Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

Q1: Is the United Kingdom a "country"?

A1: Reliable sources support the view that the United Kingdom is a single country. This view is shared with other major reputable encyclopedias. There has been a long-standing consensus to describe the UK in this way.

Q2: Why isn't Great Britain listed as one of the names of the United Kingdom, in the lead?

A2: See the article entitled "Terminology of the British Isles". Great Britain is the name of the largest island that the UK encompasses, and is not generally used in source material as the name of the country. Indeed, Britain 2001, the "official reference book" of the United Kingdom produced by the Office for National Statistics for "British diplomatic posts" says in its foreword:

The term 'Britain' is sometimes used as a short way of expressing the full title of the country: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (or more simply again, the United Kingdom or the UK). 'Great Britain' comprises England, Wales and Scotland only.

— Office for National Statistics, (2001), Britain 2001: The Official Yearbook of the United Kingdom, p. vii

This view is reiterated by the Prime Minister's Office, which states:

The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 'Great Britain', however, comprises only England, Scotland and Wales. Great Britain is the largest island of the British Isles.

— Countries within a country, number10.gov.uk (archived version from April 2010)

A report submitted to the United Nations Economic and Social Council by the Permanent Committe on Geographical Names and the Ordnance Survey states:

Great Britain consists of England + Scotland + Wales. The term is exclusive of Northern Ireland and is therefore not a synonym for the term "United Kingdom".

— United Nations Economic and Social Council (2007). "Ninth United Nations Conference on the standardization of Geographical Names" (PDF).

There has been a long-standing consensus not to include Great Britain in the lead as an interchangable name of the state.

Q2b: Is Britain really one of the names of the United Kingdom?

A2b: Whether Britain should be listed as an alternative name in the lead has been discussed often, most extensively in August 2007 and April 2011; and whether the alternate name Britain should be qualified with "incorrect" in June 2006, with "informally" in September 2006, or with "mistakenly" in January 2011.

Q3: Isn't the United Kingdom a "collection of countries"?

A3: This is one of the most common questions raised on this talk page, but consistently, consensus goes against taking that approach. No major reputable source describes the UK in this way. However the history of the formation of the United Kingdom, supported by source material, highlights that England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are "countries within a country". Please also refer to Q4.

Q4: Are England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales countries?

A4: This is the most frequent question raised by visitors to this talk page, and the issue which generates the most debate. However, as a result of a lack of a formal British constitution, and owing to a convoluted history of the formation of the United Kingdom, a variety of terms exist which are used to refer to England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Reliable and official sources support use of the word "countries":

As the UK has no written constitution in the usual sense, constitutional terminology is fraught with difficulties of interpretation and it is common usage nowadays to describe the four constituent parts of the UK (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) as “countries”.

— Scottish Parliament. "Your Scotland questions; Is Scotland a country?". scottish.parliament.uk. Retrieved 2008-08-01.

On Misplaced Pages, the term has broadly won preference amongst the editing community (note, however, that a country is not the same as a sovereign state). Also commonplace is the phrase "constituent country, or countries", when referring to the countries as elements of the UK. This phrase, however, is not an actual term; ie Scotland is not a 'constituent country' in itself, but is one of the constituent countries of the UK. The community endeavours to achieve an atmosphere of neutrality and (for the sake of stability) compromise on the various UK naming issues. See also Countries of the United Kingdom for more details about the terms that have been used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

Q5: Why don't we refer to England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as nations, or by the term "Home Nations"?

A5: Widespread confusion surrounds the use of the word "nation". In standard British English, and in academic language, a nation is a social group of two or more people, and not a division of land. This is also the approach taken in the nation article, and across Misplaced Pages (for example, the English people and the Québécois are described as "nations", reflecting real world practice). The term Home Nations is generally used only in sporting contexts. It is not used in any major reputable sources outside of sport, and is not the approach taken by any other encyclopedia.

Q6: Isn't Northern Ireland a province, and Wales a principality?

A6: This view is supported by some sources, but the current consensus amongst the editing community is aligned to a greater body of work which describes both Northern Ireland and Wales as countries. However, the terms are not all mutually exclusive: a country can also be a principality or a province, and these terms are mentioned throughout Misplaced Pages as alternative names in afternotes.

Q7: Why isn't the flag of Northern Ireland shown in the article?

A7: Northern Ireland has not had its own unique, government sanctioned flag since its government was prorogued in 1972, and abolished in 1973 under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. During official events, the British government uses the Union Flag — the flag of the United Kingdom — and this is the only flag used by the government in Northern Ireland. The consensus is to reflect this in the article with a note.

Q8: Why is "British Isles" not mentioned in the introduction?

A8: Again, Misplaced Pages editors often disagree on the acceptability and suitability of various terms and phrases. This term is not favoured by a number of Misplaced Pages editors, and is currently not used in the introduction both to simplify the status quo, and also to discourage edit warring.

United Kingdom Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Template:WP1.0

UK geography Top‑importance

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for United Kingdom: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2010-10-28

Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : The Culture section as it stands has a large amount of list information, which is not useful for a summary article. It should be turned into prose or removed. Verify : Large parts of article are completely uncited - i.e. need inline citations - the last half of Football for instance, and almost all of the Culture, Geography and Christianity sections. There are many unattributed expressions of opinion in culture section. Publishers and last access dates need to be shown for all of the citations.

• "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009.

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

Country/State debate archives

1. June 2005 – March 2006
2. April 2006 – May 2006

Terminology debate archives

1. July 2006 – September 2006
2. September 2006 – October 2006

Subdivision name debate archives

1. April 2008 – June 2008

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion resolved – see Talk:United_Kingdom#Edits by AgadaUrbanit DeCausa and Ghmyrtle made this morning (28 May 2011) DeCausa (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"In its own right" sounds rather odd.

Would it not be better if we simply had the first sentence of the article say.... "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a country and sovereign state off the north-western coast of continental Europe"

That way the sentence about consisting of four countries would no longer need to state the United Kingdom is a country. At present that is the first place where the UK is called a country in the article, where as this is a rather important bit of information that should be in the first sentence. The fact there is a FAQ on this page pointing out the UK is a country highlights this. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. AJRG (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence saying "is a country and sovereign state" would be tautologous to many who view the page. Instead, why not change the second sentence to say "An island country, it spans an archipelago..." which would be better prose. (Although now that I think of it, "spans" would be wrong as not the whole archipelago is part of the UK.) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That second sentence should state its in the British Isles rather than just an unnammed archipelago, im sure at some point it did but it must of got removed during the crusades. I think the wording should clearly just state it is a country rather than with a description like "island country" which some may dispute because the UK is made up of more than 1 island. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not change the second sentence of the second para here to read simply: "It consists of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." (The word "smaller" in the current text is certainly redundant.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with that change, provided country is added to the first sentence of the article. At present that second paragraph is the first place we mention the fact the UK is a country. Its disturbing such an important bit of information is hidden where it is now instead of a more primary position in the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Instead of changing the first sentence, how about changing "It spans..." in the second sentence to "The country spans...."? No need for linking the word - the United States article uses the word "country" several times without linking it, and it is equally unnecessary here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that would work well. Then your wording for the second paragraph suggested above would also be good. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually - "It consists of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales" still fails to properly explain the situation clearly. Considering most country articles state when a country was formed/gained independence could that not be mentioned somewhere, explaining the date of formation and that leading on to how today it consists of 4 countries? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Because the term 'country' is politically controversial in relation to Northern Ireland, I would prefer to avoid that by the very straightforward "The United Kingdom consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland", following the order used elsewhjere in relation to the four jurisdictions. But I am aware that several editors are determined to use Misplaced Pages to assert that Northern Ireland is a country, and don't like neutral terminology... Brocach (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Haven't we been over all that many times before? I thought the consensus after a great deal of argument was for "a country consisting of four countries", the source for which is, or was, the Downing Street website, IIRC. -- Alarics (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider Northern Ireland to be a country but, what do the sources say? This encyclopedia is based on reliable sources, therefore it matters not a jot what you, I, or the guy next door thinks. If the sources say it is a country then we have to reflect what the sources say. Carson101 (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources don't dictate how we write each word on wikipedia. We don't need to say the UK consists of countries if we can just list what is consists of. Anyway, support Ghmyrtle's suggestion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"...is a country, consisting of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". Country is already mentioned for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, on their respective articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be ok with that. The following sentences on this article go on to mention devolved national governments / capitals, which highlight their status anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

How does mentioning devolved national governments / capitals highlight their status as countries? Daicaregos (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It highlights their status as nations, by having national governments / capitals of their own. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In other words: it doesn't. I agree with you that "It is a country in its own right" sounds daft. Until this unilateral edit (3 May) which was lost in the traffic, it said The United Kingdom is a unitary state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London. It is a country consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. There was no need to change that text which summed it all up admirably. Daicaregos (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"It is a country consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales" would be less cumbersome & would read better. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Their status as what? Anyway, that's not the diff at fault. The change which caused this is the one which shifted that information from the first to the second paragraph, whichever one that was. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have happened here. Daicaregos (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems so. I should be reverted. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to self-revert... AJRG (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of that change has already been reverted by others. Anyway, the wording there is just "country consisting of four countries", which isn't what caused the current issues, and calls each countries, which apparently is what everyone here wants. If other editors are okay with me selectively self-reverting a change I made over half a year ago while discussion on the topic is ongoing on the talkpage, I'll do it. Two issues here: 1) Wording. 2) Location. My self-revert would fix 2, not 1 (as that was changed by someone else).

I would like you to implement my suggestion, while you're selective reverting. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not this again! I've always thought "a country consisting of four countries" is pretty cumbersome. How about opening with this: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or informally Britain) is a sovereign state off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country spans an archipelago..." Then second sentence of second para begins: "It consists of four countries...." Wouldn't that satisfy all opinions? DeCausa (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, GHMyrtle already suggested that! I missed it...but I support it! DeCausa (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do we need to mention 'country' at all, where England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland are concerned? Merely say "consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not that I care myself, but some apparently do, where would the UK being descibed as a country come in in theBack to the Future version? Doesn't the GH Myrtle proposal satisfy everyone? And, GD, for gawd's sake stop...that boat has well and truly sailed. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the UK being called a country (which it obviously is). I propose that the text "It spans an archipelago that includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands." be amended to "The country is part of an archipelago that includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands.". Daicaregos (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Fully support that proposal. "The country is part of an archipelago that......." and "The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and unitary state consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." That wording sounds a lot better BritishWatcher (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually yes. The juxtaposition of "unitary state" and "four countries" resolves any ambiguity that "four countries" implies a federal union. Perhaps link to unitary state as well, just to be clear. DeCausa (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's back to the pre-Chipmunkdavis rewrite, sort of, I suppose. Does that cover all the issues? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

WHat the heck is with the current version? i strongly oppose that introduction and am reverting to an older version now. It is totally unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ive partially restored the lead to what it said before, although i have changed the "It spans an..." to "The country is part of..." as mentioned above. The proposal was meant to be about changing "The United Kingdom is a unitary state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London. It is a country in its own right and consists of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales" in the second paragraph to start off saying.... "'The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and unitary state consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." I did not think the proposal was to have that wording in the first sentence of the first paragraph, its not right. The first sentence must point out the UK is a sovereign state (i still think it should say country too) in Europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it was just a misunderstanding as to what you were accepting - I certainly had the same impression as Daicaregos. If that's not acceptable what about the GH Myrtle suggestion above, which amounts to leaving the lead as it now is and the second para then opening: "The United Kingdom is a unitary state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London. It consists of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales...." ?????? DeCausa (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't me. My only change was the country spans an archipelago → the country is part of an archipelago, which was supported above. Daicaregos (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the copyediting suggestions by Chaosdruid was to amend the order, for consistency, to "England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland" - which I would support. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion resolved – see Talk:United_Kingdom#Edits by AgadaUrbanit DeCausa and Ghmyrtle made this morning (28 May 2011) DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Re this revert by revert by Ghmyrtle, who referred to the fact this footnote's content was "agreed at talk page", I'd really like to know where tbh. Because it's complete garbage. Using footnotes rather than main text links to refer readers other Misplaced Pages articles for more information for understanding POV disputes? WTF? Using footnotes to deliver the NPOV balancing info rather than simple explanatory text? Since when did that become good practice? Using footnote claims in the present tense tied to a single 1991 reference to use the lede of this article to suggest to readers that somehow referring to NI as a country might reveal you as a terrorist? Since when did this sort of flagrant coatracking of footnotes fly as how we deal with NPOV? I'd like some answers, directly, or I'll be reverting, on the basis that 'see talk page' is not a legitimate defence of such flagrant violations of the MoS or NPOV. MickMacNee (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There was lengthy discussion here in February and March, here, leading to this change, subsequently slightly amended to match the agreed wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Previous consensus Mick, you need to get agreement here to any reversion. Please tone the language down a bit --Snowded 14:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

And you're seriously arguing that's a valid consensus? A discussion in which an inexperienced user suggested that on the whole 'country' issue, "a footnote explaining the debate and the alternatives", could be used. This was on the premise that the way we decide article content is what best diffuses disputes between editors arguing from different POVs (seriously?). And after nobody raised any of the policy points I have above (and infact, nobody appears to have mentioned a single policy or guideline at all, least of all WP:FOOTNOTE), there was a 'vote' (again, seriously?) on various versions, and the unanimous winner was shoehorned into this article? I think my language describing that sort of process coming to this sort of content change introducing this sort of coatrack is spot on. I invite either of you to prove this utter nonsense of an approach to NPOV would get consensus at somewhere like VPP. I'll repeat, it's garbage. MickMacNee (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If you think it was not valid then you discuss it here, and ideally with less invective --Snowded 15:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) On the basis of this explanation, I removed it again pending a proper consensus emerging. As far as I'm concerned, this material is wholly devious and disingenuous, and rather than solving a dispute, it sends some very disturbing messages to readers. If people want to show me I'm wrong, if people here think this footnote is justified in actual policy and is what would result from a cluefull discussion, they should attempt to have it ratified as a sensible approach at a venue like the village pump or NPOVN, as something that does not contravene core policies like NPOV or is not a coatrack. As it is just a footnote, nobody here can plausibly claim that the silence from people simply not noticing it is sufficient. If people don't want to do this, if you Snowded, want to show that you really aren't capable of doing anything but what you've just done and re-inserted it on the basis of that above 'consensus', and templating me, then I think that shows exactly what's supporting this material - general cluelessness about policy and a general disregard for some pretty core policy principles. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A group of editors agreed it was a sensible way forward Mick. I can't see how it breaks NPOV and I'm not just taking your word for it, try explaining why in more temperate language. --Snowded 15:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A (very small by comparison to other issues of equivalent seriousness) group who never once mentioned a single policy in their discussions. A group acting on the suggestion of someone with barely 4 months editting experience to use a footnote as a solution to a long standing dispute over NPOV. Seriousy? This is the sort of logic you are going to edit war and template others in support of? As for the policy, read WP:COATRACK. The use in a footnote in the lede of a single reference dating from 7 years before the Good Friday Agreement which settled a number of important issues as regards the territorial status of NI as a way to present to readers of the UK article a present tense assertion that calling NI a country may reveal your political preferences? It's an outrageously deceptive attempt at coatracking. Of all the things that might need further explanation in this lede, this is chosen as the important one? Hell no. Footnotes are for explanatory material not considered important enough to include in main text. Balancing detail for NPOV is not that. It's absurd to describe the whole 'is NI a country' issue as something you can try and balance in a footnote. I hesitate to ask if any of this is even dealt with in this actual article. It's certainly discussed at lenght in the NI article. As such, it's equally absurd to squirrel away other terms for NI in a footnote, and they don't even have any supporting references. As for Misplaced Pages using footnotes to refer readers to other Misplaced Pages articles as psuedo-references for that sort of POV material? Do I really even have to expand on what's wong with that from a policy standpooint? Actually, maybe I probably do. MickMacNee (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at the previous discussion. A fair number of experienced editors were involved in it and like many things on these pages it was a compromise given that various different words can be supported by sources. There were in fact multiple references, but was was used, others could have been. Its always been the case by the way (and this is referenced) that what you call Northern Ireland is a part of political preference. Again if you check the various previous discussions you will see references to that. --Snowded 16:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I hear anyone describe something as a 'compromise' solution on Misplaced Pages, alarm bells ring, not least when it occurs on the talk page of the disputed article with no evident attempt at solicitation of outside clue whatsoever. You do not decide what is and is not adequately balanced wording based on what a few editors agree on a talk page will not cause them to further dispute it, not least if while doing so, they fail to mention a single policy. And whatever was agreed at the time, I'm telling you now it's wholly disputed, and I'm telling you in policy, why. Directing me to the discussion you've already directed to me before which I've already commented on, does nothing. Either you can justify this footnote in policy, or you can't. Readers who see that footnote are not required to come see the alleged references it was drafted using, way back when. And don't insult me further by directing me to the page where they are located, as if I didn't already know where it is and wasn't around when it was being constructed. At the time I was under the impression that was to be used in article text, not to vaguely support dodgy coatracked footnotes. MickMacNee (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Compromises are part of getting things done on controversial articles. Also its not unreasonable to ask you to read a prior discussion. If you have ideas on how to improve it then propose them --Snowded 16:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is how you get things done. And not the kind you think it is, but proper, cluefull discussions with reference to actual policies. A 'compromise' solution without that occuring only results in the sort of clueless outcome where say, a fringe view and a majority view are presented as equals as the 'NPOV', just because the 'discussion' only happened to have 3 editors speaking up for each side (that's an abstract example, before you start over thinking it as regards this issue). Anyway, I'm done here with you. You seem to be in the mood for not listening in between reverts today Snowded, I'm not going to start repeating things like the fact I did read and infact have responded to the contents of the prior discussion that was referred to to justify this 'compromise', and requests to go read it again are not going to make up for your lack of ability to justify this coat racked mess. From a policy perspective it's garbage, end of story. If you want to prove otherwise, you've been given more than enough opportunity by now to show you're willing to do that. The request to come talk it out with you on the talk page looks like nothing but a way of wasting my time and securing the content as is, by boring me into submission and getting me to blow my brains out rather than having to explain the concept of what goes into a cluefully argued consensus position for what must be the fourth time by now. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

And my suggested impovement was the removal of the offending content. If it's a violation, then removal is an improvement. Again, that's another common fallacy from the less than cluefull camp on Misplaced Pages - that if you see a violation, you must 'improve' it (i.e. change or rearrange the text), rather than remove it. People wouldn't argue that if they saw a libel in a BLP, so why argue it in an article which has an obvious POV issue? If you want suggestions for improvement as to how to do this same thing in regular text, then read the advice contained in the relevant policies and guidelines, starting with NPOV and MoS. One thing you definitely won't find in them, is a suggestion to use footnotes for balancing perceived POV wording. If you want to say you would, then please provide evidence (and no, not of the form of directing me to another flawed 'compromise' achieved in another flawed way at another flawed article, that's what brought me to this garbage in the first place to find out how on Earth this was being held up as an example of good practice elsewhere). As already said, but what seems to need endless repeating, seeing as the prior discussion justifying this footnote never even got into such complex or heady issues as 'what are footnotes for', let alone what role they do and do not play in NPOV etc, directing me to the past discussion is not going to help in that regard. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I am not disagreeing with the content, but I find the format (link to subpage), shall we say, "unusual" at best. Suppose I print this — link gone, refs gone, no information. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Using a link to another WP article as source? That is a no go I think. If "the United Kingdom Government refers to the four parts as 'countries' constantly" as someone claimed in the above mentioned discussion and if this claim applies to referring to Northern Ireland as "country" too, there clearly are many good reliable sources at hand? Why not using them? And the link to a talk-subpage looks like a wikilink to an article. "Unusual" is friendly for that. What unexperienced user is to understand that? Adornix (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

MickMacNee: You haven't raised any serious policy points. The footnote gives extra information on the text. This solution had the support of pretty much all the regular editors and is the product of consensus after a very lengthy debate. You have no consensus to change it - although, of course it's open to you to try to gain consensus for you view. DeCausa (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a high profile article, one of the highest. As such, failing to adhere to a core policy like NPOV from just the 2nd paragraph is not a serious policy point? Coatracking is not a a serious policy point? Whoever told you this, is wrong. And whoever told you that a defacto consensus exists wherever something has simply been discussed by the regulars (might not have to look far on that one), irrespective of the content of that discussion, is also flat wrong. As far as the status of regular editors and the content of articles, well, FAs aside, they have none, as without their regular input and care having guided it to something like FA status, they frankly haven't demonstrated they know anything yet, and certainly haven't shown they can write decent NPOV stuff. It frankly doesn't matter if the people in that discussion considered themselves subject experts, or whether it was their first ever input on the article, what matters is what they said (and in this case, what they failed to say as regards any policy or guideline). And pro tip: for forming a consensus on long running POV disputes, it's more often than not better to get input from experienced non-regulars than the entrenched regulars. Fresh eyes and all that. And if you think that in Misplaced Pages terms that was a long discussion with many participants, you are again, flat wrong. If anything, the fact it went on so long with the same few people who never once mentioned a policy, never once seemed to solicit cluefull outside opinion from the likes of VPP on what is a pretty major issue, is only a sure fire sign that it was pretty much wasted effort as far as being a proper consensus goes. It might satisfy the likes of Snowded, enough for him to edit war to sustain it, but he's still struggling with the concept of to template or not to template. And reading the contributor list and comparing it to the few people in that vote, I'd say you're even over-egging that pudding tbh.

If you want to get into the whole experience issue, then bearing in mind you are talking to a guy with over four years edit time under his belt, can I ask you, as an editor of just four months experience at the time, on what basis did you make the footnote suggestion in the first place? What policy or guideline did you read, or even good advice from an editor with a reputation for decent writing, did you receive, that remotely suggested to you that the way we deal with hot button terms in article ledes as regards NPOV is not to deal with it in main text, but to hang a footnote off it, containing a mixture of referenced material albeit with issues in of itself, material bizarrly referenced to wikipedia articles as pseudo references (someone already agrees on that score in the first few posts, so maybe you need to wind your claims about me having no conensus back just a tiny bit), and material referenced to nothing at all, pure assertion, but nonetheless making rather grand claims about what unspecified people use as alternate names for NI. And I'm talking specifically here about the stuff I removed, the stuff included ostensibly to balance a POV term, rather than the stuff I left, which is legitimate factual explanatory detail which while required, would nonethless be an unneeded distraction to include in the main text. If the difference is lost on you, there is no consensus here as there is no real understanidng of the basic issue.

And on your own specific example draft, which kicked off this whole process which bizarrly ended in a vote of all things even though the discussion hadn't even been that long and didn't even involve that many people compared to some of the things which really do become so intractible, busy and long, a vote is the only way to settle it. As regards your own first draft, what possible policy or guideline or person could have made you think that on the UK article, the thing to be hanging off of a footnote in the lede is Sinn Fain of all people's views on the status of bits of the UK? Ye Gods.

