Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Intro

We've an apparent edit-war going on at this article's intro. Would those in disagreement, please settle things 'here'? GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Edit wars happen when controversial changes are made, and repeated, when there is clearly no consensus for the changes proposed. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Brocach has been told before a month ago avbout this very subject. He quite possibly deserves a sanction for continually trying to be disruptive. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from the significant amount of debate on this and other pages, the terms used to refer to Northern Ireland are very often controversial - just above here you can even see an attempt to revive the meaningless term 'province'. All I have ever tied to do - and you can all see this - is to insert neutral language in place of, or as alternatives to, contested terms. I am not disrupting anything other than the efforts of those who want Wikipedia to use only terms acceptable to Unionists. I would really, really welcome a single response here that disproves the contention that "country" in relation to Northern Ireland is a politicaly loaded term - no-one has even tried to do this. The "disruptive" edit warriors are those who automatically and without justification keep reverting my neutral edits. Brocach (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Brocach - it has been made clear that it is up to you to find the reliable sources that demonstrate that the term is contentious within NI. It may well be so, and, if it is, there would be a strong case for changing wording here, but other editors cannot simply take your word for it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)You should read up on WP:BRD before you call other people disruptive edit warriors. All of your recent edits have been to much discussed issues and you have to learn to use the talk page. You also have to learn to provide evidence for your assertions in the form of reliable third party sources. Oh and please don't comment on the motivations of other editors. There will be a few who will be highly amused at the thought that I am editing from a Unionist perpsective as you suggest --Snowded ^TALK 10:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I would dearly love to see this issue resolved via Talk but there are certain editors who are determined to defend the use of a non-neutral term, and to revert my every good-faith edit while accusing me of "edit warring" or "disruption". It is unreasonable to demand that I produce "reliable third party sources" to demonstrate a point that no-one, here or elsewhere, has even contested: the term is not used by Nationalists so it is not a neutral term. I have not sought to substitute other politically loaded terms from the Nationalist side - that really would be edit warring - but only to use inoffensive, wholly neutral terms, not one of which anyone has contested as neutral and factually accurate. BTW I am not suggesting that you, Snowded, are editing from a Unionist perspective - your politics are your own affair - but anyone who tries to supress neutral terminology in relation to Northern Ireland is editing in a way that serves Nationalism or, in this case, Unionism, and is abusing a basic principle of Wikipedia. Brocach (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Brocach, you need to stop telling us what you think, and find some reliable third party sources that back up your position. Until you do so you are wasting everyone's time. Also given that I have reverted several of your edits I think its reasonable to assume that your comments were aimed at me and others. You should also stop doing that, address content please not the motivations of other editors. --Snowded ^TALK 11:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder if those who revert my edits actually read what I say - it's all about content. I keep my own political views to myself. I assert as fact that "country" is a non-neutral term in relation to Northern Ireland (ditto nation, statelet, province etc.) and have never sought to substitute or give as an alternative anything that is not neutral. I have no argument with (or interest in) your politics, Snowded - but if you want to keep reverting my edits please explain why you think they are wrong; for example, why do you think that Northern Ireland can't be described as "a part of" the United Kingdom? Brocach (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This has become rather tedious. Please keep the discussion in one place. I agree with Mabuska above - sanctions are likely to be the only option to stop this tendentious editing. Daicaregos (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Broach you need to understand (i) you need citations and (ii) you have to get agreement on the talk page before you edit the article. Fail to learn that lesson and sanctions will be the only way forward. --Snowded ^TALK 11:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Twelve citations for Northern Ireland as "not a country" here - and numerous other references, the last three particularly clear on the political sensitivities involved. All of my edits have been purely NPOV and if sanctions are in order, they are for those who are determined to edit against NPOV. Brocach (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

And just above it, many many more citations that it is a country, WP:WEIGHT applies here. If you want to propose an edit HERE with linked citations on sensitivities then we can all look at it. Oh and you might want to read of on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. you can't draw conclusions that something is controversial unless you find a third party source which says it is. --Snowded ^TALK 12:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What are ya suggesting Northern Ireland be called? GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Playing by the book Brocach does make life easier on you and everyone else here. There are many things i disagree with on Wikipedia but i don't go around removing them because i believe they are wrong unless i have proper resources to back it up. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont think Brocach knows what neutral means. I am happy to go with the official line taken from the British Government on the matter that Northern Ireland is a Country. Ofcourse a minority of sources will suggest otherwise, but given that many of the sources are written by independent authors, there is no way to tell of their political persuasion or if they carry a neutral point of view. You would never ask Michael Moore for a neutral opinion of George Bush? Irish Republicans have never acknowledged Northern Ireland as a country as to do so would admit defeat in their play for a United Ireland. Even Sinn Fein politicians will not utter Northern Ireland preferring to say 'The North of Ireland'. So to demote Northern Ireland from country status would not be neutral by any means.Afterlife10 (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Your opening sentence could be interpreted as a personal attack or breach of good faith Afterlife, i would suggest amending it. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Its not a personal attack, I assure you. You would have to be pretty thin skin to be offended by that.Afterlife10 (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Constituent Country term...

Is this really a term used to describe the four countries of the UK? Fair enough I have heard of home nations for rugby and football but never Constituent Country. Are there any reliable sources for this term?Homebirdni (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In Global encyclopaedia of political geography (2009), M. A. Chaudhary and Gautam Chaudhary have a long section to define and explain the term. See here at p. 53. Moonraker2 (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit of a redundant term as it is hardly ever used. The UK national statistics refers to the UK as the four countries - http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/regional-statistics/index.html.Homebirdni (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom is a country too

It is incredible that we have this article talking about the Countries of the United Kingdom but nowhere do we make clear that the United Kingdom too is a country. This is a rather important factor that should not be overlooked. Just saying the United Kingdom is a sovereign state and is made up of four countries will make some people think the United Kingdom is not a country, the fact there is a FAQ on the UK talk page which reaffirms that the United Kingdom is a country, highlights how important this is. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Country has more than one meaning. The UK is a country in the sense of sovereign state. Since the lead already says "the UK is a sovereign state", we don't need to add anything to that. It would be like saying "the Isle of Man is an isle and island". ~Asarlaí 15:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Country has more than one meaning - All the more reason to also clearly state the United Kingdom is a country, not just a country that is a sovereign state. In what other meanings of the word country does the United Kingdom not fit? Your comment highlights perfectly why we need to say it. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What other definitions of country does the UK fall under, and can it be backed by reliable, non-neutral sources? ~Asarlaí 15:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the United Kingdom falls under the definition of "country" by every standard. What ones do you think would need sources to back up, you said yourself there were some different meanings. I can not think of any meaning where for example Scotland and England would be deemed countries, but the United Kingdom would not. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi BritishWatcher, I don't think anyone would argue that the UK was not a country - as ~Asarlaí says, it is a country in the sense of it being a 'sovereign state' which, in my understanding, makes it a country in all senses. I think however that it would look very awkward to say something like "the United Kingdom is a sovereign state and a country" since all genuinely sovereign states are countries. If both point have to be included - which I don't see the need for personally - better to have the UK called 'a sovereign state' in one sentence then refer to it as 'a country' in another. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Would it perhaps be appropriate to quote the Downing Street "country within a country" early on in the lead? --Breadandcheese (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Breadandcheese, I like that - perhaps the best place would be end on to the second sentence so that it could then read, "These four countries together form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which is a sovereign state: an arrangement described as 'countries within a country'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That arrangement of words sounds wierd. The following paraphrasing i think flows better; "The United Kingdom is a sovereign state composed of these four countries; an arrangement described as 'countries within a country'." Mabuska ^(talk) 23:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - much better! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind people of the point I made above (17 December) that the ref that's always been used for the "countries within a country" quote is now not on the current 10 Downing Street site - it's only on an archive site. I'd be very hesitant about using it as suggesting it represents the current UK government position. Perhaps use the wording "...an arrangement that has been described as 'countries within a country'...".Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes something like that would make it more clearer. Thanks everyone. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Alot of this potential confusion could be removed swiftly, if only there was more flexiabiltiy. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, unless they publish something that contradicts that statement then it should still be regarded as the governments position. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that WP should still use the present tense to describe the "four countries within a country" position, then I think you are entirely unjustified. It can be said that the terminology was used in 2005, but I've seen no references to support it being stated as the UK government's position at the present time. The government now is not the same as the government then, and events always move on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of the Isle of Man, the article should mention crown dependencies and British Overseas territories to be clear that they are not part of the UK. TFD (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Have they said that its no longer their position Ghmyrtle? Unless so you just can't say that a change of government means that its no longer policy. Politics doesn't work that way. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the use of that citation to suggest, imply or state that it is a current expression of the UK Govt's position cannot be justified - because it is not on the current Govt site, it is on an archive site from 2005. Not every subtle shift in political position is formally announced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Subtle shifts are a major problem in politics lol. We could always email the Downing Street website. I've got responses from them before. Though i may count as original research, but we let RA do it when contacting www.logainm.ie in regards to its status in regards to NI and formed a concensus around its response. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR, and unnecessary. See my suggestion above - "...an arrangement that has been described as 'countries within a country'..." Simple. And subtle shifts in politics go on all the time, it's just that they're often not noticed until later. And its conSensus, for the zillionth time - nothing to do with the census, everything to do with conSent. Grrr. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe i keep doing those mispellings to wind you up ;-) Hmm if its WP:OR i can get rid of the conSensus i agreed with RA on another matter as he carried out original research to back up his arguement. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Countries?

