't find that so much of a problem, since England is a slightly different case from the other three. Fone4Me 22:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

These discussions grew out of the complaint that the article Scotland, was different from the other 3. Now, it's being considered that England, be different from the other 3? Might be a keg waiting to explode. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you put a comma after England? What possible grammatical reason is there to do that? Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not good at grammar. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To address GoodDay's concern, the original disagreement was a storm in a teacup, and anyone trying to debate that England and Scotland should both (or neither) be described as semi-autonomous will be starting a storm in an even smaller place. Good luck to them.

For my part, I think occupying is not helpful. Would in be better, or do we need a verb, like located. For example, I like:

Scotland is a semi-autonomous subdivision of the United Kingdom in the northern third of the island of Great Britain.

but I could live with:

Scotland is a semi-autonomous subdivision of the United Kingdom located in the northern third of the island of Great Britain.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

New suggestion Discussion (Arbitrary Break 1): Just the lead?

I hope this wasn't already addressed, but are people only worried about using the "constituent country" in the lead, but willing to use it elsewhere in the article? I can see not wanting to use in the lead, since there is no space to explain, but I would think each could use and explain the term in the body in a way that is satisfactory to most editors at all five articles. In that event, the word "national" and the "constituent country" link could be dropped from the suggestions in the section above. -Rrius (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly my view. British usage of "country" and "constituent country" for E/S/NI/W is well attested, but using them in the lead sentence is unhelpful to readers from many other parts of the world. Making them links doesn't help much, because the reader needs to flip articles just to understand the sentence which is supposed to be introducing the article. As this discussion shows, it's not a simple issue and it needs some space to explain, i.e. further down in the article. Some people have noted that this is what is done in the various encyclopaedias cited above, and I'd suggest that is because they're seeking to be useful to an international audience.

FishieHelper2's suggestion is accurate and informative, though I agree that national is unnecessary (and the geographical descriptions of England and Wales need tweaking). As for the objection about England not having autonomy, well it doesn't. Kanguole (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If country in some form however qualified is not in the introduction then you are very unlikely to get any agreement from the country pages in question. Not because of any nationalist POV (although the attempt will be seen as a Unionist POV whatever your intent), but because they are countries and the issue has been extensively debated on Scotland and Wales with the evidence base established. The fact that some of those who originally advocated "constituent country" have immediately jumped to a solution which removes the word country completely will confirm suspicions of said Unionist POV. Aside from that the geographical descriptions are clumsy, not helpful and I doubt you can tweak them to be accurate without making them even more wordy than they are.

My view is that, with regret, this attempt to create a common set of language is close to beinglost, and lost by the recreation of the old and increasingly tiresome debate about the country status of Scotland and Wales. Its a pity, but I think its over unless there is a radical reset to the thread so far and a willingness to accept reality (which also happens to be fact) namely that Wales and Scotland are countires, within the overign nation that is the UK

I have one last suggestion, which is to use sovereign nation as a way around this. A variation of the earlier Fishiehelper2 idea and mine. "E/W/S is a country within the sovereign nation of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?" With that there is no confusion whatsoever for someone coming to the page for the first time. The click through is there if people want it, but it would not be necessary to click through to understand the constituent nature --Snowded (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A nation is a group of people, not a division of land. Also, the UK is a country using the same source material to assert E/S/W/NI are countries too. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We are talking in the main about nations not divisions of land. You could say sovereign country but then there would be repetition. So it is in no way denying that the UK is a country, just emphasising that it is sovereign. I think the above handles any objection about confusion to a reader from overseas, satisfies the need for country (which is accurate) and also links to constituent country. Mind you I am not sure if I have energy for this. The chance of any of the more recent suggestions surviving on any of the country pages is non-existent. --Snowded (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

How about "...within the sovereign state of..."? -Rrius (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

May I point out that the poll on the main new suggestion is still continuing. Cheers, --Fone4Me 17:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

New Suggestion Discussion (Arbitrary Break 2)

Guys, over the last year there have been sustained and difficult discussions on Wales and Scotland about whether they are countries or not. In the course of that there have been Nationalist POV positions that have said they are not countries, because they are not sovereign. There have been Unionist POV positions that have said they are "parts of the UK". Evidence has been assembled and presented in multiple discussions and on each of those pages the clear agreement has been that they are countries. On Wales it was agreed to clarify this by using constituent country, on Scotland attempts to do that have been opposed.

The original attempt here was to create a common agreement between three variations. Country on Scotland, Constituent Country on Wales and Country on England. I made one attempt here with the England solution, others have insisted on Constituent Country. It is really good news that people are trying to find a way forward. But the above form of words sounds like what it is, a committee process. A consensus achieved on this page is not going to be able to mandate the country pages, in part because active editors on those pages have not been involved here. My opinion is that without the word country in some form, however qualified there is no prospect of creating something that can achieve the consistency that many of us want. Fishyhelper2's "is a country that is a constituent part of the United Kingdom" had some chance, the above don't

Now please don't throw out POV insults or insist that a majority vote here creates wikipedia policy because it doesn't. It may be that there is no prospect of reaching an agreement and we will just have regular returns to this topic at the expense of developing real content on all the sites. --Snowded (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In agreement here. I've tried in the past, to get the 4 articles to fall in line & was unsuccessful everytime. I'll accept whatever solution is founded 'here', but I highly doubt the individual articles will consent. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In light of the solutions above, I think I need a reality check. I ask again what the majority have against:

....is a part of the United Kingdom, as a "country within a country".

I have added a piped link to the 'part' word, if we seriously need to get into the differing levels of autonomy in the first sentence, but apart from that, the original solution:

• recognised the country view
• recognised the constituent country view
• recognised the UK is a country view
• used a reliable source
• was factual
• was accurate

Some criticised the length, but come on, after the proposals above about semi-autonomous regions, is this seriously too long to get the point across? MickMacNee (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Who could possibly object to "semi-autonomous constituent subdivision"? It's really pithy and just trips off the tongue. Bravo, that man. Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to point out that any use of the term 'country', qualified or not, has been debated at Northern Ireland. I'm beginning to think there will be no 4 article wide consensus... ok that's a joke, I know there won't be. Let England and Scotland be countries, let Wales and Northern Ireland be whatever as long as it can be properly sourced. Honestly, why does anybody really care? The 5 affected articles could all be FA's for the amount of time wasted on this topic. -MichiganCharms (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooh! I've got one! How about:

• "Scotland is a devoluted sub-statelet existing north by northwest of European Central Point as a quasi-autonomous realm in These Islands"

Pretty good, eh? Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, just a note that that type of contribution is precluded in our policies of WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL. Please be mindful that we're all here for more-or-less the same reason: to improve the encyclopedia. That you don't agree with a suggestion isn't an excuse to mock it or its advocates. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I may have been mocking, but in doing so my purpose was to get people to step back and look again at what they were saying. A bit of perspective can only be a good thing, particularly in a section headed "Sanity Check".

Seriously, if these changes were actually being made on the page this would be a strong contender for WP:Lamest edit wars. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

May I remind people of the poll still going on under our "new suggestion". I have seen no further progression of ideas of anything since then, and so that is still our latest proposal. Fone4Me 11:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, the new suggestion has now attracted the support of both the the old supporters of "constituent country" and "country" alike. It seems like we may be onto something at last. Fone4Me 17:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Six versus four isn't exactly a consensus, is it? It's very nearly an even split, particularly given that you've "strongly supported" your own proposal. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say we were at a consensus yet, but by the looks of it, since both sides of the previous argument (constituent country v country) are supporting it, it looks promising. And as I said there, I am perfectly allowed to support my own proposal - where are you getting the idea that I am not? Fone4Me 18:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I rather like Malcolm XIV's suggestion! Ladies and gentlemen, we should surely laugh at ourselves for taking up so many weeks, so many months! - over an issue that is about as vital as whether we should say 'neither' (nee-ther) or 'neither' (nigh-ther)! Let's have a good laugh at ourselves, and just get over it. It's just not a big deal.--Gazzster (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer neigh-ther = ). But seriously, I think it is a "big deal". The outcome of this discussion could put an end to all the other discussions and edit wars. --Cameron (T|C) 14:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The way it is going at the moment it will cause edit wars. If this group reaches a consensus along the lines above and seeks to impose it on the country pages then you are going to have a repeat of the nightmare of a month or so ago and with similar results. The more I see this discussion the more I begin to think that we should forget it, or go to arbitration. Removing country in some form is inaccurate and a clear (and provocative) POV. I am nor surprised at Fonez4mii whose history as an editor is recent and seems to have taken this issue up without any previous engagement or contribution to the country pages. I am however very surprised to see experienced editors going along with something this provocative. --Snowded (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

New Suggestion Discussion (Arbitrary Break 4)

Several points:

1. I have now been cleared of the sockpuppetery case that was against me (filed by JackForbes, surprise surprise), so the excuses that some put up for not joining in the conversation due to this is now invalid.
2. I saw someone mention above that it is a tiny number or editors pushing against country. This is most certainly untrue, and if anyone cares to look at the multi-choice poll, those voting "constituent country" by far outnumbered those voting "country". Basically, as it stands, we are not using country, and are using constituent country. However, since there is still not 100% on this, we are now trying to see if there is an even better alternative to constituent country, which will attract support from both sides of the argument. This seems to have been successful in the new suggestion, as it has now gained support from those from both sides of the previous argument - showing something in this new suggestion is obviously NPOV.
3. May I remind people that IP addresses are not allowed to comment or vote here, and as such, shall be removing those points by the IP above.