If I am reading this article as an SNP supporter or even a Cornish nationalist and happen to follow the footnote, by now I'm all ready hopping mad at being told that this is what Misplaced Pages believes is the balanced way to present the UK, and I haven't even finished the supposed summary. Per WP:LEDE, am I now expecting to find nothing in the main article about either of these issues, but a hefty chunk about the terminology of NI. As above, I doubt it, as this is what that part of the MoS would suggest follows from that sort of a lede, but such a guideline was not a part of the rationale for the footnote that I can see at all. As that reader, even though I might have no clue whatsoever about policy, I might even try and bring my rage to the talk page, to try and see what I can end up with in one of Snowdeds 'compromise' solutions on behalf of the peoples of the far north or south west, especially as it seems I don't need that many like minded people to participate and get a footnote at least. After all, it's not a major part of the article is it? What harm can it do?. A lot. As referred to above, it would never pass an WP:FAR for a start with this sort of obvious coatrack in it.

For me to accept that I have to get a change in consensus to remove this coatrack would be to give the original discussion and the reverters who are sustaining it in the article despite it being disputed with what are infact serious policy points, a legitimacy that they simply do not have, not in policy or in clue. No, if anything, I'm as likely to raise it as an improper UK article only behavioural issue than go to a venue like VPP and get a consensus for what I already know - that the content is garbage from a policy perspective, and the discussion that led up to it was, and I'm being kind here, less than ideal. No, the only way this material is being backed by a consensus, one that I would need to thange, is if you suspend all notions of what consensus actually is. MickMacNee (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr. DeCausa (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Same as DeCausa. If anything MickMacNee you need consensus to remove an outcome that was consensed upon by several editors, and not just a few. You just can't downtrod over something because you disagree with it regardless of everyone elses efforts to reach a compromise. If you want to have it removed then you need to follow WP:BRD. You removed content that was discussed and in place for several months so you did the bold, you were reverted, so you need to discuss properly and preferably with far less words. Mabuska 21:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You're talking nonsense frankly. An agreement between editors to do something which breaks policy, is no agreement at all. It's certainly not a consensus - you cannot by definition have a consensus that goes against policy. You can no more do that, than have a group of fan boys at their favourite BLP decide that they want to include some salacious detail or other that violates a BLP criteria. It's still a policy violation. And you cannot defend content that is being challenged simply on the basis that you agree with it. If you don't put anything in terms of policy behind that, it's worthless jawing, and again, it's certainly not part of consensus. You want it, you should be able to justify it here and now, rather than pretending you don't have to just because it was discussed before, with some equally weightless points. And it doesn't matter if it lasted for months - it was hidden away in a footnote. There's been BLP violations gone unnoticed in articles for years in some cases. Anyway, on BRD in general - for the 'D' stage in this case, well, you can see what sense I'm getting out of people here by pandering to their empty ideas of discussion. The initial proposer of the footnote refuses to say anything - he claims my post was too long to read. Well, he's either lying or he really is that lazy, but either way he's lost the right to even have an opinion going forward. The original reverter maybe? Surely if BRD is the cycle here, they'd be discussing the content, showing where I'm wrong in the above criticism with some policies. Nope, nothing yet. Who next? Snowded. Well, he messed me around a bit telling me to read a discussion I'd already read and commented on, but on the issue at hand, he hasn't said anything of substance. He's claimed there's more than just the 1991 ref, but rather than justifying the content, that only goes to show how stupid it is to try and balance things using footnotes - no references, no value to the article. The place for text supported by muliple references is main text. This is not rocket science. These aren't complex concepts. Then there's you. You've said nothing of my complaints here, yet you are trying to claim elsewhere that this footnote solution has consensus support. Can you really not see the flaw with that approach? No, I'm not going to be pissed around here, if I don't see anyone actually attempting to justify this in terms of policy, it's going. If people revert again, it will be a behavioural issue, there'll be no hiding behind BRD then. Whatever people think the previous discussion shows (and I've made my views on it more than clear based on some not so hard to understand concepts), it's not inviolate, and it's conclusions are being challenged here and now. And let's not forget, of the new people commenting, neither is actively supporting it, and all have agreed with me on it's absurd linking and pseudo referencing of Misplaced Pages. MickMacNee (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please try to cut down on the one mass block statements Mick and the comemnting on editors, i think your putting editors off altogether leaving just you yourself argueing your point. I'm not even reading your recent comments due to the poor formatting and verbosity of it, and it would appear no-one else is either - however by looking closer at your opening statement which is far shorter i think i can finally figure out what your on about.

If the content of the footnote is such a problem for you then why not propose a rewording? If you don't like a 1991 source being used in present tense then why not suggest changing the tense of content of the footnote as such: "With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used has been stated in the past as being "controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences."". Is that not a less verbose, less disruptive and easier going way of handling the issue rather than ranting and making threats of making chages regardless of other editors?

If a wikilink to a sub-page of a talk-page, which is simply a list of sources a no-no, then its a no-no, however it is in the form of a article, just in the wrong namespace. If it was possible to be created as an actual article would it meet your criteria Mick for wikilinking? RA has already removed it anyways. In fact if you wish we can cram every single reference for country into the footnote which to be honest is overkill and rediculous but if it needs to be done.

Personally i would rather not have the footnote, however compromises were made by all for the greater good of the article, whether you see it or not. Mabuska 00:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not propose rewording it because it is the use of a footnote to do what it is trying to do that is objectionable and a basic violation. And it's the nature of how those compromises arose that needs examining. More below, in handy bullet points. MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Mick: I did actually read the last essay and noticed you called me a liar. That of course is a gross breach of WP:NPA. But aside from that it's a strange accusation: the "lie" supposedly is that I did read your post but said I didn't. I'm not sure why you would think I would lie about that. A quick glance over it reveals that it is an incoherent rant with poor grammar, formatting etc. Because of that, it is largely unintelligible. I would say that length and incoherence strongly suggests that I was telling the truth. Why don't you go and have a lie down? I'm sure you'll feel better for it. DeCausa (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You stated clearly it was too long so you never read it. And I think you'd lie about having not read it if you had, just so you wouldn't have to address the points made in it. Thus far, I think I was pretty correct. MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Reboot

Right. Well, to satisfy the 'formatting' concerns, and to see if there really is some discussion about to break out here, here is a selection of suggested starting points, in handy bullet point form:

• On what policy or guideline basis did DeCausa originally suggest a footnote being used to perform POV balancing in mini article form, rather than for simple detail explanation which would never go in main text?
• Why did nobody in the ensuing discussion actually refer to any policy or guideline that would support this, but rather just bumbled on as if it was assumed to be normal practice?
• If it was such a clueful discussion, how come it swiftly turned into and concluded as a vote on footnote versions, which is discouraged precisely because it allows people to ingore the issue of whether we would ever even use a footnote for balancing terms
• On what grounds are 'the regulars' in that debate being held up as experienced in NPOV writing or in the nuances of the MoS? (not that the purpose of footnotes is really a nuance)
• Why did nobody solicit experienced outside opinions if they thought this was an ongoing issue of an intractable nature that input from 'the regulars' wasn't solving?
• If the above two issues were ever acknowledged during the debate, why was nobody experienced & independent sought out to close the discussion, stating its conclusions, as is often simply normal for issue finalising debates like this?
• If this was supposedly some sort of compromise, who are we compromising between? Fighting editors who weren't referring to policy in that debate, clueless readers not aware that the lede is not the whole article, or some actual true conflicts in the directions of core policy in this specific case?
• If this apparent solution to acheiving balance using footnotes is so cluefull, why is nobody willing to defend it at all now using existing policy from 'first principles'?
• Who here who supports it is willing to claim that the footnote would not be a barrier to this article becoming an FA, i.e. cleared for being written in accordance with NPOV & the MoS?

As far as any further nit-picking of my writing style goes, I will not be tolerating any further pretences of there being an existing, well argued, defended, or even defensible consensus, or that I am required to discuss anything here in order to get this article to comply with NPOV, a core policy, if we don't start to see some substantive progress on the above points. MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't we make more progress if you were to suggest how the substance of the footnote could best be incorporated into the main text of the article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. If I can try and answer one of Mick's points - Why did nobody solicit experienced outside opinions if they thought this was an ongoing issue of an intractable nature that input from 'the regulars' wasn't solving? - many of us have at many times over the years asked for outside opinions on various aspects of British/Irish disputes (of which this is just another flavour) and the reaction is most often of one of two varieties

1. A previously uninvolved editor/admin pays a visit, makes some points, stays a couple of weeks/months, and eventually disappears into the ether fed up with the dispute and the behaviour, or
2. No one comes along, because they are all fed up of the stinking mess.

Either way we've all been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. Now we are here, and most of us are trying to work out a consensus (like WP:NPOV, another equally core policy) that will be neutral, but will also create a climate for consensual editing as we move along. And for Mick to tar many of us with ignoring a core policy (NPOV) is a bad faith breach of yet another equally core policy.

There is more than one core policy. And pretending that only one - WP:NPOV - trumps all the others, is not moving us onwards. Even the above reboot section is looking backwards not forwards. There may well be some good lessons to be learned from much of what Mick says, but pointing fingers won't get us any further forward. I'm not clear what Mick's preferred solution actually is. Perhaps he'd prefer to add a little bit about his view forwards? Fmph (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The solution is to have my edit stand, or for someone to come up with a better justification for it not to than the rather weak assertions that the past discussion represents a consensus, for all the reasons above (and no, WP:CON doesn't override NPOV at all, and the page is explicit on that score). And I am not clear why I need to suggest the way forward once it is removed. There are many possible solutions, indeed there is even a question mark over whether it's an issue that needs explaining in the lede of the UK article at all. If you actually read NPOV it does not demand every controversial concept is explained in every possible place, and certainly not in footnotes. Many people for example continually complain that Barack Obama's article calls him an African American, as they think he's mixed race. They claim it's an issue of great importance that needs addresssing, and they can always get a few people to agree on that score on the talk page. Just like here, it's an issue that has been given proper NPOV treatment in main text, and is explained for editors in a talk page FAQ. Unlike here however, what you won't see occurring at the Barack Obama page is experienced editors pandering to their wishes by hanging footnotes off of the lede of that article, with points and counter points. That's an extreme example with less weight to the actual objections than here, but it's a parallel nonetheless. Infact, take a look at the lede of that article - not a footnote in sight on the lede, and certianly not one that attempts to explain some issue of NPOV. Because, and here's the issue, it's not the done thing on decent articles. MickMacNee (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

@Mick - you say that the solution is to let your edit stand. To help me out (and others I'm sure) perhaps you could tell me, either as a diff link or by a direct quote of words, what that edit consists of. Because I don't know. You headed this subsection Reboot, added 9 bullet points, but not one was related to the actual edit you would like made to the article. You do talk a lot of sense sometimes, but your core message often gets lost in the invective and lack of focus of your posts. And btw, I never said that CONSENSUS trumps NPOV. But neither does NPOV trump CONSENSUS. Fmph (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The disputed diff was given in the very first line of the initial section. The reboot with bullet points was a response to the rather silly claims that the only reason nobody was bothering to justify the reverts was that they couldn't/wouldn't read my blocks of text. MickMacNee (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and you are of course completely wrong on this issue - there is no situation on the pedia where anyone could ever rightfully state: 'I choose to ignore NPOV here because that is the consensus'. Either the claim of consensus is false, either due to crap argumentation or some basic misunderstanding of what consensus even is (for example, believing it's a vote, or a simple discussion between interested parties), or, there has actually been a proper debate which has concluded by a proper consensus that the NPOV policy is wrong in some situation, and thus needs changing to reflect the new consensus (as policies are the site wide expression of consensus). For all the nonsense claims that this is an IAR (i.e. ignore NPOV or MoS) situation, I see not one person preparing to go over to the VPP to lay out exactly what they intend to change in these policies to start allowing the use of footnotes in this way. We might of course get the usual claim that the NI situation is totally unique, but this is of course, complete bollocks. Misplaced Pages has thousands of similar instances like this - is Gibraltar 'British' was one such example that came to mind recently - does anyone here see a footnote in that lede clarifying this description? Do they hell. Because it's not how we do it. MickMacNee (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, so rather than GHMs revert, the edit you made was this one. Well personally, either of them would do for me. The lede itself is way too overlinked, so the footnote actually disappears into the link clutter and can't be seen anyway, so it makes no real difference which version we have. BTW, I've never said that we should ignore NPOV. Neither has anyone else in this discussion. Its just that our opinion of what is and what is not NPOV may be different. As with your edit, i dont believe it makes the lede anymore NPOV than it was, mainly because it cant be seen amongst the link clutter and crap already there. One persons NPOV fails consensus IMHO. Fmph (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Differing opinions of what a policy supports are all well and good, it's whats behind them that counts. You're correct on the invisibility issue, but you know why? Because that's actually discouraged in the specific wording of NPOV. See the section below with the wordings. That's why I have questioned the lack of anyone doing the same in the past discussion, and why nobody sought outside verification of the cluefullness of their opinions if they were based on something like NPOV (which was barely even mentioned), rather than simply being opinions for opinions sake. MickMacNee (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with FMPH's comment. The whole thing is overblown nonsense (which appears to be overspill from the usual at the Northern Ireland Talk page). As far as I can see, MickMacNee has dressed up his objection to the footnote on policy because he doesn't like the concept of saying that "NI is a country" is controversial. That's clear from this edit. So when he says he didn't propose wording, that's not true. He did. To answer his first bullet point (and I find it amusing that he seems to see me as some sort of eminence grise behind all this evil) the purpose of the footnote is not to "balance POV". The reason for it was there was a constant drip of editors, mainly IPs, contradicting why E/W/S and particularly NI are called countries. The footnote simply gives the background as to why the text is written as it. It's not a big deal now, but it was a big deal to get it agreed amongst so many differing opinions. I actually dropped out of the discussion at quite an early stage because I was so frustrated with the difficulties of that process. All credit, and I take my hat off to, all those other editors who saw it through to the end. To storm in now using intemperate language about this because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not going to get a good reception. DeCausa (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

And this would be the time where you explain what policy or guideline recommends using a footnote to explain the background behind a controversial term in a lede, in order to stop IP or inexperienced editor complaints (who, as such, you can be pretty certain don't know anything about writing from the NPOV or what footnotes are for). You're damn right I don't like it - but that's not WP:IDON'TLIKEIT (which is about Afd arguments btw, not content issues), my objection is grounded in the very real fact that it breaks policy. Just like I don't like vandals and just like I don't like people who insert libel in BLPs. MickMacNee (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please specify the policy which you claim has been broken...I mean cite the actual para/sentence in the relevant policy. You haven't done so so far and I think that would clarify matters greatly. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Does there need to be policies for a universal agreement between all editors (of different hues) who decided to join the debate? That is a facade your hiding behind Mick to try to defend your stance. The fact your oppossed to the footnote altogether shows how uncollaborative and disruptive an editor you are.

You talk of NPOV and such, however are intent on pushing your POV on the issue using anything at your disposal and hiding behind the need for policy's - wiki-lawyering by any chance? Heres a policy for you that backs it up: ignore everything if it helps improve Misplaced Pages. This is an improvement to help stop disruption in the lede by allowing a reader to quickly see a footnote explaining the issues around the term country. Its not my preferred solution however its worked to a degree - thats far better than anything you've tried to suggest so far. Your only paving the way for more argueing again from the same old editors who were sufficed by the footnote. Is that not disruptive and trolling?

"On what grounds are 'the regulars' in that debate being held up as experienced in NPOV writing or in the nuances of the MoS? " - on what grounds are you being held up as an experienced editor in NPOV writing? Whilst i share your views in most things, i have to admit in the past i've seen your comemnts as more disruptive and POV-pushing than the opposite.

If we are to take lessons on NPOV from anyone Mick, it definately wouldn't be from you. Mabuska 11:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, just stop talking utter rubbish like this Mabuska, it doesn't persuade me one bit, because it's nonsense. IDONTLIKEIT? For a start, that's a goddam essay about goddam Afd arguments. But the essence is the same - don't complain about something without a policy based rationale. If you want to keep insisting I don't have a policy based rationale, after all I've written so far, then it's you who's trolling here. And I'm not going to ignore those sorts of provocations for very long if they continue, so if you want to carry on like this, you'd better start getting some diffs together to defend your accusations of me. And you really want to claim IAR here? Well, read above for my reply to Fmph, because as a sustainable justification for this footnote, that is also complete nonsense. MickMacNee (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if you were a little less provocative and firebrand yourself Mick, others might follow suit. Mabuska 11:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Well, well. I've learned something new today. I never realised that WP:AGF was not a policy, but merely a behaviour guideline. So I was wrong about that above. Fmph (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Treating other Wikipedians with respect and civility (including assuming good faith) is beyond policy. It is one of the fundamental principles by which Misplaced Pages operates. It sits side-by-side with NPOV and ignore all rules. --RA (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The 'what policy' issue

Note: this section was moved as a refactoring of threads MickMacNee (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In response to DeCausa, where he said up above "Please specify the policy which you claim has been broken...I mean cite the actual para/sentence in the relevant policy. You haven't done so so far and I think that would clarify matters greatly", to wit, the answer:

• WP:STRUCTURE (NPOV): "Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints". The disputed part of the footnoted content is most certainly not sufficient for readers to assess the material in the way that this section demands. It is too short, too vague, and insufficiently referenced, to be anything but open to improper interpretation
• WP:FOOTNOTES (MoS): "Misplaced Pages footnotes serve two purposes: to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article ...(and to act as references)". The disputed part of the footnoted content is most certainly not the sort of material that would not normally be included in standard text, if at all
• Taken together, as both a core content policy and the most relevant stylistic guideline, it shows that the site wide consensus view is that in a decent article, material ostensibly included to balance a POV would never be considered of such low relevance that it can be dealt with in a footnote, as to place it in standard text would just be distracting to the reader MickMacNee (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that enough to be getting on with? I do not want you to be misled into thinking that these are the only parts of policy that support me, these are just the ones that I found first, and believe are enough as a starting point. I won't be so dramatic as to ask you to come up with in return a line and paragraph that would support the use of a footnote in this way (and it's not like I haven't asked already), but I hope you might understand my skepticism if you can't, particularly when you have already described my concerns as "overblown nonsense", and you are after all, still restoring the content on the claim that there was a long debate on the issue, which surely must have covered these key points of policy, to be held up by you as a valid consenus? Valid enough to edit war to maintain. MickMacNee (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If you paid any attention to WP:CIVIL it would be a lot easier to work with you and to take your wider comments on policy seriously. In respect of the above, avoiding detailed explanations of the varying constitutional positions in the main text and putting them in a footnote and a reference to an article with a wider discussion seems entirely compliant with the above policies. Whether it is the best way forwards, and whether some of the suggestions above have merit will be a lot easier to explore if you come down of your high horse, stop accusing editors who simply implemented WP:BRD of edit warring and generally stop behaving like a spoilt child whose view of the world has not bee accepted without question. Now that probably breaks WP:CIVIL but I am not even in the same league as you in that regard, but you seem incapable of listening to reasoned argument. --Snowded 12:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(side show, see below for the main reply)Discussing what is and is not CIVIL with you is never productive, and always a distraction. It seems to be your favoured way of ignoring others completely (which is ironically, a violation of CIVIL itself), so I'll dwell on it just the once here. It was edit warring, from your restoration here onwards. If you don't understand the principle, or get how you weren't engaged in BRD at that point having pointed me to a consensus I'd already commented on, don't claim you do in the face of opposition and continue to lecture others who do (which is again, ironically, a violation of CIVIL itself). You think I'm wrong, you know where to go. But as ever, there will be nothing of the sort. It seems to always be enough for you in to just poison the well with these suggestions of malfeasance toward opponents, but strangely it's never enough for you to act on them (I don't think I even need to clarify whether that's inCIVIL behaviour or not) bar of course templating the person you're accusing. The policy itself advises you in the face of perceived incivility to either act on it, or ignore. Pick one. Either will do. Option number three, the poison pill, doesn't make this 'D' phase discussion go any better, or conclude any faster. MickMacNee (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Mick, I forgot, I am of course the only one who has ever had a problem with you in this respect, shame on me --Snowded 13:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed you are not alone, and others have got varying mileage depending on the merits of their specific complaints, if they have ever chosen option 1. You're just the sole editor who stands out to me as having consistently been the most patronising and even hypocritical about your claims, and by far the most persistent in the devious art of poisoning while avoiding options 1 or 2 like the plague, in response to percieved incivility. I hope that explains the special place you hold in my heart, and why I will always find time to point out the above at least once whenever it crops up in a new discussion area, as it most surely does each time. MickMacNee (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

As for your assertion that using a footnote here is "entirely compliant" with the above, please explain further so I can have some clue as to how you even come to that conclusion. Please explain it at all infact, as currently, it's just an argument by assertion (which is again, ironically, a mild form of inCIVILity, but no, now we're definitely flogging the horse on that score). MickMacNee (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

But all you've done is assert eg "The disputed part of the footnoted content is most certainly not the sort of material that would not normally be included in standard text, if at all". That doesn't mean anything. In fact, I have taken the last 30 minutes to read everything you've written on this page and you've actually said nothing of substance. My conclusion is that your input is frivolous and disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not 'all I've done' at all. What the hell are you looking for in your request above if you think the above response is "nothing of substance"? An actual policy page that would state something like 'in the field of defining UK countries, it would not be appropriate to explain that issue in a footnote, as that is not the sort of material that would be considered insignificant enough not to include in main text'. I mean seriously, WTF? MickMacNee (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You have your opinion, you've provided nothing to support it, and as far as I can tell no one else agrees with you opinin. I think that's about it really. Take a break and chill. DeCausa (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. For a start, if you think I'm really talking bollocks and want to mess me around even more than you already have with requests to see policies that you then magically can't understand or are prepared to dismiss out of hand anyway, I haven't even gone to get outside opinions on this yet from the people who can understand what I'm on about. No, as far as you being able to make claims about who supports what yet, we are very much still at the stage of finding out how the people who came up with this content did so, and you're blind if you can't / won't see the others who have already disagreed with parts of it (you reverted one of them, remember?). And where you've actually justified your opinion on the matter in any policy or any cluefull argument beyond 'I think it's fine', I really cannot see. You can see my logic and argument, and you can disagree with it all you want, but don't take the piss and pretend you've put anything behind that disagreement, or given any satisfatory explanation of your views I can cross examine in return apart from these idiotic suggestions that I chill in the face of what increasingly looks like a determined wind up. As I almost said before until I saw this request for policies and took it in good faith and replied, if you want to take the piss, that's fine, I'll simply seek your removal as a barrier to those who are here to discuss the matter in the proper fashion. MickMacNee (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Seek my removal"! If you can conduct yourself in a more appropriate and civil way, stop the bluster, be more coherent, and succinctly point out your arguments, then you will be taken more seriously. As it is, you haven't got to that stage yet. DeCausa (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There's only so long that you can try and blame me for your lack of substantive input here. You don't want to take other people seriously, that's fine, but don't pretend it's their fault. MickMacNee (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, "other people" and "their"? It only applies to you. Your vague unsubtantiated generalised policy objections have gathered no support whatsoever. Just asserting that it's non-compliant with policy doesn't do it. I'm waiting for a coherent explanation of what policies have been breached and how. You seem incapable of providing that explanation in a coherent manner, or at all. When/if you do, I'll take a look at it. Until that time comes, there's not much to say. DeCausa (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Your not saying anything I haven't responded to before above. It's getting tedious now. I'm not interested in playing your games anymore. You want to play the fool, go ahead, the discussion can and will proceed without you, whether you suddenly remember where you left your own arguments or your reading glasses or not. It may or may not yet see the involvement of outside people who will understand what I'm on about, because I'm not a moron and I do know how to articulate an argument within policy, and have done so many times on several topics before, so if it does, just try and stay out the way and not piss them around the way you've done to me. MickMacNee (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to reading the posts of these "outside people" who will explain what you are trying to say. DeCausa (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay's suggestion

Note: this section header was introduced & the thread moved as a refactoring of threads MickMacNee (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Replace the sentence with "United Kingdom is a country, consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". This version doesn't require a footnote. This article is about the UK. The descriptive 'country' is handled in the intros of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. -- GoodDay (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I supported this in the past and still do. However it probably won't get the consensus of the Welsh and Scottish nationalists as it robs their parts of the "country" status. Mabuska 11:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I support and agree...but GD, for God's sake, stopping repeating it over and over again. It's NEVER EVER going to happen. DeCausa (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

He did stick to his word for 21 hours, which must be a personal best. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

How about if we said something like... "The United Kingdom is a country, consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales which are sometimes described as countries of the United Kingdom" or "The United Kingdom is a country, consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Waleswhich are often described as the countries of the United Kingdom." BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think thats a little bloated looking. The simpler the better. A section detailing each different terminology can then be provided in the article if one isn't already. However i still query whether certain editors will agree to it as they haven't before hence the compromise of a footenote (theres your compromise Mick). We would also need a consensus for change. Mick and his lone oppositon to the need for the footntoe in its entirety doesn't equal a consensus for change. Mabuska 11:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well here's a theory Mabuska - if you've no grounds on which to say what another editor would or would not support, or does or does not believe, how about you leave such speculation out of your posts altogether? I for example don't recall ever even discussing a terminology section, let alone disagreeing on it. While not as obvious, this sort of nonsense is a mild form of the trolling you accused me of above, so as advised, let's have no more of it. And to repeat myself, a 'compromise' is invalid if it breaks core policy, has no identifiable support based in policy (not to labour the invalidity of IAR again), and is held up as a consensus implemented solution by those who came up with it, when their consensus forming discussion didn't even incoporate such basic elements of consensus forming like y'know, mentioning any particular policy or guidelines that might be relevant, or featuring an independent summary & closure by someone in the know about such policies, but rather just comprised a 'discussion' between interested parties who happened to be around at the time (or worse, the so called 'regulars'), and infact incoprorated elements such as voting, which are actively discouraged as part of the process of forming a consensus. So as ever, I will dispute until shown otherwise, that there's even a valid consensus on this footnote that I would be beholden to 'change'. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This is preceicely the problem. These totemistic words that mean everything to some. Where discussion becomes more about maintaining (or removing) these cherished totems rather than writing about the topic.