This whole article is highly confusing. The united kingdom is not comprised of countries by most people's understanding of the word country. The UK government can say what it likes but that doesn't make it true. It seems to be a victory of national pride over consistent use of language to refer to Northen Ireland, Scotland, and Wales as countries. Countries are in most cases members of the UN ( http://www.un.org/en/members/ ), The UK is a member but Northen Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are not. Countries normally issue their own passports, set their own taxes, make their own laws. Northen Ireland, Scotland, and Wales do not. Attempting to redefine country to mean something other than 'nation state' is unnecessary, and against normal usage of the word. Lands or nations of the United Kingdom would be a better title. Unixtastic (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Land" is not used to describe the UK's component parts and nations are communities of people, not places. The most common use is simply 'country' and that's what is reflected here. --Breadandcheese (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Scotland is a separate legal jurisdiction and is recognised as such worldwide. This article is needed to help explain to people who would otherwise misunderstand that where countries join together to make larger, united, political entities, they do not cease to be countries just because they are now part of a larger entity. Hence the United Kingdom is, as the No 10 weebsite describes it, 'a country made up of 4 countries'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I would assume people call the parts of the UK countries because of cultural reasons, not a reference to their historic status as sovereign states. --Breadandcheese (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Breadandcheese, your comment made me do a little research to try to find an early reference to Scotland as a country - I decided to look in legislation passed by the Parliament of Scotland prior to 1707 and found a record from 1388 (18 August, Linlithgow, General Council Records) which stated "..and it would also place a heavy burden on him in such a troubled time, and [would be] useless and excessively expensive both to him and the entire country;" - This would certainly seem to imply that Scotland was described as a country while it was independent, and that this has merely continued after the Treaty of Union with Scotland now being seen as a country within the United Kingdom. Just a bit of original research!!! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Few if any would dispute the use of the word 'country' in Scotland's case - or, for that matter, in relation to England and to Wales. The only contentious case is Northern Ireland, where it is highly controversial to describe the place as a 'country'. The term is used exclusively by those on the unionist side of the main political divide in Northern Ireland and a neutral term, such as region, should be preferred on Wikipedia. Brocach (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

On a point of information, the UN link above gives a list of states, not a list of countries Fasach Nua (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe calling the parts of the UK countries will be hard to understand for a lot of people who assume that a country is an independent nation state. I can see this argument has been gone over a number of times and will concede the point. Clearly a great number of people think the current wording is correct. Fishiehelper2, that's interesting but I would expect Scotland to be a country ( or my definition of one ) whilst it was independent. Unixtastic (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia; users should expect to discover information beyond their everyday knowledge. That is its raison d'être. Because some people may be ignorant of a word's usage in other parts of the world is insufficient reason to stop using it. I thoroughly approve of educating them that 'country' and 'sovereign state' are not synonyms. The word 'countries' is linked to the country article. If a reader is unsure of its meaning they can read the article. There is no reason to change the existing wording. Daicaregos (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You're getting mixed up. England doesn't equate the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is GoodDay - no-one said England was the UK. Daicaregos and Fishiehelper2 are correct in saying that 'country' is not the same as 'state' - where I depart from them is in saying that neither term should be applied in Wikipedia to Northern Ireland, which does not have the same claim as the ancient 'countries' of England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland did not exist as an administrative, political or judicial division until 1921, just within living memory - and the term 'country' when applied to that part of the UK is not a neutral term, because within Northern Ireland it is used exclusively by those on one side of the main political/cultural/religious divide. To call Northern Ireland a 'country' here is to align Wikipedia with the British/Protestant/unionist majority in Northern Ireland and to alienate the Irish/Catholic/nationalist minority who never use the term 'country' in relation to the region. Brocach (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The UK government calls them countries & so they all are. What the Irish nationalist living in Northern Ireland like or dislike, is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Unlike England, Scotland and Wales, which in the past had legislation or declarations of their status as countries, Northern Ireland has never had any legislation nor declarations that have declared it a country. If you can prove otherwise please provide your source. 81.2.120.190 (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