Cheers --Fone4Me 21:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"IP addresses are not allowed to comment or vote here". Which policy is that based on? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite correct, there's no policy (that I know of) that prevents IPs from having a say. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys Fonez4mii says they can't ..... --Snowded (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

By all means IPs comment & vote, as ya'll please (not because I say so; because Wikipedia says it is so). GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Shall I, then, reinstate the comments that User:Fonez4mii has already censored? Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not? GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)IPs are perfectly entitled to "vote", but should be treated with an element of WP:COMMONSENSE, thus usually rendering most such votes as void. However, this is exactly why a polling process on Wikipedia is problematic. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

These are the deleted comments, both of which are critical of Fonez4mii's proposal:

• Let me get this right, When rugby or football fans go see their international teams they are supporting their national subdivisions. I've never heard anything so funny in all my life, you guys should write a comedy. 86.145.109.140 (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'm an Englishman who lives in a country called England. Who started this conversation? Has he been taken away yet? 86.145.109.140 (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)'

They may not be entirely compliant with WP:CIVIL, but it seems to me that there was not sufficient cause to delete them. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. A friendly notice should've been made to him/her. I'll do that now. On reflection, I don't think those comments were helpful. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Jza84. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In the main the comments were perfectly valid, they illustrate the way in which the constructs being created here are degenerating into farce. Some may not agree with those statements, but they are valid and they is no way then are in breech of WP:CIVIL. If you want some examples of such a breech look at the various POV accusations Fonez4mii is throwing out. Deleting other editors comments because you disagree with them is not acceptable. --Snowded (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The next step is working out a way forwards here. I don't think the way this disscussion is organised is likely to bring about any conclusion. I think we need to look at this from a different POV - working solely from source material. This worked very well in this discussion. Certainly there's agreement that "country" and "consituent country" are verifiable - what is the actual crux of the matter now should be to codify when and where each term should be used (it looks impossible that either one will be used exclusively)... IMHO --Jza84 |  Talk  22:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right that the discussion has to be reset - and it needs a experienced and neutral editor to do it.--Snowded (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably way too an involved party to meet the latter part of that criteria! Although I do happen to think each term has its time and place on WP. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think the discussion is going no where, and (i) a vote cannot mandate plus (ii) a discussion on this page cannot mandate the other pages, or be an authority given all the country pages have extensively discussed the issue recently and reached agreement I think you are right to say that each term has its time and place. Others were right some time ago to say that this is an area where there will never be agreement --Snowded (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion should've been held if possible simultaneously at the talk pages of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No that's too spread out! As you rightly suggested (elsewhere) the discussion should have taken place at WP:UK. But the discussion here is still valid as all the other pages where notified. It's like a merge proposal: All pages are informed but the talk is only on one chosen page. In this case UK is that place. And besides UK is a nice neutral place for the discussion. --Cameron (T|C) 10:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving forwards, perhaps then we can change the focus of the discussion off "country Vs. constituent country" and onto when and where it might be appropriate to use each? --Jza84 |  Talk  10:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. Why not just include both - then everybody gets to be happy/unhappy:

• Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England.

If you can't please all of the people, all of the time, then try none of the people, none of the time! 195.27.13.214 (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Me again. Can I comment? I'll take the chance. If you thought my comments were a bit forceful? They were meant to be! I was trying to force home to you guys how silly the suggestions were becoming. Country, constituent country, who cares, but some of the other ideas were just plain daft. One more point before I leave to do something much more interesting, When people like me peruse articles they tend to have a look at the discussion page and when they see discussions like this they find it hard to take the article too seriously. I might take a look in a few months time to see if you are still debating this, and have another laugh. Sorry, was that not very civil of me? ;} 86.145.109.140 (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Barryob's suggestion, made 5 days ago, that E/S/W/NI 'is a country within the United Kingdom' is the most sensible option I've seen in this discussion. It has the advantage of being both succinct and factual. The idea that all those 'semi-autonomous national subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain' s would be accepted by Wikipedia's readership is ludicrous. I've no objection to it being followed by 'It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England' (or wherever) as a reasonable compromise. (Dai caregos (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)).

May I point out that I most certainly did not remove the comments because they were against my position, or even for the fact that they were unconstructive for that matter. I removed them due to the fact that at the very beginning of this whole polling session, it was agreed that IP's would not be allowed to vote on it. Fone4Me 15:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remind people that we have decided collectively not to use "country". [Talk:United Kingdom#Multi-Choice Straw Poll]], and it was in fact a clear majority that advocated Consituent country. However, in order to attempt to see if there was an even better solution than Constituent country, which would attract the support of all sides of the previous argument, the latest poll was set up. Let me put it this way - there is certainly no chance of us going back to "country", as that was voted completely and utterly out in any form. Our current "default", is constituent country, based on the last poll. The new poll is simply a way to see if there is anything even better than that. Please bare that in mind. Fone4Me 15:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop saying things like "we have decided" and "that was voted completely and utterly out in any form". Wikipedia is not a democracy. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

An editor above stated "Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England." That does seem the most sensible compromise - it should satisfy all sides (apart from anyone with an agenda to push) - and is clearly verifiable. The previous discussions were leading nowhere. Can we have a poll on this compromise suggestion? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That suggestion is a POV push in itself by mentioning "country" before "constituent country". As the polls have all shown, there is far more support for constituent country than country, so if any of the two terms are going to be used first, it should be constituent country followed by country - not the other way round. Additionally, I would like to point out that we do not just jump from poll to poll without having a large enough number of votes on the previous poll. There is still an ongoing poll, and it is currently partially underdeveloped, and as such, it would be advisable to see if consensus arises either way on the votes for it before creating another poll. Fone4Me 16:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"I would like to point out that we do not just jump from poll to poll without having a large enough number of votes on the previous poll" - I would beg to disagree, based on my own eyes looking upwards. I ask for the millionth time, what is wrong with ...is a part of the United Kingdom, as a "country within a country.", with regard to the "country" versus "constituent country" issue you keep referring to. As others have already said above but you are ignoring, the proposals to drop country/constituent all together in favour of rambling on about national divisions, autonomy and tacking on a geography lesson, is simply just too long and unnecessarily complicated for the first sentence. MickMacNee (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. Before some of us get ahead of ourselves, may I again suggest the compromise that both verifiable descriptions be included. "Country", as I have stated elsewhere, (Talk:Scotland#Alright, enough.), is verifiable under ISO 3166-2:2007|"Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions -- Part 2: Country subdivision code" (second edition) which "comprises a consolidation of all changes to the lists of ISO 3166-1:1998 agreed to by the ISO 3166 Maintenance agency, published in the ISO 3166 Newsletter up to I-9". On page 11 of ISO3166-2 Newsletter I-9 it clearly refers to Scotland (and England) as countries. (This differs from the original ISO 3166-2:1998 Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions -- Part 2: Country subdivision code, which has been withdrawn).

The changes to ISO 3166-2:1998 which have been consolidated into ISO 3166-2:2007 include those outlined in:

• ISO 3166-2 Newsletter I-2, (Image Pg 25)
• ISO 3166-2 Newsletter I-8, (Image Pg 9)
• ISO 3166-2 Newsletter I-9, (Image Pg 11)

You will see that the ISO has changed from using the term "First-level Divisions" to describe E/NI/S/W in Newsletters I-2 and I-8, to using "Country", "Principality" and "Province" in Newsletter I-9. Despite stating the same sources in each newsletter, (the June 1997 ONS "Gazetteer" and BS6879 code sources), the ISO now refers to Scotland and England as "country" and has consolidated this change into the latest version of ISO 3166-2:2007.

Once again, we can adopt both verifyable descriptions into the articles:

• Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England.

• England (Cornish: Pow Sows) is a country that occupies most of the southern two-thirds of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares land borders to the north with Scotland and to the west with Wales.

• Wales (Welsh: Cymru) is a principality that occupies the largest western peninsula of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the east with England.

• Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is a province that occupies the northeast of the island of Ireland. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south and west with the Republic of Ireland.

All the examples above use the terms now included in ISO 3166-2:2007, coupled with "constituent country", and all are verifiable. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

But again, you are forgetting, that saying England and Scotland are countries is controversial. Everyone agrees they are kingdoms, but not everyone agrees they are countries. If you are going to call Wales a "principality" and NI a "province", then England and Scotland should be "kingdoms", according to your suggestion, otherwise it is inconsistent. Fone4Me 17:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying that using countries is controversial, but you have not quoted anything (as far as I remember) that says they are NOT countries. There are sources that describe them as other things, but no sources say they are NOT countries. So why is the term controversial? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. "saying England and Scotland are countries is controversial" - not for the ISO it would appear. Furthermore, "according to your suggestion" - not mine, but the ISO's. "Country", as is the case with "Constituent country", is verifiable. (The only source I know which refers to Scotland as a "Kingdom" is a Scottish Govt. website section for FAQ's. I can find no others stating England is a "Kingdom" and the ISO certainly doesn't use this description). Why can't we use both if both are verifiable? No reason whatsoever from what I can see. 80.41.236.156 (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As Josh has explained to you several times, the ISO does not say that Scotland is a country, as does neither the EU. Fone4Me 18:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. Josh, forgive me, can quote the ONS "Gazetteer" until the cows come home, for his argument was based on a reference to the June 1997 ONS "Gazetteer" which, following local government re-organisation in Scotland, Wales and to a lesser extent England, concerned the names and codes of the new unitary authorities resulting from the 1996 re-organisation of local government.

You will see from the ISO Newsletters I-2, I-8 and I-9, linked to above, that the references in each newsletter to the ONS "Gazetteer" remain the unaltered, yet Newsletter I-9 has dropped the term "First-level divisions" in favour of "country", "principality" and "province". Therefore it can be proved that this change in terminology has nothing to do with the ONS "Gazetteer" of 1997.