Here's a new guideline: avoid totem words. Words like "country" (or "province" in the case of Northern Ireland, for that matter) cannot be used definitively without breaking NPOV. It is not our place to say, definitively, Northern Ireland, for example, is a "country" - or that that is the correct appelation for it or any other part of the UK. We can be bold in our editing, but we must be neutral in what we write. Misplaced Pages is not the place to pursue the truth or to right the wrongs of the past. That makes for bland, unsatisifying statements for those for whom these things matter. --RA (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

if we say England, Wales and Scotland are a country, which wikipedia does, then Northern Ireland must be described as a country too. They are either all countries or none of them are. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to say the England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are countries, in this article. It's not a have to situation. Describing the UK as a country without giving E/W/S/NI a descriptive, isn't crime. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The rationale given for depriving readers of the notable fact that England, Scotland and Wales are countries is that the descriptive 'country' is handled in the intros of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. A similar rationale could apply to 90% of this article, yet that information is included here. That is because it is relevant and notable. That England, Scotland and Wales are verifiably countries is also relevant and notable. It should be noted in this article. Daicaregos (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing undisputable about "United Kingdom is a country, which consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". If editors can't accept that sentence (at this time), then settle on the compromise - constituent country for the 4 non-sovereign entities. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle's suggestion

How about (in para 2): "The United Kingdom consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is a unitary sovereign state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London. There are three devolved national administrations, each with varying powers, situated in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh; the capitals of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland respectively..." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support that. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm open to a range of solutions, provided we don't attempt to ignore the issue and pretend it doesn't exist. The multi-country nature of the UK is near unique and is significant. The above suggestion on its own does not provide that information, but it could be part of a composite. --Snowded 12:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

My proposal is short, sweet & the least problematic. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

We know you think that GoodDay, you've said it a thousand times here and on multiple talk pages. I agree its short but there the agreement stops. We need a form of words either in this sentence or in close conjunction with it that deals with the multi-country issue and we probably need a agreement on implications of what is agreed here for other articles --Snowded 13:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I could support Ghmyrtle's 12:22, 20 May 2011 version. If nobody here can come up with a policy based rationale for a footnote, or a suitable treatment of the issue in standard text in the lede, then this form of 'avoiding' words in the lede, combined with further explanation in the main body, is indeed, how we would do NPOV. MickMacNee (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

tentatively I agree but how does it differ from the GD formula? Are we saying we can get away without mentioning the C-word at all? (which I'd be in favour of). And what about Snowded's comment, what does that translate into? (Btw, Mick you didn't answer the question in my earlier post). DeCausa (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Mick just noticed your answer. Concur with Snowded's response already made. There's no significant policy issue. DeCausa (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion of what you see as a significant policy issue in the relevant section. And yes, in the version I support, avoiding the 'c word' is what I refer to. GoodDay's version would still lead to people thinking that hanging a footnote off the word 'country' was how policy mandates we deal with people asking how the UK can be a country if it also contains four countries, and if people can't see how wrong it is to pander to those complaints with a footnote, removing it is the next best policy mandated approach. MickMacNee (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well done GHM. I'll go with that. But we still need to clean up lots of links from the lede. It's way overlinked. Fmph (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Snowded's point is important. We don't want to brush complex - and important - things under the carpet. At the same time, we don't need to repeat them at every opportunity. Words like these, which are complex (and, in some cases, challenged), need space to be properly explained. The footnote does that but at the same time, if there is a simpler way to say the same thing (or no need to say it at all), then go with the simpler way. The opportunity to use these terms will come later, if it is really necessary to do so at all.

Also, just so we are all clear, Mick, there is nothing wrong with using a footnote "to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article" (WP:FOOTNOTE). That is exactly how it is being used in this article. --RA (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If you check #The 'what policy' issue section you'll see there's no need to tell me this, and why I think it's basically wrong. If you've come up with any new ways to show how you're rather wide definition of distracting material has suddenly become the accepted one in the last 6 months since the last time you tried and failed to make this point, then please add them in that section. MickMacNee (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• We go with Ghmyrtle's suggestion with the pipelinks to the articles concerned
• The long standing agreement to use "country which is a part of" in the ledes of at least three of those articles (Wales, Scotland, England) is affirmed, that means someone clicking through will get to the country statement on the first line
• The qualified position on Northern Ireland is accepted or modified (in discussion on that page) but does not loose "country"
• We then add an agreed wording on "countries" as this is a near unique for the UK into the politics or government sections which includes much of the current footnote wording but expanded
• As an alternative to that, we keep a footnote. I'm not wild about them but than can be useful. In this case I would prefer a proper section and would prevail on Ghmyrtle to draft something as he is about the most neutral editor here.

I know we can't mandate other editors, but it is reasonable to ask for agreement from the editors involved here as there is a substantial overlap. Now once I have worked through daughter's anthropology essay I intend to make it to Cardiff to catch up on St Fagins folk museum with the camera and then show Celtic Solidarity from 1700 onwards against the evil midlanders so I will not be online again until tomorrow. Doubtless other editors have other things to do this weekend as well so I suggest we aim to try and reach conclusions on this over the weekend, but don't do anything precipitate until there is a clear consensus. We may of course have to cross check the Welsh wikipedia as well as the German, and maybe we should throw in a few others while we are at it --Snowded 09:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't rely on me to do anything for several days, please. I'm more than happy for others to move this forward in my (temporary, I hope) absence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with all of that - quite an elegant solution. In getting rid of the footnote, it might make more sense for it to be in the Geography section - Admin. Divisions for instance, or even its own subsection in Geography: "Countries". DeCausa (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That England, Scotland and Wales are countries which, with Northern Ireland, comprise the UK is notable. Introducing this article without noting that, fails to provide readers with information to help them understand the subject. Unless and until an improvement to the existing text is agreed, no change should be made to the Introduction. No-one could refute that England, Scotland and Wales are verifiably countries. That they are should be noted in the Lead. Daicaregos (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Daicaregos. The introduction must describe all four as countries. Following that we can add the ambiguous and controversial position of Northern Ireland (How some people describe it as a region, province, etc.).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As Daicaregos says, there is no denying that they are verifiably countries. I see no reason why they should not be described as such in the introduction. Carson101 (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Since this article is about the UK, it's only the UK which would need description as a country. There's nothing disputable about saying the United Kingdom "...consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". It's a factual sentence, which noboday can 'again' can ever dispute. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As with GoodDay's proposal i support Ghmyrtle's. However Northern Ireland musn't be alone in special treatment if any is giving, there are some who describe the other parts of the UK as other things than countrys. Mabuska 11:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Wales is sometimes incorrectly described as a Principality (see multiple references and discussion). I'm not aware of any others and none had any significance last time we looked at it. If the goal of some editors is to open up that, then we are not going to make progress. --Snowded 12:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a Principality? Is there not a present day Prince of Wales? ... ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

... who has no constitutional role in Wales. Even if it were a principality, which it isn't, that would not preclude Wales from being a country (e.g. Monaco) Daicaregos (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The Grand Duchy of Luxemburg has a Grand Duke as its Head-of-State, the Principality of Monaco has Prince as its Head-of-State, the Principality of Andorra is not a mono-archy, it is a di-archy. It has two Co-Heads-of-State. The Head-of-State of Spain and the Head-of-State of France. Who is the Head-of-State of Wales? ... ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing the words 'country' and 'state'. They are not synonymous. As has been noted above several times, no-one here is claiming that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are states. Daicaregos (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not confusing the terms country and independent state. That would be known in Logic as Equivocation. I am explicitly fighting against any possible instance of Equivocation on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland page. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I performed a revert, of WP:LAME edit introducing format error in the infobox. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

A different proposal from GoodDay

My two-cents (or two-pence), what is written below by GoodDay,

"...Replace the sentence with "United Kingdom is a country, consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". This version doesn't require a footnote. This article is about the UK. The descriptive 'country' is handled in the intros of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. -- GoodDay (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC) ..."

sounds to me like the most reasonable compromise. I support GoodDays suggestion. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And how, exactly, is that a compromise? Daicaregos (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Daicaregos. It is nice to hear from you indeed. The text below,

"United Kingdom is a country, consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales".

please tell me what you don't like about it. I sincerely want to know, and I promise to be respectful, and polite. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Its not a compromise, its a different proposal which I would reject. However I have split it --Snowded 12:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an undisputable sentence. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay. I completely support your suggested text of

"...United Kingdom is a country, consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales..."

it sums it up quite well. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that GoodDay's proposal fails to state that England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are countries. The reader is left wondering what they are. An encyclopedia's job is to provide adequate information not condense it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is entirely normal and correct for the lede to summarise the full article text. That is its purpose. So, terms used - or words not fully explained - in the lede are more fully explained in the article text, as well as being linked to specific articles. That happens in most articles - nothing special about this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says the introduction should be "a summary of its most important aspects". That England, Scotland and Wales are countries is an important aspect of the United Kingdom and should be noted in the Lead. Daicaregos (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That may well be considered by some/many/most as an important aspect of the article. However, as you rightly quoted, the required test is whether it is one of the most important aspects. Again, its a matter of opinion. Personally, I don't 'get' the importance of it at all. Fmph (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

E/NI/S/W are constituent countries (i.e. countries within a country). GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Deja vu: let's return to 'sanity'

The above sub-threads (with near agreements and then falling through) was the background before we ended up with the footnote. It's not perfect, it has problems but it does a reasonable job and it had broad consensus support. This whole thing has only re-opened because MickMacNee burst in here with some unsubstantiated and somewhat wild objections which no one actually has said they agree with. My suggestion is ignore him, retain the existing compromise and let everyone go back to doing something more constructive. The alternative, IMHO, is the endless debate that we had before. And frankly, for what purpose? DeCausa (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Or, those who insist on referring to England, Scotland, and Wales (at least) as "countries" - using that word and only that word specifically in the lede of this article, even though it is a word that has more than one meaning, and its use in relation to the fourth part of the UK presents some difficulty, and the terminology can be clarified in the article text itself as well as being linked to other explanatory articles - reconsider their position. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Or, those who insist on not referring to England, Scotland, and Wales (at least) as "countries", reconsider their position. Daicaregos (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This is what I mean! Hence...status quo ante bellum DeCausa (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

NickMacNee has argued for the status quo ante ante bellum ... I support that (i.e., ante ante bellum). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Regrettfully, this whole 'description' & 'footnote' dispute, will continue to flair up; thanks to a few inflexiable editors. These editors refuse to accept my 'undisputable' proposal & certainly won't accept the reasonable compromise - constituent country. It's up to them, at this point. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello DeCausa. I support completely the positions expressed by MickMacNee (talk), and I am personally grateful that he took the time and effort to express them. In my opinion ... MickMacNee (talk) is actually returning the United Kingdom page to sanity .... ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont think the footnote is needed either we are discussing the lead which is a summary of the main body of the article. So keep it simple like Ghmyrtle suggestion you have the whole article to explain and raise the various points of view and provide an explanation. Lead=Summary=Simple. MilborneOne (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. And this compromise has wide supportfrom both sides of the argument. Fmph (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it help matters if all uses of the ambiguous word "country" were removed from the lede, including the first and third paras? Thus, the UK would be referred to as a "sovereign state" (or "state", or "the UK", or "it", in context) rather than a "country". "The UK consists of E, S, W, and NI." That doesn't meet everyone's aspirations, but would be clearer than the current wording. The questions of terminology (the footnote, in effect), could then be included in the main article text as explanation. I do partly accept Mick MacNee's basic point that footnotes do impede the legibility of the article to some extent, though I don't see it as critical. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Needless to say I think DeCausa's opening post is pure rubbish. He doesn't get it, he never will get it. If he thinks I'm a moron, and don't know what I'm talking about as I near my 5th year as an editor, that's his look out. He's been accommodated more than enough by now as far as I'm concerned, I'm not repeating anything else just for his benefit. I'm still willing to give the other original people who came up with the footnote 'consensus' a chance to properly defend it, I urge everybody else to just read and re-read what I've said above and make any request for clarification or counter point they feel is needed, to persuade me that I don't need to take the next step of actively seeking outside confirmation from other editors at a venue like VPP of what I already know and haven't really been refuted on, not least by DeCausa and his misty reading glasses - that it's not supported in policy and it would never appear on a decent article, and the reason for that is that the original discussion which came up with it was of poor quality and not independently reviewed. There's no place on Misplaced Pages for 'compromises' which produce poor quality articles, and there's ultimately no safety in numbers for people who will illogically argue that that's what a proper consensus actually is. MickMacNee (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have never said, and do not think, that you are a "moron". I am unclear why you have read my comments in that way. I think you have a very great problem in expressing yourself in an appropriate and coherent way which gets your message across. The issue you have is about lucidity and civility. DeCausa (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are any editors, opposing my proposal? The sentence I propose is certainly undisputable & needs no footnote. Holy smokers, it's either that proposal or the compromise - constituent countries. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The word "country" is ambiguous in relation to both the UK constitution, and common usage within the UK. It's unacceptable and unclear to use the word in a way that assumes only one meaning. It is also confusing to readers to use the word with more than one meaning in the same section (the "countries within a country" approach). Other terms like "constituent country" are not in widespread common use and need some explanation that is inappropriate for a lede. The terminology can be explained through a footnote, but if that is unacceptable it would be best to avoid the use of the word "country" in the lede at all, in my opinion, and explain the terminology (as briefly as possible) in the article text itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If everyone casts their mind up to DeCausa's rewrite of Etymology+History, we could explain terminology within the Etymology section. Same sort of topic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

well, the main issue now seems to be whether "countries" gets mentioned in the lead or not; and footnote v incorporation in text now appears to be secondary...I think, but I'm starting to loose track (and the will to live). DeCausa (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle's proposal above does not use the word country anywhere. I suggested accepting that if we have agreement that this will not be used as a pretext to then change other articles. We've been distracted by GoodDay's repetitious insertions and Armchair being, well Armchair. Both editors are acting to type and we should all have learnt to ignore it by now. Three editors were concerned at the loss of "country", my response to that would be (i) the pipelinks go to articles where the country status was clear and (ii) if we put a new section called Countries (as DeCausa I think suggested) then things are clear. With that and the existing consensus on "country which is a part of ..." we would have a stable and defendable position. --Snowded 21:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you wish these discussions to continue flairing up, so be it. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Using the legal definitions contained in Black's Law Dictionary for a Sovereign State and a non-Sovereign State one may write the following two statements show below,

(i). the United States of America is a Sovereign State composed of 50 non-Sovereign States,

(ii). the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Sovereign State composed of 4 non-Sovereign States of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

In this vein-of-thought ... why not use statement (ii). for the lede of the United Kingdom article? It would satisfy all concerned. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Just forget about the word "state" whether non-sovereign or not. England, Wales, NI, and Scotland are NEVER referred to as "states" in any shape of form (although for completness, I should say there were some derogatory terms for NI's pre-1972 constitutional arrangements: "Protestant state", "six-county statelet" etc). You are confused and introducing an irrelevance - and explains a lot of your posts on this page (which were puzzling). To use the word "state" or "non-sovereign state" is either (a) an americanism or (b), and this is of course related, relevant only to a federal system (e.g. States of Germany, States of Nigeria), which the UK is not. You will not find any sources that use the word state in this context. The focus is entirely on the word "country" and only "country". And by the way, you misleadingly pipelinked non-Sovereign State to Non-sovereign nation, which makes me wonder whether you are really confused or just being disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello DeCausa. With regards to the above (re-stated here below),

Using the legal definitions contained in Black's Law Dictionary for a Sovereign State and a non-Sovereign State one may write the following two statements show below,

(i). the United States of America is a Sovereign State composed of 50 non-Sovereign States,

(ii). the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Sovereign State composed of 4 non-Sovereign States of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

In this vein-of-thought ... why not use statement (ii). for the lede of the United Kingdom article? It would satisfy all concerned.

I own a copy (i.e., that is the actual book ... yes a book!) of Black's Law Dictionary, and yes I am capable of reading it, understanding it, and attempting to present exerpts of its meaning here. In Black's Law Dictionary the legat term Sovereign State is specifically there to mean the United States of America, and the legal term non-Sovereign State is specifically there to mean each State of the US that it is sub-divided into. Statement (i). is completely equivalent to Statement (ii). There is explicitly no attempt here in my post of any mis-leading or mis-direction. DeCausa please consult the non-Sovereign State entry in Black's Law Dictionary. You will find it most illuminating indeed. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The United kingdom is a country and always have just look at any other encyclopediaChaosname (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

How important is the "country" issue?

As far as I can tell, the main issue now boils down to whether the reference to E/W/S/NI being countries should be in the lead (Daicaregos and Jeanne) or whether it should come out per the "GhMyrtle proposal" and have its own section explaining it in the main body of the article (most others, I think). Daicaregos' view expressed above is, I believe, that this is such an important aspect of the United Kingdom that it should be noted in the Lead. But, IMHO, this is primarily a semantic issue. There is no generally agreed meaning of the word "country" (eg see this Economist article and the widely differing dictionary definitions: OED; Merriam-Webster; Macquarie). It's entirely up in the air what it means and what its significance is. To add to that, giving significance to the word "country" appears to be a parochial UK issue. For example, the equivalents in other languages, the German "Land" and romance "Pays", "pais" etc are used, without controversy, for all sorts of territories that have nothing to do with "nationhood" (for want of a better word) as well as non-sovereign "countries" and sovereign states. Other words carry the implications that we seem to be attaching to country - particularly "nation" e.g. the disputed use of the word for Catalonia. Even in the anglophone world, it's "nation" not "country" which is important (e.g. this CBC article about Quebec). I think what is missing from those that want to keep it into the lead is some evidence of why it is so important given that the word "country" doesn't have any agreed meaning (which is a different question to evidence of usage). DeCausa (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello DeCausa. Here is a summary of some of the meanings of the English Word Parochial http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parochial+ ... Please clarify your meaning when you classify this as a "...parochial issue of the UK ...". If it so "parochial" ... why do you bother participating on this talkpage? Perhaps it is not so parochial as you make out to be, eh? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? DeCausa (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello DeCausa. I am specifically asking "what did you mean by using the word parochial? What is the context? Why did you invole the word parochial? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Because I was talking about parochial schools and the education they provide, why do you think. DeCausa (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying this a Religious School issue? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've watched this debate with interest and have managed to resist the temptation to respond...but can do so no longer! Imho, the fact that the United Kingdom is a union of other countries is a key characteristic. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this whole debate, and the underlying use of the word "country" here in Misplaced Pages and in the real world (or at least the real UK) is about the recognition of "national identities" in the four "countries". The use of "country" seems to me to be just code for that. But there's nothing wrong with explaining in the article that there are 4 (at least) "national identities" - and I'd even support that going into the lead because that is a significant aspect of the UK. It just seems to me that the whole issue is hidden by this use of the word "country" where not everyone in the English-speaking world has the same undrstanding not just of its meaning but also of its signifcance. DeCausa (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)I

I have to admit I love Welsh music and Single malt Scotch is definitely the best. We do need to describe in details how parts of UK are special and also each and every country uniqueness and special charm. There is plenty of space for it in the body. The lede country term discussion though is not constructive and in its semantic deepness it became a focus of endless POV loops on this talk page. This discussion makes it difficult to come up with a concise summarizing description of what is relatively a trivial fact. Generally any article lede should be KISS clear. From other hand editors might want to discuss even in more details the apparent paradox of "countries within country". Oh well, c'est la vie! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"United Kingdon is a country, that consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales" would go perfectly in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I find DeCausa quite persuasive on why it isn't actually important and doesn't mean very much. I particularly don't like calling England a country as if it were commensurable in every way with Scotland and Wales, which it's not. I don't want to have to define myself as English when in fact I am just "British, but not Scottish or Welsh". -- Alarics (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I think the broader question of "national identity" is important, should be covered and is omitted at the moment. What you've just said nicely feeds into a couple of pieces I've just been reading (particularly the tables) here and here, which could form the basis of a "national identity" section. To me, use of the word "country" in the UK is just a minor footnote (not literally!) to that much more important issue. DeCausa (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not clear from Fishiehelper2's response why he/she thinks that the specific word "country" is helpful or necessary, when (to some readers) it is ambiguous. Does a wording like "The UK consists of England, Scotland, Wales and NI" not convey the same (or more) essential information, to the extent that is necessary for the lead, more succinctly and clearly? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle. Why complicate it with ambiguous terms when we can keep it simple and avoid the problems? Mabuska 10:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

When people successfully manage to remove the word "country" from the first sentence of the Wales or Scotland article then perhaps they can come back here and then make the case that the term country does not really matter and is not needed in the introduction. If you can get it removed from those two articles, ill support not mentioning country in the introduction of this article. (not that that is going to ever happen) if it is justified to say country there it absolutely is for the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion resolved – see Talk:United_Kingdom#Edits by AgadaUrbanit DeCausa and Ghmyrtle made this morning (28 May 2011) DeCausa (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians (where are all of you!);

• When I had a go at this, I found that the waters were the best way for me to frame the various parts of the UK. I'm using the white-elephant 'British Isles' here for the moment. This can be discussed obviously, but I find it very hard to avoid in this particular article. Should we really use "archipelago" and not name it?

