This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tóraí (talk | contribs) at 21:11, 30 November 2009 (→New BI diagram: good). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:11, 30 November 2009 by Tóraí (talk | contribs) (→New BI diagram: good)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Countries of the United Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
"Countries of the United Kingdom"
The following table presents references that use the term "Countries of the United Kingdom". For examples of "country", "constituent country" and other terms in use, please refer to the further tables below.
| Term | References |
|---|---|
| Countries of the United Kingdom |
Other terms in use
The following table presents references for the terms most commonly-used to describe the countries of the United Kingdom. The references are listed per country, and in some instances are used more than once, when more than one country is referred to in the source. To avoid duplication, individual examples have been found wherever possible. Some of the table is still under completion.
| Term | England | Northern Ireland | Scotland | Wales |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constituent country | ||||
| Constituent part | ||||
| Country | ||||
| (Not a country) |
|
|||
| Countries within a country (UK government term) | ||||
| Division | ||||
| Home country | – | – | – | |
| Home nation | – | – | – | – |
| Kingdom | - | - | - | |
| Nation | ||||
| Part | ||||
| Principality | – | – | – | |
| Province | – |
|
– | – |
| Region |
Specifically on Northern Ireland:
- Moores, B (July 1987). "The changing composition of the British hospital nursing workforce 1962–1984". Journal of Advanced Nursing. 12 (4): 499–504. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.1987.tb01359.x. PMID 3655137.
- Economic and Social Data Service (ESDS). "2001 Vital Statistics available from ONS".
- Nuffield Trust (2006-11-27). "NHS Values in Wales (summary)".
- Northern Ireland Statistics and Research agency (NISRA) (2006). "Vital Statistics".
- ESRC Public Services Programme. "Policies for Improving Public Service Performance".
- British Medical Journal (BMJ), Arthur Morris (1 May 1999). "BMJ should stop confusing its readers over national differences".
- ^ British Geriatrics Society (May 2006). "THE DISCHARGE OR TRANSFER OF CARE OF FRAIL OLDER PEOPLE FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH AND SOCIAL SUPPORT". “Methods of joint working between health and social care agencies vary across the 4 countries of the United Kingdom.”
- British army. "Welsh Guards".
- Working Rights (10 February 2022). "Solicitors and Legal Aid".
- Channel 4 News (28 Jun 2006). "Do the Scots subsidise the English?".
{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - Scottish Government Publications. "INTERNATIONAL LITERATURE ON QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORKS".
- Land Rover. "Takeback and recycle".
- They Work for You (25 June 2008). "House of Lords debate".
- Royal College of Nursing. "Evidence to the National Health Service Pay Review Body".
- Office for National Statistics. "Life expectancy by health and local authorities in the United Kingdom".
- "Report assesses impact of demographic changes for universities". 10 July 2008.
- SARS (academic census) (2001). "The Samples of Anonymised Records".
- Times Higher Education (20 March 2008). "The age of uncertainty".
- UNESCO. "Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland".
- Bat Conservation Trust (01/03/06). "Bats and the Law".
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - BBC News, Caroline Briggs. "Eurovision's frights and delights".
- Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Lavinia Mitton (16 July 2008). "Financial inclusion in the UK: Review of policy and practice".
- Guardian online, Alice Wignall (13 May 2008). "Paying for your course". The Guardian.
- The University of York, Social Policy Research Unit. "The well-being of children in the UK".
{{cite web}}:|author=has generic name (help) - Telegraph, Auslan Cramb (9 July 2008). "Barnett formula could undermine the Union, says think tank". Retrieved 2013-09-16.
- British Council/BBC (6 July 2006). "Living in the UK".
- Professor David Blanchflower, Bank of England (26 Feb 2007). "Recent developments in the UK labour market" (PDF).
- The Scotsman, Lindsay Moss (17 July 2008). "UK 'trailing other countries on cancer survival rates'".
- The University of Manchester. "How To Reference".
- AEA Energy and Environment. "UK Smoke control areas".
- International Glaucoma Association (20 April 2008). "UK Vision Strategy – Vision 2020".
- Department of Health (October 2004). "The NHS Knowledge and Skills Framework".
- University of Arizona, James E Rogers College of Law. "Guide to Finding English and UK Law in the Law Library".
- "Life. Live it. The case for first aid education in UK schools. author=Red Cross" (PDF).
{{cite web}}: Missing pipe in:|title=(help) - British Embassy. "Tackling the Challenge of Climate Change Together".
- The Independent, Maxine Frith (25 August 2006). "Britain's population tops 60 million for first time".
- College of Arms (December 2008). "The College of Arms Newsletter: December 2008" (PDF). college-of-arms.gov.uk. Retrieved 2009-01-01.
The design, which was produced in Scotland, makes floral reference to the countries of the United Kingdom covered by the Supreme Court: a leek for Wales, flax for Northern Ireland, a thistle for Scotland, and a Tudor rose for England.
- ^ Office for National Statistics (2004-09-17). "Beginners' Guide to UK Geography: Administrative Geography". statistics.gov.uk. Retrieved 2008-04-16.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ "DCA". DCA. Retrieved 2008-06-30. "nationally in this context will be taken to mean within the United Kingdom as a whole or within the constituent country (England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland), or both", at www.dca.gov.uk
- Vickers, Dan; Rees, Phil (2007). "Creating the UK National Statistics 2001 output area classification". Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society). 170 (2): 379(25). doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2007.00466.x.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Bramley, Glen (2007). "The Sudden Rediscovery of Housing Supply as a Key Policy Challenge". Housing Studies. 22 (2): 221(21). doi:10.1080/02673030601132847.
- Haubrich, Dirk; McLean, Iain (2006). "Evaluating the Performance of Local Government". Policy Studies. 27 (4): 271(23). doi:10.1080/01442870601009939.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Dixon, Tim (2006). "Integrating Sustainability into Brownfield Regeneration: Rhetoric or Reality? – An Analysis of the UK Development Industry". Journal of Property Research. 23 (3): 237(31). doi:10.1080/09599910600933889.
- Turner, Karen (2006). "Additional precision provided by region-specific data: The identification of fuel-use and pollution-generation coefficients in the Jersey economy" (PDF). Regional Studies. 40 (4): 347(18). Bibcode:2006RegSt..40..347T. doi:10.1080/00343400600725194.
- Cole, Stuart (2005). "Devolved Government and Transport—Relationships, Process and Policy". Public Money & Management. 25 (3): 179(7). doi:10.1111/j.1467-9302.2005.00471.x.
- Wells, Alan. "United Kingdom". European Environmental Law Review. 14 (6): 150(7). doi:10.54648/EELR2005022. hdl:1805/24676.
- Hartley, Jean. "Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present". Public Money & Management. 25 (1): 27(8).
- Hodges, Ron; Macniven, Louise; Mellett, Howard (2004). "Annual General Meetings of NHS Trusts: Devolving Power or Ritualising Accountability?". Financial Accountability & Management. 20 (4): 377(23). doi:10.1111/j.1468-0408.2004.00200.x.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ about.com, Matt Rosenberg. "Country, State, and Nation".
- ^ "Countries within a country". 10 Downing Street. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
- "England". Britannica Student Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
- ^ "ISO 3166-2". ISO. Retrieved 2008-06-30. BS ISO 3166-2:2007 (second edition released 2007-12-13) consolidates changes detailed in ISO 3166-2 Newsletter I-9 (pg 11) which uses the terms "country" to describe England and Scotland, "principality" to describe Wales, and "province" to describe Northern Ireland, at www.iso.org
- British Embassy. "England". britishembassy.gov.uk. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
- ^ the Office for National Statistics states in its glossary that "In the context of the UK, each of the four main subdivisions (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) is referred to as a country". see statistics.gov.uk
- England Rural Development Programme 2000 – 2006: 5.1 Description of the Current Situation – "5.1.2 England is a country of some 50,351 square miles". Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at www.defra.gov.uk
- British Embassy – What are Britain's national costumes? England: "Although England is a country rich in folklore and traditions, it has no definitive 'national' costume". British Embassy, Vilnius – Special features at www.britishembassy.gov.uk
- The Official Yearbook of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 2003 – "England is a country of mostly low hills and plains. ". 2003 Yearbook at www.statistics.gov.uk
- Civil Service Policy Hub – Performance pay for teachers (Last Updated: 12/2/2008) – "Many more schemes have appeared in recent years in other countries such as England, Sweden and Singapore". News item at www.nationalschool.gov.uk
- Results for England from the UK 2007 Survey of Public Opinion of Forestry, carried out on behalf of the Forestry Commission, November 2007 – "The same principle is of course also valid for individual countries such as England, where an impractical level of afforestation would be required" PUBLIC OPINION OF FORESTRY 2007 – ENGLAND at www.forestry.gov.uk
- ^ The Oxford English Dictionary, in its 1893 edition, includes under "country" the meaning "3. The territory or land of a nation ; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories, as England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the United Kingdom, etc."
- ^ "Foreign and International Law". Library of Congress. "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the collective name of four countries, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland."
- ^ Europa, the European Untion Portal. "The education system in the United Kingdom". "It must be remembered that the UK is actually four countries and that there are some differences in the education system across these four countries.
- ^ British Medical Journal (BMJ) (1999). "Is the English NHS underfunded?". BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.). 318 (7182): 522–526. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7182.522. PMC 1114971. PMID 10024266. "The NHS is broadly similar in each of the four countries, but it is funded at different levels."
- ^ D. EVANS, E. KULA, H. SEZER (7 OCT 2005). "Regional welfare weights for the UK". Regional Studies. 39 (7): 923–937. doi:10.1080/00343400500289937.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) "Estimates of these weights are then provided for the four countries comprising the UK." - ^ London School of Economics. "Government failing to learn valuable lessons from UK health care experiment". "the health service across all four countries."
- Ordnance Survey (28 October 2000). "Mapping mission offers close-up on England".
- ^ The Grocer (23-JUN-07). "Why school policies don't make the grade".
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) "Why school food policies don't make the grade: four countries, four sets of policies." - ^ Edinburgh Evening News (07 July 2008). "Our health service is the envy of the world, so let's cherish it".
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Channel 4 News (28 Jun 2006). "Do the Scots subsidise the English".
{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ Commonwealth Secretariat. "United Kingdom – Geography".
- Research in Comparative & International Education, THERESA THONHAUSER, DAVID L. PASSMORE (2006). "ISO 9000 in Education: a comparison between the United States and England".
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) A study on “two different countries, the United States and England.” - ^ Birrell, Derek, Public Money & Management, Volume 27, Number 5 (November 2007). "Divergence in Policy Between Great Britain and Northern Ireland: The Case of Local Taxation".
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ NHS National Library for Health (April 2008). "NHS Structure: the impact of devolution". “Up until this time the NHS policy differences between the four countries had been marginal,”
- ^ Sarah Carter, LLRX (2001). "The UK Legal System". “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland consists of four countries forming three distinct jurisdictions each having its own court system and legal profession: England & Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.”
- ^ Nuffield Trust (2006-11-29). "Values and health policy in the European Union (summary)".