Now both Josh, and you, can repeat until you're both blue in the face that "the ISO does not say that Scotland is a country", but anyone with eyes and a modicum of common sense will judge otherwise. It is there in black (red) and white for all to see and has now been included in ISO 3166-2:2007. With respect, 80.41.236.156 (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What's with the Troll here introductions? GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Again, why are you describing yourself as a troll? GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Coz that's how Fone referred to me on the Talk:Scotland page, after which I requested on his talk page that he "dry-up". I appear as different IP's and I-D myself so as not to make the same "mistake" as Fone and leave myself open to 'sockpuppet' accusations. ;) 80.41.236.156 (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is there clearly in black and white that it does not mention Scotland being a "country" by definition. The ISO in fact actively leaves Scotland, England, Wales, and NI out of its list of countries. Fone4Me 19:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll", again. You can't have it both ways; ISO 3166-2:2007 states "country", (in nice red font in Newsletter I-9), next to Scotland and England. How the ISO accounts for any discrepancy/inconsistency which you claim exists, is up to the ISO. Either way, in ISO 3166-2:2007, it does state "country"! You can't argue with that! 80.41.236.156 (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly incorrect. The ISO source we provided shows otherwise, and the source that Josh gave, that you then interpreted as meaning Scotland was now a country, says nothing of the sort. Fone4Me 19:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" again. Is 'King Knut' editing on this page? The ISO, on 2007-12-13, published ISO 3166-2:2007. This document consolidated "all changes to the lists of ISO 3166-1:1998 agreed to by the ISO 3166 Maintenance agency, published in the ISO 3166 Newsletter up to I-9", which, without any alteration of references cited in both Newsletters I-2 and I-8, replaced the term "First-level divisions" with "country", "principality" and "province". (See here). If you wish to fly in the face of this document on the basis of another ISO document published I don't know when, (I doubt as recently as 13th December 2007), then go ahead. I have nothing more to add. People can see for themselves. What more can one say when someone insists black is white, and white is black. (In this case what is clearly stated in print in 'red and white' in I-9 is what counts). I favour the compromise of "country/principality/province" in counjunction with "Constituent country" across all four articles, as per my suggestion outlined previously. 80.41.236.156 (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I finally understand Troll's confusion. Just because they haven't used a new source doesn't mean that they're defining Scotland as a country was done by ISO. If that was the case then the source would be also quoted as "ISO 3166/MA" (as is done with the code source for the Czech Republic in the same newsletter). As I keep repeating to you, ISO is only responsible for defining the codes. Much as they couldn't rename Scotland 'Chilly Jock-o-land' they couldn't start calling US states 'yanky lands' or define how the UK refers to its subdivisions. josh (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" again. Thanks for understanding my "confusion". How then, and from which 'source', have the terms "country", "principality" and "province" appeared on the ISO document in question? Please identify for me from whence they have come, and advise me why the "whence" is not a legitimate, reliable or verifiable source? 80.41.236.156 (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

From the source already given. Any change in source would come with a change in source information. josh (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll", again. Please specify for me the "source already given": Do you mean ISO 3166-2 Newsletter I-9? ISO 3166-2:2007? ISO 3166-1:1998? The 1997 ONS "Gazetteer"? 80.41.236.156 (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll", again. I have to 'step out' for a while, but hope to return before day's end. In the absence of a reply, (perhaps Josh and Fonez are both surfing to find an answer to my last post, so fair'n'uff a reply may yet be forthcoming), may I again state that I remain genuinely confused as to:

• why/how "country" has appeared next to Scotland and England on two ISO documents, (ISO 3166-2 Newsletter I-9 and ISO 3166-2:2007)
• what the original source (if not the ISO itself) for these terms is/was
• why, whatever the source, these are regarded by josh and Fone4Me as not being reliable or verifiable?

Can anyone help??? 80.41.219.121 (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The source is the gazetter as given as the list source in the UK entry of ISO-3166. Had the ISO 3166 Maintenance agency (ISO 3166/MA) taken it upon themselves to update the list then the source would have been updated as on page 14 of I-2:

Code source: EUROPLATE + ISO/TC 46/WG2 Secretariat(*) + ISO 3166/MA(*) --josh (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The "country", "principality" and "province" argument is moot. I don't agree that Scotland and England are countries and Wales isn't. It's absurd. Scotland, England and Wales are all countries and should be defined as such. Each has been an autonomous country for centuries (even though none are now). They didn't just stop being countries because they were ruled elsewhere. Their borders are virtually unchanged. Scotland is still populated by a nationality known as Scottish, Wales is still populated by a nationality known as Welsh and England is (mostly) still populated by a nationality known as English. How can anyone say they aren't countries? Northern Ireland, however, is a political entity created for the sake of expediency. If those living in Northern Ireland want to call it a province, that's fine by me. But the countries that constitute the Great Britain part of 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' are just that, countries. (Dai caregos (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)).

--But, be mindful that the problem with "country" is its association with sovereignty. Some readers (and clearly editors) find it confusing/objectionable due their position within the United Kingdom, itself most definately (or rather verifiably) a country. The dispute is an editorial one based on perspective and projection. Also, the issue of nationality isn't as simple as you make out per WP:UKNATIONALS. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is beginning to do my head in! "Scotland is a country that joined with England in 1707 to form the original United Kingdom". Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion as Jza84 has said above is that country is misleading. The The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English from 2008 defines a country as a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory. In my view this says that England is definitely not a country and the devolved national assemblies of NI, Scotland and Wales being governements and therefore being bonafide countries are arguable. The term country implies sovereignty as been can be seen in the dictionary definition and by common usage. Therefore the term shouldn't be used in the intro. I don't have any opinion on what goes up as long as it is written in a NPOV and is accurate and not misleading in any way. Everyone is getting fed up of the discussion as no one is budging from what they want. My suggestion is:

Scotland is a constituent country within the United Kingdom that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. What problems do people have with that? It gives people their beloved country with making constituent seperate to the term country which also removes any confusion about sovereignty by using the term constituent country which most people seem to want. From what I can see it gives everyone what they are looking for. I'm probably completely missing the point, but I think it's neutral anyway.Pureditor 23:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Request # 1 million and 1, what is wrong with ...is a part of the United Kingdom, as a "country within a country."? Everyone seems to be missing the absolute point here, the the UK government itself within the context given above describes every part as a country within a country. Why are people trying to ignore this basic fact? The UK govt have obviously been through this same debate time and again, and they are obviously eminently more qualified to solve diplomatic issues like this than wikipedians. So, I ask again (and again, and again) what is wrong with this wording? MickMacNee (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"What is wrong with...?" It just sounds so long-winded and contrived. No one would actually say "Country within a country", a phrase clearly thought up by a committee to draw an end to a discussion. cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read some of the alternative proposals above if you think that is long winded. Frankly, it is the shortest solution to the major conflict between "country" and "constituant country", which as is explained at the start, is an edit war that will never end. MickMacNee (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" again. Thanks for that josh. As I understand the Canadian situation to which you refer, the "update 2001" on pg 14 refers to the source document of "CGSB e-mail SCC 1999-09-02". Therefore, any corresponding update to the ONS Gazetteer 1997 would have been similarly cited in either Newsletter I-2, I-8 or I-9. (Newsletter I-9 of course including "country" as both a descriptive term and in the section title).

It would appear that in ISO Newsletter 1-9, the 1997 ONS Gazetteer was corrected by "BSI 2000-11-27". If indeed the "BSI 2000-11-27" correction accounts for the change from "First-level divisions", in ISO 3166-1:1998, ISO 3166-2 Newsletter I-2 and ISO 3166-2 Newsletter I-8, in favour of "country", "principality" and "province", as stated in ISO 3166-2 Newsletter I-9 and ISO 3166-2:2007, why do josh and Fone4Me insist that this fails to pass the criteria for citations from reliable sources?

In summary, the ISO has incorporated changes into ISO 3166-2:2007, which resulted from a correction made by the BSI, on 2000-11-27, with regard to BS6879:1999, ("Code for the representation of names of counties and similar areas"), which in turn resulted in the change from "First-level divisions" in favour of "country", "principality" and "province". Why then do some maintain that the ISO/BSI are not reliable sources?

Again, I respectfully suggest that the following compromise be adopted:

• Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England.

• England (Cornish: Pow Sows) is a country that occupies most of the southern two-thirds of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares land borders to the north with Scotland and to the west with Wales.

• Wales (Welsh: Cymru) is a principality that occupies the largest western peninsula of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the east with England.

• Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is a province that occupies the northeast of the island of Ireland. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south and west with the Republic of Ireland.

Regards. 80.41.235.140 (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The point I made in the distant past when this argument started was that the ONS and not ISO were responsible for calling Scotland a country. I never questioned the actual reliablity of the source just who actually decided to call England and Scotland countries. josh (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" again. My mistake - the correction made by the BSI, on 2000-11-27, first appears on ISO Newsletter I-2, which does not then account for the change between ISO Newsletter 1-8 and ISO Newsletter I-9, where the term "First-level divisions" is dropped in favour of "country", "principality" and "province". THE BSI/ONS would not therefore appear to be responsible for the change as the references in ISO Newsletter I-8 and ISO Newsletter I-9 remain the same in both cases. One can only assume therefore that in the absence of any change to the references that the ISO itself is wholly responsible for introducing the terms "country", "principality" and "province" in BS ISO 3166-2:2007. 80.41.213.153 (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, it looks to me you are all scared of this fores4mii. Sounds to me like a bit of a bully. Don't let him push you about! Where does this guy come from? he sounds as if he has a real problems with English/British people. Boilerman (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has long since gotten out of hand. "Constituent country" is verified, it is what the government and individual MPs use, it makes it clear that the country is a part of the UK, and appears to be a term of art. Avoiding the term to avoid offending either unionists (because of "country") or nationalists (because of "constituent") bends to POV and it is not why that is acceptable.

I would further point out that a "principality" is a country (see Monaco). It is actually more controversial to call Wales a principality since it is no longer ruled (or reigned over) by a prince.