• Also controversial to a group of people here will be the use of the world “constituent” before the word “country”. But again, I feel very strongly that the consensus against it is only within a particular group, and doesn't represent the wider 'community', or indeed what readers in general would find most informative.

• I've pipe-linked “constituent country” to Countries of the United Kingdom, and I can't see why the England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales articles shouldn't follow suite – although it is not essential that they do. This is the 'big daddy' article after all.

• I personally prefer the old short-form 'United Kingdom' beginning, as it's easier to read (and write). That's important I think.

The United Kingdom (fully titled United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and commonly termed United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign state consisting of four constituent countries, situated in the British Isles archipelago off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The UK covers the whole island of Great Britain and the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, along with a number of smaller islands near its coasts. Waters that surround the UK are the Atlantic Ocean west of Northern Ireland, the Irish Sea between Ireland and Great Britain, the North Sea in the east towards Scandinavia, and the English Channel before the European mainland in the south. The UK has just the one land border with another sovereign state, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

The United Kingdom consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is a unitary sovereign state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London....

The second paragraph is the same one that currently stands as I write. I think it reads better when "constituent countries" has been used in the article's opening line. My concern was mainly for the first paragraph – as I think the issues can be dealt with there (and let's face it, everyone wants the premium space).

• Lastly, If there is to be a footnote after "constituent countries" - and I am philosophical about that - I think it should obviously mention the other terms like “province”, but should in no way claim that 'country' is controversial in Northern Ireland for political reasons. Ie it should never claim that 'country' is “controversial” for any reason other than because other terms like “province” are used in authoritative places too, and could arguably be more official (none of them are actually properly official). The intro of the sovereign state is no place at all to weight-in sectarian politics, and we only have a relative-few polemical texts to back up such a contentious statement anyway. Northern Ireland should not become synonymous with the Troubles.

• Forgot to say; I particularly like the term "sovereign state" as the principal title for the UK, as it feels close to both "kingdom" and "country" in sense. It is an unambigous term too, unlike 'country'; where some people even argue that the UK is only one in the sense of 'sovereign state', but is a actually a 'united kingdom of countries' otherwise.

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I strongly oppose mentioning the four constituent parts of the UK in the first paragraph. The current wording is acceptable. Although as we now have the fact it is a unitary sovereign state in the second sentence, i believe this article should be made more in line with other articles about countries and actually say the UK is a country in the first sentence. We dont need to say sovereign state twice, however its clear some people need reminding the United Kingdom is a country, so saying it several times cant hurt. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I was going to mention that I actually like "sovereign state", as it feels close to both "kingdom" and "country" (we all know SStates are 'countries' in the unambigous UN sense) . In fact, I think I'll append that, as it's important. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I see you are calling the constituent countries, "constituent parts". The problem British Watcher is that you are on the other polar extreme to the nationalistic editors. This is partly why the whole thing is so mad. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a country, there's no need to hide that fact. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales can be described as constituent countries, there's no need to prevent that. British Isles can be used, it's not prohibited. The worst thing that can be done? giving in to the cries "it might offend someone". GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think Sovereign State actually does hide that fact. It's hard to cram it all in - that's one of the problems. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I can accept sovereign state in the intro (in place of 'country). Afterall, France, Russia, Japan (for example), don't use country in their intros. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not happy with this on a simply readability basis. I don't see the point of saying "is a sovereign state consisting of four constituent countries" in the first paragraph, but then waiting to the second paragraph to say "the United Kingdom consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". They're disjointed, with no obvious connections. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I did say the second parag is the same edit we actually have at the moment (I know it's under scrutiny) - and the first one was my main concern. When you say "this" you are not really dealing with what I've added (ie the first parag) - and how it can support the second parag (and reader understanding in general - which is what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about). Matt Lewis (talk)

I think its a step backwards, introducing controversy on several fronts, I also agree with Chupmunkdavis--Snowded 04:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant way to pour water on it guys - focus on what I didn't write! Snowded, it is only a "step backwards" in relation to your own personal vision of where 'forwards' is.

When I accepted "countries that are part of" for the constituent county articles, I made it as clear as I could that I was not 1) entirely happy with the wording, and 2) in any way anti the word "constituent". But consigning "constituent" to the past (or attempting to) is what a small group of people have created from that compromise. At the time, wasn't the word actually used here the UK? The compromise might have worked reasonably well at the constituent articles (and they have been reasonably - but not in shape or form - totally stable): but how can you read into that the term "constituent" has over time become unsuitable for the United Kingdom article? You go on and on about the "consensus" of a couple of years ago - but I was there, and there was no consensus at all to bury the word across Misplaced Pages, or indeed never use it again. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Point of information: the former UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, described the UK thus: as a "voluntary union between two countries" --Mais oui! (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite true. He described the union between England and Scotland as a voluntary union, but he didn't suggest that the UK consists of just those two countries, which is what you are implying - he referred to "the four nations in the United Kingdom". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Step backwards: concur with Chipmunkdavis and Snowded. DeCausa (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

When you group have finished I am wondering if anyone new (or the some of the many people who simply wont get involved in this any more) will look at this and express an opinion? Matt Lewis (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this a hint that "you group" are so addled and benighted that we are unable to see the excellence of your suggestion? DeCausa (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm making the point that a group of particular editors constitute a tight and effective cabal, and have simply done so for too long. It's time to break it. I'm not necessarily saying that my above suggestion is 100% the best one - I am saying that something has got to be done to break the nationalist stranglehold on the United Kingdom article. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Cabal?!! LMAO. If there's a cabal here it's the most incompetent cabal ever. It's virtually impossible to get anything agreed. Any change is usualy a herculean task and seems to require huge screeds of debate because there's almost a different opinion for each editor. DeCausa (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the most embarrassingly naive response I've seen on WP I think. Have you read the Wales archives (where consensus was supposed to be 'born', like some kind of dragon from the deep), Northern Ireland talk etc? United Kingdom is obviously the hardest to effectively influence, it always was. There is disagreement on the fringes (and the hardcore Irish nationalists are different again) - but the central pillars are to avoid "constituent", "British Isles" and "Londonderry" (the city) at all costs, and to never forget the 'cause' when Northern Ireland is mentioned. You are full of bold laughter at me DeCausa, but you actually know little about the area at all. You're a typical arrogant Wikipedian, thinking he can step into something like this and guide proceedings along with your caustic tone. Matt Lewis (talk)

Oh dear, seems I stepped on a raw nerve. It aslo seems you're talking about other articles, not this one. I'm only talking about this article, so your comments about the other articles may be true - don't know, don't care. I also think that your bandying around allegations of nationalistic bias, cabals etc (as I see you are doing in later posts) is not helpful, not constructive and verging on the disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Verging on disruptive? I'm essentially pointing out form of disruption aren't I? It is essential for Misplaced Pages to recognise its various cabals (it's not X-Files stuff, just a reality). And you should care about those other articles you know, because they are all part of the United Kingdom. And you'll be able see where I'm coming from too. Are you from the UK? (incidentally speaking - it's not a prerequisite to edit of course). Matt Lewis (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Telling me which articles I should care about is one of the most surreal comments I've had on WP! Yep, my location is on my userpage. But by that token, I should care about Barnsley, Tooting Bec and chorlton-cum-Hardy....DeCausa (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask where your "location" was, as asked where you were from. But you don't have to answer of course. As it happens, it is pretty obvious to me that you are not British, because you think that it is "surreal" for me to expect someone who is clearly leading the discussion on UK identity names in the United Kingdom article's Intro to at least read a little of the connected goings on in the UK country articles (typically in Wales and ongoing at NI)! Most of these so-called 'consensuses' you were going on about started there. What is really 'surreal' is your response to me here. You couldn't make this stuff up. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused (like others) of repeating the same point over and over again, what is the advantage of using the word "country" in any way in the introduction, when its use is ambiguous and/or contentious? A wording can be devised which describes the UK as a sovereign state, comprising E, S, W and NI. Further explanation in the article text and linked articles, and no need for a footnote. Simples. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the 'contentious' bit (Misplaced Pages can't self-reference remember) but I'd agree to a degree. But the word "country" seems to be key to many, and I think that the nationalists are just silly to be so anti the descriptive "constituent" part. They always expect for so much. What I was mainly doing with my suggested text above was to show what a 'non-influenced' introduction might actually look like. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The main problem with it is that the term "constituent country" can be interpreted as a dilution of the term "country". So, it can be interpreted as non-neutral by those who give a particular status and meaning to the specific word "country". That issue would not exist in the same way if neither "country" nor "constituent country" were used in the lede. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Matt: There are British nationalists, English nationalists, Irish nationalists, Welsh nationalists and Scottish nationalists. Defining those who favour calling the countries comprising the United Kingdom "countries" as nationalists is incorrect and simplistic. It isn't just "the nationalists" in favour of using 'the C word'. Asserting some kind of monopoly on NPOV is not helpful. Wanting things to be described correctly in an encyclopaedia is not expecting too much. I also consider this a step backwards. Daicaregos (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on Dai, you say that to me after all the time I've spent on Misplaced Pages highlighting the various differences (esp regarging the Ireland naming dispute and NI's role it in)? Where they combine is the key - what they all have in common. Esp the Welsh and the Scottish. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland IS a country this is indisputable fact. It should state so in the first sentence of the article, i agree sovereign state is important but we now say that in the second paragraph. So we may as well say the UK is a country in the first sentence. I would strongly oppose any attempt to hide the fact the UK is a country in the introduction, its clear by some peoples comments above people need reminding about this fact as the FAQ on this talk page also points out. Matt is right though, there is a nationalist (as in Welsh, Irish, Scottish and English) element on wikipedia who have caused the gridlock that exists. This is not just about use of "country" for the UK or for the different parts of the UK. You can see it everywhere, with peoples nationalities being English / Scottish etc instead of what they legally are which is BRITISH. And you have the deeply offensive lists like List of British inventions where you have to choose between English, Welsh or Scottish.. As if there is not a single British invention. You can not just split people and things down these historic national lines yet because of the domination of certain nationalists. Misplaced Pages is blatantly anti union sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There are many "indisputable facts" about the UK which are not mentioned in the lede, but their omission is not contentious. The word "country" is contentious. It is also ambiguous - it is not seriously contested in relation to the UK, but it is contested in relation to parts of (= "countries within") the UK, because of its ambiguity, and so its use in the introduction of this article is problematic. But, the same information can be conveyed more precisely using other words, without needing to use the specific word "country". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because some editors on wikipedia would like the United Kingdom destroyed is no excuse not to state the United Kingdom is a country. The idea we are not allowed to call the UK a country incase we offend some of these people is totally unacceptable. There is a dispute about the status of England, Wales, Scotland and NI as countries, but there is no real dispute about the UK being a country considering the huge body of evidence and international recognition. There for we should state clearly in the first sentence the UK is a country, the second paragraph mentions its a sovereign state still and that sort of term fits will with the unitary bit. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my point. Why do we need to address that particular "indisputable fact" (one of an infinite number) using those particular words in that particular paragraph? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

~And the reason your point hasnt been addressed is that the correct answer would involve a trifling move from the "No surrender" pov that usually accompanies such nonsense. Fmph (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

British Watcher, nobody is seeking to destroy or negate the existance of tge UK. However, and we may as well calmly face it, people from Wales, Scotland and, yes, England rarely describe themselves as British. Rather they are Welsh, Scottish and English respectively. The only exception to this are Unionists from Northern Ireland. And many of them are now opting for ULster Scots.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Jeanne you just can't say that. The UK is multicultural in a number of ways and there are plenty of people who simply call themselves British. We are not all 'pure of blood'. I happen to use both Welsh and British to identify myself, and (typically for us British) I am a mix in terms of my family background. For me it's always been 50/50 in terms of identity, though culturally I'm ultimately 'British' there is no question about that - and I'd have to accept that about myself whether I liked it or not (and fortunately I like it!). Matt Lewis (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I am being honest here, Matt. Out of all the people I have met from the British Isles, the only people to call themselves British (as their national identity) were people from Northern Ireland of a Unionist persuasion. BTW, the present wording in the lead is perfect, so why fix it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Jeanne, you have obviously led a sheltered life. (!) (Or, spent too much time discussing matters with E/S/W/NI "nationalists".) Matt is correct on that point. "People... rarely describe themselves as British" is not true, but "..increasingly describe themselves as British" verifiably is true. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

AS I said before, the only people I've met who have called themselves British have been people from Norn Iron (In fact my ex nearly fell over when I called him Irish; that's how engrained his Britishness was). A Sussex guy I came close to marrying always called himself English to the point that he gave himself the nickname of "England". But then again, my life has been quite sheltered so I really shouldn't comment any further.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm really trying hard to keep discussions here on track. Sorry Fmph and Jeanne, but your comments don't address the question of the precise wording of the paragraph, which is what we are trying to agree. No politics or WP:OR about different forms of nationalism please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is on the United Kingdom. Surely there for it should clearly explain what the United Kingdom is. The answer is it is a country, like France, the United States, Germany etc and this article must make that clear in the introduction. I support including sovereign state in the intro, but id rather country is stated first and seen as the current wording now mentions that it is a unitary sovereign state in the second paragraph i dont see any need for it to be mentioned in the first sentence. There are lots of facts not included, but you can not deny surely that the fact the UK is a country is probably one of the most relevant bits of information for the reader? its more relevant than where it is, what organisations it is part of etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason I preffer the UK being described as a 'country' in its intro, is because other sovereign state articles have 'country' as a descriptive in their intros. That its use here, might be at the expense of Wales, Scotland, England & Northern Ireland, should be irrelevant. Thou I must admit, not every sovereign state article has 'country' in their intros - see France, Japan & Russia (for examples). GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Not all sovereign state articles need to have the word "country" in their lead. If we have sovereign state in the lead, which as I'm sure everyone agrees is a synonym of one definition of the word country, then country should be implicit. We shouldn't mix the two definitions. Alternatively, we could disambiguate the two uses of country, "sovereign country" and "constituent country" if both are required. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact the articles of the 4 parts of the UK call themselves countries in the introductions first sentence means the UK article should too. The fact there is a FAQ of if the UK is a country on this talk page also suggests that. Most sovereign states do not need to say either sovereign state / country. Because of the internal make up of the UK it is extremely important we mention both. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

So, we have some editors arguing that the UK must be described as a country, and other editors arguing that (some or all of) E/S/W/NI must be described as countries. To cover both positions, the word "country" must therefore be ambiguous, and therefore - if the word "country" is to be used at all - there needs to be some form of clarification, to help readers and not to confuse them. One approach would be a footnote for clarification, as now. Are there any other options? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Since 'country' isn't used as a descriptive for the sovereign state, in every other sovereign-state intro, it's allowable to not use it here. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Matt Lewis, thank you for suggesting this lede,

"... The United Kingdom consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is a unitary sovereign state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London.... "

I support this completely. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the current wording of the second paragraph. Most of us are talking about the first paragraph, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ghmyrtle thank you for pointing that out. I appreciate that indeed. The sentence in dispute is this then,

"...The United Kingdom (fully titled United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and commonly termed United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign state consisting of four constituent countries, situated in the British Isles archipelago off the north-western coast of continental Europe. ..."

Thanks, Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Making wholesale changes to the Intro here, while it is being discussed, is not helpful. Especially as other changes were made at the same time. I remember seeing that edit and assuming it only related to Euros in payphones. I have reverted pending conclusion of these discussions. The CIA are not our only source. Daicaregos (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Daicaregos, what's not helpful is people hiding behind lame excuses like 'discussion is ongoing' to avoid having to justify an actual revert of someone making good faith improvement along the lines that are being suggested. If you oppose the new version, give some actual reasons why it is wrong. We do not revert people just because discussions are ongoing, particularly when the discussions continue to be less than cluefull and wholly policy lite. We also do not hide behind lame invocations of BRD when there is no cluefull D on the table either. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm in favour of noting the United Kingdom consists of four countries because it is an important, unusual and interesting aspect of the UK. How many other sovereign states does it apply to? The Scottish and Welsh governments say they are countries, as do numerous other organisations e.g. Library of Congress, Commonwealth Secretariat, European Commission and Visit Britain (responsible to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport).

It appears we all acknowledge that 'country' being used as a discriptive for anything (in this article), is a problem. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No we don't. Daicaregos (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle & Snowded are quite correct: Country is the problem, because of its multiple meanings. It should be deleted from this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've no probs with banning 'country' entirely from the intro. It's not my first choice, but what the heck. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In their “About Britain” section, Visit Britain, a quango responsible to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, have sub-sections on History, Religion, Government, Cities and Countries; similar to Wiki's Introduction. Their Countries section begins with Britain: “Britain is full of contrasts; whichever direction you travel you will find a wide variety of landscapes and diverse cultures to explore. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all unique countries with their own customs, cultures and tradition.” It is inconceivable that they would be allowed to define Britain in those terms without the consent of the DCMS. They obviously consider that that uniquness is important enough to describe Britain that way to foreign visitors. It is notable, and should be in the lead of this article. Daicaregos (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Too much bother, let's keep 'country' entirely out. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Protection

I've requested protection for this article, as an edit-war has sprung up, over these last few hours. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, full protection from the endless petty disruption from nationalist users that occurs here over simple factual details. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The C-Word and National identity (yet another proposal, but I'm not holding my breath)

No one who has a concern to put "country" in the lead has really articulated why it's so important. Well, let's face it we all know why: because they want the recognition of "country status", as they see it, up front. I and others, are of the opinion that "country" doesn't mean that much and not much is really achieved by using the word. My suggestion is to tackle the issue of national recognition in the body of the article head on, and not coatrack it on the word "country". I think the important thing to recognize is the individual "natioanl identities" and the British national identity and not the spurious status of country. I suggest below a subsection which could go in a number of places. This obviates the need to get hung up on "country",and we can have the Ghmyrtle solution for the lead. However, the lead could, somewhere, have the sentence. "National identity in the UK is complex, and beside a British identity, a numbr of other national identities exist including English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish." In the body of the article I suggest a sub-section headed "National identity":

Although there is a single citizenship, that of the United Kingdom, the historical origins of the UK and long-standing cultural distinctions, has led England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to be described as "countries within a country". With this comes a complex sense of national identity.

In England, Scotland and Wales, people can consider themselves as just British, as both British and English, Scottish or Welsh (as the case may be), or not British at all. Surveys have indicated that about a third of Scots consider themselves as Scottish and not British. Although the majority view themselves as British and Scottish, most consider they are Scottish first. In Wales, there is a similar tendency, although the proportions that do not consider themselves British or British second to Welsh are smaller. In England, however, the majority consider themselves as British first and almost half feel equally British and English.'

In Northern Ireland, national identity is further complicated by the existence of two communities: Nationalist and Unionist. "British" is seen as an identity largely equated with unionism. Equally, nationalists largely see themselves as having an Irish national identity. Other identities are also used: "Northern Irish" is often seen as more "neutral" and tends to be chosen by the under-45s and the identification "Ulster" tends to be selected more frequently by Protestants than Catholics. In a recent survey of Northern Irish people, as a first preference, 37% considered themselves British, 29% preferred Northern Irish and 26% chose Irish. In another survey, 22% did not consider themselves British at all.

Well, trusting all the sourcing, I think that this is far more deserving of a subsection in Culture then most of what is currently there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Er, the sourcing has gone a bit weird: notes 1-7 below are from other items on this page. It starts at 8. If anyone knows how to fix that - and put the notes above these posts - i'd be grateful. DeCausa (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've lost track. Which paragraph is this being proposed for? GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa, this whole section is going nowhere ... this compounds the problem, it does not help clarify. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's looking like country is gonna be completely removed from this article & perhaps all the better. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

i would support a paragraph like mentioned above however the idea that we cleanse this article of mentioning the fact the United Kingdom is a country to appease a certain group of nationalist editors is totally unacceptable. The United Kingdom is a country, if this article fails to specifically mention it then it draws into question the neutrality and accuracy of this article. The fact the UK is a country should continue to be stated in the Introduction, but it should go further and be specifically in the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked over other sovereign-state articles, in the last 2 days. There are quite a few, which don't use country as a descriptive. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

How many of those have a FAQ on their talk page saying they are a country? And how many of them consist of what some people call countries like the UK? If England, Scotland and Wales articles start by saying they are a country, the UK article should state the UK is a country too. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't think anyone's talking about removing the word "country" completely from the article. The problem arises in the Introduction, where there is a particular imperative to be as helpful and succinct as possible. Using the ambiguous word "country" there may not help in that. But, where the terminology is explained in the article, the word can be explained - both in relation to the UK, and to E, S, W and NI. There is no doubt that the UK can be described as a "country" - but it is problematic to use that word in the introductory paragraphs because of the complexity of the explanation that needs to be given. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As long as we clarify that UK is ... "a country in its own right" (surprise, surprise), I do not see any problem here. Probably the lede is concise and crystal clear. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry can't help with the 'note' problem - they are always difficult on discussion pages. I have to say that the real taboo 'C Word' is "constituent" - not 'country'. I do like "sovereign state" for the UK and I think that it is solves half the issue. To insert 'country' as well for the UK in the same area is not just overkill imo, but technically quite difficult with all the other stuff that needs to be said. I don't mind whether we use "constituent country" for the England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, or avoid using a label for them in the Intro at all. I DO think that those nations (and that word has and will never been enough DeCausa) will all benefit from using "constituent country" though, and so it makes some sense using it here at UK too. Even using "constituent country" just here (and not at Wales etc) is better than just "country" for the home nations - as that will never settle. I think that using the perfectly-legit 'Sovereign state' for UK really is the key. British Watcher might find himself relatively on his own in his insistence for 'country' over it, and I'm sure GoodDay will settle for 'Sovereign State' for the UK providing Wales et al aren't called 'countries' in the same article.