- ^ TOEFL. "Four nations in one". “The UK may be relatively small, but it is extremely diverse. It is home to 60 million people and comprises four countries – England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales – each with a distinct history and culture. “
- ^ New Policy Institute. "Education-related websites".
{{cite web}}:|author=has generic name (help) - ^ Post-News Education.com, The Denver Newspaper Agency (18 March 2007). "A Crucial vote in Northern Ireland". “Northern Ireland is one of four countries that make up what is known as the United Kingdom, or U.K.”
- World Wildlife Foundation. "Natural Rivers Programme – UK".
- USA Today. "England".
- David Cameron, Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, 'I would govern Scots with respect' – In the 19th century, what was Europe's first common market brought unparalleled prosperity to both our countries.
- General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland (1-May-2008). "Changing Assessment Practice Process: Principles and Standards".
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) "..in all four countries of the UK: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland." - EADT24 (21 July 2008). "Belfast trip cannot be underestimated".
{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - British Dental Journal (24 May 2008). "Northern Ireland turns to private sector to solve dentist shortage". British Dental Journal. 204 (10): 547. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.442.
- Adfero (15 July 2008). "Mental health survey for people in Northern Ireland".
- British Council. "Why come to Northern Ireland?".
- ^ E-HEALTH-MEDIA LTD (2005). "Northern Ireland unveils plans for electronic records".
- The Food Standards Agency (1 May 2007). "Draft Official Feed and Food Controls Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007".
- Pat Stacey, Herald.ie (23 July 2008). "Dignified look at tragic loss of life".
- ITS Magazine. 22 things you should know about Northern Ireland. “The Northern Ireland economy is the smallest of the four countries that make up the United Kingdom.”
- Olivia Fens (11/07/200). "Women obtaining abortion pill online".
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ The Four Countries – Social Care Information Network (27 March 2006). "Leeds Workshop 27 March 2006 Report". “The workshop was designed to be an initial opportunity to bring together leading information specialists and policy makers from the four countries of the UK“
- ^ European Union Youth Portal. "Travelling Europe, The United Kingdom". "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales."
- ^ BBC World Service Teacher Blog – Anne Bell (12 April 2008). "Union Jack Day".
- ^ European Commission Expert Working Group on the social determinants of health inequalities (2–3 March 2006). "Tackling Health Inequalities – The UK Situation".
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date format (link) "The UK consists of four countries England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." - ^ various. "Oxford Journals 'Parliamentary Affairs' Research Articles (3 summaries)".
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ Cancer Research. "UK Bladder Cancer mortality statistics".
- ^ UNICEF (16 August 2002). "UNICEF salutes Scottish Bill on right to breastfeed in public".
- ^ CBC News (23 November 2006). "The 39th Parliament Nations within nations".
- ^ Issues & Reports No 9. United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, accessed 23 December 2008
- ^ A publication submitted by the UK to the United Nations Economic and Social Council states Scotland is a "constituent part" and "country", but "should not be considered as a first-order administrative division".United Nations Economic and Social Council (August 2007). "Ninth United Nations Conference on the standardization of Geographical Names" (PDF). unstats.un.org. Retrieved 2008-04-14.
- British Embassy in the United States of America
- Explanatory Notes to Waste And Emissions Trading Act 2003
- Census 2001 – Ethnicity and religion in England and Wales
- House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 28 Feb 2000 (pt 35)
- Alex Salmond MP MSP, (nationalist) First Minister of Scotland calls Scotland a "country". First Minister Alex Salmond at openscotland.gov.uk
- Joint statement released on behalf of Helen Liddell MP, (unionist) Secretary of State for Scotland, and Jack McConnell MSP, (unionist) First Minister for Scotland, which states "Scotland is a country with a proud history, with strong traditions and customs". Scotland Office Press Release 2002-11-21 at www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk
- ^ Britannica describes Scotland as "the most northerly of the four parts of the United Kingdom" and later as a "country" four times in its introduction to the topic (nation or subdivision is not used).Scotland at www.britannica.com
- Encarta describes Scotland as "one of the four national units that make up the United Kingdom" and later as a "country" two times in its introduction to the topic (nation or subdivision is not used).Scotland at encarta.msn.com
- Patricia Ferguson, MSP, Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport – Scotland is a country known world-wide for its history and its landscape. Historic Scotland: Scotland's Historic Environment (Published 2007) at www.historic-scotland.gov.uk
- RURAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATION (EC) NO 1257/1999: PLAN FOR SCOTLAND. "5.2 Scotland is a country of some 30,414 square miles" Chapter 5 at www.scotland.gov.uk
- Jack McConnell MSP, (former) First Minister for Scotland – Scotland is a country with strong traditions and a proud history of achievement. Welcome Message to 'scotlandnow' at www.friendsofscotland.gov.uk
- Helen Liddell MP, (former) Secretary of State for Scotland – Scotland is a country of inventors and entrepreneurs and we have many excellent, dynamic companies. Press Release 2002-07-31 at www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk
- Wendy Alexander MSP, Leader of the Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament – "Scotland is a country I love to the core of my being." Speech to Scottish Conference by Wendy Alexander at www.scottishlabour.org.uk
- Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland, Report Number E97002, November 1997 – 14. However, since Scotland is a country of great diversity Third Statutory Review of Electoral Arrangements at www.lgbc-scotland.gov.uk
- World Offshore Renewable Energy Report 2004-2008 – 5.3.3 Scotland is a country with potential to be at the centre of the worldwide tidal industry. Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform at www.berr.gov.uk
- David Blunkett MP, (former) Home Secretary, Speech to TUC Conference 2004-11-10 – "in the country of Scotland who are pioneering the programme of getting people to move to Scotland" Speech to TUC Conference on Managed Migration at http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk
- SECOND DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION, XA39/03 – 9 "within Scotland" meant within the geographical limits of the country of Scotland OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD JOHNSTON, 2003-12-02 at www.scotcourts.gov.uk
- RENEWABLE ENERGY INQUIRY by ENTERPRISE AND CULTURE COMMITTEE, 2004-01-22. 3.5:"Scotland is a country which sells its scenery, as the basis for its largest single industry, tourism". Evidence from SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE
- Bertie Ahern, (former) Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland. ADDRESS TO THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT – WEDNESDAY 20 JUNE 2001 – "Scotland is a country rightly renowned for the distinguished historical contribution of its thinkers and scientists to the development of democracy and technological progress". Scottish Parliament. Parliamentary News Release at www.scottish.parliament.uk
- Andrew Hardie, Baron Hardie, (former) Lord Advocate, – "In a small country like Scotland, the courts have not had sufficient cases in the area of private law to allow the private law to be developed by judicial decision". SPEECH TO CONFERENCE ON SCOTTISH DEVOLUTION – STRATHCLYDE UNIVERSITY – 27 FEBRUARY 1998 at www.scotland.gov.uk
- Scottish Aggregates Survey 2005 – 6. These areas recognise the difficulties of defining market areas in a country like Scotland The Scottish Government Publications at http://openscotland.gov.uk
- Response from the Welsh Assembly Government to HM Treasury’s consultation on a merged fund to support UK health related research – "6.1 In 2003 Ernst and Young recommended (on the basis of experience in other countries, including Scotland)" Response at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk
- Births and Deaths June 2004 quarter – This pattern has also been observed in other countries, including Scotland. Statistics New Zealand at www2.stats.govt.nz
- Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vo1, No.1 – January–March 1995: An Outbreak of Shigella sommei infection... – "together with reports from other European countries, including Scotland, Sweden and Norway" Dispatches at www.cdc.gov
- Parliament of Ireland – "This is not just evident in Ireland but in other countries, including Scotland". Parliamentary Debates (Dáil and Seanad) 2000 at www.irlgov.ie
- Estate agency market in England and Wales – "Comparisons with markets in other countries, including Scotland" 2004 Market Study at www.oft.gov.uk
- HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND. Neutral Citation no. NIQB 5826, Ref:GILC5850, Delivered:5/9/07 – The law in other jurisdictions – "I delayed the giving of judgment in this case to afford the parties an opportunity to consider certain research which I had caused to be carried out into similar provisions in other countries including Scotland, the Republic of Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand, Canada and Australia". Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down at www.courtsni.gov.uk
- The Nicholson Committee: Review of Liquor Licensing Law in Scotland, 2003 – Chapter 5, 5.5 – "we are firmly of the view that in a country such as Scotland the desirability of promoting the licensing principles" CHAPTER 5 LICENSING HOURS at www.scotland.gov.uk
- World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Is housing improvement a potential health improvement strategy? (Updated 23 February 2005) – "In countries such as Scotland, Portugal and Spain, the levels of excess winter deaths are higher than in Scandinavia" Health Evidence Network (HEN) at www.euro.who.int
- Office of the First Minister & Deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland. Policylink Bulletin 12 (June 2006): Migration Trends – "Countries such as Scotland faced with rapid demographic ageing welcome the flow of migrant workers". Policylink 12 at www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk
- UNESCO-1994. The impact of examination systems on curriculum development: an international study. Chapter 1. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION – Geographical Scope: "To give a suitably international context to the study, seven countries were selected and agreed with UNESCO. The seven, namely Colombia, Egypt, France, Japan. Scotland. the United States of America (US) and Zimbabwe were chosen" UNESCO Report at www.unesco.org
- David Cameron, Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, 'I would govern Scots with respect' – In the 19th century, what was Europe's first common market brought unparalleled prosperity to both our countries.
- ""If anyone has ever deluded ourselves into thinking that Scotland was really a Labour country – last May must have finally shaken us out of that delusion," said the new leader". BBC News. 17 December 2011. Retrieved 18 December 2011.
- Wynford Vaughan-Thomas, Wynford Vaughan-Thomas's Wales, Mermaid Books 1983, ISBN 0 7181 2251 8, p8, ch1 Welcome to Wales: "Who would expect to find a country speaking its own language, and with its own fiercely defended culture and traditions, within seventy miles of the huge English urban complexes of Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester?"
- Gwynfor Evans, Land of My Fathers, Y Lolfa 1992, ISBN 0 86243 265 0, pp434/435 ch10 Facing the British: "Arthur Henderson, ... Foreign Secretary ... 1924, believed: 'One could not imagine a country where federal self-government has a better chance of success than Wales...Given self-government Wales could become a modern Utopia.' He stressed that the smallness of the country was a great advantage from the standpoint of good government."
- Peter Berresford Ellis, Celt and Saxon – The Struggle for Britain AD 410 – 937, Constable and Company 1993, ISBN 0 09 472160 2, pp241, ch16 Do 'The British' Really Exist?: "Monoglot English clergy had been appointed to livings in Wales as a matter of course. A Dr Bowles had been given the living of Trefdaeth and Llangwyfan where, of 500 parishioners, only five had any knowledge of English. This was in 1768 and the Welsh decided to rebel. They argued that they should have a minister who spoke Welsh. The case took five years to argue. Dr Bowles's counsel was quite clear on the position of Wales: 'Wales is a conquered country, it is proper to introduce the English language, ...' "
- Wales – The Rough Guide, Mike Parker and Paul Whitfield, The Rough Guides 1997, ISBN 1-85828-245-4, p. viii/ Introduction, Para 2: "As you cross the border from England, you are, in fact, immediately aware of the different attitudes and cultures of the two countries. ..." ... "WALES AND ITS SHIFTING COUNTY BOUNDARIES. Wales is a small and thinly populated country ..."