Also, is it time yet for a new "arbituary" break? And is "arbituary" what it looks like (i.e., a misspelling of "arbitrary")? -Rrius (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not quite right. Per the official source, "Country within a country" is the actual diplomatic desription (i.e. the description suitable to a worldwide audience), shortened to constituent country for practical, but not diplomatic, purposes. MickMacNee (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatic purposes? That seems to be a rather small lens through which to view this. -Rrius (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I received 1,370 hits for "constituent country" OR "constituent countries" site:.gov.uk, and 59 for "constituent country" OR "constituent countries" site:parliament.uk. I received no hits for "country within a country" OR "countries within a country" site:parliament.uk, and 4 for "country within a country" OR "countries within a country" site:.gov.uk. I'm not saying that "country within a country is meaningless or rarely used, but I do think that my point to which you responded was correct. -Rrius (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you not understand the difference between practical and diplomatic use? See the start of the discussion for the primary source for the diplomatic use of "country within a country". Quite how this is a 'small lens' is beyond me, as diplomacy is all about satisfying all of the people all of the time. MickMacNee (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, as it is an artificial distinction you are drawing. As far as I can tell, the source you are talking about is this one. On that page the term "Countries within a country" is used once as a title for the introductory paragraph. Its first sentence supports using just "country" or, I would argue, "constituent country". It says, "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". There is absolutely nothing there that suggests that the government prefers "country within a country" as a "diplomatic" or any other kind of term. It seems merely to be a section title. If you are referring to another source, please re-link to it. It is asking too much to expect someone to go back through this monstrosity of discussion.

So what they choose to name a section heading is a trivial matter? Do you honestly not understand the sensibilities and diplomacy that goes into deciding the wording of such a thing? Can you honestly not understand the difference between the term used as a header, and what is used as a practical substitute within text? MickMacNee (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Naming a section title on a page explaining the constitutional structure is not the same as defining a term. The page does not even assert that it is a term. By contrast, the same government that prepared that website routinely uses "constitutent country" in reports and websites meant for internal and external use. Your continued insistence that that one page represents the government's official description of the constitutional arrangement is virtually baseless. -Rrius (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to take a moment to respond to the comment that you deleted and replaced with this one. You were criticizing the use of google hits. As you may have figured out (causing you to delete the comment), those searches were of the gov.uk and parliament.uk domains, not the entire web. They illustrate what term the government uses. Report after report and webpage after webpage refers to "constituent country", not "country within a country". -Rrius (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

See above. It would be frankly stupid to use the longer in place of the shorter, and that absolutely does not detract from the existence of the longer definition. MickMacNee (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced a note about sovereignty is needed, that was a sop to you. "Clarifying" with "country within a country" would be fine, too. At base, it seems to make the most sense to use the word that has meaning in government and political science. "Constituent country fits that bill; "country within a country" is not even a term as such: it is a description. -Rrius (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

New Suggestion Discussion (Arbitrary Break 3)

These are rather over long ways of describing the various parts of the United Kingdom. Is there really need to use such terms to pander to political diatribes or can we not operate on an encyclopedia basis? Most people would just say "Scotland is part of the UK" for example. Have all the words being used in this proposal been properly sourced, or are they just being used because people don't argue as much over them? Is this definition the correct one, or is it being used because of the angst it generates?--ZincBelief (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary of Polls

(<-) May I ask the team assembled here what the reasons for objection are to "constituent country"? And also, how that term might be inappropriate/unencyclopedic for our readers? I've started a sub-section here to gauge why the term might not be appropriate, and how many people feel that way; please keep this section focussed on the topic rasied if possible. This isn't a section about which is more correct (country vs. con. country), but rather why "consituent country" stirs up objection. Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  01:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It implies subservience, i.e. constituents are only ever significant as part of a whole, thereby denying recognition of the right to be a country at all without the unifying part, the UK, holding everything together, which is not supported by sources. This is all in contrast to the official term, "country within a country", which gives equal recgnition to both points of view, i.e identitification as a country without implication of sovereignty (truth), and yet recognition as being a constituent of a country, the UK (truth). MickMacNee (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

But they are subservient. The UK Parliament is ultimately in charge. If it chose to, it could end devolution. On the other hand, if the Union were to dissolve, a former "constituent country" would become a "sovereign country". Your point about confusion over sovereignty is easily overcome by saying, "X is a constituent country of the United Kingdom; however all sovereignty lies with the latter", or some such. In addition, to read constituent country to mean each is only a country because of the UK is an odd interpretation that requires coming to the term with a hypersensitivity about unionism and nationalism. Also, I dispute your contention that "country within a country" is official. -Rrius (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. If the Scottish parliament declared independance tomorrow, short of war, there's nothing the UK could do about it. This avenue of argument is a complete non-starter. Adding 'howevers' is just as useless as the other long winded autonomy/subdivision solutions proposed above. Constituent country means to all normal people: 'a country, but with strings attached', whereas it is already well established that 'country' on its own does not necessarily convey sovereignty. "Country within a country" reflects that situation perfectly without verbosity, which is why it is the officially accepted wording. MickMacNee (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Your point about the Scottish parliament declaring independence is the rubbish. The only way within the framework of the current union that Scotland could separate would be through the Westminster parliament. Your point about what "constituent country" means to "normal" people is just bizarre. The term is sometimes used outside the UK context to refer to the EU. It simply does not convey the meaning you ascribe to it, and baselessly assuming that "normal" people ascribe that meaning to it proves nothing. "Country within a country" lacks the virtue of actually being the term commonly used. By the way, you should be more careful with throwing around "rubbish" and "stupid"; it is not civil and makes people less likely to take you seriously. -Rrius (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Also constituent country means the same as 'county within a country', which is not an official term but a bit word smithing by 10 Downing Street. England, Scotland, Wales and NI are the constituent parts that make up the UK. josh (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'm a bit concerned about this "right to be a country" and this assertion of identity politics. What "rights" are we alluding to exactly? Of all the reasons that could've been given, I think that was weak, and not precluded in any major Wikipedia policy. --Jza84 |  Talk  09:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary of Polls (Arbitrary Break 1):Idiocy

I'm getting really sick of this whole debate. We can source constituent country, let's just go with it. -MichiganCharms (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever term, as long as it can be sourced! I seriously doubt this discussion can solve anything. Discussion is futile and has been for weeks. I suggest there are two options:

• refer the matter to an impartial arbiter, and abide by his or her decision with a gentlemens' agreement.
• Be bold in editing, and risk precipitating edit wars.

I don't care what is done; the thing is just too ridiculously overblown.--Gazzster (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For this page, at least, the consensus seems to be "constituent country". It was overwhelmingly preferred in the straw poll and has strong support throughout the discussion. MickMacNee seems to be the only one pushing "country within a country". As for the other pages, it seems very unlikely that they will ever be uniform on this, and it doesn't seem, ultimately, all that important that they do so. -Rrius (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 'pushing it', I am asking why it is not a perfectly sensible compromise to the conflict as framed so far, and I'm not getting much sense in terms of a reply. We have poll being expressed as percentages to hide the true number of editors involved, and the fact that each poll was started after the poll before it had run barely a day. And you are claiming that we must not use a descriptive term, because you are arguing that constituent country has an official definition by virtue of of its common usage. Well, that would be original research. Constituent country is also just a piece of synthesised descriptive term, defined for all intents and purposes by referring to the two component words separately: "The term constituent country does not have any defined legal meaning. It can only be given its meaning in plain English". If people want to use the consensus here to ascribe a definition to it, that's fine, go right ahead, but don't try and pretend that has any more weight than the official usage of the description, "country within a country", as demonstrated already. Your idea supporting the public perception of the word 'constituent' through the idea that Scotland could not uinilateraly declare independance is just plain wrong, and clearly shows you have not understood the position of neutrality. You never hear of Kosovo? MickMacNee (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I dropped out of the conversation because it started to get a little personal and melodramatic at times, but I agree that constituent country seems to be the majority. I'm not sure what the objection is to this since it still calls them countries. This term was used for some time in Wales, England, and Northern Ireland articles (until recent changes), and Scotland was the only article where editors refused it over simply country. Kman543210 (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we have been sidetracked here. Per Talk:United_Kingdom#Multi-Choice Straw Poll, there is a clear consensus agreement that "constituent country" is preferred over "country". As such, I suggest we move forwards with this debate and agree on this.

I also would like to add that User:Jack Forbes (who was involved in this discussion before) is now being considered for blocking, after a rash of personal attacks against me, including "dickhead", "arsehole", "prick", "wee skinny arsehole", and that he would like to fight me, and calling an admin "incompetent" etc. I also think that the account above which described me as a "bully" is a sockpuppet of the user, and shall be RFCUing this.

Can I also remind people that heating the discussion does not help either side of an argument, and that we all must remain calm and discuss civilly.

Cheers --Fone4Me 08:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, what could be more foolish than a poll on a question where WP:NPOV (include major viewpoints, weighted appropriately) and WP:V (to be found in serious writings) are the relevant policies? Voting won't change anything: Google Books and Google Scholar will tell you soon enough which descriptive term(s) might be expected to follow "Scotland is a ...". To conduct a similar exercise for "England is a ..." is complicated by all those old (and sometimes not-so-old) books which use England to mean something else, but limiting the dates should produce usable results, if not perfect ones. There's no Wikipedia:Wikipedia is consistent policy, and the centrality of verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view, mean that there are bound to be instances where Wikipedia is decidedly not consistent. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary of Polls (Arbitrary Break 2):Was this the breakthrough suggestion?