A few years ago, after I started Countries of the United Kingdom (due to the Welsh talk-page 'is a country that is part of the United Kingdom' compromise), someone suggested recreating the 'Identity' section in here (he said there was nothing like it), but there was an edit-involved admin around who didn't believe in 'multiculturalism' or indeed the Countries of the UK article at first - and I didn't quite fancy the challenge at the time. I've been aware that the Identity section there has changed quite a lot (certainly at one point the NI parts became subtly less neutral) - I'm not sure how it fares now, as I deliberately don't look at it when I re-enter Misplaced Pages (in part because I digress from my editing intentions enough as it is, but also because I know it will suck me right back in). Perhaps it's time to re-visit the idea, along the lines above. We will still need to sort out the shop window though - the UK Intro will always be the UK Intro (even when it's weirdly called the 'lede'). Matt Lewis (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In the past, I've tried repeatedly to get constituent country adopted as a descriptive for E/NI/S/W, but to no avail. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, do you think repeating yourself ad nauseam is a convincing argument? Also, though you can do as you wish, I thought you were finished discussing what description should be used for the countries of the United Kingdom. Carson101 (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

When somebody bring up 'constituent country', I'll repeat myself. As for 'not commenting' here anymore; always a heartbreaker. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right, then you do think repeating yourself ad nauseam is a convincing argument. Good to know. Oh, and you're not breaking my heart. I was only wondering as I would like to know if I can believe anything you say. Carson101 (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You know where my talkpage is, if you've further concerns. Now, let's concentrate on this article. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know where your talk page is. What of it? Now, would you like to explain why you think repeating yourself constantly improves this article? Carson101 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Notes

1. Cite error: The named reference factbook was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. "Britain 2001: The Official Yearbook of the United Kingdom" (PDF). Office for National Statistics. p. vii. Retrieved 12 September 2010.
3. "Countries within a country". Prime Minister's Office. 10 January 2003.
4. "Britain 2001: The Official Yearbook of the United Kingdom" (PDF). Office for National Statistics. p. vii. Retrieved 12 September 2010.
5. "Countries within a country". The Prime Minister's Office. 10 January 2003. Retrieved 13 June 2007.
6. "The Countries of the UK". Office for National Statistics. Retrieved 10 October 2008.
7. "Legal Research Guide: United Kingdom - Law Library of Congress (Library of Congress)". Library of Congress website. Library of Congress. Retrieved 23 May 2011. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the collective name of four countries, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The four separate countries were united under a single Parliament through a series of Acts of Union.
8. "Commonwealth Secretariat - Geography". Commonwealth Secretariat website. Commonwealth Secretariat. Retrieved 23 May 2011. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) is a union of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
9. "Travelling Europe - United Kingdom". European Youth Portal. European Commission. Retrieved 23 May 2011. The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
10. "About Britain". Visit Britain. Visit Britain. Retrieved 23 May 2011. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all unique countries with their own customs, cultures and tradition.
11. A phrase which has been used in the past on the UK Prime Minister's website "Countries within a country". Prime Minister's Office. 10 January 2003.
12. Regionalism after regionalisation: Spain, France and the United Kingdom pp. 275-277 Frans Schrijver, 2006, ISBN 978 90 5629 428 1
13. Devolution and identity p.12 John Wilson, Karyn Stapleton, 2006, ISBN 978 0 7546 4479 8
14. Plural identities - singular narratives: the case of Northern Ireland p.139, Máiréad Nic Craith, 2002, ISBN 1 57181 772 7
15. Religion, identity and politics in Northern Ireland: boundaries of belonging and belief p.29, Claire Mitchell, 2006, ISBN 0 7546 4154 6
16. "Which of these best describes the way you think of yourself?". Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey. ARK - Access Research Knowledge. 2008. Retrieved 2 February 2008.
17. "Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey 2007". Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey. ARK - Access Research Knowledge. 22 December 2009. Retrieved 9 October 2010.

DeCausa (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring and structure

OK we have two editors, Mick and Off2Rio who thinks its OK to edit the article to impose their version while discussion is taking place. Its a clear failure to follow WP:BRD especially when the current version has itself resulted from multiple discussions. At the same time we need to find a way of making progress here. At the moment I can see three proposals: (i) The Ghymrtle proposal as modified by myself and DeCausa (ii) Matt's complete rewrite and (iii) the status quo. Can I suggest we get those summarised and then structure for comment? --Snowded 18:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Assuming we're sticking to the intro, I eased off the "United Kingdom is a country", as other sovereign state articles don't use country in their intros. As you & Ghmyrtle mentioned, 'Country' is the problem due to its multiple meanings - and so it should be excluded entirely, from the UK and E/NI/S/W. "United Kingdom is a sovereign state, consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales", is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Until the discussion on the Talk page has reached a conclusion it is bad faith to be making edits to the existing version of the text in question. The lead also now looks a complete mess, with one over long second paragraph. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reinstated the paragraph break - which I assume was lost inadvertently in the earlier editing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I will say to user:Snowded, and any ringleaders, the nationalist disruption in this sector and at this article is in its end days and I will do my utmost to remove all the disruptors from the sector - Sarah is gone and more will follow. - enough is enough. Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You might notice that some of us are taking part in the discussion and trying to move things forward. That seems a better way forward than edit warring, making veiled threads and accusations against other editors. You do great work on BLP issues, I really wish you would bring that across to British and Irish articles and also those related to the BNP etc. --Snowded 19:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Preferably you will remove yourself from the topic field - you have become a ringleader for nationalist disruption and tag team control of various articles in the similar sector, your contributions as such are almost always reverts to the controlled position - you actually contribute no content in the sector - please consider ceasing to edit in the united kingdom nationalist sector. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Again with the poison Snowded. There's been at least four editors who've had their good faith efforts at improvement reverted on this flimsy basis, who can all presumably see what I see, that the 'discussion' phase of BRD on this article is nothing but an excuse for heel dragging while several fragmented and disorganised low quality debates are as ever being conducted in a purely repetively assertive/POV manner, without much reference to policy or clue, or even an awareness of what happens elsewhere on the pedia. Just like last time. And the time before that. BRD is an essay predicated on good faith and clue. It does not protect people tendentiously and repeatedly regressing articles into states in which they have no chance whatsover of becoming Featured. You can make whatever suggestion you like Snowded, your past record of heavy involvement here with this pious and hypocritical act of yours, and with the article still in this poor state after all this time and all your insistence on reverting people while discussion is ongoing, is not a ringing endorsement of your judgement of what is and is not good discussion, good practice, or even a decent article. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It takes two to tango and an approximately same number to edit war. It can be poor form to make an edit while a discussion is on-going. However, there are quite a number of editors commenting here who argue that the article would be improved with the line removed. Their argument is that it is unnecessary and the issue cannot be dealt with properly in the introduction.

Discussion is stifled arguing one way around so let's see how the article sits with the line removed and hear the counter argument for why it (or some other change) should be added. A problem I've seen around issues like this is that something with an article is seen as a problem, the issue is raised but those who "like it" dig their heels in and cry "no consensus to change" ad nauseum. Consequently, the issue never gets addressed to everyone's satisfaction.

So, let's open the space a little to allow change to happen and consensus emerge. --RA (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

@RA - which "line" do you mean? Matt has just removed a line from the footnote, which has barely been discussed in these recent exchanges - it certainly has not been the focus of discussion. I'll revert him - but do you mean that line, or another line? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Mick and Off2Rio removed the line, "It is a country in its own right and consists of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." Including the entire footnote. (, ). Those are the edits referred to by Snowded, as opposed to Matt's, which you reverted. --RA (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for unconfusing me. I don't think anyone seriously defends "It is a country in its own right...". Anyway, I've made a proposal below amd will see what's happened to it tomorrow. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Several of us are arguing for the removal of "country" linked to some other changes. I think that is a good way forward, but we need broad consensus before we make that change. Agreeing what those options are then moving into a set of formal comments should allow a new consensus to emerge. Laying out the options is a first step to that, I don;t see much by way of new argument in the last day or so. Mick & Off2Rio, please lay of the personal attacks, I know its your modus operandi so most of us live with it for the sake of the other work you do, but its not attractive or helpful. --Snowded 20:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

While you can comment about the uninvolved and BLP work that I do I can't comment about your edits in a similar manner. You are the one with a modus operandi - stop your nationalistic and political disruption in this sector - As a clear ringleader of this nationalistic disruption I suggest you go edit something that actually benefits the en wikipedia project and not your own POV. Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think (and hope) we're all in agreement that country (with its multiple meanings) is the problem. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I wrote this because I feel it is what the Intro would probably look like without prejudice. What about it without the British Isles?..

The United Kingdom (fully titled United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and commonly termed United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign state consisting of four constituent countries, situated in an archipelago off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The UK covers the whole island of Great Britain and the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, along with a number of smaller islands near its coasts. Waters that surround the UK are the Atlantic Ocean west of Northern Ireland, the Irish Sea between Ireland and Great Britain, the North Sea in the east towards Scandinavia, and the English Channel before the European mainland in the south. The UK has just the one land border with another sovereign state, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

The United Kingdom consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is a unitary sovereign state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London....

Matt Lewis (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to tweak the second paragraph (which I left as I found it) - but is it necessary?

It doesn't matter whether the England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland articles follow suite with the pipe-linked "constituent countries" - the 'United Kingdom' article stands alone, and "constituent countries" used to be in it anyway as I remember. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would prefer something like:-

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign state that includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands, located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. It comprises England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which is the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another sovereign state—the Republic of Ireland. Apart from this land border the UK is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the English Channel and the Irish Sea.

The United Kingdom is a unitary state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London. There are three devolved national administrations, each with varying powers, situated in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh; the capitals of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland respectively......

Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds grand. --RA (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Support that. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, if we also add in a section on the countries (per DeCausa's earlier proposal) elsewhere in the article. That can wait for this to be resolved--Snowded 20:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes - I was taking that as read. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Support (with reservations). I have a few textual quibles (I always worry that every dot gets protected with these things), and recognise what Ivor Stoughton says below about the removal of "archipelago" (on top of both "country" and "constituent"!) But if something is to be done at this juncture, then anything that uses "Sovereign State" and avoids 'country' seems to make sense for now. The second parag is bound to change though: three's a seriously awkward number here, esp after 'London' (where England will be appended in surely...!). But the first parag will suffice, the rest can be worked on. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I like that this proposal makes no reference to "an archipelago" and is nevertheless precise about the geographic components of the U.K. Is the term "national" in relation to the devolved administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales going to be acceptable? Are each of the three nations? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If "national" is a problem in relation to NI (fair point) it could come out. I have certainly seen the term "devolved administrations". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Per GhMyrtle/Snowded, I was taking it "as read" as well. DeCausa (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I forget what your proposal was. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

well there were a couple, but in essence that there is a sub-section in the article which explains the issue. One way of handling it is to have a sub-section based on the infamous foot note. latterly, I suggested the "national identity" sub-section above. I guess that's detail. the general point is no mention of the C-word in the lead, but sub-section tba covering the issue in the main body. DeCausa (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Country should be completely deleted from this article. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I originally added 'national' to devolved administrations a long time ago because I felt it important to draw a distinction between these administrations and regional government like the London Assembly which is also a devolved administration. Therefore I do not believe 'national should be dropped. (By the way, if Northern Ireland can have a 'national' football team, it can have a devolved 'national' administration! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but i can not support that. You can not completely remove from the introduction of this article the fact the United Kingdom is a country. I consider it blatant censorship for political reasons and if that is done will put a tag on the page questioning its neutrality and accuracy. It is grossly offensive that England , Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland are allowed to say country in their first sentence but we are not even allowed to make reference to the UK being a country in the introduction at all? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Check the proposal again. County isn't used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales either. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the UK is a country, and that the Intro should say so. England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are also verifiably countries and the Intro should say that too. The British Government, in the form of Visit Britain (a statutory body incorporated under The Development of Tourism Act 1969) consider the country issue to be an important enough aspect of Britain to state “England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all unique countries with their own customs, cultures and tradition.“ The Commonwealth Secretariat define the UK thus: “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) is a union of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.” The Law Library of Congress define the UK thus: “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the collective name of four countries, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The four separate countries were united under a single Parliament through a series of Acts of Union.” I would be interested to know why the British nationalist editors here wish to ignore these sources. Daicaregos (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Dai, what is a country? And please explain its importance for the purposes of the lead. The above references do neither. DeCausa (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not deflect attention from this question, but answer it instead. Why do you wish to ignore verifiable, reliable sources? Daicaregos (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

well, I'm not a British nationalist (or nationalist of any hue for that matter) so I'm not qualified to answer your question. (Personally, I don't care if I'm ruled from London, Brussels, washington or Timbuktu, but that's just one of my pecularities I guess). I'm not ignoring your sources, but they don't answer my question. Would you care to answer mine? DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do you wish to ignore verifiable, reliable sources? Because almost every other line on Misplaced Pages does that. 'Reliable Sources' dictates that sources should be reliable - it doesn't demand that you use them! Read Weight, Verify and red flag etc - the Wikiepedia guidelines basically. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The quality of those sources (a British Government quango specialising in the subject, the Commonwealth Secretariat & The Law Library of Congress) hardly denote a fringe theory. The weighting given by each source is not of the 'oh, by the way', it's top. Daicaregos (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

er, Dai, wil i be getting an answer to my question? DeCausa (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the UK. Questions about defining 'country' should be directed there. Daicaregos (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ive not said that this articles introduction must not refer to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as countries, as we state they are countries on their own article it makes sense to make the situation extremely clear in this one. I just dont think EWSNI needs to be tackled in the first paragraph, i think the first sentence of this article should state the UK is a country (as the EWSNI articles do) and i think "it is a country in its own right and consists of four countries..." sounds a little odd as did the previous wording of "Its a country consisting of four countries." BritishWatcher (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The "which are "coutries within a country" thing? (ie the similar term to "constituent countries") Can you put something up here then? We need to iron all these out together or it will go on and on. What's currently in the enevitable footnote will then be in the identity section. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

How about:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a country that includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands, located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. Created originally by negotiated political union, the sovereign state today comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which is the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another sovereign state—the Republic of Ireland. Apart from this land border the UK is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the English Channel and the Irish Sea.

This version describes the UK as a country in the first line, emphasises the UK is the sovereign state, and also refers to the four countries of the United Kingdom. Perhaps a footnote about Northen Ireland could explain that the term country is disputed in its case. That's my contribution - now off to bed! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Leave country out of the article, completely. It's the descriptive country, that's proven to be the root of the problem. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"Created originally by negotiated political union" is problematic, in my view. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support something along those lines but agree with the "created originally by negotiated political union" would be a problem, but i do support wording it in such a way as to explain the initial creation then saying today comprises of the countries of England, Wales, Scotland and NI. Perhaps a mention of 1707 acts of union? We basically consider that the start date in the infobox / article. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Something Like "Initially formed in 1707 by the Acts of Union between the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland, the sovereign state today comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." BritishWatcher (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You won't get my support for that. Not if country is in it. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no need for words like "created originally by negotiated political union", but a statement like "The UK is a sovereign state which comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland..." is certainly one option - with an explanation in the main text as DeCausa has suggested. I'm not opposed to something like that if it's seen as the best way forward, though it's not my favourite wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is a footnote it must IN NO WAY have sectarianism mentioned in it. That polemical nonsense of a 'political controversy' over the impossible-to-answer country/province 'officiality' issue is outrageous here (and dodgy as hell). Sovereignty first - it's the Intro of the UK for pete's sake. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Queue revert of my removal of it by RA, as it is 'based on two Reliable Sources'. It's scandalous it really is. Why did you revert me based on "consensus" Ghmyrtle? There was no "consensus" for that particular unnecessary point that I could see - so I was obliged to remove it again. Reliable Sources (esp controveral polemics) do NOT have to be used, and they do NOT equal facts. So you CANNOT refactor them into new statements, whether you put in "can" or not. It's this constant dissemination of the troubles, it's doing my head in. Don't you people read the papers? There is just no place for it here, even if it wasn't such a dubious claim. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

@Matt: We were collectively involved in a discussion which involved deleting the footnote entirely - and then, once that was established, discussing where its content (or part of its content) was to be placed in the main article text. For you to change the footnote unilaterally, in the middle of that discussion, was simply confusing the issue, as well as being contrary to the existing consensus agreed in March based on Daicaregos' wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

By leaving out country entirely, we avoid the need for a footnote. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Using the legal definitions contained in Black's Law Dictionary for a Sovereign State and a non-Sovereign State one may write the following two statements show below,

(i). the United States of America is a Sovereign State composed of 50 non-Sovereign States,

(ii). the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Sovereign State composed of 4 non-Sovereign States of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

In this vein-of-thought ... why not use statement (ii). for the lede of the United Kingdom article? It would satisfy all concerned. Once again ...this article with remain perpetually dead-locked until the Status England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland of being just internal Administrative Divisions of the United Kingdom i.e., the Country ... other parts not-Country, is reflected in the text. Oi. This is frustrating. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Until certain editors give up country altogether, this article shall never reach FA status. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If we mention the word "country" in the intro, we need to explain - for our global readership - what we mean, as the word is ambiguous. For legibility, we should try to avoid non-obvious pipelinking (such as linking "country" for the UK to sovereign state), and try to avoid footnotes. We should also try to be succinct. Terms like "countries within a country" may have meaning within the UK - they may indeed be used by the UK Government when it's convenient shorthand for them to do so - but it's quite confusing to many readers globally, because the word "country" means more than one thing. Scotland, for example, is clearly a country by most meanings of the term, and is verifiably known as a country within the UK and to some extent outside, but it is not a sovereign state. (It is also not an "administrative division" of the UK.) I think it would be confusing to use the word "country" to describe both the UK and its four "parts" within the same paragraph - the explanation needed for that would be too complicated to be included in the lead/lede. We have a generally acceptable alternative term ("sovereign state") for the UK, but no generally acceptable term for the four parts. We could simply not use any descriptive term for the four parts (i.e. "The UK is a sovereign state comprising E, S, W and NI"), or we could describe them as countries (i.e. "The UK is a sovereign state comprising the countries of E, S, W and NI".) In my view, the first of those two is less confusing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This is getting quite confusing: the states of the USA each claim to be 'sovereign states' - yet Scotland has more claim to be sovereign in practice since it has the right to vote to secede from the UK if it wishes! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't be distracted by AVDL's mission to confuse! The USA is a state comprising 50 states, as any ful kno. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ghmyrtle, I am not on a mission to confusion. I care about this article about the United Kingdom, very much indeed. You and I have had are differences in the past. I known that. I am trying to mend my ways. Progress-not-Perfection ... ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources don't feel the need to define each descriptive word and nor should we here. That they are reliably sourced and notable is enough. Daicaregos (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

But, what is (politically?) convenient for the UK Government is not necessarily best practice for a global encyclopaedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You may have missed the references provided above. Not all were from the British Government. The Commonwealth Secretariat define the UK thus: “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) is a union of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.” The Law Library of Congress define the UK thus: “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the collective name of four countries, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The four separate countries were united under a single Parliament through a series of Acts of Union.” Can't see how it would be politically convenient for them to describe the UK that way. Daicaregos (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. I don't think anyone denies that they are called countries in many reliable sources, wherever those sources come from. That's not the main point - the question is whether to do so here is best practice in WP terms. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the UK's use of 'country' is not really (or perhaps 'only' is a better way to put it) "politically convenient" - and not using it here is simply (for me at least) a genuinely benign form of convenience - 'country' is simply too textually problematic at the moment, which why god created the word "constituent" if you ask me. And so, because even the best of Reliable Sources do not always get used (actually decent sources too - shock horror), there is a good case not to use the word here. But then again it's clearly still being discussed. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, went to bed early last night and got up this morning...to find the whole thing completely getting out of hand yet again. There are all sorts of irrelevances and attitudes appearing which have been imported from debates from other articles' talk pages. There is a very simple question that needs to be agreed here. Is the word "country" significant enough to warrant mention in the lead. For the UK, it's an obvious and clear-cut meaning so arguably "yes". However, it is so obvious and so clear-cut that it's otiose. Having a quick look around a number of country articles there are many (a majority?, not sure) don't find it necessary. The only reason, as far as I can tell from the postings, is as a POV-push by "British nationalists" (as Dai calls them) against those wanting to beef up the Wales and Scotland status. That's not an acceptable reason given it's redundancy. For Wales and Scotland, as Ghmyrtle has pointed out very clearly, the term is so ambiguous as to either not mean much or to be confusing to, especially, overseas readers. I note that Daicaregos has steadfastly refused to explain why it is so important, and what status it confers thereby justifying its presence in the Lead. It needs to be kept in he main body where context and background can explain it. It's widespead usage doesn't justify it. Dai cites the front page of the "Visit Britain" website. That also says Heathrow is the UK's main airport - that's not in the lead. (And I'm damn sure I'll get a bigger google search return for that statement than anyrhing about "countries".) Anyway, the whole debate is pretty tedious and unimportant, I'll think I'll do some editing in the Balkans today. DeCausa (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If certain editors want to continue to dig in their heels, then fine. The rest of us, should ignore them & adopt Ghymrtle's proposal for the lead. GoodDay (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Which of us editors should be ignored, GoodDay? I don't find that suggestion in the least bit helpful.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Those who oppose Ghmyrtle's 20:30 UTC proposal from yesterday. Myself & Snowded (for example) have shown flexability, by dropping country completely. Why can't certain others? GoodDay (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Option A: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign state that includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands, located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. It comprises England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.....

Option B: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign state that includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands, located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. It comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.....

Option C: status quo (i.e March 2011 "consensus" version, proposed by Daicaregos)

• Option A, as it leaves out that dreaded c-word. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with GoodDay (i.e., Option A). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• My 'proposal' was accepted unamimously on 14 March 2011, following discussions which had begun on 23 February. Mabuska said at the time “I'd also like to take this moment and congratulate everyone on being able to work together on this and come to a conclusion that so far has unanimous support which gives it a very strong consensus. Hopefully anyone else who wants to raise the issue in the future will read the footnote and it helps them.“ What a waste of time and effort as, no doubt, this will be too. FWIW I would support Option B which, with luck, may last over a week. Daicaregos (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing so-called 'political controversy' over NI being a 'country' from a UK Introduction footnote

“With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences."

Just before the page was locked, RA made it a direct quote.

OK. the United Kingdom article is not locked with what I consider to be a sectarian edit in a footnote leading from it's introduction. I can see no great reason for it other than to keep NI nationalist politics in the limelight as far as I'm concerned. I say this because I've not heard any other reasoning for the offensive line other than;

• There 'was' a consensus for it (in the archives)
  • I can't find any for that specific part - I've looked.