My reading of the discussion above, and the similar discussions taking place in other pages referring to Northern Ireland as 'country', is that the term 'country' is the only one that is contested as non-neutral. No-one has taken issue with the use of the many neutral terms available, such as 'part' of the UK, 'region' of the UK or 'political division' of the UK. I will therefore substitute the NPOV uncontested term because it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia to advance a partisan view on Northern Ireland politics. Brocach (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a {{cn}} tag to your comment added to the article, as it needs to be sourced from a reliable source. As to you point that "country" is a non-neutral term, that may well be so, but it is the term used by the British government, and that's what the article is about - the term's use by the sovereign government. I think it would be better to keep the Lead uncluttered with such objections, and add a well-cited section on the contesting of the term to the article, probably under the "Identity and nationality" section, which covers similar issues with Scotland and Wales. - BilCat (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually the most canonical source is legislation. The legislation that created Northern Ireland, the Government of Ireland Act 1920 only referred to countries in ambiguous fashion of the various other countries of the UK and the collective parliaments of "Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland" with respect to stamp duties and probate matters. The Northern Ireland Act as enacted and as currently amended only contains the word country once as reference to bodies outside of Northern Ireland. From these listed acts it cannot be concluded that Northern Ireland is a country (or independent state for that matter). The fact that almost the entirety of the Ireland Act 1920 was ignored by the 26 counties, and lesser parts were ignored by the 6 probably means that this legislation probably carries even less weight. Countries and nations exist because legislation is created to say that they are so; the alternative is to rescind the rule of law. 81.2.120.190 (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is a fairly well-sourced section at Constituent country#United Kingdom. Id recommend cutting that section back to 1 or 2 paragraphs, and integrated the bulk of that section here, along with the lengthy notes, as that article should just give a brief overview. I think adding that material will accomplish what we all want here in clarifying the term and its controversies. - BilCat (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Brocach did you ever think that your edits violate NPOV? Your edits are unsourced and controversial. You are clearly ignoring a sourced statement from the sovereign government of the state that Northern Ireland belongs to.Mabuska ^(talk) 01:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't accept that my edits violate NPOV, nor has anyone even contested the fact that motivates me - to use "country" of Northern Ireland is politically controversial in Northern Ireland. I do not think that WP should use a term that has no official status or agreed meaning, and is unacceptable to a very large proportion of the population to which it is applied. That's all. Brocach (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brocach. I understand where you are coming from but unfortunately our own views on political issues are not relevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The fact that many people in Northern Ireland object to being described as 'British' does not alter the fact that the term 'British' is used to describe citizens of the United Kingdom - including people from Northern Ireland. Wikipedia must reflect this. Similarly, the fact that many people in Northern Ireland object to Northern Ireland being described as one of the 4 countries of the United Kingdom does not alter the fact that Northern Ireland, together with England, Scotland and Wales are sometimes referred to as the 4 'countries of the United Kingdom'. Wikipedia should also reflect this. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I hesitate to step in here in response to Brocach, but I think there may be a problem, in that the reference most frequently used for the "four countries" statement - "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland", dating from 2003 - was, when this article was drafted, on the 10 Downing Street site (Number10.gov.uk), and therefore had credibility and reliability as an official UK government statement. It is now not on that site - the link redirects instead to the archived site at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk, with the header "This snapshot taken on 09/09/2008, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives." That is, it is a snapshot of a past statement from 7 years ago, and cannot necessarily be taken to reflect the current UK government position. I have searched the current 10 Downing Street site, and other government sites, and cannot find a similar statement. I could well be wrong and would welcome others checking this. I would add that my only concerns relate to whether there is an official UK position that Northern Ireland should be treated as a country (other than as a convenient term in statistical summaries), as I certainly totally accept that there are clear and undeniable statements that England, Scotland and Wales are countries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Would this site be the kind of thing you were looking for? [1] Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That's just a statistical site run by a govt. agency - it's not a statement of the government's official position, which is a significant difference. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is however difficult to imagine that the National Statistical Office (which is not just another agency) would call something a country if it contradicted government policy --Snowded ^TALK 22:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that page has not been updated since 2005, and anyway the NSO will put great weight (simply for convenience, in tables etc.) in using consistent terminology when, as we know, the political geography of the UK is intrinsically inconsistent. I could be wrong, as I said, but I can't find a current statement of the govt's position that refers to NI as a "country". For example, this says: "We will build strong relationships with the administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and improve national devolution within a cohesive United Kingdom..." Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought it reasonable to assume that the govenment's position had not altered unless there was clear evidence to suggest that it had. Failure to find a current statement of the govt's position s hardly a basis to assume that the position has been altered. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:CRYSTAL is relevant here. Daicaregos (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. If there are statements on WP that the UK government defines NI as a "country", and if there are, in fact, no statements of current UK government position that do state that, then there is an inconsistency here that needs to be addressed. We all recognise that government positions on such contentious issues sometimes shift almost imperceptibly, through very nuanced and subtle changes. It is interesting, at the very least, that the previous statement that "the UK is made up of four countries", is now not contained in any Government statements, so far as I can see. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Would there be (by any chance) a reliable source that describe the 4 entities as constituent countries? I'm not certain if Encyclopedia Britannica source can be used (it says constituent countries). GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a separate issue not relevant to the discussion above. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Brocach is protesting Northern Ireland being described as a 'country'. If we prefer all 4 entities to be described the same, constituent countries is optional. It's something that shouldn't be completely dismissed. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple sources for three countries, plus NI which is a country in fewer senses than the others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle asked if there were still official sites making reference to the four countries of the United Kingdom. I've just come across one while looking for something else: This Department of Health press release [2], in describing a review of the Consultant pay rewards scheme, states towards the end of the article that "The review has been commissioned by Ministers of the four countries in the UK." Hope that is helpful. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Pleased to see some constructive engagement on this topic. But Fishiehelper2 should know the difference between a press release from the Department of Health for England and Wales, and an authoritative statement of law or policy regarding the status of Northern Ireland. While I was challenged earlier to provide evidence of the usage 'country' being sensitive within Northern Ireland, I again have to point out that as certain terms (country, nation, constituent country) are only ever used by unionists, and nationalists simply don't use or recognise them, I can't easily prove the negative - but it would be terribly easy for anyone who claimed that 'country' was a neutral term to provide one single reference to a nationalist using the term. No-one has done so, and in fact no-one has even challenged my statement that the term is non-neutral. Can we now move on? I have no problem with articles such as Countries of the United Kingdom reflecting the fact that some people (unionist, or uninformed) use the term 'country' of Northern Ireland - all I want is that the so-far uncontested fact that this is a politically loaded term in Northern Ireland should be recorded. I would like to see wording that reflects this objective fact, but that does not take any side as to whether Northern Ireland is in fact a country (constituent country, nation). Brocach (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You have to find a reference if you want to say that --Snowded ^TALK 21:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That's right. The problem, Brocach, is that what you say may well be true, but for Wikipedia to reflect the, quote, "fact that this is a politically loaded term in Northern Ireland", it needs to be demonstrably true, as shown by reliable sources accessible to those of us outside NI. At the same time, I think there is a case to review WP text that refers to "four countries within a country", for the reasons I've outlined above. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What I say about the term "country" being non-neutral is of course true, and no-one, not even among those who are determined to see Northern Ireland described as "country", has ever suggested otherwise. It is not necessary, and may not be possible, to document the fact that Irish nationalists never refer to Northern Ireland as "country" - that would be like asking for proof that Welsh nationalists don't refer to England as the Motherland. Brocach (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If I wanted to say that Welsh Nationalists don't refer to to England as the Motherland then I would have to find a citation to support it, or the insert would be removed. The same applies to you. If want to insert something that other editors contest find a reference or leave it alone. --Snowded ^TALK 10:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point Snowded - I'm absolutely not trying to insert a controversial point of view, but to insert neutral alternatives. No other editor has contested my statement that "country" in relation to Northern Ireland is a politically loaded term - so it should not be used in Wikipedia without neutral alternatives being given. Brocach (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of not "contesting" your statement - it's a matter of seeing some evidence either way. Most experienced editors here tend not to "contest" opinions per se, but simply to seek evidence either to support or oppose a contention. I haven't seen any reliable, neutral evidence on which I could either support or contest your view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The use of "country" is supported by citations Brocach and in NI the wording has been modified from that used in England, Wales and Scotland. Check back on the talk page histories. In all cases it has been based on citation. If you find something it will need to be post the GFA by the way. I remember being brought up to talk about the "six counties" as the only valid way of naming it. However the GFA changed that confirmed by referendum. --Snowded ^TALK 11:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, the term "Constituent Parts" might well be appropriate in this context, especially as the term "pa:rt" is fairly neutral. Do any other editors have any object to the use of this term? Martinvl (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That is one - but only one - of the neutral alternatives, Martinvl. However if you attempt to use it your edit will be immediately reverted by those determnined to stick with the controversial term. Brocach (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, now. As you can imagine, this is a controversial subject and has been discussed many times. We conducted an exercise some time ago here as part of those discussions, which were mediated. The description "country" or "countries" was the consensus achieved from those mediated discussions, and there is no reason to either re-open those discussions, nor to change the description. Daicaregos (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That exercise was (to say the least) imperfect, Dai - it manages, for example, to leave out what one if its own citations describes as the most neutral term, "jurisdiction", and can find only two reference to Northern Ireland as "province" when that term is very widely used (by Unionists). The main objection, though, is that a mere count of uses in a wildly varied set of sources - many long out of date, and some plainly wrong - gives no indication of whether any of the terms are politically loaded. It does manage to locate a dozen sources for Northern Ireland as "not a country" and 37 for Northern Ireland as "country" - which, if the exercise had any validity, supports my simple point that there is a controversy over whether or not Northern Ireland is a country. WP should not be used to argue for or against either view - neutral terms should be used where possible, or if a loaded term is used, that should be explained and one or more alternatives given. Brocach (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Brocach whether its perfect or not, concensus is concensus, and most sources back up usage of "country". As Ghmyrtle said, you have no evidence so far to back up your views, you only have synthesis and original research which don't go very far on Wikipedia as they are unreliable sources. Then again you have already been made aware of this at your talk-page. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you confuse "consensus" with "majority". Plainly a majority of the sources cited here like to refer to Northern Ireland as 'country'; but a significant minority of sources maintains that Northern Ireland is 'not a country'. Thus, the term is a controversial one, not a consensus. (Unless perhaps you think that, because a majority of people are monotheists, the 'consensus', and the only view that Wikipedia should reflect, is that there is one God...) I have been completely open in adding to this debate my expert knowledge about the status of the term 'country' within Northern Ireland politics (I say 'expert' with all modesty because it is an expertise shared with every politically aware person in Northern Ireland): specifically, that 'country' is a term that appeals only to Unionists and is disliked by, and may be offensive to, Nationalists. No-one has ever challenged me on that point - everyone who knows Northern Ireland politics well knows that it is a simple fact. I am not arguing for any of the terms preferred by nationalists - only arguing against the exclusive and uncritical use of a partisan term from any political camp. Brocach (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And everyone keeps asking you to come up with a 3rd Party RS which says it is controversial. Its not a question of challenging you or not, its one of avoiding original research or synthesis You are arguing a position that other editors may or may not sympathize with but that will get you no where until you have a source--Snowded ^TALK 16:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's best to have all 4 UK parts described the same way. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay, that may, or may not, be true, but that is not actually the main point in this discussion - the point is that what we say about things is governed by what is supported by reliable sources. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