- Prys Morgan (Ed), History of Wales 25,000 B.C. – A.D. 2000, Tempus Publishing 2001, ISBN 0 7524 1983 8, p78 ch3 Frontier Wales c1063-1282: "Of course, throughout this period Wales remained an overwhelmingly rural country, ..."
- Wales: History of a Nation, David Ross, Gedded & Grosset 2005, ISBN 1 84205 018 4, p15 Introduction: "... At its head was the Prince of Wales, Owain Glyndwr. For five years he had resisted the might of England, ranging the strength of all Wales behind him, making treaties with the Kingdoms of France and Scotland, acting as a sovereign in his own country."
- Wales: History of a Nation, David Ross, Gedded & Grosset 2005, ISBN 1 84205 018 4, p256: "'A vineyard placed in my care is Wales, my country, To deliver unto my children, And my children's children, Intact: an eternal heritage' Saunders Lewis, Buchedd Garmon, translated by D.M. Lloyd"
- The Misplaced Pages article Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau says: " "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau" (Scottish Gaelic pronunciation: , usually translated as "Land of My Fathers", (but literally old country of my fathers) is, by tradition, the national anthem of Wales."
- Ordnance Survey (11 July 2002). "Ordnance Survey spreads the word in Welsh for the Royal Welsh Show".
- "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
- "Next – what noun is appropriate to Northern Ireland? 'Province' won't do since one-third of the province is on the wrong side of the border. 'State' implies more self-determination than Northern Ireland has ever had and 'country' or 'nation' are blatantly absurd. 'Colony' has overtones that would be resented by both communities and 'statelet' sounds too patronizing, though outsiders might consider it more precise than anything else; so one is left with the unsatisfactory word 'region'." – D. Murphy, 1979, A Place Apart, Penguin Books: London
- "Although a seat of government, strictly speaking Belfast is not a 'capital' since Northern Ireland is not a 'country', at least not in the same sense that England, Scotland and Wales are 'countries'." – J Morrill, 2004, The promotion of knowledge: lectures to mark the Centenary of the British Academy 1992–2002, Oxford University Press: Oxford
- "Not a country in itself, Northern Ireland consists of six of the thirty-two original counties of Ireland, all part of the section of that island historically known as Ulster." – J V Til, 2008, Breaching Derry's walls: the quest for a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, University Press of America
- "Northern Ireland is not a country in itself, but a small fragment torn from the living body of Ireland where now the last act of its long struggle for independence is being played out." – W V Shannon, Northern Ireland and America's Responsibility in K M. Cahill (ed), 1984, The American Irish revival: a decade of the Recorder, 1974–1983, Associated Faculty Press
- "Northern Ireland (though of course not a country) was the only other place where terrorism can be said to have achieved a comparable social impact." – M Crenshaw, 1985, An Organizational Approach to the Analysis of Political Terrorism in Orbis, 29 (3)
- "The study compare attitudes in Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, the UK, Holland, Ireland, Italy and West Germany. It also includes Northern Ireland, which of course is not a country." – P Kurzer, 2001, Markets and moral regulation: cultural change in the European Union, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
- ^ "As I see it, I'm an Irish Unionist. I'm Irish, that's my race if you like. My identify is British, because that it the way I have been brought up, and I identify with Britain and there are historical bonds, psychological bonds, emotional bonds, all the rest of it you know. ... Bit to talk of independence in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland is not a country, Northern Ireland is a province of Ireland and it is a province in the UK and I think that the notion of a national identity or group identity or racial identity or cultural identity here is a nonsense." – Michael McGimpsey quoted in F. Cochrane, 2001, Unionist politics and the politics of Unionism since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Cork University Press: Cork
- "Moreover, Northern Ireland is a province, not a country. Even before direct rule, many of the decisions affecting the economy, labour law, and wage bargaining were in reality taken in London, thereby diminishing the importance of local control." A Aughey, 1996, Duncan Morrow, Northern Ireland Politics, Longmon: London
- "One problem must be adverted to in writing about Northern Ireland. This is the question of what name to give to the various geographical entities. These names can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences. ... some refer to Northern Ireland as a 'province'. That usage can arouse irritation particularly among nationalists, who claim the title 'province' should be properly reserved to the four historic provinces of Ireland-Ulster, Leinster, Munster, and Connacht. If I want to a label to apply to Northern Ireland I shall call it a 'region'. Unionists should find that title as acceptable as 'province': Northern Ireland appears as a region in the regional statistics of the United Kingdom published by the British government." – J. Whyte and G. FitzGerald, 1991, Interpreting Northern Ireland, Oxford University Press: Oxford
- ^ Scotland is Not an Independent Country
- London School of Economics. "Government failing to learn valuable lessons from UK health care experiment". "different approaches to health policy that have been adopted by each home country since devolution."
- The Scottish Parliament. FAQ's – "Is Scotland a country? – The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the full name of the country. Scotland is a kingdom within the United Kingdom (UK)" Your Scotland Questions at www.scottish.parliament.uk
- G. K. Chesterton, "Edward VII. and Scotland" – I am quite certain that Scotland is a nation; I am quite certain that nationality is the key of Scotland; I am quite certain that all our success with Scotland has been due to the fact that we have in spirit treated it as a nation.
- David McCrone, Scotland, Small? – Scotland is a nation which has lived quite happily within a loose confederation, a union, and now finds itself within a bigger union – of Europe.
- Heald, Geaughan & Robb, "Financial Arrangements for UK Devolution" in Elcock & Keating Remaking the Union – ... from the recognition that Scotland is a nation within the United Kingdom.
- Davidson, The Origins of Scottish Nationhood – Because Scotland is a nation, and not a region or an urban district, opposition took a form which was impossible in most other parts of Britain.
- Anderson, "Fernand Braudel & National Identity" in Clark, The Annales School – ... Scotland is a nation that is something like a quasi-state, Britain a state that is at least a quasi-nation.
- Von Beyme, "Fischer's move towards a European Constitution" in Joerges, Mény & Weiler, What kind of Constitution for what kind of Polity – In this age of football, one whimsical definition defines the nation by the very existence of a national football team. On this definition Scotland is a nation and Bavaria not.
- Haesly, "Identifying Scotland and Wales" in Nations and Nationalism, vol. 11, no. 2 – As they argue, 'Scotland is a nation; therefore, Scotland should become an independent nation state' ...
- Bultmann, Scottish Rights Vindicated: Identity and Nationalism in Mid-Nineteenth Century Scotland (unpub PhD thesis), quotes one of William Burns' NAVSR tracts of 1854 – so long as Scotland is a nation – by contract merely forming part of the united Empire – so long the Scottish people have a basis upon which, with consistency, they may rest such things as national demands.
- Prince Andrew, 'SNP has rattled timbers of Union' – Scotland is, and has always been, a nation and a nation with a great history.
- Home Office Police Research Group Crime Prevention Unit Series, December 1993, sourced 2008-06-30, Paper NO.50 – Vehicle Watch in Wales, 1: "Forces in the Principality of Wales have demonstrated a particularly high level of commitment to the Vehicle Watch concept", at www.homeoffice.gov.uk
- OFT Consultation on a market investigation reference on personal current account banking in Northern Ireland, 2005-02-11, accessed 2008-06-30, Annex A.3: "The Geographic market is defined as the Province of Northern Ireland", at www.oft.gov.uk
- "Northern Ireland, a province created by the Government of Ireland Act of 1920, made of the six Ulster counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry, and Tyrone, and retained within the United Kingdom after the rest achieved dominion status by the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921." Oxford Companion to Irish History, page 420. 2002, ISBN 978-0-19-923483-7
- "Northern Ireland. Province of the United Kingdom made up of the six north-eastern counties of the ancient Irish province of ULSTER." Reader's Digest, Encyclopedia of World History, page 462. 1996, ISBN 0-276-42287-2
- ^ about.com, Matt Rosenberg. "Geography".
- "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
- "Next – what noun is appropriate to Northern Ireland? 'Province' won't do since one-third of the province is on the wrong side of the border. 'State' implies more self-determination than Northern Ireland has ever had and country' or 'nation' are blatantly absurd. 'Colony' has overtones that would be resented by both communities and 'statelet' sounds too patronizing, though outsiders might consider it more precise than anything else; so one is left with the unsatisfactory word 'region'." – D. Murphy, 1979, A Place Apart, Penguin Books: London
- One problem must be adverted to in writing about Northern Ireland. This is the question of what name to give to the various geographical entities. These names can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences. ... some refer to Northern Ireland as a 'province'. That usage can arouse irritation particularly among nationalists, who claim the title 'province' should be properly reserved to the four historic provinces of Ireland-Ulster, Leinster, Munster, and Connacht. If I want to a label to apply to Northern Ireland I shall call it a 'region'. Unionists should find that title as acceptable as 'province': Northern Ireland appears as a region in the regional statistics of the United Kingdom published by the British government." – J. Whyte and G. FitzGerald, 1991, Interpreting Northern Ireland, Oxford University Press: Oxford
Creation of a much needed page
I have created this article as the man hours spent skirting around this issue is, well (insert your own adjective).
I went by WP:BE BOLD, WP:COMMONNAMES (the UK government itself uses "countries within a country") and WP:COMMON (common sense).
I think that the problematic Subdivisions of the United Kingdom should be merged here, but the two articles could also coexist, each one being used where its most suitable.
It's just an intro really, but I've tried to focus on all the matters that have caused so much confusion (the ISO lists, dual citizenship, principality/province, devolution (esp regarding England) and the varying element to nationalism. I hope I did this well enough for the article to survive a speedy deletion. Nowhere else can describe the situation (or 'state of play' in the UK, however you see it) as neatly as it can be described here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Why this article was created
The poll is under way, but I've added this as an attemp to cover all the main points, as it's occurred to me that some people may not know the background/reasoning/demand for this article. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is currently consensus amongst all four countries of the UK that they are 'countries' in the common sense of the word, and are best described as countries (the single term - although Northern Ireland currently uses constituent country). Clearly with the UK, this needs qualifying. At Wales recently a consensus was finally found as to how best to describe this: via a piped link.
- At the moment Wales pipe-links to a Subdivisions of the United Kingdom to explain this matter, but that article is ambiguous and is currently in flux. 'Subdivisions' is not a commonname regarding the UK. This article has been suggested in the Subdivisions Talk page as a possible solution.
- This article clearly presents the term "countries of the United Kingdom": it has no other purpose than to explain what that is, and what it isn't. All other UK articles have other purposes.
- There is no ambiguity at all with this title: 'divisions' etc could mean localised authorities and overseas territories etc.
- This can complement the other UK articles, be a good portal, and be short and sweet. The other UK countries could use it to link/pipe to if they wish to.