• There are two 'Reliable Sources'.
  • So what? I have around 6 points on that:

1) The two sources are simply too controversial within-themselves to be re-factored on Misplaced Pages as plain 'fact', even as a "can be considered". It's now a direct quote I notice, but I want to make this point: Found 'Reliable Sources' (which could say anything, whoever they are written and published by) do NOT automatically become Unavoidable And Absolute Facts. This does get argued sometimes, and I'm going to get something along these lines into policy one day!

2) Most importantly really: This quoted opinion is simply not suitably 'weighted' in this footnote: nationalism does not EQUAL sovereignty, esp in the UK Intro. The highly-suspect assertion of 'political controversy' does not 'balance' anything.

4) Including the terms "province", "part" etc as alternatively-used terms for NI is all that is needed here, along with the point that none of them are 'official'. The real 'controversy' is merely over which of the terms can be classed as the most official, as none of them officially are, and they are all used officially(!) So which is best? This is currently being discussed on Northern Ireland, as some Wikipedians certainly find 'country' politically rude - but Misplaced Pages CANNOT reference itself, and it is simply a nationalist opinion anyway.

5) Factoring-in politics over 'country' in this UK footnote suggests that 'province', 'region' or 'part' somehow inherently suggest a possible move away from the UK for NI back to an all-island Ireland. I've seen no evidence that these terms were ever intended to suggest that.

6) Any mention of political controversy (with the suggestion of 'political offence') is simply not needed at this juncture, regardless of the other points above. It merely serves to keep nationalist politics forever in the limelight. Will Northern Ireland ever be free of this sectarian brush that follows it around Misplaced Pages?

Matt Lewis (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Much of that doesn't make sense. The statement that "nationalism does not EQUAL sovereignty" in an NI context is very silly. I'm not a Irish nationalist, nor do I have any sympathy with sectarianism. There's a very simple and obvious point: the objective of Irish nationalism remains - regardless of the Belfast agreement - a 32-county Ireland. That's not a controversial or sectarian statement. A substantial minority of Northern Irish people vote for a party that has that as this as its objective. That's not a controversial or sectarian statement. That party on its website says, in terms, Ireland is one nation and one country. That's not a controversial or sectarian statement (that that is their position, not the SF statement of course). I don't see what is controversial or sectarian about reflecting these facts of life (however unpalatable) in this article somewhere. Now I'm off to the Balkans.... DeCausa (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC

It all makes sense. The problem with you Decausa is that you don't know anything about the subject, and you have flatly refused to read up on it in the other UK/IRE articles, or even read the separate UK country articles – an idea you tell me is “totally surreal”!

Why is it “silly” for me to say that “nationalism cannot be of equal weight to sovereignty”, specifically in the NI context? This is the introduction of the United Kingdom article for crying out loud. Go and find a topic you know something about, and are actually prepared to read about – your naivety is becoming a total hindrance here.

A political parties democratic objective is one thing, but for Misplaced Pages to claim that calling NI a "country" is 'politically controversial' is quite another. What makes you think they are linked? The Welsh or Scottish nationalist parties could not claim such a thing - because they recognise SOVEREIGNTY actually exists - as do Sinn Fein, especially today. Obviously, they want to change it - democratically. Do you UNDERSTAND this yet? And in the UK introduction nationalism does not hold equal weight to the matter in hand, which is simply about the UK being itself. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think, but I'm not sure, that we are talking at cross-purposes. Firstly, there is no relationship between sovereignty and applying the word "country" to a territory as (as is the case with NI) it can apply to non-sovereign territories. The relevance of sovereignty v. nationalism just isn't there. Secondly, there is no such thing as an official designation as a country - in fact no where in the world except French polynesia, Aruba, Sint Maarten and Curacao. By "official" I mean constitutionally/legally enacted. This is so even if a government usage is to refer to a territory as a country. But government usage isn't law and isn't entrenched and is merely a validation of cultural usage, will change for whatever political reason. And that is the main point, describing a territory (really I'm talking about non-sovereign territories here ike Northern Ireland) is a cultural-political construct. That's all. Given these two points, I cannot fathom what you are talking about. You changed your original statement of "nationalism does not EQUAL sovereignty" to "nationalism cannot be of equal weight to sovereignty". Is what you are trying to say that because the sovereign UK government calls NI a country then a nationalist party's view on that carries no/little weight? I didn't understand that to be your argument, but if it is, it discloses such a profound lack of understanding of the word "country" and, indeed, what NPOV means in a Misplaced Pages context, then there's not much I can say. As for my lack of knowledge on the subject. I've looked in on those talk pages and I'm afraid they are not enlightening. As WP policies indicate: Misplaced Pages (and certainly not its talk pages) is itself not counted as a WP:Reliable source. Generally I prefer books to blogs. DeCausa (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The agreements between the UK and Ireland don't particularly affect the situation, because that is a somewhat different issue. Whether there is a claim of sovereignty by the Republic does not necessarily affect how a NI nationalist feels about the subject. "Controversial" doesn't just mean controversial between governments. The question is: is there a substantial number (albeit a minority) who strongly disapprove of the proposition. If you have people in Northern Ireland (15%) who reject the self-identification of "Northern Irish" (let alone "British") and another 34% who are "not very strongly" Northern Irish and 26% who say they are Irish (according to surveys in 2007 and 2008), how does Northern Ireland is a country not be "controversial". DeCausa (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course most NI nationalists voted for the Agreement and the main nationalist parties in NI are parties to it. The major elements of said Agreement have the force of law (including constitutional law) in the U.K. and Ireland, and indeed have further force as an international agreement between sovereigns. How any individual may feel is of interest to that individual, I guess, but the question Matt Lewis raises, as I understand it, is how much weight Misplaced Pages should give to "how a NI nationalist feels" about the issue, versus the comprehensive and painstakingly negotiated intergovernmental and multi-party political settlement - and associated body of law in two jursidictions -that is the Belfast Agreement. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The agreement is a settlement of the governmental arrangements, not a settlement of the underlying "national question". Look at the SF website and indeed the survey above. It's not a question of "individual nationalists" but a substantial segment of the NI population. And the point isn't about whether Misplaced Pages should give weight or credibility to that body of opinion, it simply supports the fact that it is controversial in NI (to the nationalist community) to attribute "national" characteristics to Northern Ireland. And that's all the footnote which Matt is so upset about said. That quite frankly is "non-controversial" (except to some WP editors apparently). DeCausa (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no, the Agreement is quite clear on the national question: Northern Ireland remains part of the U.K. unless and until a majority of the people of NI decide otherwise in an internal referendum to be called at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, upon his determination that a demand exists for such a referendum. He has made no such determination. Also, as part of the Agreement, Ireland gave up its longstanding territorial claim on NI. The Agreement is also quite clear on the nationality question: persons in NI may be British, Irish or both, and those identities have full parity of esteem. Thus, as a party to the Agreement, Sinn Fein fully recgnises and esteems the British identity of people in NI who so identify, while the DUP, say, fully recognises and esteems the Irish identity of people in NI who so identify. They don't always advertise this on their websites, no doubt for party political reasons, but it is the case nonetheless. So Matt is right - ultimate sovereignty in NI is exercised by the U.K. government, and that sovereignty is uncontested by any other state or sovereignty. And the U.K. government describes NI as a country in a number of contexts. As Daicaregos and others point out, that must carry greater weight than the subjective feelings of groups of individuals. (My own subjective feelings run another way, BTW). This is an encyclopedia. We describe what is, not what we or others might wish for. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no! (as someone once said). The "national question" is not resolved by the agreement, what is resolved is that it will only be changed by the democratic process. The underlying objective doesn't have to change. Are you saying that Sinn Fein now accept the Union and don't want to see a 32-county republic. Of course not. Just because you may not accept that NI is a country is not contrary to the Belfast Agreement. Again, the former issues between the UK and Irelad are not relevant. Recognition of other national identities has no bearing on my previous post, nor does the relative weights of different views (including governments). "Controversy" doesn't require opinions of equal weight. Remember, the only question is, is there controversy? The rights and wrongs, the reasonableness or unreasonableness, the backing of governments on either side is not relevant. DeCausa (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

But is there in fact real political controversy on the question of whether NI is a country? Like I say below, I have never - once - seen or heard the question even raised, let alone debated as a matter of controversy, in the context of political discourse in NI. Have you? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a very good question - and is the weakness in what I've been saying (all the other points are, IMHO, irrelevancies). There is no "great debate" in reliable sources on this. There's a load of stuff in the blogosphere, but of course that doesn't count. It boils down to this: the designation "country" virtually only has a significance amongst a handful of WP editors. In the real world, people argue aboout other concepts, "nation" and there's plenty of RS on that controversy. A typical example is this news story. If the point of contention is whether NI should be called NI are you ever going to get to the stage of arguing about whether it's a country? DeCausa (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa, Who are you to insist that Misplaced Pages should suggest that any Northern Irish object to calling NI a 'country', simply because they want to see that fact change!? That would be illogical to most people, and it is simply a quote from a polemical text. To give this weight in it here is sectarianism as far as I'm concerned. In reality (and I know you little knowledge about all this) Northern Ireland is very much about shared democracy now, some residual terrorism aside. It's like the last 10 years have never existed on Misplaced Pages, as Ivor says. I find it a total disgrace. And I know I'm not the best person to argue this too - it's just that the heaviness of Misplaced Pages nationalism is so oppressive that few people feel they can get anywhere. And is that any wonder reading this? And on top of everything else the line is just simply inappropriate for the UK introduction anyway - because Northern Ireland is British even if 90% of them wanted to change that. I think one problem here is that there is actually so much wrong with the line, that you can always re-focus your waffle from point to point. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

@Matt: It's people who "don't know anything about the subject" who are often the best editors of articles like this, because they may be able to take an overview better than those editors who are closely involved - often passionately. I'm not saying DeCausa is in that position (and I'm not suggesting anyone is editing non-neutrally here), but perhaps we would benefit here from more editors who are uninvolved - or at least less involved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree with that. The problem with DeCausa is that, while knowing little about the subject, he also has clear a Irish nationalist bias. It happens that way sometimes. The proof was already on my talk page where all his comments were for crow-barring Irish nationalism in the footnote no-matter what, and also obviously the extent to which he is trying to wikilawyer his was around my arguments above. The only two people who are willing to fight for this unnecessary (and offensive in itself) line are RA and DeCausa. They both reverted it with the poor arguments that I introduced this section with. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

@Matt, you saying I know "little about the subject" is a little like me saying "you are an idiot". It's a fairly meaningless name-calling exercise. However, what I am severely pissed off about is you saying I have "clear a Irish nationalist bias". Because of that, I feel I can call you a fucking idiot (with the attendant block risk for WP:NPA). You have a tiresome and petty POV to push - but nevertless your statement annoys me. I'll explain why, and it annoys me also that in order to do so I have to explain my personal political views, which I shouldn't have to. Firstly, I'm English. Secondly, I think that nationalism is a ludicrous piece of nonsense dreamed up in the 19th century. Thirdly, I believe the "nation state" is a myth sold to the gullible. Fourthly, I don't care if the part of London I live in was part of a state that was ruled from London, Ballymena, Cardiff, Brussels, Washington or Paris, so long it was run well. Fifthly, and most to the point, the concept of a "United Ireland" is a ludicrous concept and I see no reason why it should ever happen. Sixthly, I neither care whether the UK separates into its constituent parts nor stays together. In conclusion, I believe "nation" is a myth and I feel no loyalty or sympathy with any so-called "national" grouping. Got it? DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what the weird thing about that is? (apart from it taking you so long to say, despite all my questions prompted by the terseness I've encountered from you from the start) - the net effect of you views seem to prevent you from grasping the relatively un-complex detail within the situation. By constantly disparaging my points (esp on my talk) you have naturally appeared nationalistic - and it's hardly like you don't seem to care either way is is? Policy clearly points to excluding the dumb line - so what do you care? But if you are what you say (and I do believe you, Misplaced Pages being the place that it is), perhaps you should simply give more of a shit and maybe read those unread articles you find so 'surreal' that I think you ought to read. They might help you follow my reasoning. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've glanced at them. They are (on the whole) dreary uninteresting inaccurate bogged-down-in-irrelevance articles fucked up by POV pushers, and presumably you would like to share in that credit. That's why I don't go near them, not because I'm uninterested in the subject matter (outside of WP). "By constantly disparaging my points (esp on my talk) you have naturally appeared nationalistic". Fuck's sake! No, it's because you don't AGF and you think resistance to your POV = lack of NPOV. Your reasoning isn't worth following and I have absolutely no interest in or respect for what you think I "ought" to do. DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

@Ivor - The question isn't "how a NI nationalist feels" or how much weight we should give to that perspective. It's merely that the question of what Northern Ireland is (region, province, country, etc.) is a specific problem and (as the reference states) "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences." The problem is not unique to any community and, while the 1998 Agreement settled many things, it didn't resolve this particular question.

For example, the same question post the 1998 Agreement:

"One specific problem - in both general and particular senses - is to know what to call Northern Ireland itself: in the general sense, it is not a country, or a province, or a state - although some refer to it contemptuously as a statelet: the least controversial word appears to be jurisdiction, but this might change." - S. Dunn and H. Dawson, 2000, An Alphabetical Listing of Word, Name and Place in Northern Ireland and the Living Language of Conflict, Edwin Mellen Press: Lampeter

A certain cherry picking of sources is being employed to present a picture that the UK government thinks of Northern Ireland as a "country" in the same sense as England, Scotland and Wales. That is not the case. To the UK government, what to call Northern Ireland is just as problematic a question as it is to the rest of us. In contrast to England, Scotland and Wales, Northern Ireland is rarely referred to specifically as a "country" by the UK government (except in a general sense, such as the UK if made up of "four countries"). Other turns of phrase, such as "region", "province", "part of UK", etc., are by far the common terms of both the UK government and the NI Executive in a specific sense when speaking about Northern Ireland. --RA (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The cherry-picking, RA, is all in your "political preferences" quote. Why bring in the Troubles? I know, I know, because it's reliably sourced. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "what a NI nationalist" (or indeed unionist) feels is not really the question. The question is indeed what Northern Ireland is. It may be that there is a cherrypicking of sources here as to the attitude of the U.K. government towards the question, but you yourself seem to accept that HMG refers to NI as "a country" when referring to the "four countries" that comprise the U.K. And, as it so happens, that is the very context we are dealing with here. I share Matt Lewis's view that you may be giving too much weight to one or two academic sources. Would you be comfortable, say, including a footnote as to whether Wales was in fact a country, rather than a "principality" or some such thing, on the basis of similar sources? I'm pretty sure they're out there! Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In a general sense, I don't think many object to the constituent parts of the UK being referred to as countries. The problem, for me, only really arises when speaking about Northern Ireland in a specific sense. That is not the context here. However, I am not comfortable with referenced material being removed because it somehow threatens the UK's sovereignty. Regardless of the term used for Northern Ireland ("province", "country", "state" or anything else) these words can be controversial and can revel one's political preferences as the reference notes.

TBH I had never imagined the footnote here as being about Northern Ireland. I had always imagined that it was a note to clarify use of the word country to refer to all of the constituent parts of the UK. I had imagined that the bits specifically about Northern Ireland were simply to flag particular caution in that specific case but to say in all other contexts (Scotland, Wales, England), it was normal.

As regards sources, there are heaps in the archives of Talk:Northern Ireland (including sources from the UK government). It is not a matter of simply one or two sources, or that the sources come from one particular outlook ("country" is something that would be verifiably rejected by both nationalist and unionist community).

FYI this thread originated as a spill over from Northern Ireland after I proposed that the footnote here be added to that article to explain "country" specifically in relation to Northern Ireland. Personally, I would prefer less controversial terms to be used (e.g. "Northern Ireland is a part of the UK...") in the lead there but - being exhausted - I would settle for a clarifying note. Other editors are firmly set against any watering down of the word "country" in the introduction to that article. Hence, this article suffers. --RA (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is mentioning the Troubles except yourself, Matt.

I'm simply responding to your endless polemics. Do you think I want to do all this? Someone has to help cut it back. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

@Ivor, again - an example of the problem that what to call Northern Ireland to the UK government, here is a consideration of the legal terms used by the UK to describe Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in GFA-era legislation:

"The statuary reference to Scotland is a 'nation,' while Wales is a 'region.' The devolvement legislation for Northern Ireland refers to the province simply as 'Northern Ireland.' The word 'nation' has been defined as referring to a 'social group that shares a common ideology, common institutions and customs, and a sense of homogeneity,' with an emphasis not on territorial borders, but rather on a 'sociocultured perception of the group.' It connotes a greater cohesiveness than does the word "region". Concededly, it would stretch the imagination even of the most creative thinker to view Northern Ireland as an area with 'homogeneity.' It could well be that the legislators refusal to classify the province expressly was an appeasement measure, since 'region' would have pleased Unionists, and 'nation' have have absolutely elated Nationalists." - Carol Daugherty Rasnic, 2003, Northern Ireland: can Sean and John live in peace?

Avoidance of divisive terms such as these is a hallmark in the Good Friday Agreement era of "constructive ambiguity". -RA (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I take a different view to Ms Rasnic as to whether nationalists would have been elated to have NI described as "a nation". It might have pleased certain "Ulster nationalist" elements in the UDA once upon a time. An example perhaps of the potential pitfalls in relying upon one or two academic sources? I will observe that in decades of following NI politics I have never once seen or heard the question of whether NI is a country raised, let alone debated as a matter of controversy, between NI politicians of any stripe. If we are to say this is a political controversy, I would like to know how and where this "controversy" has actually been aired in the political arena in NI? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Rubbing eyes: Am I seeing a possibility of constituent country re-entering the mix? GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong section GD. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I was quite surprised by "elated" also but the rest of the her point holds firm.

With regard to the "controversy", it's one of those maddening Misplaced Pages thing, like British Isles. In real life, it's not a controversy because nobody calls Northern Ireland (in a specific sense) a country. (And noone minds all four parts of the UK being called countries because its understood not to take it so literally when it comes to Northern Ireland.) The "controversy", as it exists in real life, is between the choice of other terms - and is not so much "a controversy" but rather that the choice "can be controversial" if you get the balance wrong in one context or another.

The problem arises here on Misplaced Pages when it is insisted that we must introduce Northern Ireland (in that article) as a "country" lest the "country-ness" of Wales (in its article) be threatened. And then it spill over on to this article...

(For the sake of clarity also, with regard to this article, I think it would be improved if it was without the sentence that begins, "It is a country in its own right and consists of four countries...". However, neither do I mind the sentence being there. I just think it reads poorly and unnecessarily confuses matters. Neither would I strongly object to the deletion of the entire footnote. However, I do mind referenced material being removed from the footnote for something to do with "respecting sovereignty". The question has nothing to do with the sovereignty of the UK.) --RA (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the footnote should make it clear then that the controversy is on Misplaced Pages rather than in real life? (It's all getting a bit head-up-our-own arses now, isn't it?) Ivor Stoughton (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This should really be a 'smell the coffee' time for you RA: I have genuinely always seen Northern Ireland as a country (why wouldn't I?), as have most British people my age (40). Do younger people see it any less so? I doubt it. I grew up with the Troubles forever in the UK news, and whether the word 'province' was mentioned or not (as 'the Principality' used to be for Wales), NI was always the British country the Irish wanted back. Just as it was the footballing country that used to have George Best in it. Did the Irish in the 70's and 80's (or even now) bother thinking as technically as you do about its origins? I doubt it somehow. Like it or not they knew what it really was, despite all the various diplomatic phraseology the British used during transition. The British split Ireland into two separate countries, so one could become independent, and the other - full of people who hade been British Irish for centuries - could pretty much run itself: Northern Ireland was always the most fully devolved UK country. The British never ever intended to give it back, and they kept that particular area because it been full of British for centuries. So they made a 'British Ireland' in the north of the island of Ireland, and called it "Northern Ireland". They created a new country in the legitimate non-sovereign sense - and if the Republic of Ireland accepted that better at the time, and the Irish republican minority in Northern Ireland wasn't so large - nobody would be remotely questioning that obvious fact. You just live in the world that you personally want to see, RA. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

behaviour

Matt, between your edit waring against established consensus and the personal attacks on other established editors there is more than enough above to get you warned if not blocked. No one wants to do this but we are not going to make progress unless you lay of the polemic. Can we have an undertaking on that please? --Snowded 06:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am pointing out SERIOUS polemic in the UK introduction Snowded, not laying it on. How dare you say I have 'edit warred' when I simply have not by any reasonably sane definition done so? Is all editing you don't like a "war" with you? I despair of the language and the attitude over this. How many edits do you see me make on these issues? You just don't give people a chance to breathe out there, and when will the "war" end? That's what I want to know.

And also - why do this in here and not on my talk page? You know full-well that you coming on like a concerned admin ("we" etc), would not exactly make me smile fondly too. This UK discussion page is now a completely-full and almost-unreadable, which is the 'old story' time and time and time again. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Matt Lewis. You are doing a good job of expressing your points. I appreciate your posts very much. Please do not let Snowded throw you off. When he senses that he is losing a debate, he pulls "crap-like-this" to fluster people. Don't be flustered my friend. You are arguing well. Keep it eh. Take care, Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Armchair, you have just come off a long ban for uncivil behaviour I suggest you exercise care. Matt, you did edit war removing material established by consensus rather than engaging with discussion on the talk page. You also made various accusations against other editors for example the Irish Republic accusation against another edit, which to anyone familiar with the debates here is nonsensical. --Snowded 17:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you've properly followed the 'extra line' debate (ie how it was lumped into another consensus) - as you've not commented here much while I've taken in on. But you do know I'm familiar with the debate, and that I wouldn't write anything actually nonsensical.

You know Snowded, If you personally accepted the word "constituent", whatever Dai (and possibly Fishiehelper2 says), almost all of debate on this page (and at NI recently) would simply not have happened. Even RA would accept that comment. It's an incredible amount of power for one person to have, but that's Misplaced Pages: it just bizarrely seems to work like that. I was at that original 'compromise poll' in Wales when it was not used in the end, and since then I've seen you basically censor it from discussion over the UK pages, as if it is genuinely a offensive/controversial (sigh) word. It just flipping well isn't.

I'm finding it hard to even vote on the 'No "country" at all' proposal below, because I know that it is simply platform for 'country' to be later included by some hapless soul, simply leading to more possible edit-wars when he or she is suddenly reverted by you, Dai or possibly GoodDay. Its removal would be too-extreme a compromise to realistically enforce the 'status-quo consensus' ruling that you always favour. Only something realistic could achieve that. No-one but a rogue IP would even think to edit-war over removing "constituent" when there is a decently-demonstrated consensus behind it - so that is what I am planning to achieve. It is not a "backwards step" - it is simply common sense. The vast majority of people even on this discussion page would agree that as a descriptor, "constituent" is simply 'made-to-measure' for the UK intro - but most have been talked out of considering it largely through your ludicrous insinuation that the 'Wales Compromise' was some kind of historical event, like it needs its own date or something. Now that my friend, is 'nonsense'. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless I have read the above thread wrongly Matt's removal of the previously agreed text on the controversial language in respect of Northern Ireland has not attracted support from other editors. If there is no serious support I will restore the original text (or hope that Matt chooses to respect WP:BRD and restore it himself --Snowded 05:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Should we keep the current introduction and focus on a new section that tackles the country/nationalities issue in detail?