As Snowded said Brocach, you need a 3rd party reliable source that states its controversial. Your word alone is not enough. Weight of sources or differing sources that use different terms doesn't show or prove controversy. You need to have a source that actually states that it is controversial, preferably one that says how its controversial. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Brocach, if you've got a source, we'll listen of course. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

To show that the term 'country' is controversial in its application to Northern Ireland does not require a single source stating "the term 'country' is controversial in its application to Northern Ireland": it is amply demonstrated by many sources already referenced in Wikipedia. I refer you yet again to the list of sources here - see in particular 143, 145-151 inclusive and 153 (all say 'not a country') and 144 ('country... blatantly absurd'); the point that 'names can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences' is made explicitly in 152 and alluded to also in 143, 144, 150, 153, 154. When the multiple sources - mostly coming within any reasonable definition of reliable - attesting that it should not be termed a country are set against the large number of sources, mostly also reliable, favouring the term country, the fact that it is controversial is proven. I do not understand why a small number of editors refuse to acknowledge this and keep reverting reasoned, good-faith edits to substitute or add neutral terms for the controversial term that they seem determined to impose on Wikipedia. Brocach (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brocach, I understand your frustration but my understanding of Wikipedia is that you are not allowed to come to your own conclusions as you have done - I'm not sure if that is 'Original Research' or 'Synthesis', or both, but in any case, that is not how Wikipedia operates. My understanding is that you are only allowed to state that 'the use of the term country to describe Northern Ireland is controversial' if you find a source that says that it is. I'm sure that must be frustrating, but if it is as controversial as you say - and I have no reason to doubt it - you must be able to find a source somewhere. Hope that's helpfulCheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If Brocach does find a source, it'll also have to meet reliability criteria, but that can be discussed if a source is provided. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Study and survey data on national identity

This article has for some time, and without exciting any comment, included material on national identity in Great Britain, supported by references to surveys: surveys are, of course, the only way one can establish with any degree of reliability how people in a particular place perceive their national identity. When I inserted exactly the same type of data for Northern Ireland, drawing directly from a long-running and highly reputable survey funded by government and carried out for the region's two main universities, Mabuska summarily deleted it - while leaving the British references untouched. I amended it to reflect the one flimsy point Mabuska made (about surveys not necessarily being reliable), and again Mabuska promptly deleted, with no valid reason stated for differentiating my accurate summary of the Northern Ireland data from the immediately preceding British data. So I'm putting it back in, and inviting Mabuska to state the case on this talk page for deleting all of the national identity section - it is simply unacceptable to forbid mention of Northern Ireland data that is no more or less valid that that offered just above it for other parts of the UK. Brocach (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I raised the issue over at your talkpage Brocach and also stated the rest of ths section is also possibly dubious so stop trying to pretend that i'm only acting on the Northern Ireland bit. That is very bad faith and uncivil and tarnishes your own arguement. I also reverted per WP:BRD meaning you should discuss it before reinserting it.

I removed it on the premise that it was a single newspaper poll which is not a terribly reliable source and can be classed as recentism. Upon further look i mistook the source, which it turns out isn't a newspaper poll so my mistake. However it wouldn't be the first time you made edits or arguements with nothing reliable to back them up. An apology for your implication i was being biased would be nice too. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Not clear whether you are still claiming that the Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey, which is relied on in a large number of WP articles, is an unreliable source, or whether you can suggest any way of measuring perceptions of identity other than via reputable surveys with good sample sizes. If 'no' to both, either the N Ireland material should stay in or you should propose dropping the whole section. If you re-read my message above you will see that I drew attention to your claim (with which I disagree) that surveys are 'dubious'. There was no incivility or 'bad faith' in my addition of neutral, and I believe authoritative, data complementing the rest of that section, and in particular I did not accuse you of, or imply, bias - I only raised the question of consistent treatment of the various parts of the UK. If you still object, please set out better reasoning and I invite other contributors to state, even very briefly, whether they think the whole section should stay or go. Brocach (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If you actually checked the article you will see i reverted my removal of it Brocach before your latest statement. Also if you read my last statement you'll see my accepting that i made a mistake in regards to the source being used. Does that imply i was wrong and made amends for it? To be precise i mistook the results for the Belfast Telegraph's poll done last year as the figures provided were very similar. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to exclude the survey results, which are from a reliable source, informative and add to the article. The current wording looks fine to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad you like my rewording of the section. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Happy for Mabuska to claim the credit, I suppose reverting an unjustified deletion is nearly as useful as creating text. Brocach (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering how more balanced and properly expanded the wording and statistics is from your version, i'll happily take credit for what i did. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A technical question

After some discussion, we've moved a Swedish and a Norwegian article to names reflecting that they are concerned specifically with the constituent parts of UK. I also removed their old iw linkage to Constituent country with iwsisters, and instead added Countries of the United Kingdom. Likewise, I removed the two old links from the former article, and added iwlinks to the new names (sv:Storbritanniens riksdelar and no:Storbritannias riksdeler, respectively) from this article.

I expected that 'bots should take care of the rest, as they seemingly always do, when it comes to consistent changes of the iwlinkage to other wp's for pages in the article space. However, nothing happens. I also note that Countries of the United Kingdom has much less than average links to iwsisters. Finally, following the links to these few iwsisters, and checking their sisters, shows that there seem to be some other misses and inconsistencies.