- As this article includes the word "country" in the title, it will likely save hours of often-repeated debate on the 'UK countries issue', as it explains all the arguments that arise:
- The ISO 'List of countries' situation (which uses the UK only).
- Alternative terms and explanations of them, such as 'principality' (a courtesy title for Wales)
- Northern Irish citizenship (ie. British, Irish and dual citizenships)
- British/Britain as a nationality and country (an important addition)
- Devolution - summary of the state of play
- Nationalistic feeling - broad summary of demographics
- What is not included in the UK (Channels islands, Ireland etc)
- when merged:
- The commonname example table.
- Any relevant information that is finding difficulty acheiving stability on the Subdivisions article can now be here instead.
Merger proposal
Should Subdivisions of the United Kingdom be merged here? Please discuss. --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've explained why I think this is the most practical place for the 'UK countries' information in the section above. But an example of its use as a link could be something like this:
- Wales is a country of the United Kingdom, bordering with England on its east, and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west.
- The words "country of" the United Kingdom would directly link to "Countries of the United Kingdom". It may not gain consensus in Wales (as "country" is supported, and has only just recently found consensus), but its still a neat way of avoiding the current piped "part of" link as the necessary explainer. --Matt Lewis (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fully agree with the merge (or better a MOVE of Sub-divisions), however I do not agree with the suggestion for reference. It has been agreed after long and difficult discussion that we need to acknowledge the "part of" and therefore the worrding would be Wales is a country which is a part of the United Kingdom, bordering with England on its east, and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. PLEASE lets not reopen that discussion under the guise or an otherwise sensible suggestion for a merge. --Snowded (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting it should be proposed in Wales immediately (see my caveat above), but it seems like a sensible thing for the future to me: and the example shows how neat this title is when describing the countries in relation to the UK. I only speak for my own country (Wales, as you know) - I tend not to favour cross examples. Who knows, someone may just naturally insert at some point and it could stick, you never know. The victory in the Wales debate wasn't so much in the wording we eventually chose (and we had a choice in the end), it was in the way it could be linked: and it opened the door to this.--Matt Lewis (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is true that some rationalisation of these articles (probably including more of them than have been mentioned here) is best. The problem comes with trying to make too many changes at the same time, which will confuse matters, mix up issues, and make it more essy for disruptive editors/sockpuppets who have been active in this entire area to wreak havoc again. My view is that the change to merge or move Subdivisions of the United Kingdom to Countries of the United Kingdom could be usefully done. However, that should be the only thing done at this stage. So, the wording of the individual countries' entries shouldn't be mixed in with this, for reasons I've just explained. Once any merger or move has been done, and a suitable period of time has elapsed, then further moves can be considered. I'm just concerned that too much may be attempted in one go, which would mean that nothing would be easily done which would "stick", because hard-fought consensus would be changed too quickly again. One final point: the case of Northern Ireland may be more tricky if the move/merger to Countries of the United Kingdom is made, because some editors will object on grounds that it isn't, and never was, a country. These grounds in this case may be more ressonable than they would be for the other bits of the United Kingdom we are concerned with here. So, it will need careful consideration and planning—all the more reason to avoid doing too much at one stage. DDStretch (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, we must move - but we must be fully aware of things too, and not try to achieve too much at once. We do have some momentum though. I'm not suggesting bringing changes to the first line in Wales soon. I certainly wouldn't make an edit to the first line of Wales on the strength of this merge (assuming it happens soon), though I wouldn't revert a good change by someone else: there were only a handful of people involved in the dispute. Who knows what will arise, or what the other UK countries will do? Maybe they will find this useful. One thing is for sure, we can't let the few who have held back things so far still influence our actions.
- As for Northern Ireland - it's funny because I really am not that into encroaching into the other UK countries: I've argued since I started Misplaced Pages that we all see things differently (the mediating admin Keeper76 put this well in Wales). But I will say I have just recently argued for the NI flag template to extend its choices to the striking Assembly flag (as flag|NI currently defaults to the Ulster banner) - as it is effecting the List of national anthems article I'm currently trying to build up.
- COMMONNAMES decrees that Northern Ireland is a country. It is not liked by some people, I do realise - but politics aside, COMMONNAMES to this degree is just life. An old partner of mine was the daughter of a patriotic and upstanding Irish protestant (a WW2 'hero' no less), and though she was an English herself, every year as a child she visited her families beautiful country, and went on the Orange march. I never myself agreed with her Dad's politics (she "hated" politics - possibly as a consequence), and I had to hold my tongue when she talked of the memories (though I gave he a little history, which she accepted) : but if anyone told her NI was not a country I would have put them straight before she did! It's a created country, yes, but many of them were. The British Empire was very good at renaming other people's lands. As a British Welshman, I choose to look at this with an historians eyes, rather than with any anti-empire, or anti/pro politics. Having had the experiences I have, I have realised that NI will never be totally re-assimilate into Ireland: too many of them are too passionately British. Not just 'stubbornly' and 'unfairly', but deeply and passionately, and as a cultural group (whatever you want to call them) they have been in the area for hundreds of years now and have grown over that time.
- There is no millage for anyone in claiming that Northern Ireland isn't a "country" when the Northern Ireland Assembly continually refers to itself as one. Let's not be too over-cautious of what can happen on that count - and I don't think that the 'not a country' argument was ever as strongly argued as many of the other Irish/NI issues are. NI has a more settled parliament now, and there is certainly less ingrained prejudice against Catholics on the whole now, as undoubtedly for a long period there was (which has even been officially recognised). --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Poll on merge
Extra note: Can people please specify which way any suggested 'redirect' should go. The acual Merge is for merging the relevent information. The Subdivisions article will still exists for the word's alternative uses, and can direct to here regarding country.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support: Starting the inevitable poll, so people can easily place their support/rejections. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support: Looks good to me. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support: Merge only --Snowded (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support, although not all of the content should be brought across. The stuff on local government (counties, parishes etc.) belongs elsewhere (in the relevant articles linked from Template:UK subdivisions). Waggers (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Support a move - see below. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)- Redirect this title to subdivisions of the United Kingdom. That article is not too big and it is better to discuss the various tiers in one article. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect (1st pref) or Merge (2nd pref), per nom. --Jza84 | Talk 16:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Clarifying that "subdivisions" should be kept, "countries" should be the redirect. --Jza84 | Talk 23:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support with reservations The word "subdivision" means a division of a division; the parts of the UK are not "subdivisions" (except in the sense that England is a division of England and Wales, but that is pushing the boundaries of interpretation). If the subdivisions article were renamed "divisions" of the United Kingdom, it would work. Howard Alexander (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ive added a point on this to the 'reasons list' I've just made in the opening section above. There is no ambiguity at all with this title - which is part of the article's strength I think. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Either Merge or Redirect (roughly equal preference). Though I still suggest we prepare for the possibility of drama over Northern Ireland from some editors. DDStretch (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- None. I believe one article on the United Kingdom should be sufficient. One cohesive article would be more informative than several disparate articles. -- Maelor 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I see your point to a degree, but 'Countries of the United Kingdom' is a commonly used term used to describe just the four countries (see the section below). The United Kingdom is a lot more complex - and has overseas territories etc. United Kingdom is also a long article- can it be that multipurpose? --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think it can. We already have separate articles on each of the countries. There is far too much duplication. 'Countries of the United Kingdom' should be a section of the United Kingdom article, with references made to the individual country article where necessary? -- Maelor 14:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support: Dai caregos (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Merge this title with subdivisions of the United Kingdom as a subpage. The word "subdivision" does not mean a division of a division, it just means to something divided into sections or groups. The countries are divisions, but far from the only divisions of the UK. Mighty Antar (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean subdivions as a subpage of this? --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- None. I agree with Maelor; having looked at the articles in question, it seems to me that there should be a 'Subdivisions' or 'Countries' section (call it what you will) within the United Kingdom article, which could then link to the articles on the individual countries. There is no point in having a separate article for explaining the subdivisions, as it simply duplicates information that is already present in the UK article (or at least should be present).Cop 663 (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Combined reply to Maelor and reponse to Cop 663: Five points are raised here I think. Firstly, I honestly can't see both articles being redirected the the UK main article - if this merge doesn't happen, I'm sure the Subdivision article will remain with similar information, and the table especially. Would the main United Kingdom article really accept the table? At 144k (a very large page) I'm not too sure. What is great about this article is that it covers the information that is usually contested every 4 months or so in each of the UK articles in turn it seems (so it never ends). It does it by using "Countries of the United Kingdom" as a commonly used term: a term that is consistently used to focus on the countries as separate entities, rather than the UK as a whole. I’m sure that since devolution, the term is being used more and more. I'm also certain this article will save countless hours of repeated debate after edit wars, often with no great advancement at the end other that the removal of a couple of sock puppets and a bunch of demoralised editors, and a lot of wasted time attempting to prove the information that is available in here. Finally I’ll make the point that it is often forgotten (even by admins) that Misplaced Pages's guidelines often actively encourage duplicating certain information if it adds to clarity and saves linking: Misplaced Pages would be a unworkable maze of links if information was never duplicated.
- So to sum up the five points – I’m not sure the UK article could/would absorb all of this information (so it will find a place elsewhere - probably either Subdivisions or here, as both won't be made redirects), this article is about a valid and important ‘common term’, and the amount of duplication is acceptable per guidelines. And also it will save countless hours of Wiki time in the future (assuming that United Kingdom won’t handle all of this).
- Also – RE the argument that there are too many UK sub articles: certainly, these two duplicate (hence the merge) – but what are the others? The UK is a big subject and surely the UK main article can’t handle it all. Each article needs to be judged on its own merit, I feel. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think the problem is with the United Kingdom article, not with the 'countries' one. The 'countries' article is excellent and well-written. My point is, I cannot understand why this extremely useful information is not in the United Kingdom article. It's absurd that the political structure of these interlocking countries is not clearly explained in the UK article. It's not too long to be included, it's only four paragraphs! If the 'UK' page is too long to include those paragraphs, then the UK article needs some cutting, which would be easy, there's a lot of flab there. For example, the 'UK' article has five paragraphs on football; since there is already a 'football in the UK' article, it would be easy to remove all but the introductory paragraph in that section and then, hurrah, space for a subject that is fundamental to the structure of the UK.
- I agree that the table would be too unwieldy, but it could have its own article called 'Names of the subdivisions of the UK or something.