A smart idea was suggested above, and it seems to have been ignored. I've just noticed it and it seems so obvious it seems strange now that it wasn't thought of earlier! It was "Scotland is a constituent country within the United Kingdom that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. What problems do people have with that? It gives people their beloved country with making constituent seperate to the term country which also removes any confusion about sovereignty by using the term constituent country which most people seem to want. From what I can see it gives everyone what they are looking for. I'm probably completely missing the point, but I think it's neutral anyway.Pureditor 23:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)"

This is a compromise position because 'country' remains the noun and only the adjective 'constituent' links to something - in this case 'subdivisions in the UK' - worth considering by all sides. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems workable, considering 74% of users voted for constituent country over country. Fone4Me 08:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I missed this suggestion because I got put off by some of the arguing, but I like it and shall be able to support it. It calls them countries, it uses the adjective constituent to describe what kind of countries they are, it links to an article that is a lot more specific to the UK situation than the constituent article does, and it specifies that they are within the UK without awkward wording. Kman543210 (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

By far the best compromise I've seen. I would support. (Dai caregos (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)).

The pipelink is a bit too clever (cf WP:EGG): a reader would never guess where it goes without hovering the mouse over it. And the preposition should be "of" rather than "within". Kanguole (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've always observed that constituent country was a compromise. I too, could never understand (in a AGF way) why it was opposed to. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the word country and constituent before the word country doesn't make it any better. An "apple" is still an apple even if it is a "red apple" ! Country is particularly inappropriate for Northern Ireland. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, and with 74% support in the poll for constituent country, I think it is evident what we should do. --Fone4Me 14:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Think of it; the possilbe Nationalist would prefer country & the possible Unionist would prefer constituent part. Therefore, we pick the compromise of the 2 - constituent country. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither nationalism nor unionism (nor any other feelings of editors) are valid arguments here, or things that ought to be compromised with. The issue is what will be most useful to the readers of the encyclopaedia. Kanguole (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. But, political feelings (regretfully) run strong in these articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what I stated from the beginning. Constituent country is the compromise. I think we should start to draw to a close on this discussion and move forwards with it. There is a 74% support for it. Having said that, I have a point to make. you state that the unionist POV would prefer constituent part - well surely they are in union, since they are in the UK? Fone4Me 15:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi [User talk:Fonez4mii|Fone]]4Me. You seem to think that because Scotland is part of the UK, there can not be a unionist POV. Let me describe what a unionist POV might be like so you will be able to spot it! Whereas a nationalist POV would attempt to talk up the status of, in this case, Scotland, a unionist POV would seek to minimise its status. For example, suggesting that Scotland was a sovereign country (on the basis that Scotland has a tradition of popular sovereignty) would be distorting the truth towards a nationalist perspective. Similarly, suggesting that Scotland is not a country (not even a non-sovereign country) is trying to distort the truth towards a unionist perspective. The true position, which is what wikipedia should be about, is that Scotland is a non-sovereign country that is a part of the United Kingdom - it ceded its sovereignty to the United Kingdom in 1707 (as did England) but did not cease to be a country: it just became a non-sovereign country. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious, by now, that we can't achieve unanimity on this question. i.e. how to define each of the four countries that constitute the United Kingdom in similar terms. I may be wrong, but it seems that those wishing to define the countries of Great Britain seem to agree that Scotland, England and Wales are countries. Even if they are only prepared to compromise by including the qualifier 'constituent'. For those affiliated (for want of a better word) with Ireland, it seems that no viewpoint would be satisfied by defining Northern Ireland as a country - Unionists see their country as the UK as a whole and Nationalists see their country as the island of Ireland. If this is correct, I propose that the countries of Great Britain are defined differently to Northern Ireland, along the lines of Pureditor, above, thus:

"Scotland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain."

etc

"Northern Ireland is a constituent province of the United Kingdom that occupies the north eastern part of the island of Ireland."

(As I prepare to be shot down in flames) ... Any thoughts? Dai caregos (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"I may be wrong, but it seems that those wishing to define the countries of Great Britain seem to agree that Scotland, England and Wales are countries."

Yes you are wrong. The majority (74%) chose Constituent country over Country.

Cheers --Fone4Me 16:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please try to be constructive and to use quotes in context. Reading one sentence at a time could lead to confusion. If that's the only point on which I'm wrong, we could have some progress. :) Dai caregos (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop claiming that the poll means anything. Poll results aren't binding. Right now I'd say constituent country in some form has consensus. My suggestion is that we add it to the pages and test it at Scotland. If we can establish it there, someone should write a WP:Essay on the subject. -MichiganCharms (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Do people really think we should be be bold and put it into the articles? I'm glad my suggestion seems to be being agreed on, but should we not wait a little while so that all those oppose can have their say first? That way we ccan make it perfect for every editor and have no little problems so that this subject will never have to be touched on again.Pureditor 17:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of claiming this. I was in fact the one that wrote at the beginning of the polls, that polls do not equate consensus, but are simply an indication of it. What I am referring to by showing the poll, is that there is evidence that there does seem to be a consensus for "constituent country", with "country" being out of the suggestion. I think it is evident that whatever happens, the wording is going to use "constituent country". However, what we should discuss now is whether the phrase will link to constituent country or Subdivisions of the United Kingdom. Fone4Me 17:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. Forgive me, but had your poll asked the question "Should the E/NI/S/W articles include the descriptive term "country" in the opening paragraph: YES/NO", and 50+ establised editors of these articles stated "NO", then you would indeed be able to claim a concensus. However, that was not the question posed, and a mere 15 editors, (from the dozens who regularly appear on the E/NI/S/W/UK articles), indicating a preference from a choice of 5 possible options is hardly a concensus in my book, I'm afraid.

The terms "country" and "constituent country" are both verifiable on the grounds that reliable sources can be cited in each case. If an overall concensus cannot be achieved, then the articles will themselves remain unaltered, irrespective of what is said on this page. As I offered up previously, adopting both terms is likely to be the only way I can forsee any concensus being achieved. Failing which, 'tilting at windmills' will be seen as a productive exercise when compared to the outcome of this discussion. 80.41.213.153 (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read above you will see that a consensus is being reached using both terms.Pureditor 18:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about Constituent country? Fone4Me 18:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume so. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion was that we use "constituent country" for Scotland, Wales & England. And that we use "constituent province" for Northern Ireland. For the reasons I outlined above. I would welcome opinion on this. Dai caregos (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nay; all 4 must be the same. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My concern about that is Northern Ireland is as equally verifiable as a "country/constituent country" as the other 3 "parts" (!). Infact, Northern Ireland was the first part to have its own (post-UK) national parliament, and so the longest entity with semi-political autonomy. In this respect it certainly has more hallmarks of a "country" than England, even. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Say what you will about Northern Ireland being a country or not, the UK government calls it one. Also, the UK government uses the term "constituent country". I did a google search limited to the parliament.uk and gov.uk domains; I received 1,370 hits for "constituent country" OR "constituent countries" site:.gov.uk, and 59 for "constituent country" OR "constituent countries" site:parliament.uk. It is the term that is used by the government. It is self explanatory in context, and it is linked to an article of the same name to explain further to people who need or want it. The government, which if anything would have a pro-Union bias, uses "country" and "constituent country". POV claims just seem out of place here. -Rrius (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone earlier, suggested (at least on a trial bases) re-applying constituent country to the 4 articles; see what happens. I'd say go for it, be bold as Wikipedia promotes. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. Yes indeed GoodDay, and an even earlier version of a similarly inclined "someone" was you, on more than one occasion at Talk:Scotland, and the response was so overwhelmingly against that you vowed to "let go", as I recall you put it. Recent history on the Talk:Scotland page will testify to the fact that such an intro is a non-starter. This you, of all people, should already be aware of and such action will only end in the usual outcome. I get the impression that this suggestion is being driven by those who, unlike yourself, have little experience of this issue on the Talk:Scotland pages. You, however, know only too well what has happened previously and for you to suggest such action can only be described, in the most polite and caged terms I can muster, as 'mischievous'. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it then. Lets see what happens!Pureditor 22:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. No need !Pureditor for I'll tell you now what will happen, I'll be the first to revert! This 'discussion' ain't over yet and nobody has the right to call 'time'. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already told him to pull back, should 'reverts' occur. It's only a trial bases. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. I refer the honorable gentleman (who should know better) to the reply I gave some moments ago. It will be reverted, by yours truly. We should not be hopping off to articles to "trial" anything at this or any other stage - there lies the path to edit wars and article protection. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The UK Gov also refers to NI as a province [16] as the Scotland the constituent linking to the subdivisions page is just awkward an clumsy it would be so much easier saying is a country within the uk but ah well, will wait and see how long the current consensus lasts Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(<-) Again, no single term is going to obtain exclusivity. If consistency is the aim, then we need to formulate a dual-term solution, based on using either terms in different settings. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" again. Exactly my point from earlier when offering the following based on verifiable and reliable sources in the form of the ISO and UK Government:

• Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England.
• England (Cornish: Pow Sows) is a country that occupies most of the southern two-thirds of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares land borders to the north with Scotland and to the west with Wales.
• Wales (Welsh: Cymru) is a principality that occupies the largest western peninsula of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the east with England.
• Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is a province that occupies the northeast of the island of Ireland. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south and west with the Republic of Ireland.

Regards. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a part of the UK is the best of them all - ya can't get anymore apolitical then that. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. Sorry GoodDay, but it looks like SFC9394 beat me to it - don't say you weren't given a 'heads-up'. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't fainted over SFC's reverting. He's generally against suggestions made at other articles being applied to the Scotland article (at least, that's how it seems). GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll": I'm sure, but what has happened and will continue to happen is exactly why this kite is not yet ready to fly. You must have concensus, and it does not yet exist! 195.27.13.214 (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So Mr Troll, we're clear then, having a consensus is the important bit, not where the discussion takes place? Because frankly, if people revert on that basis, it will go up the ladder of dispute resolution, because that is not how wikipedia works. MickMacNee (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. Can only speak for oneself, but "where the discussion takes place" is not an issue for me. With that in mind, Czar Brodie has come up with an interesting suggestion at Talk:Scotland#Consensus on Intro which reads:

• Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country within the United Kingdom. Located in the northern third part of the island of Great Britain, it shares a land border to the south with England.