I could try to fix this by hand, in the limited number of seemingly involved wp's. However, there might be a lot of other ip's linking to the enwp one, where also the 'bots fell through; and, besides, in the future, one would want the iplinking changes to work normally for this article. Thus, I wonder, whether there is some nobot hidden somewhere, or something else that hampers the oterwise rather actively patrollong 'bots from fixing the iw of this particular page.

Is anybody able to enlighten me? JoergenB (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Do bots really sort those things out on their own volition? This article was made to solve a problem with "constituent country"; namely that some people on WP really dislike the term. One issue was that there was ambiguity over whether it is strictly a 'technical term' (see the main constituent country article - which now reflects the fact that it isn't a strict 'term' again, merely a simple phrase). The reason why so few articles link here is that it was created initially for Wales to link to, and for the other constituent countries to possibly use (they all did eventually) - after numerous edit wars over whether Wales was really a 'country' or not! (Obviously, the 'sovereign' UK is a country too). To at least some degree the edit warring was down to a nationalist vs 'unionist' positions, and maybe the inconsistencies you see are down to different choices in different articles (all of which are 'valid' enough, if inconsistent).

In my own opinion, both "constituent" and "country" are uncontroversial words in the real world, as is the phrase "constituent country". Despite the fact that I started this article (though I haven't actually read it for over a year!) I would be happy to see it deleted, and the simple term "constituent" used instead. All the information contained in here is (or should be) elsewhere on WP.

Sorry if the grammar is convoluted btw! My brain gets like that at times. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sort out what? I do not understand these remarks. The iw sisters are differently named, but concern essentially the same subjects. Some of their names translate as "The parts of the country Great Britain" (sorry, but in many languages Northerń Ireland is not mentioned explicitly, although the term refers to the entire UK); in one, the name is "Constituent countries (UK)"; in one we have "Countries in UK", and some are in languages I do not understand.

What is the trouble? Is there another article about the same subject, with a competing set of iw sisters? Else, a debate over a name (or even a mild criticism against the status as a separate barticle) do not usually inhibit the work of the 'bots. If an article name is changed, normally the software or 'bots correct the links at the iw sisters, too. Why should they not work for this article and its sisters?

Again, I'm not discussing links from other enwp (English wikipedia) articles. I wonder why e.g. creating a link from here to the nowp (Norwegian) no:Storbritannias riksdeler, and one from there to here, does not induce the 'bots to add the induced iw sister (e.g., between the cswp (Czech) and the nowp articles). JoergenB (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this talk page is the best place to ask this question. Perhaps you could try the UK Village Pump Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)) Joergen? Remember that (constituent country is not technically about the UK at all - it's just a phrase. Also, this article (Countries of the United Kingdom) is also only about a 'phrase' - it shouldn't ever be used in place of the United Kingdom article etc. Maybe these pointsw effect the bots? Sorry, I don't know enough about it. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I did put a request for 'bot help, referring to the item on this talk page. However, I've got no response to this request. I'm not quite sure that I'm asking at the correct place.

There are different main articles in nowp, svwp, et cetera, about the UK. They link to the enwp UK article. That is not the issue.

Likewise, some wp's have articles about "constituent countries" in general - although this is a doubtful phrase for some of the examples provided (for the same reason some people find the term improper for Northen Ireland). However, that is neither here, nor there. Such articles should be iwsisters with Constituent country, and in general they are. That is no reason why this article should not have a normal iw treatment. JoergenB (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I tried cleaning it up a bit, but in general it's a mess. Sooner or later, all interwiki bots end up getting links to both en:Countries of the United Kingdom and en:Constituent country, and as soon as an interwiki bot finds duplicate links, it stops processing that page and leaves it for a human to fix. ^Avic_ennasis @ 02:38, 4 Av 5771 / 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That the iw 'bots are confused at least is a reason for the inactivity!

Also, thanks for trying to "clean it up a bit"! However, in all honesty, I do not think your attempt was quite successfull.

In fact, as far as I understand the article contents, you removed appropriate links from svwp, cswp, nowp, and frwp to this article, and replaced the latter two with inappropriate links to Constituent country. For some reason, you only removed the frwp link from this enwp article, however.

I notice that your changes to and from the frwp sister were reverted three weeks later. I reverted the cswp, nowp, and svwp changes today.

At least the frwp sister, fr:Nation constitutive (Royaume-Uni), really has a confused list of iw links, mixing appropriate sisters of that article and ofsisters of Countries of the United Kingdom with some sisters of Constituent country. However, if this is the cause of the problem, the remedy ought to be to remove the inappropriate links, not to remove a couple of the appropriate ones, and reinstating some inappropriate ones.

I'll see what I can do to the frwp article, and hope that this will contribute towards a solution. In the mean-time, seemingly, I'll have to handle iw linkage at svwp and nowp by hand. JoergenB (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've done what I could to the frwp and plwp articles, which seemed to be the most confused sisters to Countries of the United Kingdom. There is actually an appropriate frwp sister of Constituent country, namely fr:Pays constitutif.

I believe that there would be much less trouble for the iw bots, now. However, one obstacle remains; and since it was the result of a merge after seeking consensus in a regular discussion on frwp, I do not touch this. The French merged their sister of Home Nations with their fr:Nation constitutive (Royaume-Uni), and added iw sisters of the former article to the latter one, when there was no other iw link from that language. Thus, the bots may still get confusing links between Countries of the United Kingdom and Home Nations, but only via the French article, I believe. JoergenB (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Repetition of the word country in different contexts

I've reverted to Brocach's version in the minor edit war over:

• "the countries of the UK have no official appellation" vs. "the parts of the UK have no official appellation"
• "As a sovereign state, the United Kingdom is the country which..." vs. "As a sovereign state, the United Kingdom is the entity which..."

These are simply sensible changes of terms for the sake of clarity. Using the word "country" in different contexts is unhelpful to the uninitiated. Additionally, the senstence that there is no official appellation for these places is made a little "tendentious" by use of the word "country" for these places, which is one purported appellation. Thus the sentence implies that, while there is no official appelation, "country" is (in the opinion of the authors of this article) the correct appellation.

We are all aware that there are POV issues around use and non-use of the word "country" to describes ENG/SCO/WAL/NOI. We need to be mindful of our own POVs and walk the line of NPOV. --RA (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've no probs with the proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

They way they article was written prior to Brocach's version was not lacking clarity, as claimed. The previous version was fine as it was and should stay. Daicaregos (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The article makes it clear what its on about so no need for country to be mentioned everywhere due to WP:OBVIOUS. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Equally no reason not to use it if its right in context. Substituting words other words that don't mean the same thing is no reason --Snowded ^TALK 12:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

In this case, the same word is being used in different contexts. That is potentially confusing. The changes make no difference to the meaning of these sentences but reduce that potential for confusion.

IMO, there is a degree of POINTyness to insisting that "country" be used in each and every possible context to describe these places just because "it's right". There are potentially over 1,000,000 words in the English language. We can use more than just one to describe these places. --RA (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well with ever a millions words we can do better than "parts". In any event the change was not a good one, if you think it needs something propose it, WP:BRD and all that --Snowded ^TALK 13:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)--Snowded ^TALK 13:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop citing BRD as a means to prevent changes (or as if it was policy). You do it in so many places, Snowded. (Of course, you are not alone in doing so nor are you the first to do so on this occasion.) It is incumbent anyone who truly believes in BRD to engage fully in discussion. Simply reverting until others produce something that you are happy with is not BRD. Neither is placing the onus for discussion on others.