Whilst i think the current wording is slightly odd the status quo is probably as clear as it is going to get without watering it down completely avoiding terms which would be counter productive or going into extensive detail about the formation of the UK. At present the introduction... 1)States the UK is a sovereign state in the first sentence of the first paragraph. 2)States "It is a country....." in the second sentence of the first paragraph. 3)Repeats the UK is a country in its own right and consists of the four countries in the second sentence of the second paragraph.

Ill support keeping the status quo if others are reasonably ok with it. Its certainly not ideal but then clearly the situation is not ideal. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

@BW: I'm curious as to what has led you to (apparently) change your position since 23:09, 23 May 2011, when you suggested: ""Initially formed in 1707 by the Acts of Union between the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland, the sovereign state today comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." That seems close to Option B. Is it that you think it is necessary to explain the historical background in the introduction, or some other reason? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I would still support something along those lines. I think it would be better if we stated country in first sentence, second paragraph saying about the two Kingdoms forming and that today it comprises of the countries England, Wales, Scotland and NI. Going into detail seems to be the most helpful to the reader but i suspect considering the amount of dispute above its going to be difficult to get the correct wording. So it may be easier to save the big detail for a new section which covers the country/nationality issue in detail which will be less contentious and quicker to accomplish. I dont have the sort of time for wikipedia i once did, BritishWatcher (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposals based on the current 1st parag, a later identity section, and some 2nd parag rewording

I'm happy enough with what exists now, provided the footnote goes and a separate section is created. At very least the sectarianism has to be removed from the footnote. I personally think that the world "countries" is crying out for "constituent" next to it - it just reads so oddly without it. The word is simply made to measure..

Look at,

• It is a country in its own right and consists of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Compared to,

• It is a country in its own right and consists of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Best for most neutral people surely is this shorter version;

A) It is a country consisting of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

But perhaps this might sweeten the gravy?;

B) It is a country in its own right and consists of four united constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Well it does make some sense. Does anyone support A or B here? Matt Lewis (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A would be my choice, though having no descriptive at all, would also do. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A Seems perfectly reasonable to me too. It pipe-links to Counties of the United Kingdom - what more could some people want? "constituent" is merely a made-to-measure descriptor - it's not an attack on Scotland or Wales. The UK article is the 'big daddy' and did used to use it. Wales etc don't have to follow suite and nor should they - the context here is the UK and it makes nothing less than sound sense to use it here. I suspect that it was pressure from Welsh and Scottish elements that got it removed from here, but it can easily come back. I was part of the Welsh-born compromise of "part of", but was never happy with losing (and bizarrely 'damning' - how did that happen?) the word "constituent". When did it actually become such a dirty word? It just makes no sense. Would anyone else like to vote on this one? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Matt Lewis. I'm sure you understand completely why 'constituent' is not acceptable. This matter has been discussed many, many times before. The bottom line here is that either the UK is composed of countries or it isn't - the overwhelming bulk of reliable sources are quite clear on this matter, whether some editors like this or not. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What utter nonsense. I've been part of this from the beginning too, and even compiled most of the sources! "Overwhelming bulk of reliable sources"? Say what? That "constutuent" isn't allowed? What utter, utter, utter nonsense. There are loads of examples of "constituent countries" being used: it's just a flipping descriptor, not a unionist curse. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"Pre-scribe" the word "Country" ... a Modest Proposal

Here we go...

Using the legal definitions contained in Black's Law Dictionary for a Sovereign State and a non-Sovereign State one may write the following two statements show below,

(i). the United States of America is a Sovereign State composed of 50 non-Sovereign States,

(ii). the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Sovereign State composed of 4 non-Sovereign States of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

In this vein-of-thought ... why not use statement (ii). for the lede of the United Kingdom article? It would satisfy all concerned.

Using Statement (ii). one can further sub-divide by using what are called Descriptors (i.e., a fancy word for a Description). By re-writting Statement (ii) we have the following,

(iia). the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a composed of of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

(iib). the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a composed of of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

Using this underlying structure one has the following,

(iia). the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Country composed of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

(iib). the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Sovereign State composed of 4 non-Sovereign States of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

(yep) (more to come). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

These proposals are over my head. I'll let others decypher them. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay. I am the local unemployed Mad-Scientist (i.e., Frankenstein) ... Am I complicating things too much here? Please tell me, my friend. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the , stuff. Anyways, it's best we avoid 'country' completely. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it was Ghmyrtle's observation that it was best to ignore Armchair's mission to confuse. DeCausa (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa I am not on a mission to confuse. Also I have my copy of Black's Law Dictionary sitting right here. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Why you would think an American legal dictionary has any bearing on the subject is anyone's guess. DeCausa (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

American Common Law originated from British Common Law. They are directly related. You being a Lawyer should know this very well. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. Tenuous (and there's no such thing as "British" common law). DeCausa (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa, you and I have nothing to talk about. "Fare-thee-Well". ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Why can't we just keep it simple without any ambiguous terms or complex mumbo-jumbo - The United Kingdom consists of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Mabuska 21:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mabuska, that is Statement (iia). Thank you for letting me know your opinion, I appreciate the feedback, thanks eh. Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska, how can you suggest such a thing and deprive everyone of days of pointless, unconstructive, irrelevant argument? DeCausa (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? Because of tl-dr as so much has been said since i last commented on this issue. Mabuska 21:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

@Mabuska — yes, was there not near consensus to just remove the sentence? Can we not just avoid this? --RA (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but we've got atleast 1 suspected British nationalist & 1 suspected Welsh nationalist, who refuse to let go of 'country' for the UK & Wales, respectively. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A deliberate attempt to disseminate false information to help your 'cause', or are you going to blame one of your famous memory lapses? Several editors here choose to include the fact that these places are countries: Jeanne Boleyn, Carson101, Fishiehelper2, BritishWatcher and myself. And please stop with the labels, they imply some POV. Daicaregos (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus does not need to be unananimous so a couple of disagreeing editors can be "ignored" if an admin judges they are being disruptive or unreasonable or something like that. Mabuska 21:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And you should know better than to believe anything GoodDay says, without checking it for yourself. Some editors here refuse to include 'country', although apparently, they're not being disruptive or unreasonable of course. Daicaregos (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to scroll back up to the options A, B and C I suggested earlier today, one of the "disagreeing" editors has agreed to one wording, and one from the opposing viewpoint has agreed to the other. There are three words difference between those two options. Just three words - "the countries of.." Can we not see whether there are grounds for agreeing (or, as Mabuska suggests, implementing in the absence of 100% agreement) one of those two options? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ghmyrtle. ...just three words "the countries of",... England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. These just three words are the problem. Repeat ARE THE PROBLEM. Oi. This is frustrating. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

My point is that progress would be more likely if we were to focus on whether or not those specific three words should be included in that particular sentence - whether their inclusion is helpful or unhelpful to our global readership, and whether it would accord or not accord with WP policy and guidance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would the three words "the countries of" not accord with WP policy and guidline? I don't think there is anyone here (well, maybe one) who does not agree that they are verifiably called countries. I would be surprised if there were any policy that would prevent a verifiable fact being included here. You ask if it would be helpful or unhelpful to the global readership. I ask anyone here, why would it be unhelpful to include, forgive me for repeating myself, a verifiable fact. An extremely important veriable fact I may add. We have four countries that make up the United Kingdom, whether some people like it or not, and there are people who think it not important enough to include in the introduction! I beg to differ. Carson101 (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Country has multiple meanings & so that's why we should avoid using it for either the UK or E/N/S/W. PS- we known all about the suitcase full of reliable sources, as it's been repeated often enough. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Lots of things have multiple meanings. Are you saying that we should not use the word state for example? It needs a far better argument than that I'm afraid. I do hope your not against it because you believe that country only equates to sovereign state. That would be silly, as you now say it has different meanings. You have to make your mind up. Does country = Sovereign state, as you have previously stated, or does it have more than one meaning. You can't use both your arguments to get what you want. Carson101 (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, country means sovereign state. But for the sake of this article, I've chosen to be flexiable - thus my reason for dropping 'country' completely. Many of us have been flexiable by allowing 'sovereign state' in place of 'country', where United Kingdom is concerned. It's time for others to be flexiable & drop 'countries' from E/N/S/W. Those that do not? hold back this article from reaching FA status & invite these discussion to re-occur. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(iia). the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Country composed of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. This would work. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur with others this is a mission to confuse --Snowded 06:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

To Snowded, Ghmyrtle, and DeCausa, I am not on a mission to confuse. I am attempting to advance clarity (i.e., the opposite of confusion).

With regards to the issue at hand,

(iib). the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a composed of of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

In Spot 1 insert the word "Country", and in Spot 2 insert nothing (i.e., a blank space). Then the sentence will satisfy all concerned. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Another break

At the risk of repeating myself, can I propose either of the following as an improvement to the current wording? Indications of support for (or reasoned arguments against) these wordings would be welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign state that includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands, located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. It comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which is the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another sovereign state—the Republic of Ireland. Apart from this land border the UK is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the English Channel and the Irish Sea.

The United Kingdom is a unitary state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London. There are three devolved national administrations, each with varying powers, situated in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh; the capitals of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland respectively.....etc.

• SUPPORT - Cuprinol. Does what it says on the tin. Fmph (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Totally unacceptable to not call the United Kingdom a country but state England, Wales, Scotland and NI are all countries within the first paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

@BW: Yesterday and the day before you indicated - I thought - that you would support a wording "along those lines". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In both of those occasions im saying id accept "country" for EWSNI in the second paragraph as long as the UK being a country is mentioned in the first paragraph, id prefer 1st sentence but the method at present with it in the second sentence is reasonable. The above wording fails to mention anywhere that the UK is a country and it gives EWNSI status as a countries even more importance by putting it in the first paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The point of using the term "sovereign state" is that its meaning is more specific. As you know from earlier discussions, not all articles on sovereign states make a point of using the word "country". Option B does not describe E/W/S/NI as "countries", so it might be helpful if you were to indicate that you oppose it less than you oppose this option. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that its important to be clear that the UK is a sovereign state, but its equally important we make clear it is a country as some do not everyone knows all sovereign states are countries. The fact the UK is fairly unique in being made up of other countries and this articles talk page has a FAQ that mentions its a country highlights this is an important factor that must be made clear in the article. I oppose both these options and would rather stick with the status quo despite it being slightly odd wording with the Country in its own right bit. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - It's imperative that readers know up front that England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are countries, and Option A explains it perfectly and lucidly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose For the sake of clarity, because in at least one case it is challengable (if not dismissed out of hand) and because there is no imperative to use these terms or to introduce these concepts in the introduction to this article. Keep it simple. See below. --RA (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Although another option would be to dispense with this newfangled language around "countries" and "sovereign states" altogether in favour of more venerable usage. There's a very real sense in which the United Kingdom is what it says on the tin - a kingdom. So we could say something like "The United Kingdom includes the Kingdom of England (incorporating the Principality of Wales), the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Province of Northern Ireland" which would in some ways be more accurate and rooted in history than anything we have considered so far. We could do this, but you know we won't! Ivor Stoughton (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)]

There is a problem with the pipelinking to Principality of Wales - it's not historically correct. What existed before the "Acts of Union", which formally incorporated the whole of what we now call Wales within the Kingdom of England, were both the Principality, and the separate Marcher Lordships which were neither within the Kingdom of England nor the Principality of Wales. These were extensive areas, covering much of south and east-central Wales. There is no single article which covers that period of Wales' history comprehensively, mainly because it wasn't a single political entity at that time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - With the proviso that 'located off the north-western coast of continental Europe' goes before 'which includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands'. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that suggestion, but if it becomes an issue perhaps we could park it and come back to it later? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - As explained in my last post. Carson101 (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - as we should avoid using "countries". The term country has multiple meanings & could confuse readers. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose --"It comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland," ... "the countries of" ... is not-acceptable. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - That England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries is unusual within a sovereign state, and is notable enough to mention in the Lead. Although I do have some sympathy for BW's argument that the UK should also be noted as a country. Perhaps he would care to devise some suitable amendment to this option. Daicaregos (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support This version (1) adds relevant information, (2) the articles for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are stable and have these defined as "countries," and (3) the article Country itself has a definition that does not require sovereignty as a proviso. Shiggity (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support --Snowded 20:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Will change to 'support' if the "constituent countries" poll fails to takes off. The most stable will in my view be an edit based-on a proper consensus for using the descriptor 'constituent', despite what some people say. This proposal here is more likely to be played-with in the future imo, but I could live with it for sure. By the way (and this is VERY important) - in these polls, only the salient parts should be considered as acheived 'consensus' - ie this cannot disallow future copy edits and discussion. Also important, I am assuming that the proposed creation of a new section on identity is combined with this proposal? We have to remove the badly-politicised 'country' footnote - no way should that be kept. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Matt how is it right that the UK introduction does not make clear the UK is a country but goes out of its way in the second sentence of the first paragraph to state England, Wales, Scotland and the Northern Ireland is a country? This proposal is grossly one sided. Allowing England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be called country but not the United Kingdom which qualifies as a country in more ways than the other parts of the United Kingdom? This proposal is far more problematic than the current wording. How some people think this is a suitable compromise i do not know, its entirely one sided. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign state that includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands, located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. It comprises England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which is the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another sovereign state—the Republic of Ireland. Apart from this land border the UK is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the English Channel and the Irish Sea.

The United Kingdom is a unitary state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London. There are three devolved national administrations, each with varying powers, situated in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh; the capitals of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland respectively.....etc.

• Strong oppose - England , Wales , Scotland and Northern Ireland all state in their first sentence they are countries. The idea that we fail to mention the UK is a country in the introduction on this article when it is without doubt the country that has the biggest claim to the term is again totally unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

@BW: We are discussing only this article here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This whole situation relates around the status of these other "countries". I find it deeply offensive and unacceptable if we are not allowed to say the UK is a country despite 4 parts of the United Kingdom having their articles state they are countries. If the other articles do not matter then there is less need to mention EWSNI are countries, only reason im going along with the case for calling them country on this page is because the other articles call them it so we may as well try to explain it here. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

As a general comment, I think we should try to avoid debate about what individual editors "find... offensive", and concentrate on sources and readability in line with WP policy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

fine. This article is about a country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The article should point out that it is a country in the introduction. It is that simple really. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support There is no imperative to say that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries (if the latter even is). We should avoid these avoid these totem words in favor of clarity. Keep it simple, .... Misplaced Pages is not the place for national flag waving and it is no slight (or censorship) not to say that Wales - or any other part of the UK - is a country. The "countriness" (or otherwise) of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can be dealt with thoroughly in the body of the article, not in the condensed space of the introduction. It may send some editors brimming with pride to see their part of the UK called every bit as much a country as anywhere else but in at least once case it is challengable, if not dismissed out of hand, and it does nothing to aid understanding of the subject to introduce confusing terminology so early and without explanation. --RA (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support as there's no mention of 'country' or 'countries'. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - does not mention that the home nations are countries in their own right - as has been discussed many times before, the UK is a union, not a federation. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Like Ivor pointed out, this is not quite accurate and is in fact quite misleading. The United Kingdom is not a union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It's a union of the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of Ireland, from which five-sixths of the Kingdom of Ireland left. Wales and Northern Ireland do not figure in the history of the formation of the UK as "countries in their own right". And while Wales has a long history of being a country and a nation in the vernacular sense, Northern Ireland as never existed as "a country in it's own right". --RA (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - the failure to identify the four countries of the UK as such leaves the reader without the basic facts. We are here to provide informtion, not withhold it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- The United Kingdom is the Country, its constituent parts are not-Countries in their own right. They forfeited Country status when then joined the Union. The Union (i.e., the United Kingdom) is the Country ... nothing else. Period. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - That England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries is unusual within a sovereign state, and is notable enough to mention in the Lead. Daicaregos (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - this version is equally good. Now can we get on and do something instead of squabbling. Fmph (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support I have no really strong feelings about the country issue and think it is probably only possible to get consensus by sidestepping the term. I have to note that I think all the stuff about the land border with Ireland should be in the next sentence - its rather confusing tagged on the end of the first one.--SabreBD (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - As Daicaregos rightly points out, the fact that the UK is a sovereign state that is composed of countries is unusual and notable enough to mention in the Lead. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Then the arguments will continue to flair up & the article won't achieve FA status. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Vide supra, as the two are mutually exclusive ;) Shiggity (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Tempting though it is at first, the reality of this now two-level-deep compromise will simply be people trying to reintroduce a commonplace word. This compromise is too extreme a stance to force-revert “country” edits per a 'status quo' I feel. So more edit-wars would be likely. Surely the only realistic compromise is to use the ready-made descriptor “constituent” (and honestly, only a couple of people will have to actually 'compromise'). No-one could edit war over “constituent country” (esp when it links to Countries of the United Kingdom) if there was a decent poll behind it. Please vote here if you are interested in using that perfectly-reasonable descriptive term: this poll below . I would also favour polling "constituent" at Northern Ireland, but leaving Wales and Scotland with "part of", as it has seemed to stick there. If Wales and Scotland do become less stable (which is supposedly the argument against using "constituent" here), then we can simply re-poll "constituent" alongside "part of" there, and re-establish an up-to-date consensus everywhere). RA? Anyone? Let's solve all this once and for all. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Greater context?

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Rather than simply stating that the UK is made up of countries as bald fact or leaving the statement out of the introduction, maybe a way forward would be to put the situation in context a little. For example:

For para #2 in the article lede

The United Kingdom is a unitary state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London. Formed from the union of three kingdoms — first England (which included Wales) and Scotland, then later Ireland — the United Kingdom today consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Thus the United Kingdom is composed of "countries within a country". There are three devolved national administrations, each with varying powers, situated in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh; the capitals of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland respectively. Associated with the UK, but not constitutionally part of it, are three Crown Dependencies and fourteen overseas territories. These are remnants of the British Empire which, at its height in 1922, encompassed almost a quarter of the world's land surface and was the largest empire in history. British influence can still be observed in the language, culture and legal systems of many of its former territories.

--RA (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Try it without the "countries within a country" line. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I like RA's draft a lot - it manages to be both more elegant and more informative than what's in the article at the moment. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that neither of "my" two options above are going to achieve a consensus, and this approach seems workable in principle - subject to resolving the Wales issue I mention below. I assume, RA, that you intend to leave the first para as it is now? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's another slant for sure, but uses "Principality" before Wales, making it seem 'less' than a Kingdom somehow - so I'll wager it won't be liked. I've suggested something above you might like above though. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is a problem with the pipelinking to Principality of Wales - it's not historically correct. What existed before the "Acts of Union", which formally incorporated the whole of what we now call Wales within the Kingdom of England, were both the Principality, and the separate Marcher Lordships which were neither within the Kingdom of England nor the Principality of Wales. These were extensive areas, covering much of south and east-central Wales. There is no single article which covers that period of Wales' history comprehensively (mainly because it wasn't a single entity) - so, I think it would be better to link simply to Wales. Not a perfect solution though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ghmyrtle. Everything (except the foundation of Scotland) is related back to the Norman Conquest. The Kingdom of England was founded in 1066. The Lordship of Ireland was founded in 1171. The Principality of Wales was codified by the Normans by the Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284. Thus between 1066-to-1284 (i.e., in mear 218 years) all of "These Isles" were legally defined by the Normans (except for Scotland, those stubborn chaps!). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree that this is a problem. Shouldn't be insoluble though. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a broader wording could be used, like "Originally formed through a series of constitutional unions over several centuries, the United Kingdom today consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. However, the current borders are also the result of secession. Would this go too far:

Originally formed through a series of constitutional unions over several centuries, the United Kingdom today consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland following the secession of the Irish Free State in 1922.

--RA (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that the first para (assuming it's unchanged) says: "The country is part of an archipelago that includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands. Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another sovereign state—the Republic of Ireland." So, NI has already been mentioned. In my view, it's not necessary to mention the secession process, however briefly, in the next para - if we do, I think it's giving the whole Ireland/NI/land border issue undue weight in the lede(/lead, whatever). Of course, the whole story can be set out in the main text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the UK was formed by a series of constitutional unions, when did Northern Ireland enter into union with England, Scotland and Wales? It's not merely a pedantic point. It cuts directly to the source of this debate (or at least one of them): is Northern Ireland a "country" or a part/remnant of one (or two)? --RA (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Another variant of the same thing:

Originally formed through a series of constitutional unions over several centuries, the United Kingdom today consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland following the secession of part of Ireland in 1922.

--RA (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Obviously it didn't - Ireland did. The secession process is reflected in the difference between how the UK was formed (past tense) and is now (present tense). I'm just trying to find a form of words that does not give undue emphasis in the opening two paras to one aspect (an important aspect, but nonetheless only one aspect) of the UK's history and current arrangements. Perhaps a way forward would be in some way to combine the mentions of the land border with the secession process, in a single sentence? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: Such as "Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another sovereign state—the Republic of Ireland - following the secession of the Irish Free State in 1922." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more meaningful to the question of the origins of the UK's strange make up (and the incongruent nature of Northern Ireland in that make up). But you're right that mentioning Ireland too often may give the impression of imbalance or harping on some subject. If there's no good way to put it then it can be glossed over. --RA (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Harping? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

So long as it's there... :-) --RA (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Although I'm content with either options A or B above (it's not important enough to do otherwise) I support this with my 1st preference vote if it were AV. DeCausa (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, except it seems that voting around here is more like the d'Hondt system. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, my Droop quota for this subject is certainly decreasing. DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hope this can be a compromise between pro and anti country partisan parties. The wording provides a fair reflection of a long discussion considering the quality of the arguments and the history of how they came about. The change is not perfect but still a streamlining improvement in direction of more clear and concise presentation of greater context. Current para #2 in the lede is OK but a bit odd and confusing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - I really don't like the wording 'England (which included Wales)', which grossly over-simplifies to the point of being misleading; I think that this version fails to clearly and properly explain why the constituent parts of the UK are regarded as countries, whilst giving the impression that it has provided a definitive explanation - it is actually impossible to provide such an explanation in two lines of text; it places excessive emphasis of the monarchical aspect of the UK; and it draws far too glib an analogy between the union of England and Wales with Scotland and the later union with Ireland. This version tries to explain very complex issues in a few lines of text and in the process misleads, obfuscates and gives WP:UNDUE emphasis to certain issues. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretty hard to place excessive emphasis on the monarchical aspect of the United Kingdom, when it's right there in the name. Also, at the time of the Union of 1707 - which is what the draft refers to in the relevant part - the Kingdom of England did include Wales, the Principality and Marcher Lordships (as Ghmyrtle rightly reminds us) having been incorporated into the Kingdom of England some 150+ years earlier. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per the line "Countries within a country". GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, its clumsy compared with other options and is a little pointy --Snowded 07:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Just out of interest, what's pointy about it?