It appears that seeking 'consensus' is not the sole domain of this talk page. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As stated on the Scottish page 'mr. Troll', many editors have said using the sole term country is misleading and have therefore tried to reach consensus. You appear to be ignoring that and are continuing to fight you own pov. Why don't you take the example another editor who supported the term country being used such as [[Fishiehelper2 and help build a consensus that everyone is happy with?Pureditor 07:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. If you'll recall earlier in this and previous sections I went as far as to suggest a compromise which employed both terms simultaneously, with verifiable and reliable sources being used to support each. I note however that your own POV apparently prevented you from supporting that particular compromise, therefore please do not seek to lecture me about compromise or concensus or POVs, thank you. 80.41.246.232 (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has gone rather far afield. It is my understanding that we are trying to discuss the sentence proposed in the first of this rather long subsection. The text is fine with me, but why does constituent link to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom? If we are to use the phrase constituent country, why not link to the relevant article of the same name? -Rrius (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Final Poll

This is a poll betwen the two most successful suggestions so far. When making your choice, choose one to "support", and do not write "oppose" on either, and do not vote more than once.

•... semi-autonomous constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom...

• "England is a constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the southern two thirds of the island of Great Britain"
• "Scotland is a semi-autonomous constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain"
• "Wales is a semi-autonomous constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the west of the island of Great Britain"
• "Northern Ireland is a semi-autonomous constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the north east of the island of Ireland"

(If this result gains consensus, the "constituent" has the option of being dropped since the word "subdivision" already gives this idea)

1. Weak support. This uses more natural words than the version below. However I would still much prefer all 4 articles to have inconsistent opening sentence, as the examples from EB, Encarta and Columbia do. (In other words, I prefer that we agree to differ.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

•constituent country

Either:

• constituent country

or

• constituent country

(If this result gains consensus, then another discussion would entail to decide which of the two formats would be used)

NOTE: We are not voting on "constituent country" v. "constituent country", but instead grouping these two options into one idea as a whole, since they represent the same idea, and the difference between the two is only superficial and would be settled on if and only there is a consensus for this option overall

1. Rrius (talk): This term is what the government uses in its own documents and MPs use in debates. There is no evidence that someone coming to the term from a neutral perspective is going to see it as POV. Linking to the article of the same name is far more intuitive than to subdivisions of the United Kingdom
2. Uses term country, constituent as adjective, and links to article specific about UK subdivisions. Kman543210 (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Seems fine, at this stage. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 14:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Both proposals say the same thing, but this is the most consise way. --G2bambino (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Final Poll Discussion

The current discussions were generating no progress, so this should hopefully get things back on track. --Fone4Me 07:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for moving my vote. I debated where to put it, because or made it unclear whether they were to be taken together or separately. In the future, setting up blank spaces could be a helpful way to nudge people in the right direction. -Rrius (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes perhaps I could have chosen better wordings. Anyway, I am not going to vote just yet on this one, since at every occaision that I do, I am accused of voting with a POV, so we shall see how the vote develops without me. Fone4Me 08:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. "Final Poll Discussion"??? What's the hurry? A few hours ago an alternative suggestion was put forward by User:Czar Brodie which has had little exposure to the remainder of the contributors to discussions here or at Talk:Scotland. I don't recall a time limit being put in place or anyone appointing Fone4Me ringmaster at this particular circus. Given Fone4Me has only been around Wikipedia for a few weeks, perhaps the phrase 'Act in haste, revert at leisure' might give a clue to one possible result of a too hasty drawing to a close of discussions here. 80.41.251.36 (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want more discussion of "country", fine. If you object to taking a poll, fine. If a consensus develops, however, I can see no reason why you should not be bound by it. Consensus means general agreement, not universal agreement. Many of us have "lost" arguments to a differing majority. We accept them or we get blocked. Editors here understand that if there is no consensus, you will revert; we really don't need to hear it every time someone makes an attempt to settle the matter in a way you do not like. Finally, no one appointed Fonez to be anything. He is being bold and attempting to resolve this dispute. There is no sense attacking him for doing what a responsible editor should do. -Rrius (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember any of us saying anything about time? But on that matter, yes, there is a somewhat need for this not to drag out too long, since the articles are supposed to be factual after all, and there is no good it being not so for months with the excuse "we're discussing it", is there?

I have also at no point suggested I own the article, and no one has suggested that of me either. I have in fact, in case you havn't noticed, not even voted in the latest poll.

Cheers ----fone4me 13:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes, someone has suggested it of you. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 14:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jack forbes hardly counts, since he is being considered for indef block for his rash of other personal attacks, and is now suspected of sockpuppetery. --fone4me 14:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it was me who accused you of owning this page, not Jackforbes, as you could have seen if you'd actually bothered to read Schcambo's link. And I stand by what I said. Malcolm XIV (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A recent check of Malcolm's contributions will show they are not much better than Jack forbes' behaviours - in fact, you both largely agree with eachother on everything... --fone4me 14:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your point being? Malcolm XIV (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh lord, can you please quit the purposely ignorant attitude. Malcolm XIV pointed out to you that you did not own this article, after you deleted several comments made in a discussion (and not a poll) by an anonymous user. That has nothing to do with Jack Forbes. In relation to him, no, he is not "being considered for indef block". This suggests nothing of the sort. Secondly, you suspect him of sockpuppetry. No one else does. Even Alison, who does most of the checkusering, has refused to have anything to do with the case you have brought since there is absolutely no evidence. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 14:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read in context, Alison was talking about checking me. Even Sarah has told Jack off for his actions, saying that he is now getting in a strop because the "police" would not agree with him. ----fone4me 14:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No she wasn't. She already did check you. She was talking about your accusation that Jack was using a sock. And Sarah was quite plainly being very sarcastic; she herself was recently banned for several days for edit warring at some Britain and Ireland-related articles. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 15:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If she was talking about Jack, she would have posted on the relevant pages, either on Jack's talk page or on the RFCU page.

Sarah summed Jack up rightly. He accused me of socking, and refused to let go that I wasn't, and once someone reviewed the case and decided I wasn't, Jack went on a rampage of personal attacks, refusing to listen to what he was told. You are now contituing his actions. ----fone4me 15:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Alison was clearly responding to Sarah's sarcastic comment that someone would do a checkuser to be sure she wasn't Jack. The sarcastic comment was on Sarah's page, and that is why the response was there. Can we now please take this conversation off this talk page and onto a user talk, where it should go if it belongs anywhere at all. -Rrius (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this discussion still going on? The last I checked, progress had been made on a compromise position and it has now been applied with some success to the England and Wales articles. As for the poll, what sort of poll is it that only allows people to vote in support of a position? How is someone supposed to record their opposition to both of the choices presented in the poll? Anyway, the debate seems to have moved on... Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Add another option and vote for it or add "neither" and vote for it. -Rrius (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason we are not allowing "oppose" votes is for the same reason as we have not allowed "opposes" in either of the other multichoice polls - it is unneccessary and clutters things.

I put up the two most successful vote results so far. I have disguarded those that lacked any kind of even near majority support.

If you think that another option should have been added, please set up a separate poll to see if there was significant support for that option, since only the most popular options have been included in the final poll - otherwise, we will never reach consensus.

Cheers ----fone4me 14:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. Just a few points:

• "Add neither and vote for it" - Doesn't really achieve much; all it establishes is what is not wanted, rather than what is.

If that's what he wants, that's how he should vote. The rest of us can take votes for "neither" for what they are worth.

• "If a consensus develops" - No problem there, however I am not yet convinced that there presently exists a sufficient consensus to hold sway over any significant minority holding opposing views. A poll is a good 'dip test', but that is all it is. When numbers for a particular option extend well beyond the mid-teens, then I'll be more convinced.

I did not say there is a consensus. By the same token, you do not get to define when we have a consensus: if we have a vote of 10 to 2, I would think that demonstrates consensus. At any rate, your repeated threats made it seem sensible to make that comment, and I stand by it. -Rrius (talk)

• "There is no sense attacking him (Fonez) for doing what a responsible editor should do" - I'd like to think that trying to conclude an issue as volatile as this a mere 5 hours after another editor has brought something new to the table, (in the dead of night BST I might add), was not the actions of a "responsible editor". (Hardly an "attack" BTW, but a reminder that one person's "bold" might be another's "steamroller"). -Rrius (talk)

As I said, you object to the poll. You have registered that objection. If you want to add the suggestion you keep referring to, then do so. Why you feel threatened by this poll is beyond me. Fonez can call it final all he wants to, but that won't make it so. Take the word with a grain of salt. -Rrius (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I'd give the whole thing until 0000Z 01 July before calling time and make it as widely known as possible, at all the relevant talk pages, that this was the deadline by which time a decision must be taken and any and all discussions concluded. Not all those on this site with legitimate views spend each and every day, at all hours of the day and night, glued to a keyboard. As I stated previously - "what's the hurry?". 80.41.251.170 (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1 July deadline? Now who is in a hurry? The discussion will end when we have a consensus. Your whole argument is a bit odd. You seem to think that someone has limited discussion and is cutting off debate. Anyone who wants to comment on the proposal you keep mentioning may do so. After the vote is over, there will be more discussion. Your perception that some one is calling time out is difficult to understand. -Rrius (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to Troll, the reason I called this "Final Poll" was because I am hoping this will be the last poll that is needed, and it is supposed to conclude on the results from all the previous polls. It is in no way binding. --fone4me 15:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What concerns me, is the apparent 'lack of' participation (and interest) at this discussion here (at UK page), by the editors who frequent the article Scotland. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Jack forbes is no longer a worry. Schambo and Barryb seem to be here frequently enough, and I am sure Snowded will re-appear again in the evening. ----fone4me 15:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about SFC. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Do you mean SirFozzie? ----fone4me 15:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean SFC9394; he's not shown any interest in this discussion & that worries me. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

May I point out this edit by "troll", which is unnacceptable, and implies that we must accept their view or it will "end in tears". ----fone4me 16:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. Yes you "may point out" all you like, and User:GoodDay will confirm "end in tears" was said with regard to the likelihood of an edit war, without any implied "must accept their view". Listen to yourself man, honestly: "unnacceptable"... Attempts at smear tactics against me won't help you here. 80.41.249.183 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Threatening us that if we don't go along with what you say, it will "end in tears", is unnacceptable.