If you are unhappy with "parts", please propose another word. "Constituent parts"? --RA (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Which policy are you quoting RA? I don't recognise it. Please provide the link. Daicaregos (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

RA, I'm happy with the current wording, I'm open to change if someone comes up with something sensible. If you want to change words which have been around for a long time then come up with an argument and please try and respect WP:BRD, its quoted a lot of the time when people are blocked for edit warring,. --Snowded ^TALK 19:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

@Dai — I'm referring to WP:BRD, which is not policy. It is an essay on a particular style of editing that it intended to aid the development of articles. It is not intended as a means to freeze articles or parts of articles in time.

@RA: saying " It is incumbent anyone ... [sic]" sounds as if you are trying to quote policy. If it is merely your opinion, it is not 'incumbent (upon) anyone'. You can't have it both ways. Please be more careful. Daicaregos (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Missed a bit, Dai: "It is incumbent anyone who truly believes in BRD..." BRD is not policy, but if you are going to cite it then follow it. --RA (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

@Snoweded — please refer to WP:CCC, which is policy. You may also be interested in reading WP:GAME, which is also quoted quite often when blocking people for abuse of the behavioral guidelines.

No one appears to be arguing against using "entity" in the first sentence above. Is "constituent part" acceptable for the other sentence or is there another suggestion? --RA (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Please calm down RA. Its not gaming to revert word changes with which one disagrees. You need to try (please) to stop making multiple silly accusations against other editors and discuss the content issues. If you want to test WP:BRD by edit warring feel free. If other editors agree I would be OK with entity, but I don't see any need for the change. Constituent part is unnecessary as a change in the other sentence. --Snowded ^TALK 20:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am calm, Snowded.

So, when you're done accusing me of edit warring (I edited this article once since last June), are we good to discuss changes to this article? Again, no one appears to be arguing against using "entity" in the first sentence above. What term apart from "country" would be acceptable for the other sentence? --RA (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Pleased to hear it RA, your various accusations on three pages and the clear failure to follow WP:BRD on an article with a 1RR restriction were leading me to think otherwise. I like country for the other sentence and see no reason to change it --Snowded ^TALK 20:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Snowded, you breached the 1RR on that article (here and here), not me. Additionally, from WP:BRD:

"BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense."

Please stop citing BRD as a means to revert edits you dislike and please don't frivolously accuse others of edit warring as a means to discredit them. --RA (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to delete the fourth and fifth sentences of the opening paragraph: "While "countries" is the commonly used descriptive term, owing to the absence of a formal British constitution and the long and complex history of the formation of the United Kingdom, the countries of the UK have no official appellation. As a consequence, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are not formal subdivisions of the United Kingdom and various terms are used to describe them." In my view, those sentences are not well written, and do not add any explanation; if anything, they tend to confuse those readers not already knowledgeable about the situation. That is not what WP articles should be doing. The opening three sentences, and the remaining paras of the introduction, are OK, though I think the opening sentence of second para could easily be reworded to avoid using words like "entity", such as: "The United Kingdom, a sovereign state under international law, is a member of intergovernmental organisations, the European Union and the United Nations." Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. --RA (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Two days gone, and no opposition to my suggestion, so i'll make the change. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"Rest of UK"

I've removed the following:

The official term rest of the UK (RUK or rUK) is used in Scotland, for example in export statistics ("RUK exports". Scottish Government. Retrieved 13 August 2011.) and in legislating for student funding. ("Response to Scottish Government proposals for RUK fees" (PDF). Edinburgh University Students' Association. Retrieved 13 August 2011.)

I don't see where the first reference supports that this is an "official term". It just seems like a plain English to me. For example, in the same way that many EU states would say "rest of EU". --RA (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I questioned its inclusion at the time (see discussion here), I don't think there's any doubt that the term "RUK" is used in official sources in Scotland - see for example these search results from The Times. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

...or, better refs from the Scottish Government site here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the same words are used by every administration in the UK to compare their region with ... the rest of UK. For example, London and Northern Ireland.

Is it really a special designation defined by the Scottish Parliament? Or is it just three words that mean: "rest" "of" "UK", the exact meaning of which changes depending on which part of the UK an author is contrasting with ... the rest of UK? --RA (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I was equally dubious when User:Mais oui! made the original edits, but I was persuaded by the evidence that, in Scotland, the abbreviation RUK is in official use. Obviously, the term "rest of the UK" is used more widely, but not, I think, the abbreviation RUK (or rUK) which in official use seems to be specific to Scotland. However, I don't necessarily think there's any need for it to be mentioned in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the sentence out of the lead to the "Terminology" section, where it seems more appropriate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the use of RUK is quite recent, but it is being used officially and I've seen it used in Scottish government literature and news reports. (I know this has already been settled, I'm just lending my two cents.) Joshua Lee ^{talk softly, please} 23:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wales

hi everybody does anyone know when wales joined the uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.197.245 (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

At the time the UK was created, Wales was administered as part of the Kingdom of England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't really a case of joining, what is now Wales was gradually conquered by England over several hundred years. It was eventually fully absorbed into the Kingdom of England in 1536. The Kingdom of England became part of the Kingdom of Great Britain when it merged with the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707. Finally, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland merged in 1801 to form the United Kingdom. P M C 23:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I've removed this sentence from the end of the opening paragraph: "Additionally, England and Scotland are referred to as kingdoms, Northern Ireland is referred to as a province or region, and Wales as a principality." Apart from the fact that, in my view, it is unnecessary to this article, and likely to create even more confusion than usual in the minds of those who are not fully aware of the UK's complex constitutional development, it also does not summarise any of the text in the article itself - which is what an introductory paragraph is supposed to do - and is unreferenced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nor is constituent countries or home nations mentioned later in the text, except in links of various kinds.

It is quite common to give synonyms in the opening paragraph(s), although these are not referred to later in the article. Hence, IMHO, the text you removed was adequate, and the article would be improved by putting it back. (However, I'm not going to make an issue out of this.) JoergenB (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is bonkers - let's delete this page

The only people who are pushing for this nonsense article to have credence are those who live in the poor relative regions of the UK, namely: Scotland (Fishiefriend2 Mr West for example), Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Countries of the United Kingdom do not have any soverieign rights, excepting for the degree of devolution normally afforded to regions, do not issue passports, nor are they recognised as countries by the United Nations. The term is, therefore, considered only as an historic convention of nomenclature.

Historically, Scotland absorbed the Kingdom of England when James VI of Scotland became James I of England. Wales was never a country; Northern Ireland is only a made up place. There is only one country recognised by the rest of the world: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Yes, I have read the rest of this page. In my mind anything written contrary to the facts constitutes original research ... and at that, a work of fiction.

I move that this page be deleted. Francis Hannaway 16:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francish7 (talk • contribs)

Multiple sources indicate a different picture. The position is complex - hence the need for an encyclopaedia article to explain it. The article explains that the four countries do not have sovereign rights, but are still countries, particularly within the meaning of that word in British English, and are not "regions". Please do not cast aspersions on the motives of other editors with whom you may disagree, and please remember to sign your posts using four tildes: ~ Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't said any single editor is bonkers (yet), but that the whole article is bonkers. There is no such thing in British English as calling the province of Northern Ireland a country, or the principality of Wales a country.