Also, since some have indicated that the wording as blocker, I'm not tied to the words. Rather, it is the approach of giving creater context to "country" that I'm suggesting. --RA (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support this sort of approach with it clearly being explained in the second paragraph (although i do not agree on the present proposed wording). But this is a damn sight better than the offensive compromise suggested further up this page which is a blatant one sided attack on the United Kingdom refusing to allow it to be called a country whilst 4 parts of the UK are described as a country in the second sentence of this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's "refusing to allow it to be called a country". It's recognising that the term is ambiguous, and that "sovereign state" is more precise. All sovereign states are countries. Some non-sovereign states are also countries, and so the word is also the term most commonly used for them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal refuses to call the United Kingdom a country yet calls England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in the second sentence of the first paragraph countries. This article introduction should make absolutely clear the United Kingdom IS a country to avoid any doubt, just saying it is a sovereign state is not enough. People can easily come away from that introduction just thinking - UK = Sovereign state / Countries = England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. the proposal is one sided and provides less information and clarification than the present wording in the article, even if the current wording is rather odd atleast it makes the case very clear that the UK is a country in its own right but made up of four countries. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please try to avoid appearing to personalise this by using words like "Your proposal refuses...." I may have proposed it, but it doesn't mean I'm any more personally committed to any one form of words than any other - it's just a means to try and resolve the problem. And words don't "refuse" to do anything - they are just different words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I voted for Ghmyrtle's option A and would like to stick with that. I do however have no problem with British Watchers idea of describing the UK as a country, if it were possible keep the text flowing. Carson101 (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone interested in testing "sovereign country"....? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Smart thinking. Yes, changing sovereign state to sovereign country on option A would certainly keep the text flowing. I think it works. Carson101 (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Very slick! Well done. DeCausa (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not! Tautology (rhetoric) ... "saying the same thing twice". ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle Option A and "sovereign country"

Ghmyrtle Option A with the change from sovereign state to sovereign country:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign country that includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands, located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. It comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which is the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another sovereign state—the Republic of Ireland. Apart from this land border the UK is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the English Channel and the Irish Sea.

The United Kingdom is a unitary state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London. There are three devolved national administrations, each with varying powers, situated in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh; the capitals of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland respectively.....etc.

• Support Carson101 (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Just to be clear, I'm not proposing this as being any better than RA's proposal that we've been discussing, so I think it's premature (sorry!) to start "!voting" now. If it's an option that some people prefer, we can consider it alongside "my" Option B as well as RA's wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's out there now for people to decide if they prefer it or not, so I see no harm in allowing people to vote on it. Carson101 (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Only that it's confusing to do it outside a slightly more formalised process. I wouldn't necessarily !vote for it myself, given RA's different and at least equally defensible approach. There is a question mark in my mind about linking from non-obvious terms like "sovereign country">sovereign state. I doubt whether it would meet FA standards, for example. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Absolutely Oppose. This Sovereignty-Association language was used by the Province of Quebec to retro-actively re-define its relationship to the Dominion of Canada. Very bad idea in the United Kingdom article. Very bad idea indeed. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, per the usage of countries for E/N/S/W. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, as it is a minor point, but I don't want to have to argue about re-editing this again, if we are considering this can we please have the tidier?:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign country that includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands, located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. It comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The last of these is the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another sovereign state—the Republic of Ireland, otherwise the UK is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the English Channel and the Irish Sea.

The United Kingdom is a unitary state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London. There are three devolved national administrations, each with varying powers, situated in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh; the capitals of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland respectively.....etc.

It also has the virtue of making the four parts of the UK clearer, which I (think) everyone would agree is no bad thing.--SabreBD (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Absolutely Oppose. This Sovereignty-Association language was used by the Province of Quebec to retro-actively re-define its relationship to the Dominion of Canada. Very bad idea in the United Kingdom article. Very bad idea indeed. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - With two provisos: (i) that 'sovereign country' be changed to 'sovereign state and country'- a state is always a country but a country need not be a state - there should be no room for doubt that the UK remains a sovereign state (I am unsure as to why there is so much concern about describing the UK as a country, but have nothing against it, it is merely duplicative); and (ii) that, 'located off the north-western coast of continental Europe' goes before 'which includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands'.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment It's fine. I think it would be even better to combine it with RA's approach, which I also think is an excellent idea (even if the specific words have to be tweaked). I think his suggestion of putting it in context really is the answer...if what we are about is giving information rather than hanging POVs on particular words. DeCausa (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with De Causa. This lanuage is fine so far as it goes, but it conveys less information than RA's draft. A bit more context is required. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I certainly prefer this proposal to some of the ones above as it does make clear the UK is a country, but i would prefer we tackle the EWSNI = countries issue in more detail in the second paragraph (as suggested above by RA) putting it into context and where we also mention the respective capitals, it seems to make sense to put all of that together, rather than touch on it in the first paragraph and second paragraph separately. But on this wording i too would prefer stating sovereign state and country separately as Rangoon suggests above. Although i would put it "country and sovereign state", that sounds the more correct order for some reason. Another alternative would be put sovereign country rather than it being one link to the state page. But i do think this is a better option than some of the others. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Terrible wording, we have seen "this" ..."Commonwealth and Free State" before ... :( ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose usage of country as a descriptive. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Attempting to integrate the proposals

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a country and sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe, that which includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands. It comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which is the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another sovereign state—the Republic of Ireland. Apart from this land border the UK is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the English Channel and the Irish Sea.

The United Kingdom is a unitary state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London. It was originally formed through a series of constitutional unions over several centuries, followed by the secession of the Irish Free State in 1922. There are three devolved national administrations within the UK, each with varying powers, situated in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh; the capitals of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland respectively. Associated with the UK, but not constitutionally part of it, are three Crown Dependencies and fourteen overseas territories. These are remnants of the British Empire which, at its height, encompassed almost a quarter of the world's land surface and was the largest empire in history. British influence can still be observed in the language, culture and legal systems of many of its former territories.

• Absolutely Oppose. "...Country and Sovereign State,..." terrible wording, we have seen "this" ..."Commonwealth and Free State" before ... :( ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - A couple of minor points though: (i) I don't think that the comma before 'located off' is necessary; and (ii) I don't think that the comma after 'continental Europe' is necessary, and the following 'that' should in my view be 'which'.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think the comma after Europe is needed, but maybe we can leave that to the copyediting process. Otherwise, duly tweaked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - with the proviso of the minor changes I have already mentioned twice. Its funny I can see what I am typing but apparently no one else can.--SabreBD (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I did see your suggestions, but I'm afraid (given that I normally agree with you) that I preferred my wording. Assuming they are not fundamental points, can they be left to the copyediting wizards to sort out later? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support DeCausa (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I think this is a reasonable compromise which provides the reader with more information than the current article wording. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - one minor point, if I may; United Kingdom should be spelled out fully here: Associated with.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why UK should be spelled out there, but not in the other places where it occurs? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that UK is already bolded.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Good compromise. Carson101 (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support though I think the phrase 'constitutional unions' should be 'political unions'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think, given that is the terminology used at History of the formation of the United Kingdom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - the UK is not a "unitary state" (sic). It certainly claims to be a unitary state, but anybody who knows anything whatsoever about the UK's constitution knows that nothing could be further from the truth. It is Misplaced Pages's duty to not only present what governments want the general public to believe, but also the cold, hard facts. --Mais oui! (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not only is the UK a unitary state, it is frequently given as a classic example of such. Devolution has not affected the sovereignty of the Westminster parliament as power was devolved from it to the devolved parliaments and assemblies. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Very true, the UK parliament within a day could abolish all local councils, devolved assemblies and parliaments if needed. It may spark a little civil war and be politically difficult, but Westminster has the absolute power to do it. So the UK is still a unitary state with all power rested in one sovereign parliament above all other things. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There's the old axiom - I can't remember who said it, probably someone like Bagehot, that parliament can do anything except turn a man into a woman and vice versa. Of course, that's possible now too... DeCausa (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose "…is a country and sovereign state…" ̄— This is an embarrassing hodgepodge of a tautology. However, mainly I oppose because: "It comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland…" —Northern Ireland has no history of being a country in its own right and is not one today (as can be seen in discussion of this question in reliable sources from across perspectives on Northern Ireland). The constituent parts of the UK may frequently be collectively described as countries but for the specific case of Northern Ireland that needs to be taken with a good measure of salt. We don't need to repeat it here as "fact" for the sake of stressing the country-ness other parts. --RA (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC

Your republican-friendly definition of 'country' is really only one of many RA, and you know that. The different definitions of country is one of the problems here: by using Sovereign State and country at least this is in some way expressing that. It also looks a little less awkward than I thought it might. But (correct me if I'm wrong anyone) we haven't explored just using "Sovereign state" and "countries within a country" yet have we? There are good sources for that one too. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Matt, enough with the personal attacks. If you cannot contribute here without passing comment on contributors (perceived) ethnic backgrounds or political perspectives as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views, you need to leave. You were warned already by another editor. Now, I'm warning you. If you continue, I'll simply report you.

I appreciate that most of your post above was not of that sort but that does not excuse your opening comment. --RA (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it by your definition though? I mean, the politics involved are written into the footnote of the United Kingdom article - that someone's opinion of the use of 'country' for NI can reveal their politics. I'm only following Misplaced Pages. Do you see my point? I've not said that there is anything wrong with wishing to unite Ireland (it's simply an opinion), only in bringing a bias into the text of Misplaced Pages (whatever non-immediate or even unintentional way that may be). Matt Lewis (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Matt, your approach to me demonstrate a bias and a lack of faith. It is a founding principle of Misplaced Pages that articles be written from a neutral point of view. That means representing fairly the views of differing reliable sources, including those which you find offensive to your personal sensibilities for one reason or another. Misplaced Pages is no place for you to pursue your politics and talk page discussions are no place for you to repeatedly attack me. I will not warn you again. Drop it. --RA (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, NPOV. Even with the best will, we don't always get it right do we? It's not actually personal, and you are wrong to insist it is. I'm entitled to complain that an actual edit has an inference (or bias) of anything I see in it. That is what Misplaced Pages editing (and working towards NPOV) is all about. You shouldn't take it personally, as much as anything it works to prevent me from making the point (another issue I keep having). If I am being too personal (like my "smell the coffee" comment) then ok, fair enough, complain. I do get exasperated at times, and I do sometimes add unneeded lines like the above (as many of us can, I think). But never in my points RA: they are honestly all about making articles NPOV. They are not me "persuing my poltics", and that suggestion is kind-of personal itself. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That's BS. You wrongly labelled me an "Irish nationalist". You're unable to distinguish between NPOV and opposing your POV-pushing. In fact, to you, opposing your POV = lack of NPOV. DeCausa (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

But what have you got to do with it? Anyone would have made that mistake given your edits and the equal-weight to sovereign/republican "controversy" comments (etc) you made on my talk page - and it took you ages to explain your highly-unusual position in all this, despite my prompts. You were raw with me from the first time you spoke to me. The above comment of mine is both genuinely honest and is solid and reasonable too. The Northern Ireland section below created by RA is proof that he just won't let-up on this 'country' "controversy" issue - ok, it's his prerogative, but imo it just isn't helping at all. It's over at NI, and now here. I'm entitled to get a bit exasperated. This is a massive page that is now almost collapsing my PC. If you want me to stop commenting here just carry on creating new sections like that! Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Matt, all you need to do is confine your comments to content issues and STOP speculating on the motives of other editors. We'd all make a lot more progress is that rule was followed by everyone --Snowded 05:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose usage of 'countries' as descriptives. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - (with minor tweaks) scans well & provides all the important information. Daicaregos (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Which minor tweaks did you have in mind? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the sentence following "... Northern Ireland" doesn't seem as elegant as the rest. Perhaps something like ... Northern Ireland, the only part of the UK to share a land border with another a sovereign state (the Republic of Ireland). And after "... parliamentary system," perhaps change ... parliamentary system, with; its seat of government in the capital city of London. Re: "It was originally formed through a series of constitutional unions over several centuries ... " I'm not keen on beginning a sentence with "It was", though I can't think how to improve it at the moment, and "originally" seems redundant. How about these minor tweaks: The UK's three devolved national administrations, each with varying powers, are in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh; the capitals of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland respectively. As I say minor, and certainly not dealbreakers. Daicaregos (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support --Snowded 05:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

" comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland…"

Hmmm. Now, we've been through the reliable sources (at least on Talk:Northern Ireland), so let's just take litmus test of what 'sounds right'.

Consider the following:

• Northern Ireland is a country in Northern Europe
• Northern Ireland is a country on the island of Ireland
• Northern Ireland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom

None of those sentence sit very well. Compare with:

• Scotland is a country in Northern Europe
• Scotland is a country on the island of Great Britain
• Scotland is a country that is part of United Kingdom

All of these are on far firmer ground, regardless of whether Scotland is sovereign or not.

And that's the problem. It appears that Northern Ireland is being whipped into this "country" issue for the benefit of other parts of the UK regardless of whether the appellation "country" is suitable for it or not. The very specific and unique history of Northern Ireland within the UK should not be obtusely ignored simply because it is inconvenient. England, Scotland and Wales are all considered countries because they represent specific and identifiable nations. They were countries before the United Kingdom and have kept that distinctiveness within the UK. Northern Ireland does not have that same history. It doesn't represent a specific and unique nation and it has no history of being a country in its own right.

Yes, it is possible to doggedly refuse to accede this point by pointing to questions that appear on census forms or some other whatnot. On the other hand, sources that specifically address Northern Ireland and precisly the question of what to call it say otherwise. For example:

"One specific problem - in both general and particular senses - is to know what to call Northern Ireland itself: in the general sense, it is not a country, or a province, or a state - although some refer to it contemptuously as a statelet: the least controversial word appears to be jurisdiction, but this might change." - S. Dunn and H. Dawson, 2000, An Alphabetical Listing of Word, Name and Place in Northern Ireland and the Living Language of Conflict, Edwin Mellen Press: Lampeter

This is represents specific challenges but ignoring it does not make it go away and does not do the subject justice. --RA (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly true that Northern Ireland has no history of being a country in its own right. However, in the context of the constitutional history of United Kingdom, it does represent a specific and unique nation: the Kingdom of Ireland. (Remember, the Crown of Ireland Act 1542 is still very much in effect in NI).Ivor Stoughton (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is as much of a country today as Scotland. . BritishWatcher (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

And that is regardless of what reliable sources say? Or are you saying that Scotland "is not a country, or a province, or a state" either? --RA (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The specific issues of terminology in relation to Northern Ireland can and should be addressed in greater detail in the main text of the article (rather than, as now, in a footnote). But, the question we are trying to address here is, what wording in the introductory two or three paragraphs provides the best summary of - or, if that can't be achieved, the most informative and neutral introduction to - those issues, in a way which gives them due weight, without either under- or over-emphasising their importance to the UK as a whole. No-one yet, anywhere so far as I can see, has come up with a clear and succinct terminology which describes the (arguably) varying degrees of "country-ness" of the four constituent parts of the UK. So, in my view we inevitably return to the question of whether it is necessary and helpful to describe either the UK or any of its constituent parts as a "country", given that that word is both ambiguous and, to some degree, contested. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, one size does not fit all. On the specific example of Northern Ireland, it takes a great deal of undue weight to pass Northern Ireland of as a "country" in the same sense as, say, Scotland. And therein lies the problem: this is a complex and nuanced matter that is being dealt with through sweeping statements in as few words as possible.

And yes, we've heard that it is imperative that (all of) these places be called "countries" in the introduction - but we have not heard what that imperative is. I don't believe that it is necessary or that it is helpful. I think it is more confusing than anything else. --RA (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not in my book. Whilst there are sources that call northern Ireland other things, the same can be said for Wales and to a lesser degree Scotland and England. The main case for calling them countries is down to the fact things like the BBC and the Government along with certain government agencies call them all countries. If we suddenly stop saying Northern Ireland is a country then every single source that states it is one should be disqualified from being used as justification for England, Wales and Scotland being countries. That would seriously weaken their right to be called countries, and all 4 "country" articles would have to be revisited. Sources or no sources, the fact remains today as an entity Northern Ireland has just as much right to be called country as Scotland. In fact, in one way it has more right because the British and Irish governments have absolutely guaranteed they will respect the people of Northern Ireland's wish on its constitutional future. Scotland has no such assurance. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

One article at a time please. We are discussing this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The language here ("hmmm" etc) and all the incorrect stuff (this is over at NI talk too) is a huge hindrance to following this talk page in my opinion. The tone isn't right at all, as it is so dismissive of the (almost-full) majority of people in this discussion who accept the many NI "country" sources. Can't we keep this at NI? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Tweak for NI

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a country and sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe, that which includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands. It comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (although the latter is not always referred to as a country ). Apart from a land border with the Republic of Ireland, the UK is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the English Channel and the Irish Sea.

With a sub-section in main body along the lines of the old footnote. DeCausa (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per usage of 'country'. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The footnote gets too politiced, and the others aren't always called "countries" either (esp Wales, though not so much these days, like NI). I do wish you'd read up on this DC. And I thought we were creating in identity section to bypass the footnote anyway? That was your best idea. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read up on it plenty. There is overwhelming coverage of E/W/S being referred to as countries. Non-point. DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - This crude wording gives a misleading impression of Northern Ireland having a different status within the UK than the other home nations. A textbook definition of WP:UNDUE.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Either all 4 parts of the UK are countries today or none of them are. There can be no special treatment. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ("although the latter is not always referred to as a country") is sloppy and appears to contradict the previous description of NI as a country.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sovereign State and "countries within a country".

The United Kingdom (fully titled United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and commonly termed United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign state in the archipelago situated off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The UK comprises the whole island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and a number of smaller islands around its coasts. Waters that surround the UK are the Atlantic Ocean in the west, the Irish Sea (between Ireland and Great Britain), the North Sea in the east, and the English Channel between the European mainland in the south. The UK has only one land border with another sovereign state, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

The United Kingdom consists of four "countries within a country": England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales....

Note, It can apply to the old text too of course, I just personally found it a bit creaky. Probably becuase it's been re-written around these problematic terms so many times. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

@Matt: I don't want to be a pain, and you may dislike my wording as "clunky" or whatever, but there are a number of wording points in your draft that just don't work, or are unnecessary. That is one reason why I haven't commented on your options before. "Comprises of" is ungrammatical. The islands are not necessarily "near its coasts" (Shetland?) The Atlantic is not "west of NI" (Donegal is), but it is west of Cornwall. "Towards Scandinavia" is unnecessary verbiage. "Before the European mainland".... ?? "Just the one" - unencyclopaedic. It is not "governed under" a constitutional monarchy. This is not intended to have a go at you in any way - just some copyediting comments really, to explain why I haven't made "my" options match "your" wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You are right, I'm using colloquial speech. And as for "west of Ireland" - I'd forgotten how low in comparison NI was! I've removed it anyway. The island/coast idea is to specify UK islands (ie not Irish ones) - I've changed it to "around". I'll try "between" for "before" re Europe (though neither did seem perfect to me I admit). I used 'Scandinavia' so not to use England there (or repeat Great Britain) - I'll just remove it. It is an encyclopedia after all, so I've made your changes. The "governed under" line wasn't mine - I just copied and pasted it from the main article - so oviously I'll delete it. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose usage of country as a descriptive. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Aren't we trying all the possible variations to see which is best? (ie with an open mind?). You used to insist on "country! Matt Lewis (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's time for the E/N/S/W side, to show open-mindedness. I've reached my limit. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I want it clearly stated that the UK is a country within the first sentence of the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Then you are very demanding then aren't you, because the UK is also a sovereign state. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"I want..." never got my children anything. I suggest that, here, there needs to be a justification, and it should be based on sources and WP policy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ive stated above reasons why i believe it needs stating in the introduction so i see no need to repeat it. That is why i have supported your proposal above, it makes clear the UK is a country and sovereign state, then makes clear its made up of four countries. That looked like the thing that would get the most support as it meets most peoples criteria. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Heaven forbid i want an article on a country to say it is a country in its introduction. I know im extremely unreasonable arnt i?! BritishWatcher (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've made many proposals.... (sigh) One option seems to be (as well as describing the UK as a sovereign state) to describe "everywhere" (both UK and E/S/W/NI) as "countries" in the lead/lede; the other option is to describe none of them as "countries". The question is, which of those is most neutral and balanced? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the - "Attempting to integrate the proposals" one has been by far the most fair and reasonable one so far so i support that one. It provides more information to the reader than leaving off the fact the UK and EWSNI are considered countries which seems to be the next fairest option, but not saying the UK is a country in the introduction of an article on a country is unthinkable, so its not the right option. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - does not improve on Ghmyrtle's proposal above. Daicaregos (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I prefer the wording of the other drafts above which I have supported.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sovereign country and "countries within a country"

The United Kingdom (fully titled United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and commonly termed United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a Sovereign country that shares the archipelago off the north-western coast of continental Europe. It consists of four "countries within a country": England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The UK comprises the whole island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and a number of smaller islands around its coasts. Waters that surround the UK are the Atlantic Ocean in the west, the Irish Sea (between Ireland and Great Britain), the North Sea in the east, and the English Channel between the European mainland in the south. The UK has only one land border with another sovereign state, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

This is based on Ghmytles' neat "Sovereign country" idea (a poll that seems to have been missed by people), and includes his suggestions to my prose. I've linked "Sovereign" to the 'Sovereign state' article, and "country" to the 'Country' article. There are decent sources for "countries within a country". I personally favour linking all of island of Ireland in these circumstances, as it's most unambiguous version (and this is the United Kingdom article) - but it's a small issue. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, per "countries within a country". GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I prefer the wording of the other drafts above which I have supported.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Something missing, something different

If the lead notes that Britain can stand, pars pro toto, for the UKoGB&NI, it seems at best unhelpful not to state that England can do likewise. There seem to be sufficient sources disputing the idea that the UK0GB&NI is a unitary state to make the inclusion of this factoid in the lead questionable. If union state were found to be the commoner term - I do not believe that it is, but I haven't devoted much time to the question - this would allow the question of how to describe the components of the union to be nearly avoided by simply enumerating them as parts of the union state. The red-linkiness of that term is easily resolved since it is widely discussed.

Taking ghmyrtle's text as the basis, a very quick draught incorporating these two points would look something like:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, Britain, or England) is a sovereign state that includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands, located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. It comprises the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which, is the only part of the UK that sharesto share a land border with another sovereign state—the Republic of Ireland. Apart from this land border the UK is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the English Channel and the Irish Sea.
The United Kingdom is a unitary stateunion state comprised of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London. There are three devolved national administrations, each with varying powers, situated in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh; the capitals of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland respectively.....etc.