- Summary: the reason I think this article should be merged into UK is because it's important. Cop 663 (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't read through all of the UK article - I'll give it another look. If it is lacking things it should have, I'll look at adding them to it. Then I'll look at this again - although it could still remain a case of positive duplication. I still think this is important as a term. That wasn't so important to me at first, but as I was adding in new refs to the table DDstretch brough over, I realised that it's become even more used lately due to devolution. Here is a perfect place for the table too, though I concede that it can go elsewhere. 'Subdivisions' was never quite right though (the word is ambiguous and not commonly used at all) - so I still think this is the perfect place fot the table, and the salient "UK country" facts. Maybe this article could be a title-relevant summary of the informaion that is in United Kingdom (i.e. when it is all in there)? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I wish you didn't bring this up. I can see I've never looked at the UK article properly at all: the intro is at odds with this, and lacking in many ways. It's got a bizarre "land border" line about 3 lines into the first parag, which falls apart after that into waffle. It only has 2 other parags (4 is recommended as a rule of thumb). I'll try and get some of this in. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've ammended the United Kingdom intro - only the first parag was a bit off really, but I've added a couple of things from here to the other two (inc British and dual citizenship), and made the third 'people' paragraph here a new fourth one on there. I felt it needed to be done, and the proposal to merge there wasn't two-way I noticed. Let's see what will stick. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Matt, I'm not sure that the table is necessary any more? I think it appeared when we were in the middle of discussing the country status. It was most valuable at that point but, as the argument is now won, is it relevant any more? -- Maelor 13:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think the table needs to be kept somewhere that can be easily accessed. What better place than on the new 'Countries' article. The arguement only stays won until someone comes along and edits. Then we would be back to square one. Surely, none of us want to go through all that again. Dai caregos (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Make it an archive page and link to that in a note at the start of the page so that people do not open question again? --Snowded TALK 13:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think the table needs to be kept somewhere that can be easily accessed. What better place than on the new 'Countries' article. The arguement only stays won until someone comes along and edits. Then we would be back to square one. Surely, none of us want to go through all that again. Dai caregos (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am extremely strongly opposed to removing the table from this article or moving it to an archive page. Instead, it needs to have further entries added to it, and it needs to retain a prominent position on any article which discusses the different names for the bits of the United Kingdom. The solution that was adopted for Wales, only a week or so ago, depended strongly on the table being present in an article, and the arguments, edit-wars, and so on, need to be stopped in their track, which can be most easily done with the table where it is: in an appropriate article, not hidden away on some archive page or removed all together, which would allow greater scope for edit wars to proceed until someone can locate and refer to the table. We need more systematic depictions of reliable sources like the table in articles that are subject to edit wars, not less. DDStretch (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that it will invaluable as a future ref. I think it's better easily found rather that hidden away too - that way people can think twice. I still think this article should survive as a commonname, and that this is the perfect place for it. Now some detail is in the main UK article, it might not need all the detail here - but then again, why not? The main thing is that subdivisions doesn't fork with it. It's sunny! --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well if it belongs anywhere it is on this page, although I am less convinced that it was critical in resolving the debate as most of the citations had already been used. It was, as they say, the pipelink that donn it. However "extremely strongly opposed" is not to be argued with, so happy to support its presence on this page (which is now the location of the pipelinks on the country pages. --Snowded TALK 15:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am also "extreamly strongly opposed" to removing the table. I had left these kinds of discussions months ago, but see that a concensus has developed. I very much like this page and this table, and have some sources myself that I can add to it.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 08:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Ya'll should consider (again) merging this article with Subdivisions of the United Kingdom. The 2 articles have many similiarities. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Notified places
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_United_Kingdom
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_England
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Northern_Ireland
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Scotland
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Wales
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_UK_geography
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_UK_subdivisions
On this date: --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Move
It is not a question of merging. It is a question moving. There is absolutely no justification for two articles. It is a simple question of what the title should be. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is a difference - this article deals purely with England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, wheras the subdivisions article goes into local government below country level too. There are already other articles on those subdivisions, and this article seems to complement them to make up the full set. The subdivisions would probably work better as a summary article rather than trying to cover all the various administrative systems in one fell swoop. Waggers (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, did not read enough. Revised view above. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is another alternative. Merge sub-divisions into the United Kingdom to handle the counties and leave this article for countries. It is anomalous to treat one conquest and two acts of union is the same way as an administrative sub-division. --Snowded (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Adding "Countries of the United Kingdom" to the table.
We should really add "Countries of the United Kingdom" to the common use table. Per this google result, and this one ("Countries of the UK"). They are full of '.gov' examples, and show this article's title to be the commonly used term, too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- A "Countries of the United Kingdom/UK" row could be added above the "Country" row, keeping to the alphabetical order. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- The examples to use first are the ones that say "the four countries of the United Kingdom", or "UK". There are from lots of good sources: medical journals, insitutions, university sites, gov sites, papers, news.
- As Scotland has 36 refs for 'country', this could also stick to 36 examples, but I think the other countries need 36 under 'country' too. It will prove that country is the dominating term, and won't be so Scotland-heavy! (which could be seen as a bias towards Scottish nationalism, and is no-doubt down to more Scots supplying examples than anyone else).
- Does anyone know how to make one long row for the "countries of the UK" row? (it won't need columns). Failing that it could be a separate table. -Matt Lewis (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Whilst I appreciate the amount of work done to get together references that refer to "countries of the United Kingdom", I think it is a mistake to attempt to fit them into the table as is being done at the moment. When I designed the table, I knew it would be a clear statement of country cross-classified with term used to describe it. As such it was designed with good expert advice about such matters from within the data-presentation literature and body of research into empirical research design and methods. The additions fall into a rather different category, as they are data which refer to the other columns as a collective group and wich do not simply aggregate the material together (as might happen in a "row and/or column sum" in standard data tables. I suggest instead that there is no need to force the design of the table to fit them in: instead have a simple list placed after the table which states that the references in that list refer collectively to the "Countries of the United Kingdom". Thus the clarity with which the boxes are shown, and the information is kept sensibly separate without the swathe of empty boxes in one row and column corresponding to the added row and column dealing with "Countries of the United Kingdom", as is the case currently. It really will look better. Minor changes to the introductory text will take the welcome additions put separate to the table into account. I feel quite strongly about this purely from the point of view of clarity, conceptual categorization, and presentation. DDStretch (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- RE the way it looks - the table needs to have two colours so we can easy discern the rows (this can be done but I havnet managed it yet, I'll do it when all the refs are in - I have enough good refs to complete "countries of"). The problem with the table as it stood was that all the refs were in Scotland - 36 compared to few elsewhere - Northern Ireland had 2!!! It simply looked like NI was not considered a country and that Scotland was expressly more of one - which could be seen as a bias towards Scottish nationalism. In adding the "Countries of" column (which I did say I'd do) doesn't it just add anther term? The "countries of" term is part of the reason for this article, and including it in the table backs it up as a "common term". As it happens, I've found as many good refs in "countries of" than I've found in "country". --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't use "All countries" for the first column to avoid confusion - some of the other links are 'combined use', but are in individual country columns (and this was the case before I found it, it's hard to avoid). Is there any confusion with the table as it stands? (apart from the colour issue.). As the table is (and was before) linked-to from Wales, I feel it certainly needs to be unimorm in reference-weight across all the countries (Wales not least). This is why I have been working on it so much. I've found the best refs possible, if any are not good enough, please delete them. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Needless to say, by the way, that the refs need work to be properly standardised. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c) If the date has an imbalance in the representation in one row, then either that's the way it is, or other references can be found and added to the table: in other words, it is either a feature of the population of references that they are like that, or it is a sampling issue, which can be sorted out merely by finding other references that can be placed in the relevant pre-existing boxes. The fact remains that the extra row and column have only been added so that entries can be placed in the box that is common to the extra row and column. It really isn't a good use of the table, and, as I've said, results in a poor and clumsy design. It is better handled differently, as I suggested, and I think the changes should be made which I suggested. DDStretch (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've changed the colours of the headings (the new column now corresponds with the rows). The title line is 'forced' bold it seems (I've removes the bold from the "countries of" column, but it is still coming out bold). Is it better now I've changed the colours a bit? (we still need to change the row colours too).
- If it is really troublesome, the 'countty of' data could go in its own separate table - but it is a term, though. Also, the information it in could be duplicated in each country column (though I thnk that would look too much, and be confusing too): I'd prefer a either separate table, or to leave it similar to how it is now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've changed the heading colours to this version. It's a lot clearer I think. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- (outdent) You've done a lot of good work, but I really do think the table would be better organised with the extra row/column you added moved into a separate table of its own: the conceptual category of the displayed information is different, and it is better suited in a separate table. If this were done, extra classifications can be added to the additional table, such as "Parts of the United Kingdom" (where there is no separate mention of E/NI/S/W, but it is clear they are meant), "Home Nations" (similarly). As you can see, these kinds of references fall into slightly different classes of things than the ones which merely state, for example "Scotland is a X of the United Kingdom", etc. DDStretch (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mind a separate table. We have some blazing sun for a change, so I'll do it later today if it isn't done first. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
UKCOUNTRYREFS
Woah! This section is written using backroom/internal Misplaced Pages phraselogy. I firmly believe the shortcut is disallowed and the mentions of "reliable sources" in article space is not inline with WP:MOS. May I suggest we move this in to Wiki-space or tone down the wiki-speak? --Jza84 | Talk 22:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree it should not be in article space plus it violates WP:SELF--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't catch jza84's comment here and replied to him at UK talk. the shortcut's been up for about a month, I though it was seen and okayed by all the contributing admin. Not sure why we can't refer too 'Reliable Sources' - isn't that in the older version of the table at 'Subdivisions of the UK' too (which is still a forked table, btw, as the merge was never completed)? They both are incomplete tables basically, although this article is a bit clearer about it. I took out the intial 'WP:' part of the shortcut, per Waggers suggestion, but I'll move it tonight to somewhere less 'WP:SELF', as there doesn't seem to be consensus for it here now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Utterly non-neutral PoV