----fone4me 16:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. Please take your petty and unfounded accusations to an Admin and kindly leave this page to the issue in hand. 80.41.249.183 (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no threat in his edit summary. He was stating the obvious. As far as unnacceptable [sic] goes, well you should know. Bill Reid | Talk 17:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way folks; it's spelt unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that what [sic] means. Bill Reid | Talk 17:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have taken this to an admin. They shall deal with it. It is unacceptable telling us that if we do not do as they say, it will end in tears. That is a clear threat. ----fone4me 17:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. Thank you, it saves discussing the matter here any further and I very much look forward to reading the outcome at User talk:MBisanz#Your oppinion. Now, I trust can we keep matters to those of relevance. 80.41.249.183 (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just been told by Barryob that even if consensus is reached here, it will not be accepted at Scotland. This is a centralized discussion, and therefore, the consensus here, once reached, will be placed on all four articles. --fone4me 17:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to you to make such pronouncements. Once again, I recommend that you have a quick browse through WP:OWN. Malcolm XIV (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly there is no need for some "final poll". Consensus has been reached here, bar one ip address I think and the compromise solution has already been succesfully placed on the NI, England and Wales articles without any problems. The only problem is that the Scottish page refuses it as it wasn't on the talk page. That is now where something needs to be sorted out; not here.Pureditor 17:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not pronounce consensus on the suggestion without clear proof. The only suggestion which has so far showed consensus is constituent country. If you wish, add your suggestion to the vote, but do not proclaim it "consensus" without evidence. --fone4me 18:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? Have you not been here? The compromise that was suggested says constituent country but in a way that other editors accepted it. Read above. There were no objections to it and are currently in place in three of the four articles. I agree with the other editors that you need to read WP:OWN. You are trying to run the page your way. It's disruptive to say the least.Pureditor 18:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no poll which has showed consensus of your suggestion. Don't jump to the conclusion that there is a consensus simply because you think there is. --fone4me 18:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Polls? You clearly have no idea what consensus is! Polls mean nothing. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus is about compromise and agreeing on something. No one objected to the solution. Even you said This seems workable, considering 74% of users voted for constituent country over country. Many other editors agreed with it. That is consensus, not some poll.Pureditor 18:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh no I obviously don't understand, considering I was the one who originally wrote at the beginning of the polls that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that votes do not equate to consensus. The Poll in this case, with 74% support shows that there is consensus however. --fone4me 18:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I responded by asking why we would link the text constituent country to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom instead of the relevant article constituent country. No one responded. I did not revert anyone because I did really care what people did before we actually got a consensus. I certainly don't take the lack of response to the proposal in a rather short period of time as consensus behind it. At the least, someone should explain (1) how this odd linking makes sense, and (2) how this is compromise between those who want constituent country and those who want part or just country. -Rrius (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Pureditor is claiming that there is consensus on his/her suggestion. I am saying that there is not, and that if there is consensus on anything, it is on "constituent country" (with 74% in fact). The above poll is to see whether there is a consensus out of the two consensus'd results from the other polls before. --fone4me 18:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Bring it to the Scotland article & get a consensus there. I know it's frustrating to treat 1 article different from the other 3? but, it's better then having an edit war there. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they oughn't be warring at all. No consensus hasn't been reached yet. --Cameron* 18:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Cameron is correct. No consensus has been reached on that suggestion. If anything has reached consensus, it is constituent country, and the above poll is a last attempt to see if this is the best available option. --fone4me 18:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom description suggested above. I think the word constituent adds nothing and could be dropped but overall it is a fair compromise and I am happy to support it for all four regions. I think it is clear there is no consensus for the "constituent country" wording which is needlessly POV. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If you support it, then please add your support to it. Cheers, --fone4me 18:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Have now done so. Thank you --fone4me for pointing me to the poll. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Having been away for a weekend and come back to all of the above I am not convinced that the process is shot. This page cannot mandate the country pages, there are two many options and a vote cannot bind. I suggest we write it off as yet another failed attempt --Snowded (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not failed yet. We have come a long way so far. --fone4me 19:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I still say we should take it 1 article at a time; starting with Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it has. As in your talk page and mine, a "discussion" here can not affect the outcome of the other articles. Now let us all move on. Bill Reid | Talk 19:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Final Poll Discussion (Arbitrary Break 1)

There is now an 83.33% consensus on constituent country in the original poll. I think the "Final poll" is no longer needed, and it is obvious what the final decision is. --fone4me 19:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

But again (in order to save an uproar), bring these Poll results to the individual articles (starting with Scotland, which so far - continues to oppose). GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, so there is consensus on constituent country. If Scotland refuses this, then we have either two options:

• Replay the vote over on the Scotland talk page
• Request intervention

--fone4me 19:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly in fantasy land. Polls mean nothing— build consensus. Bill Reid | Talk 19:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the introduction to the poll itself specifically says "Note: The outcome of the majority vote on the poll does not equate to consensus". Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You are forgetting Malcolm, I am the very one who wrote that there. --fone4me 19:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not forgetting; that's precisely why I posted it, to remind you of what you said. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant (above) that we need a consensus on each of the 4 individual articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

But we don't = ). A central discussion is perfectly OK as long as all involved pages have been informed (which they have been). --Cameron* 19:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, I don't see where it anywhere states that consensus must be found at any specific location; as long as there are clear notices set up on each of the affected articles directing users to the central discussion. This is the case for merges, page moves, and the like. If editors at one article choose to see territorial lines and refuse to participate in a discussion because it isn't taking place on "their" article talk page, despite their awareness of it, then how can their obstinacy be tolerated when the agreed upon edits are made?

As for that elusive consensus, where is the dividing line between it being a matter of finding a solution agreeable to all and permitting the stubborn blocking of progress by people who want it their way or no way? --G2bambino (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is an 83.33% consensus on "constituent country", and as such, I have placed it on England, NI, and Wales. I have not posted on Scotland as I expect stubbornness there to the proposal, caused by nationalist POV pushing. I invite people to discuss the options available for us to take for the Scotland article. --fone4me 19:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to your tone. Please stop accusing anybody who disagrees with you of being "stubborn" and "nationalist POV pushing". You don't build consensus by quoting percentages (to two decimal points!) at people and threatening to get admins to enforce your decisions. Malcolm XIV (talk)

Oh dear. Your arguments are completely cyclic. Consensus has been decided on constituent country. The fact that it hasn't gone your way doesn't entitle you to do a Jack forbes and run a rampage. --fone4me 19:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Do a Jack forbes"? What is that supposed to mean? Please mediate your tone, and stop treating this page like you own it. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It means that even though a decision has been made, the fact that it hasn't gone your way means you now feel compelled to make a point --fone4me 19:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are developing something of a persecution complex. I have no interest in your disagreement with Jackforbes. I simply object to you steamrollering over any dissent with proclamations using the "royal we", and accusing anyone who objects of being a "POV pusher".

I seriously think this discussion would have a much better chance of being resolved if you stopped trying to always have the last word and - perhaps - took a little Wikibreak for a couple of days to let others get a word in. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached. Listen, and do not be sour because consensus didn't go your way. I suggest you persist, or you will end up in an even worse position than you have already got yourself into with your antics. --fone4me 19:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You suggest I persist, do you? All right, here goes: I am asking you again to moderate your tone. "Antics", indeed! And "you will end up in an even worse position" sounds distinctly like a threat to me. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suggest you persist. And yes, your antics are already getting you into enough trouble as it is. I advise you to stop making a point --fone4me 19:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making meaningless threats, and look up the word "persist" in a dictionary. That is all. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So shall we get rid of the Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' noticeboard, Wikipedia:Naming conventions and WP:NPOV as the discussion there cannot affect any other articles rendering them pretty useless. josh (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Josh makes a good point. Of course decisions in one article can affect another. --fone4me 19:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Final Poll Discussion (Arbitrary Break 2)

(outdent) You can discuss away all you like and anywhere you like but please note, you can't make important changes to an article without gaining consensus at that article. Bill Reid | Talk 19:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence? --G2bambino (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that was obvious. Contentious changes to articles take place at the article's talk and btw I didn't post into this new section but the one above at 19:45. Bambino trying to be clever here? Bill Reid | Talk 20:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you're capable of checking the edit history yourself. --G2bambino (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is apparent what must be done. We shall proceed with the consensus backed "constituent country", and if an edit war entails, page protection or intervention shall be requested. --fone4me 19:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Have I missed something but when I looked for the 83% consensus, I found 75%. (It looked like 15 had supported the option now being pushed and 5 had supported alternatives.) I concede that is still a clear majority but accuracy is important in all things. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There are 15 for constituent country and 3 for country.