... and I do sign my writing ... but it doesn't work :( Francis Hannaway 17:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The article should be moved to Constituent countries of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Seemingly, constituent often is employed with reference to history; and IMHO it is not clear that you could describe Wales, and especially Northen Ireland, as historical entities out of which the UK was formed. JoergenB (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The claim that "There is no such thing in British English as calling the province of Northern Ireland a country, or the principality of Wales a country." is peculiar. I've spent most of my life in Wales, Scotland, or England, and I've heard the term used for both frequently, particularly for Wales. I should also note two misconceptions in what you say, one explicit and the other implicit: First, Wales is not a principality (see the article Principality of Wales). Second, principality and country are not mutually exclusive terms. Nor are province and country. Finally, how are you signing your posts, Francis? All you have to do is type in four tildes (~~~~), with no spaces between them. garik (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there may be an argument that province and country are mutually exclusive. Principality and country, however, clearly are not. garik (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Article origins / develop beyond those origins?

While I do not believe that the article is completely bonkers, there are issues with the article, including its premise. One thing many of us know, but which I hope I can say without igniting a war, is that the article was created as a coatrack. It was created during the heated discussions/mediation over how to introduce the articles on England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It's purpose then was to galvanise the formulation that, "XXX is a country that is part of the United Kingdom" (see here).

As I said, I don't think the article is completely bonkers, the topic is notable (and probably of interest to many). However, the origins of the article do not make for good (or very neutral) treatment. If tensions have eased around these issues, we may have an opportunity to rethink the article and introduce other voices. Including those that give historical perspective and those that may say that individual parts of the UK are not countries? --RA (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that, while this may be of intense interest to a few editors - who will no doubt be stirred by any suggestion of changing what is at least a relatively stable article - it is really not of that much interest to many readers. It would be a shame to divert increasingly scarce editing resources towards the reopening of old arguments here. It isn't a great article, but that doesn't really matter very much because it isn't a very important article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Ghmyrtle. I think RA's suggestions would involve diversions into a discussion of what "country" means and how the UK was formed. Both subjects are better treated in other articles, and the first in particular would quickly get tiresome. garik (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, it's not an entirely obscure article. 24,142 people viewed this article last month. (See visitor traffic to Countries of the United Kingdom during December 2011.). But, I agree, unless tensions have eased, it's not worth it.

@garik, the kinds of diversions I mean would certainly not involve discussions around "what is a country". The kinds of diversions I would have in mind are:

Where are the countries of the United Kingdom? Do they have a geography? Tell me something about them. Do they have they a history? Were any of these places formerly "countries" as readers would normally understand the word? If so, how did they come together to form the United Kingdom? Is there any particular nomenclature I should be aware of? Maybe related to their history? They all have they same laws, yes? No? The same legal system, though? No? Well, then I expect criminal suspects need to be extradited between these countries, yes? No? Well if they have all have different laws, and jurisdictions, then there can't have been one parliament for them all. There was? What is the current political relationship between these countries? Are there any "former countries of the United Kingdom"? Are there any "current countries of the United Kingdom" in which is serious discussions about becoming a "former countries of the United Kingdom"? Are there any of these "countries" that is part of another "country" aside from the UK? What do the people of these countries have in common? What do they have that's different? What is the relationship between identity and nationality between each of the countries and the UK as a whole? Are they any identities that some of these countries share but which are not common among them all? etc.

Obviously, this takes in many things mentioned already in History of the formation of the United Kingdom and Devolution in the United Kingdom as well as other articles. However, that is simply the nature of the topic. There is no need to go into as much detail in this article as on those articles. The article touches on many of these questions already but skims over most of them and spends large portions laboring over others. It's an article where the balance is off: inordinate time is spent on some points, others are skipped over, it is cryptic about why some points are stressed so heavily, and leaves more questions hanging than it answers. --RA (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm somewhat convinced, RA. If you fancy making a start, perhaps temporarily on a subpage of this one, I'd be in support. garik (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

My view is that virtually all of the topics that RA suggests should be handled here should be addressed in the articles of each individual country, and/or the articles about the history and constitution of the UK. They should most definitely not be duplicated or interpreted in this article. Unnecessary duplication of material between articles virtually guarantees inconsistency and argument. This article should provide a brief explanation of the terminology of "country" as it is used within the UK, and provide a lot of links to other articles - but very little else. I don't believe there's any evidence that "tensions have eased" - editors may well have got bored or moved elsewhere, but reopening this article is a guaranteed way of stirring up old tensions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomenclature

This article contains (in my opinion) some serious issues, and I would point to previous disagreements in support of this view. This wiki really needs an initial paragraph that identifies how the United Kingdom as an entity may be considered to have different constituents depending on the categorisation being used. To illustrate this point:

(1) The domestic political constituents of the UK are generally taken to be England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

(2) In terms of sovereign territories (governed by their own parliament and with law making capabilities) are in primary legislation terms England, Wales and Northern Ireland taken together (the latter with devolved and secondary legislation capabilities), Scotland, which has primary legislation capabilities and the Isle of Mann (which is generally considered a Crown Dependency but which has ceded foreign affairs to the UK proper).

(3) In legal and constitutional terms the UK comprises the Kingdom of England and Wales (a single legal jurisdiction), the Kingdom of Scotland, Duchy of Cornwall, the Province of Northern Ireland and Earldom of Mann. These are all well defined legal entities that are co-terminus with their geographical areas. This should be stated clearly (and not mixed up with administrative territories which may be quite different).

(4) Administrative territories (under the remit of Secretaries of State or with devolved assemblies): England, Wales, Scotland and NI.

(5) In (legally binding) linguistic (and probably cultural) terms and backed by European Treaties there is England, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall and Northern Ireland. Particular reference here should be made to the European Convention on Regional and Minority Languages.

(6) In historic terms map makers (prior to 1600) almost always recognised just England/Anglia (which included Wales by the way), Cornubia/Cornwall, Scotia/Scotland and Ireland/Hibernia. This are always the 'ancient' nations of Britain. This should be referenced (even if only pointed to in another wiki) and the names of map makers and dates of publication given.

(7) Finally, in de facto C20/C21 political terms one should be ready to admit that treating England as a unity is unwise and that at the very least there is a 'North/South divide', and, in reality there is a more colourful and wider interpretation of what 'England' actually means, politically, socially etc. The recent regional devolution debate should be noted and potentially a synopsis of the present position compared to Spain, Germany and France given.

I raise this issue not to be nit-picky but because any effective wiki description of the UK needs to identify these different perspectives, reference them and set them for ease of use. I would appreciate constructive feedback on this so that this article may be strengthened and made more relevant for reasons of comparative geo-political analysis.Artowalos (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)artowalos

Some points on the above:

1. Not sure if England can be considered a "political constituent", though IIRC laws now are assumed to only refer to "England" unless they are explicitly said to apply to "England and Wales".
2. The UK parliament (obviously) has primary legislative powers, England has no legislature, the Northern Ireland Assembly is capable of primary legislation, as is Scotland, a (recently) Wales.
3. England has no Secretary of State or devolved assembly.
4. I don't believe that English is a "regional" or "minority language", even in England.
5. Not sure about Cornwall (or the necessity for Latin terms), but it may be worth mentioning.
6. I doubt greatly that the regional "divides" in England are anything comparable with Spain (where different, and sometimes unrelated, local languages are spoken in different regions) or Germany (where the country was only relatively recently unified and which is a federal state).

With respect to the Isle of Man, the Isle of Mann is not normally considered a part of the UK for domestic purposes but I would argue it is worth mentioning here. However, if we are mentioning Mann we should not forget the Channel Islands.

All that said, I think you are right to point out that the multi-faceted and multidimensional nature of this topic. --RA (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think while Artowalos is right regarding the complexity of the issue, there are some factual errors in what s/he says although, ironically, they do help underline the complexity!

1) Yes. Although I would suggest you could say they are universally understood to be so, not just generally.