This article reads like a separatists' charter. The justification for this article is to clear up the confusing terminology but in reality it does the exact opposite. It begrudgingly states that "There is no term in UK law for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as a group of individual parts" but then goes on to dredge up hundreds of irrelevant links to support the phrase "Countries of the United Kingdom". Given that it lists other terms such as "Constituent country", "part", "province", "region", &c. there is no justification either in law or common parlance to name this article "Countries of the United Kingdom" or to push this PoV so heavily. "Subdivisions of the UK" is an absolutely fine, neutral-PoV equivalent. Choosing one of many alternative options to name this article is totally unacceptable. Owain (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I diasgree with you. This article is an attempt to explain the phrase 'Countries of the United Kingdom' to readers, many of whom may assume (wrongly) that 'countries' are always sovereign states. This article came out of a previous dispute over what the most appropriate term was to describe the 4 'entities' - some people were trying to push the phrase 'constituent countries' (which also exists as a separate article) but when sources were examined it became clear that the most common way in which the 'entities' were described was as 'countries' or 'countries of the UK'. To suggest 'This article reads like a separatists' charter' is way over the top - nowhere does it suggest that the countries of the UK should become separate, sovereign states, so in what way is it pushing a Point of View? It is merely trying to explain a phrase - countries of the UK - that is used repeated in all sorts of sources, and may be confusing to readers without explanation. The reason that no legal term exists to describe England, Nothern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is down to the UK having no written constitution as such, and every piece of legislation uses the actual names of the 'entities' as appropriate rather than a descriptive phrase that could be more open to legal interpretation. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is correct - and refs are given for the titular term. If I remember, a 'passing-by' editor added the section that you (Owain) call "begrudging" (you make it sound like the article is all the work of one man, or collective group!) - if you don't like it (I'm entirely sure about that part myself, but have tried to amend it in the past) - why don't you improve it? You could also help by filling out the refs so they are all more equal in number. The point is to show the variation - not to push any one POV. I created the article and I'm bang in the middle politically, a true Brit who knows that his country is Wales.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I completly agree with Owain. This page really is not needed, the "Constituent country" page which is almost the same as this one and far more accurate is better. The truth of the matter is this page was needed because some people decided to change the term "Constituent Country" on the 4 UK nations (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) pages to just "country" which ofcourse created a void and needed further explanation. If the term "Countries of the United Kingdom" needs to remain it should atleast be the term used on the actual nations wiki pages linking to it. "Scotland is a country of the United Kingdom", rather than "Scotland is a country" followed by lots of other text. "Scotland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom" sounds the best and its how it was at not so long ago. I hope soon this will be changed back so all the articles on the UK and home nations are more accurate BritishWatcher (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- So, the account that was created today finds itself here as well! What a surprise. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have been following all these issues for some time and it is a matter very important to me. I have made a moderate suggestion on the Scotland page, could you take a look and see what you think as id be interested to know if you think its reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Owen and BritishWatcher - You need to produce some evidence that matches the table of citations and some new arguments that were not raised and debated with last time. At the moment you are just repeating the past. --Snowded TALK 05:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- "the "Constituent country" page which is almost the same as this one and far more accurate is better." This is an obviously false claim unless one is concerned with gross similarities only, such as "both written in English" and so on. Given BritishWatcher's moderate proposal on the Scotland discussion page is set to impose a rather rigorous application of consustency, I fail to see how BritishWatcher could even fleetingly entertain the idea that Constituent Country and this article are "almost the same". It needs to be explained more clearly why here. DDStretch (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry i meant to say this was almost the same as the "subdivision page", not the "Constituent countries" page and was only needed because of the decission to define the constituent countries of the United Kingdom as just "countries" which i disagree with. My mistake. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, my apologies. I agree that it is a bit unfortunate to use the term ("countries") in the title of the article given its content. It would be far better to have a neutral way of denoting the bits of the United Kingdom whose terminology are being discussed. However, I recall that there were some problems with the use of "Subdivisions" in the Subdivisions of the United Kingdom article. If my memory is correct, it may be an idea to think of a better term to use which incorporates the idea of it being "Terminology for the top-level component parts of the United Kingdom". But I don't recall any being put forward that are acceptable. DDStretch (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you on the title of the "SubDivisions" page having problems aswell. Despite having strong concerns about the use of "country" for all these parts of the United Kingdom, i accept the "countries of the United Kingdom" title is a more accurate and appropriate one than "SubDivisions". I prefered the term "Constiutent Country" but clearly there is not a lot of support for going down that path again. I would support the use of "Countries of the United Kingdom" if the merger does go ahead, but to avoid confusion and endless debate on here and the other UK wiki pages this term and the link should be right at the start of pages for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I know we are not meant to discuss other pages here, but once the future of this page is decided there will have to be edits on those other pages as they include link to the sub divisions page. If those pages read for example "England is a country of the United Kindgom" linking to this page it would be the best of both worlds. They would still be called countries as people want, but they will not be directed to the "country" page which doesnt define the current situation. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
What is happening with this page
When i registered on wikipedia a day or two ago, i did not agree with the use of this term country to define England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but after reading alot of the sources linked and other research there is clearly not a firm alternative. The term "Countries of the United Kingdom" seems to be the best and most accurate title for such a page and is far more to the point than the Subdivision page / Constituent country page. I disagree with the idea that England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland should be listed on lists of countries pages, a link to this page seems reasonable to me (but thats a debate for the list page).
I notice that the poll on the merger of this page with the subdivision page was started many months ago. At the moment the current makeup of the different pages subdivisions/constituent countries/Countries of the United Kingdom is just leading to a lot of people being confused and some form of change would be better than nothing.
If the subdivision page was merged with this one and “Countries of the United Kingdom” remained the name then it could be included at the start on the England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland main page (If approved)
“England is Country of the United Kingdom and repeated for the other 3 countries. This would then end or prevent any future major disputes on the “country” issue which can only be a good thing. They would still clearly be listed as countries, but their relationship with the UK would not be confused, and a detailed explanation of the makeup of the UK is a click away for anyone who needs more detail. I apologise if any of my past comments have offended or i have seemed unwilling to accept previous consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- You might want to do other editors the courtesy at looking at prior discussions on this subject on the relevant pages, and then come back if you have some new insight or approach to offer. Are you really sure you have not edited these pages before by the way, this is sounding more and more familiar. --Snowded TALK 15:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I do not know how many times I have to tell you this but no I have not edited these pages before I registered as this name and I am certainly not the person you seem to think I am. This is the relevant page for what I posted. This is where the merger of the Countries of the United Kingdom and the Subdivisions page is meant to be debated. If this was sorted out then all those other pages would HAVE to be edited because they link to the subdivision page, I never said they should just be changed to the way I wanted, I clearly said If accepted (which meant an agreement on the talk pages of the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales, England, and Northern Ireland. That conversation can not talk place properly until this page is resolved. I made the post on here because the poll was started 5 months ago and the outcome has still yet to be agreed, What are your actual objections to the things I mentioned? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I`ve noticed this strange conversation over the past few days, surely this has got to the point if suspicions are there, then it should be taken up with Admin, or move on WP:AGF, but hey im just observing.--Rockybiggs (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm thinking about raising it as a checkuser request. BritishWatcher, if you are so "new" how do you know who I think you are? --Snowded TALK 18:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have moved my response to ur question to ur talk page snowded to keep this area more clear for the issues with this page. I would of thought considering your strong defence of the term "country" in relation to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland you would of welcomed my attempt to get this issue resolved (as im agreeing with your position). I am new to this and i understand time must be given to reach consensus, but i hope a further 6 months will not pass with the current problems / merger proposal still being unresolved leading to 10,000s of readers possibly being misinformed, on other pages which require this issue to be fixed. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, BritishWatcher, I'm glad you've changed your mind on this. 'England is a country of the United Kingdom', would be great I agree - but it surely a thing for the talk pages of each country - I don't think we can decide it universally here. Each country is different after all. I personally favour 'Wales is a country of the United Kingdom' too, but it's not easy even to get that done, given the crap that gone down in the past (always 90% sockpuppets and trolls, hence our obvious cynicism here). If you feel this much about it, why not just put a very simple request at England? ie "Shall we change the title to". It doesn't matter so much that we have these two articles, as Sudivisions will always exist in some form anyway - it's just a question of which to link to.
I've opened a debate on what could be wrong with this article over on Talk:Subdivisions_of_the_United_Kingdom#Detailing_issues (as debate was over there at the time), but plenty of other things are going on at the moment for all the people who currently tend to be involved. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback Matt, i accept each country page and the UK country page would have to agree to such a change on those pages, but i think its going to complicate things more if that happens whilst there is a debate over the future of the subdiv / Countries page. Once these two pages are agreed there will have to be some change made to each of the country pages, it seems logical to me that each would start "Is a Country of the United Kingdom but i accept it will be up to the people there.
- Whilst the trouble makers of the past may still seek to oppose it and cause dispute, if it read "England is a Country of the United Kingdom" there is no grounds for anyone to be confused like the current versions where country is listed on its own. If they object strongly to the term it will end up being debated on this page, rather than discussions going on about the same issue on the UK/W/NI/E/S pages which will save alot of time. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you are going to be disappointed if you believe people will agree to change the current versions. The Scotland article says "Scotland is a country in northwest Europe that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England." That is absolutely accurate and clear, so there is absolutely no reason to change it. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Whilst the trouble makers of the past may still seek to oppose it and cause dispute, if it read "England is a Country of the United Kingdom" there is no grounds for anyone to be confused like the current versions where country is listed on its own. If they object strongly to the term it will end up being debated on this page, rather than discussions going on about the same issue on the UK/W/NI/E/S pages which will save alot of time. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I can think of a very long list of reasons why it should be changed, but i will save that until this page is actually sorted out. I understand there will be opposition from some, especially on the Scotland page which in my opinion has the version with the biggest problem of all 4 parts of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well I'll be interested to see if you can come up with any new ones and (again) I would recommend that you look at the previous discussions first. You might also avoid phrases like "the trouble makers of the past". Its not likely to endear you to other editors. --Snowded TALK 18:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
My comment about trouble makers of the past was about the very person and others like him you seem to think i am. It was not about editors who disagree with what i or others think. Also there is bound to be a new argument that you have not yet heard of. I am not going to request a change on those pages until this merger is sorted. That is a big enough change in circumstances for people to relook over the current version. Again i am not going to try and stop "country" from being used on those other pages, i simply want Countries of the United Kingdom instead of country which i think is reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- What you think is reasonable may not find favour with others. Try reading past discussions and provide evidence not opinions. Considerable effort went into the wording of the ledes of the UK pages and it behoves you to at least read it. You are prolific with your opinions, less prolific with citation or new argument. As to who you are, I have no idea. For the moment I am suspending judgement, but your inability to remember the IDs under which you used to edit is difficult to believe. --Snowded TALK 19:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- on the ids, i could of lied and said i had never registered on this site before, which would of been alot easier to do than tell the truth by saying i did register several years ago but only used it a few times. My reasonable suggestion will not be welcomed by those who have already formed an opinion of someone or something and refuse to accept change but i would hope not all wikipedia editors are so against debate or people making suggestions. I will indeed read all of the arguments on this issue posted on the Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England pages to ensure i know what has been covered. But again you seem to ignore the fact that if this merger takes place (which you seemed to support not that long ago) then there is a clear need for some form of change to the opening paragraphs on all those pages. Such a change will have to be agreed by all the people on that page at the time, rather than one or two people deciding how it should start. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, the purpose of Countries of the United Kingdom is to explain a phrase that is frequently used when describing aspects of the UK. So for example, if an article were to state, "Each of the countries of the United Kingdom has ...", the link to Countries of the United Kingdom would help explain to readers the unique nature of the United Kingdom. That does not mean it would be appropriate to replace country with Countries of the United Kingdom - infact, the opposite. It is important for readers to be aware that not all countries in the world are independent, sovereign states. Anyway, I've spent more than enough time on such discussions and intend to not become involved in future discussions unless new points are presented. Unless new points are presented (and not just the same arguments being rephrased), I remain opposed to any change of the sort being proposed, and I am sure that the vast majority of editors who spent time discussing such points will take a similar position. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well said --Snowded TALK 20:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, the purpose of Countries of the United Kingdom is to explain a phrase that is frequently used when describing aspects of the UK. So for example, if an article were to state, "Each of the countries of the United Kingdom has ...", the link to Countries of the United Kingdom would help explain to readers the unique nature of the United Kingdom. That does not mean it would be appropriate to replace country with Countries of the United Kingdom - infact, the opposite. It is important for readers to be aware that not all countries in the world are independent, sovereign states. Anyway, I've spent more than enough time on such discussions and intend to not become involved in future discussions unless new points are presented. Unless new points are presented (and not just the same arguments being rephrased), I remain opposed to any change of the sort being proposed, and I am sure that the vast majority of editors who spent time discussing such points will take a similar position. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- on the ids, i could of lied and said i had never registered on this site before, which would of been alot easier to do than tell the truth by saying i did register several years ago but only used it a few times. My reasonable suggestion will not be welcomed by those who have already formed an opinion of someone or something and refuse to accept change but i would hope not all wikipedia editors are so against debate or people making suggestions. I will indeed read all of the arguments on this issue posted on the Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England pages to ensure i know what has been covered. But again you seem to ignore the fact that if this merger takes place (which you seemed to support not that long ago) then there is a clear need for some form of change to the opening paragraphs on all those pages. Such a change will have to be agreed by all the people on that page at the time, rather than one or two people deciding how it should start. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
That is a great shame because saying "Scotland is a Country of the United Kingdom is far more understandable to many people than Scotland is a country, followed by 2 lines of geography, before mentioning the fact Scotland is part of the United Kingdom (which it is). It would still be described as country on the page, instead of going to a general page about "countries" which gives no real detail on the UK situation, they would be able to come to this page and have a clearer understanding of the term. But anyway, that will be for the debate on the other pages after the issue of this pages merger has been agreed which i am sure will be fun. At which time there will be a new point because "is part of" will no longer be directing to the subdivision page and a new rephrasing will have to be agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think the constituent country terminology is better than "country of" or "country in" etc. E, S, W, and NI are not "countries" - where would that leave the UK, would it not be a country? - they are constituent countries at most - There is no law defining them as "countries" whereas the UK is a country. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please read prior discussions, evidence table and other material. If you have a new argument, or new evidence then raise it. --Snowded TALK 04:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Calling E,S, W and NI "countries" does not stand up. No legal basis whatsoever. It is also inaccurate because the UK is a country. Whatever is decided on headcounts etc, these remain the facts. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please look at the evidence table on this article If you have new data then raise it. --Snowded TALK 11:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- The UK does not define in legal terms how a 'country' is defined at all - any more bullshit like that and I'll take this to arbcom. Redking7 - you know full when well what you are doing - comments like "no legal basis whatsoever" is tantamount as saying "unlawful" - which is simply unacceptable. It's just too much free and easy bullshit - on a serious subject. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Calling E,S, W and NI "countries" does not stand up. No legal basis whatsoever. It is also inaccurate because the UK is a country. Whatever is decided on headcounts etc, these remain the facts. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please read prior discussions, evidence table and other material. If you have a new argument, or new evidence then raise it. --Snowded TALK 04:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think the constituent country terminology is better than "country of" or "country in" etc. E, S, W, and NI are not "countries" - where would that leave the UK, would it not be a country? - they are constituent countries at most - There is no law defining them as "countries" whereas the UK is a country. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Scotland is a Country of the United Kingdom is far more understandable to many people than Scotland is a country, followed by 2 lines of geography, before mentioning the fact Scotland is part of the United Kingdom (which it is) I've been harping about this for ages. I'll back you on changing that BritishWatcher. Though I don't have as much time as I used to to get involved with the discussions as I have in the past, let me know if my voice is needed :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- All edits should be based on evidence from reliable sources rather than the personal preferences of editors. There is no doubt that Scotland is routinely described as 'a country' and hardly ever, if at all, as 'a country of the United Kingdom'. That should be the determining factor. There really is no debate here unless some new and compelling point is presented. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Scotland may often be described as a country by people but it is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and this should be recognised in the first sentence of the article as alot of people assume country = Sovereign State which in Scotlands case it does not. Opening with Scotland is a Country of the United Kingdom would do away with this problem whilst still clearly calling Scotland a country. There is plenty of evidence and arguments in favour of such a change, but that can wait till the issue of merger between SubDivision and Countries of the UK is decided. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is the crux of the problem here: When you say "Scotland may often be described as a country by people but it is part of the United Kingdom..." the fact that you say 'but' makes clear that you seem to think that the fact Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom means that it can not also be a country! Sorry, but articles are not going to be changed because you can not accept that Scotland is a country that is part of the country known as the United Kingdom. It makes little difference whether you try to hold that debate now, or at some future point - if that is where you are coming from, I suggest you save yourself and everyone else a lot of time and trouble by using your talents to actually improve articles in ways that are not likely to lead to objection and conflict. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Scotland may often be described as a country by people but it is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and this should be recognised in the first sentence of the article as alot of people assume country = Sovereign State which in Scotlands case it does not. Opening with Scotland is a Country of the United Kingdom would do away with this problem whilst still clearly calling Scotland a country. There is plenty of evidence and arguments in favour of such a change, but that can wait till the issue of merger between SubDivision and Countries of the UK is decided. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- We will have this debate on the Scotland page when the time comes. However i do not intend to simply walk away from an article i believe is misleading and confusing to many people, which in part is based on a political view point. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- At least you are aware that your belief that the article is misleading may be 'in part' based on your political view point. We all are perfectly entitled to political viewpoints but they should play no part in how we edit articles. We can all avoid letting political viewpoints affect our editing if we ensure that we always argue for changes that are based on reliable sources rather than personal opinions. If you can do that, your contributions will be valued - if you merely argue based on your beliefs and opinions, you will achieve nothing. That's all from me on this for now...I'm off to try to improve some other articles. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I was talking about some peoples political views in part influencing the current wording of that page, making it rather misleading. Again i am not trying to argue anything about the Scotland page here, i have just stated my opinion on it as it is linked with this page. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- At least you are aware that your belief that the article is misleading may be 'in part' based on your political view point. We all are perfectly entitled to political viewpoints but they should play no part in how we edit articles. We can all avoid letting political viewpoints affect our editing if we ensure that we always argue for changes that are based on reliable sources rather than personal opinions. If you can do that, your contributions will be valued - if you merely argue based on your beliefs and opinions, you will achieve nothing. That's all from me on this for now...I'm off to try to improve some other articles. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- All edits should be based on evidence from reliable sources rather than the personal preferences of editors. There is no doubt that Scotland is routinely described as 'a country' and hardly ever, if at all, as 'a country of the United Kingdom'. That should be the determining factor. There really is no debate here unless some new and compelling point is presented. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Well lets look and see what the US does. It also uses a name for its subdivisions that can be taken to mean an independent and fully fledged independent country they call theirs a state.
- California (\/k\u00e6l\u026a\u02c8f\u0254rnj\u0259\/<\/span>"},"data":{"ipa":"","text":"","lang":"en","wikibase":"","file":"En-us-California.ogg"},"classes":}">/kælɪˈfɔrnjə/) is a state on the West Coast of the United States, along the Pacific Ocean. It is bordered by Oregon to the north, Nevada to the east, Arizona to the southeast, and to the south the Mexican state of Baja California.
- Texas (\/\u02c8t\u025bks\u0259s\/<\/span>"},"data":{"ipa":"","text":"","lang":"en","wikibase":"","file":"En-us-Texas.ogg"},"classes":}">/ˈtɛksəs/) is a state located in the South Central United States nicknamed the Lone Star State. Austin is the state capital.
- New Jersey (\/nu\u02d0\u02c8d\u0292\u025d\u02d0zi\/<\/span>"},"data":{"ipa":"","text":"","lang":"en","wikibase":"","file":"En-us-New Jersey.ogg"},"classes":}">/nuːˈdʒɝːzi/) is a state in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern regions of the United States. It is bordered on the north by New York, on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the southwest by Delaware, and on the west by Pennsylvania. Parts of New Jersey lie within the sprawling metropolitan areas of New York and Philadelphia.
looks like they use this formula (sub entity name) is a state (geographic location in the) United States, (other). That looks like a good standard. -- Phoenix (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- US States have a different history to that of the various countries in the UK. As Fishiehelper2 has said above its not a political issue its about common use and citation. A massive effort went into this some time ago and the evidence is available for inspection. The pair of you (UKPhoenix79 & our newby BW) need to deal with that evidence and/or present new cited material. --Snowded TALK 05:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- 1) Why do people have to use my full user name when they disagree with me with UK related topics... Its like having my mother use my middle name :-p Try Phoenix, it would be more appreciated.
- 2) Have we said anything other than the UK's subdivisions are called countries? From what I can tell the argument to change this
- Scotland \/\u02c8sk\u0252tl\u0259nd\/<\/span>"},"data":{"ipa":"","text":"","lang":"en","wikibase":"","file":"En-us-Scotland.ogg"},"classes":}">/ˈskɒtlənd/ (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in northwest Europe that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west,...
- to
- Scotland \/\u02c8sk\u0252tl\u0259nd\/<\/span>"},"data":{"ipa":"","text":"","lang":"en","wikibase":"","file":"En-us-Scotland.ogg"},"classes":}">/ˈskɒtlənd/ (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain, and shares a land border to the south with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west,...
- or
- Scotland \/\u02c8sk\u0252tl\u0259nd\/<\/span>"},"data":{"ipa":"","text":"","lang":"en","wikibase":"","file":"En-us-Scotland.ogg"},"classes":}">/ˈskɒtlənd/ (Gaelic: Alba) is a country of the United Kingdom that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain, and shares a land border to the south with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west,...
- if the argument is otherwise I believe I have misinterpreted the conversation. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- NOTE: I've changed the above to the small 'c' redirect (made for this purpose) - capitals wouldn't be accepted here, and it avoids piping. They have to be proposed on the article talk pages, and either accepted or not - this article exists regardless. (this particular 'country of the uk' route hasn't been tried, but the history of this warns us to do it wisely).--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- You have to make that argument on the relevant page. A few of made an attempt to get a common form of words sometime ago (its more or less there on Wales, England, Northern Ireland) but it wasn't possible. The wording on Scotland does not misrepresent its status however so I think it falls within the reasonable diversity that is a part of WIkipedia. As to your full name - sorry there are just too many misrepresentations on WIkipedia (people using other names with different numbers etc) so I tend to play safe but will try and pipelink in future if it matters to you. --Snowded TALK 16:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- You are indeed correct this is not the place for this specific conversation as it is outside this articles mandate. As for the second part about my user name. I hope you realize that I was not upset I only found it fascinating that anyone who disagrees with me on wikipedia and they believe that my nationality has something to do with our disagreement they uses my full user name. Any other time they just use my shown user name. Its just weird :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Map colours discussion
We're trying to get consensus not only on what four colours should be used for the 4 constituent countries of the UK, but in particular to ensure that the colour chosen for Northern Ireland also looks good on maps of Ireland showing both jurisdictions. Please see Talk:Subdivisions_of_the_United_Kingdom#Northern_Ireland.27s_colour and comment. Thanks! -- Evertype·✆ 12:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Bogus introduction
This article begins with the sentence:
- "Countries of the United Kingdom is a term sometimes used... "
This is utterly bogus, and totally unsupported by reliable external refs, per official Misplaced Pages policy WP:VERIFY.