15 + 3 = 18

15 / 18 = 0.8333r

0.8333r x 100 = 83.33%

--fone4me 19:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No such thing is apparent. If Scotland want the discussion on their page, then let us have it on their page. What is apparent is that we need calm down and stop making sharp, nasty, threatening, and critical comments. Once calm, editors should go to Scotland, present the options as we see them, request additional suggestions, and amicably and politely attempt to find consensus. -Rrius (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Firstly, why are two or three editors assumed to be the representatives of Scotland? Secondly, Billreid still hasn't provided any evidence to back up his claim that consensus must be reached at a particular location. --G2bambino (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(2nd) (edit conflict) G2Bambino was correct in saying that a centralized discussion can enforce consensus results elsewhere however. --fone4me 20:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

See above. Bill Reid | Talk 20:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See above where, exactly? Could you please clearly direct us to the policy that states consensus must be found in one particular location? --G2bambino (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

G2, I agree with you, but who cares? If they want it at Scotland, do it at Scotland. GoodDay is already putting out feelers there. Ultimately, what difference does it make if we develop a consensus here without their participation? Even if it pure stubbornness keeping them from participating, they are still going revert edits there and require a consensus on their talk page. Sometimes you have to work it out on the other guy's terms, even if those terms don't make much sense to you. -Rrius (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're getting at, but that takes me back to an earlier question I asked: where's the difference between consensus seeking and kowtowing to a minority's obstinacy? We seem to be allowing these people an awful lot of leeway. Plus, what could a discussion at Talk:Scotland be other than a repeat of this horrendously long one? Should we just cut and paste from here to there? I'm being a bit flippant, but I genuinely wonder why one or two people are allowed to stand in the way; from my experience, this generally doesn't happen (and I know, as I've been in the one or two that had to acquiesce to the majority's wishes). --G2bambino (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a basic fact that anyone causing disruption against consensus based edits, just because they don't like where the consensus was formed, are quite obviously eventualy going to be restricted/arbitrated/banned. This seriously is just a basic fact, anyone suggesting otherwise realy doesn't understand wikipedia policies. This basic fact has nothing to do with whether a consensus actually exists. MickMacNee (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is beyond redundant. Some editors here are attempt to fly in the face of Wikiness for their own personal glory. I think mediation or arbitration is in the very near future for this discussion. -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I support requesting arbitration on the article if those at Scotland are intending to edit war on the here-consensus of "constituent country". --fone4me 20:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody that I know of has threatened edit wars. Bambino just look a few lines above where you moved my comments out of context so that you could form this new discussion. Bill Reid | Talk 20:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No one moved your comments. Fonez arbitrarily put a new arbitrary heading above your comment after you made it. -Rrius (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now set up the poll at Talk:Scotland#What does the Scotland article prefer.3F, and shall inform all users who participated in our discussion here of the one entailing there. --fone4me 20:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I just looked "a few lines above" where I didn't move anything and all I see is one comment by Billreid that does not even touch on policies that set down where consensus must be reached. Thus, still waiting for the evidence. --G2bambino (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Informal Mediation

I have set up an informal mediation case, which can be found at the top of the page. I suggest all involved editors make statements on the either the case page or it's talk page. -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Development

In light of the fact that even with 83.33% consensus on constituent country, and a mediation open on the article, that we are still not able to push ahead with it, I suggest we start to think outside of the "constituent country" v "country" perspective, and everything inbetween. As mentioned by someone on the mediation, both are sourceable, and therefore, whichever way we go, it is going to be controversial.

Therefore, I suggest a development on the idea of home nations. I suggest that we merge home nations into Subdivisions of the United Kingdom (this should be done regardless of the current case). We can use the term "nation" to link to "subdivisions of the United Kingdom", which will be correct, since all groups agree that Scotland, England, etc, are "nations", but not neccessarily "countries". "Nation" would also bare reference to "home nations", and since that would be absorbed into the Subdivisions of the United Kingdom article, the idea of linking "nation" to it would be seen as more appropriate.

This would leave us with something such as:

"... is a nation in the United kingdom..."

This should not cause any controversies, since no one denies they are "nations", and it does not force the highly controversial issue we have landed ourselves with at the moment.

Cheers --fone4me 12:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. "This should not cause any controversies" - LOL! Been there, done that:

• Talk:Scotland/Archive_19#Nation v. Country debacle
• Talk:Scotland/Archive_19#Nation/Country convo
• Talk:Scotland/Archive_19#For what it's worth
• Talk:Scotland/Archive_19#Introduction —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.237.6 (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Back to the drawing board...80.41.237.6 (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you're incorrect. No-one there actually gave any sources as to why Scotland, England, etc, weren't nations. --fone4me 13:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I did, in one of the largest discussions. "Scotland is not a nation in the eye of international law, but Scotsmen form a nation". Please be mindful that a nation is not a division of land, but a community - a group of people. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Google books isn't exactly something we would base all out judgement on. And Scotland is a nation. That is how someone's nationality can be "Scottish". It is a lot less controversial than either "country" or "constituent country". --fone4me 13:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No but the use of scholarly English shouldn't be compromised either:

nation noun 1. the people living in the same country, or under the same government 2. a race of people: the Jewish nation.

Note the first sentences of English people and Scottish people. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Then the only remaining thing is:

"... is a semi-autonomous constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom..."

and variants of that, including plusing and minusing the "constituent" and "semi-autonomous".

I have spent hours racking my brains over this whole thing, and I honestly can't think of many more solutions.

If neither "constituent country" (with 83.33% consensus) or "country" (with 3 votes) are utilizable, then we are faced with an increasingly difficult situation.

--fone4me 14:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't mind either of the latter terms, and again suggest we put together a package that encompasses both on Wikipedia. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

<-"Troll" here. I already have "put together a package that encompasses both"; earlier on this page and most recently at Talk:Scotland#Consensus on Intro, (23:50, 22 June 2008), where I also provided verifiable and reliable sources a'plenty. Sadly, the silence has been deafening from both talk pages where this compromise is concerned. 80.41.237.6 (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a clear divide between the two, and common ground will not be found by including both of them, as the above polls have shown. --fone4me 14:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Something that hasn't been considered is creating a country (United Kingdom) article, which explains the issue. E/S/W/NI could like to that. No sure that would be an idea that has appeal from users, but it's an idea non-the-less. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by a "country (United Kingdom)" article? --fone4me 14:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean that we use something like "Scotland is a [[Country (United Kingdom)|country]]..." This piped Country (United Kingdom article would (or rather could) be used to discribe the situation we're in, where the "countries" of the UK differ from the rest of the world. It would/could be an amalgamation of (or draw from) the subdivisions of the United Kingdom, constituent country and home nations articles. Again, just an idea to consider as a third way. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Such an article might be a good idea, but using that piped link in the lead sentence would mislead readers, unless they click on the word. And why would anyone click on a common word they think they already know? Kanguole (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with that. We already have a Subdivisions of the United Kingdom article. I think I am now going to support the:

"... is a semi-autonomous constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom..."

suggestion as the best available non-controversial option. --fone4me 14:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well my first concern with that is England isn't "semi-autonomous" - it has no devolved powers. Whilst also "semi-autonomous constituent subdvision" isn't a phrase/term that appears anywhere else in the literary universe other than WP, and thus probably fails WP:V and WP:SYNTH. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That has already been discussed, which is how we ended up with several suggested variants. One thought on the matter was that England should not mention "semi-autonomous". Another was that semi-autonomous should be dropped completely. And another was that "constituent" should be dropped. There is certainly scope for development with it. --fone4me 14:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the above shows jut how farcical this is becoming. Positions shift everyday, now we have merger proposals. There is evidence for country (or constituent country), nation is too linked to the concept of sovereignty. I think (Fones4Mii) that the admin on your talk page gave you some very good advice - namely to gain some experience on a less controversial area. We are hashing and rehasing old debates. A mediation page has been opened - take this there --Snowded (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if you noticed this, but I am the only one out of us two that seems to have actually come up with some suggestions. Don't have a go at me if you aren't coming up with anything better yourself. --fone4me 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed many and various suggestions, some supported by evidence, some not, some contradicting others, some failing the simple English test (see below). I said a long time ago that I thought the only possible way of getting an agreed format was country or to accept the current variations would have to stand. I have been very consistent in saying that. Volume does not compensate for value. --Snowded (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Value? You have so far suggested nothing that has even gained the slightest bit of significant support. At least my suggestions have got somewhere. Don't critisize someone's attempts if you are doing no better yourself. And as shown by the discussion, "constituent country" is completely more accepted on all grounds than "country". --fone4me 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what the Simple English Wikipedia would make of some of the ridiculous suggestions above such as: "... is a semi-autonomous constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom..."

We are really getting close to the old Communist titles of the Peoples' Socialist Semi-autonomous Democratic Republic of .. which no one could say with a straight face!! Let's get real here!

I'm actually in favour of constituent country but only in the introduction paragraph. After that country should be used in the more general sense of the word.

Wales is a constituent country of the United Kingdom (syntactically I think it should be 'of' and not 'within'??? Wales is one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom) makes sense but, later, and is a bilingual constituent country is just plain silly!

Whatever decision is made it must apply to ALL countries within the UK -- Maelor  18:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Why "must"? England is a different beast constitutionally and legally from Scotland, England and Scotland are not the same as Wales, and none of the three are the same as Northern Ireland. As Google books and scholar will readily confirm, it's common enough to refer to England and Scotland as "country" or "nation", perhaps less so for Wales, and referring to Northern Ireland as a "nation" would be peculiar indeed. "Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom ..." is asking for trouble when Northern Ireland's countryness is far from self-evident. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Because you will never get consensus if you don't! It's just another point for people to disagree on. -- Maelor  09:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We can all find obscure articles to support our argument but let's stick to the more reputable and academic sources such as Encyclopædia Britannica. Here both Wales and England are described as constituent units of the United Kingdom while Scotland and Northern Ireland are parts of the United Kingdom. The article goes on to say England no longer officially exists as a governmental or political unit—unlike Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. -- Maelor  09:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Surprising piped links

There have been several proposals to compromise between two positions by creating a piped link with one of them the target and the other the anchor text. The Manual of Style deprecates such links, for very good reasons. Kanguole (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)