2) The only sovereign polity within the UK is the UK. The regional parliaments/assemblies are internally devolved institutions, not federal ones, and they exist only at the continuing pleasure of the Westminster government and may not legislate on certain matters. The Isle of Man is sovereign (or rather, the Crown in right of the Isle of Man is), but is not part of the United Kingdom at all, nor has it ever been. It is a self-governing Crown Dependency and that is its actual, precise legal status, not just a general perception. It does have close links to the UK however: The UK is responsible for its defence, and represents the IOM Government in foreign affairs. The two countries are also in a currency union (although the IOM Government issues its own banknotes and coins)and are part of the Common Travel Area,along with Ireland, Jersey and Guernsey.

3) No, completely wrong. The Kingdoms of England and Scotland were extinguished in 1707. However, while the two states were merged into the single Kingdom of Great Britain, the Treaty of Union preserved Scotland's legal system which remains distinct from that in 'England and Wales' (i.e. the former Kingdom of England)to this day. The situation with Northern Ireland is similar, following the union of Great Britain with Ireland in 1801, although the issue is clouded by the legal fudge surrounding partition. The Duchy of Cornwall is a complete red herring. It is not a national polity at all, it is just a private real estate holding that exists to provide the heir to the throne with an income and most of its land is not even in Cornwall. While Cornwall itself has a distinct regional identity, politically and administratively it is part of England and always has been - indeed its Celtic rulers were overthrown by the Saxons before 'England' even existed. It has no legal status other than Unitary District and Cermonal County. The Isle of Man is not part of the UK at all (see (2)).

4) Administratively speaking, there is no such thing as England. As a unitary state, any part of the UK without its own devolved assembly is by definition just the UK. In England there is the UK government, the local authorities, and nothing in between (London excepted). I don't agree with that state of affairs (there should be an English Parliament with the same powers as the others), but that doesn't alter the fact.

5) Not really. Politically, the EU treats with one sovereign entity: the UK. The UK is divided up by various EU institutions into different areas for elections to the parliament, or for statistical analyses, for example. There are also regional funding programmes. These can't really be considered constituent parts of the UK though, in my opinion, in the sense of this article. Linguistically (although, again, nothing to do with countries per se), English and Welsh are official languages in the UK, and the EU/UK also recognise Cornish, Irish, Ulster Scots, Scots (Lallans) and Sottish Gaelic as minority languages.

6) Yes, although I believe this article is more of an attempt to explain the modern divisions.

7) The point is worthy of debate, although I don't personally agree. Self identity is a fluid thing, it depends wholly at what level one is comparing oneself with others. Put a Cumbrian sheep farmer, a factory worker from Stoke and a commodities trader from London in a room together and I'm sure they would consider themselves as different from one another as chalk from cheese, but add a Scot, or a German, or an American or whatever to the room and I think the first three would agree they shared in an English identity. P M C 23:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

NI is a "Province"

The official description of Northern Ireland per the ISO is "province". You can see exactly what I am referring to here. I became aware from Talk: Wales where recently there was a discussion on whether Wales was a country. An editor referred to this ISO publication as a strong source for the contention that Wales is a country. I suppose that surely the upshot is also that it is a strong source for the contention that Northern Ireland is more properly described as a "Province" than as a "country". Finally, I would add that I am familiar with the province of Ulster etc and no one need point out that part of it is not in NI etc. I think the article needs to be revised to refelect this ISO source. How should we do so? 86.45.54.230 (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If Northren Ireland is a "province" of the United Kingdom then how could it be possible for Scotland and England to be "countries" ? That would imply that Northern Ireland is a part of the Republic of Ireland (which it is not) or that it is part of one of the "countries" of the "country" of the United kingdom!!!!! Country generally implies soveriegn state: So why are Scotland and England defined as Countries if they are not soveriegn states but a part of the United Kingdom? Althought country is the most accurate definition of Scotland and England it is very misleading, for example, by simply reading "Scotland/England is a country" would imply that they are soveriegn states, as many do not go on to research articles such as this one. Shouldn't Scotland and England be defined as provinces if Northern Ireland is too or even "states" or "constitutiencies"? --Italay90 (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Shakes head in disbelief*

Not all regions of the UK are equal in what they are. England and Scotland are yes considered "countries". Wales in reality is a principality but the nationalists object to that. Northern Ireland however is a province of the United Kingdom. The use of the term province here has nothing to do with the ancient provinces of Ireland. Only the province of Ulster is which is a different entity altogether so it would not imply it is part of the RoI.

I do agree with the sovereign state comments, however what about the Basque Country? It's not a sovereign state, and by all definitions, country is not exclusively for sovereign states. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right about sovereign states, Mabuska. This tiresome claim that X is not a country because it's not sovereign simply contradicts well established usage. I do have to disagree with your comment about Wales though. Every time this sort of question comes up, someone claims that Wales is "a principality, not a country", but that claim's no better than the claim about sovereignty. First, the terms principality and country are not mutually exclusive. To say that X is one, so not the other, is to make a category error: principalities contrast with kingdoms, not countries (consider Liechtenstein). Second, that territory that lies West of Offa's Dyke is not in fact a principality in any case. The Principality of Wales was a medieval entity, smaller than Modern Wales, that came to an end in the sixteenth century. Since then it has survived only as an abstract entity in the peerage, much like the Earldom of Wessex (though that's a much more modern creation). You might as well say that Edinburgh's not a city, but a duchy. garik (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"generally considered to be a close union"

A claim in the Demography section that "The United Kingdom is generally considered to be a close union by its inhabitants, with shared values, language, currency and culture, and with people moving and working freely throughout" relied on a reference to this article which says almost the opposite, e.g. that "turning British identity into a goal of public policy is increasingly running up against a steadily strengthening sense of Englishness". That this peculiar statement went unchallenged for a while does not give it any more validity than if it had been inserted half an hour ago. It is at most an opinion, so I have deleted it. Brocach (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Article for deletion?

This article does nothing to explain the British constitution or indeed the use of the word 'Country' within a sovereign nation state, particularly a unitary state. Indeed in my previous sentence there is more factual legal information than the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.23.6 (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Currently the first sentence is:

Countries of the United Kingdom is a term that can be used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales: the four parts of the United Kingdom

This is supported by the footnote:

UK Cabinet Office: Devolution Glossary (Accessed 7 September 2010): "United Kingdom: Term used most frequently for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the modern sovereign state comprising England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."

1. The footnote does not support the sentence as it is referring it could just as easily be referring to parts, regions, provinces landfill sites or whatever as it does not say that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries.
2. What else can the "term" be used for? If it can not be used for anything else then what is the meaning of "that can be used to describe"?
3. "the four parts of the United Kingdom" well no not necessarily, it depends what one means by part, it certainly is not talking about the physical parts as there are more than four islands. As part is not defined it has no more meaning than saying "The parts of the United Kingdom is a term that can be used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". Most of the inhabitance of those parts do not describe the part they live in as "part of the United Kingdom" as one could just as easily write "I live on the Isle of White a part of the United Kingdom".

The lead sentence needs to drop the word "term" and state what are the "Countries of the United Kingdom." -- PBS (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

England and Wales

"England and Wales are a single jurisdiction while Northern Ireland and Scotland are also separate jurisdictions."

The above or similar wording keeps getting taken out. Surely making the point thatEngland and Wales are a single jurisdiction is a relevant point here? Come on guys; this is fundamental! There are only 3 legal systems in the UK...why? Because E&W are only 1 jurisdiction. Whatever the reason this keeps getting taken out, could some others also support its inclusion. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)