None of the refs support this statement - it is not the term "Countries of the United Kingdom" that is used, it is the word "country/countries".
We must clarify that it is the word country/countries that is used, NOT the term "Countries of the United Kingdom" - which is a Misplaced Pages neologism - turning up Misplaced Pages and wiki mirrors (Google it). Please ead all 35 references: they all refer specifically to "country", NOT "Countries of the United Kingdom". --Mais oui! (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should read the article itself? There is an individual table listing 36 sources for the term Countries of the United Kingdom. Considering thats the actual title of this article as well i think the current wording is the correct and most accurate one. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong. All 36 sources name the word country or countries. Not a single one of them names the neologism "Countries of the United Kingdom". Please read the ext refs.
- In line with Misplaced Pages's policy requiring that statements be supported by external refs, I applied the following lead:
'''Countries''' is a term used to describe the constituent parts '''of the United Kingdom''': ], ], ] and ]. While '']'' is the most common term used to describe them (especially England and Scotland), they are also described as '']s'', '']'' and ''countries within a country''.<ref name="number10"></ref> ], ], ] and ] nationals are all entitled to ]. (The ] of the ] entitle those born in Northern Ireland also to citizenship of the Republic.)
- This was immediately reverted by UKPhoenix79. Plus ça change. We cannot go around inventing new terms and presenting them as pseudo fact. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- All of the sources in the separate table describing the term "countries of the UK" use that term which appears above the main table listing the different terms and is the actual article title as well. It makes very clear in the opening paragraph that "country" is used to describe the 4 parts of the United Kingdom. The current version had been like that for a day or two and wasnt changed by phoenix originally. The current wording should remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually looking back the opening has always been worded Countries of the United Kingdom. There is no justification for changing that. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- So you are saying that if something incorrect is present on Misplaced Pages, we should never change it? Ho hum. Your statement "All of the sources in the separate table describing the term "countries of the UK" use that term" is simply factually wrong. Show us the refs that use the term "Countries of the United Kingdom". There are none. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry but what i have said is not wrong. Please look at the article, please go to 3.2 and look at the table showing sources for the term "countries of the United Kingdom". Then take a look at those sources, they all use the term. I am very glad that you think something incorrect shouldnt remain on wiki just because its been that way for some time, i totally agree with you on that. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that Mais oui! is right; the article is about the constituent countries, not about a formal term, since there are no reliable sources that the phrase "countries of the United Kingdom" is a term used qua term. I have edited the introductory sentence in what should be an acceptable way. I would not like to see this formulation summarily reverted without further discussion here. -- Evertype·✆ 11:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining that better than I managed! My point is this: it is not a term of art, ie. it has no defined legal/formal meaning. Misplaced Pages should not try to go around presenting flimsy neologisms as if they were God's word handed down from Mount Sinai. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Your edit is ok with me evertype, although ill be honest and admit i prefered the original wording but this version is good for now. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- My edit has the merit of not having "countries" capitalized. I am not sure about "constituent" which is also there in the next sentence. -- Evertype·✆ 12:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Your edit is ok with me evertype, although ill be honest and admit i prefered the original wording but this version is good for now. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) But yes! have you even tried to search on wikipedia as you asked me? Google Books The first book listed is from the Cambridge University Press called British Government and the Constitution By Colin Turpin, Adam Tomkins; another is from the Parliament itself The Parliamentary Debates By Great Britain Parliament, Parliament, Great Britain. There are more but I must ask if you have done a Google search and found just tons of Misplaced Pages and wiki mirrors Did you really look? And since it is in Academic research and spoken in parliament before the internet (29 May 1895 to be specific) is it really a Misplaced Pages neologism like you suggest? And lets not try to re-write MOS:BEGIN and keep to the MOS used before the recent re-edit. -- Phoenix (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I see the phrase "countries of the United Kingdom" used there, but not, it seems to me, as a formal term. But folks? Can we not be so emotive about this? Words like "bogus" aren't civil. I'm changing the title of this section, accordingly. -- Evertype·✆ 12:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Countries of the UK" is verifiable here - so Mais oui!'s term of art claim is bogus and nullified. There's even a table which shows this has real world practice, so it's not a nelogism. There are other articles that don't appear in law too (of course!). Whether it is suitable to take the lead and article title is another issue though. My problem is that it is one of many terms used for the four entities, so why this one in particular has preference I do not know. --Jza84 | Talk 12:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding this - nobody has every actually counted every single source, or every time somebody has made an utterance about England, Scotland etc. Come on, it's a ridiculous claim to publish without doing any research; This are basic editoral principles of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Sure, if we can find a source that says "countries is the most common" then fine (I happen to agree it probably is), but let's not leave in unsourced weasel words for future editors to war over. This is a bad enough article as it is. --Jza84 | Talk 12:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. It would be helpful if the merger took place between this page and the subdivisions page and this page be used to explain all the different terms rather than just an argument for using the term "country". I think this title is the best and fairest though. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding this - nobody has every actually counted every single source, or every time somebody has made an utterance about England, Scotland etc. Come on, it's a ridiculous claim to publish without doing any research; This are basic editoral principles of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Sure, if we can find a source that says "countries is the most common" then fine (I happen to agree it probably is), but let's not leave in unsourced weasel words for future editors to war over. This is a bad enough article as it is. --Jza84 | Talk 12:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Eng, Scot, Irl and Wales are not subdivisions of the United Kingdom ("A publication submitted by the UK to the United Nations Economic and Social Council states the four are "constituent parts" and "countries", but "should not be considered as first-order administrative divisions""), they are constituent part of the political union. Each country has its own system of subdivisions.--Mais oui! (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Which is a reason why the merger proposed some time ago should go ahead. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Err... so we should merge the countries article into the subdivisions article because the countries are not subdivisions?!? Words fail me. A rare occurrence.--Mais oui! (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry you misunderstand me, i support redirecting subdivisions to this page, and simply having an explanation that its sometimes called subdivisions on this article. When i said this is the best title i meant this articles title not that other page. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Country is the commonest term
A User has removed the statement that countries is the commonest term, citing WP:VERIFY.
Funnily enough 70 different refs using the word country or countries seem insufficient. Just how many refs would be required to prove that country is the commonest term (at least for Scotland and England)?--Mais oui! (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge proposals getting stale
I believe those merge proposals have died out, folks. Recommend archiving them & removing the merge proposal tags from the article. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, they have been there for months and there apears to be no consensus for any merger. The merge with the UK page is certainly never going to happen, it clear this issue needs a page of its own. I would support the merger of SUb divisions to this page but as theres no consensus, i agree both tags should be removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've deleted the merge tags. 4 months of inactivity & lack of consensus, is my reason for doing so. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Expanding detail in table?
Hi all. I think it would be helpful if the detail in the table were expanded so that the organisation using the term could be clearly identified. I wanted to add an example from a UN body but found it difficult to find whether it had already been included. I'm not sure if I can manage, but I'll have a go if no one objects (unless someone else fancies it?) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Countries of the United Kingdom#"Countries of the United Kingdom"
Im sorry but this section is a complete joke it seems to be half way between a WP:MOS guideline and an article and would come under WP:NOT#FAQ the entire section should be moved out of article space. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 02:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think it has worth as an encyclopaedia article, but it almost certainly needs more work doing to it to make it read more like an article one would expect in an encyclopaedia. At the moment, it seems a bit akin to a "List of ...." article, where the "..." would be something like "terms used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales in the context of the United Kingdom", but it is perhaps even deficient as that kind of wikipedia article. Do you see any way in which it could be redeemed, or is it, in your opinion, unsalvageable? For my own point of view, I think it needs more background, sourced and well-described, establishing the context of the tables and why they are of interest and importance. For this to work, there needs to be a balance of the kinds of sources given in the tables with other ones which specifically argue that E/NI/S/W are not instances of "countries" or the other terms used in the tables. DDStretch (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- A possibility is that this is moved to Misplaced Pages space rather than article space, at least to highlight the situation to future... um... editors (!). I too think the topic has value on WP. Whether or not the content and how it is presented does is another matter. And of course, prose is always prefered to lists. --Jza84 | Talk 02:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is the name of the article as it now is: I wonder whether a change to something more like "England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales in the context of the United Kingdom" would be better, if rather long. It does need more prose, and a critical evaluation of each of the labels, which is where the arguments both in favour and against each of them need to be described and sourced better. DDStretch (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're onto the issue I picked up on a while back, that "Countries" or even "Countries of the UK" is but one term in many and so shouldn't really have preference as the article's title (that is, unless there's consensus to?). I suggested England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales a while back (simillar to your suggestion) as an admittedly unsightly odd-looking title, but one which is neutral. However, on reflection it doesn't give context to what the article is about (if we're to call it that, then it may as well be called "United Kingdom"!).
- We could have "Countries (United Kingdom)", or even merge the content to Home Nations. A radical approach would be for a List of terms used for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, with the benefit of keeping things in tabluar form then too??? I don't know. On the flipside of using tables we get the benefit of not having as many edit wars course. It's all quite a mess. --Jza84 | Talk 02:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- -- P.S. Another title could be "Terminology of England, Northern Ireland Scotland and Wales", with reference to Terminology of the British Isles. Or else even merge into Terminology of the British Isles itself. :S --Jza84 | Talk 02:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- The more I think about this, the more I suspect that to do a proper job of converting it into a more standard wikipedia article would involve a lot of synthesis that would be unacceptable.
My view of an ideal form for the article would be to introduce, briefly, how the 4 bits of the UK came to be lumped together as the UK, and then to describe why there is a problem in knowing what to call them. This would then lead into a succession of sections in which each term is introduced, together with arguments in favour and against using each term. The tables would then be merely a restricted summary of reliable sources in favour of eac term.
Now, if such an article were written, it would probably fall foul of the synthesis, or even the original research, prohibitions. This then leads me to think that the way forward would be to attempt to write the article and publish it elsewhere as a proper piece of research.
Then others can do the job of writing any article or section within United Kingdom that summarizes the arguments, thus keeping all aspects of what we try to do and what we try to avoid in wikipedia fulfilled.
Any comments about this? DDStretch (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- The more I think about this, the more I suspect that to do a proper job of converting it into a more standard wikipedia article would involve a lot of synthesis that would be unacceptable.
(Additional comments) I don't like the idea of merging it with Home Nations, as I think that term is itself open to disagreement (I thought it mainly applied to rugby or oter sporting events). I do, however, like the name of "Terminology of England, Northern Ireland Scotland and Wales". DDStretch (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I came round to "Terminology of..." when I was thinking of articles where this content could go, or is related to. Infact I think it has my preference now. :S!
- I agree with your sentiments about the article's content, and I like your suggested layout. It's all a very fine line though as you say, to avoid WP:SYNTH and other such codes of practice. We could tackle this (important) page like you suggest, and even (if we wanted) still have a "List of terms of..." page with the tables too. I'm not sure. --Jza84 | Talk 03:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think I understand your objections to the title of this article. Since countries is by far the most common term used, it would seem sensible to have a title such as "Terms used for the countries of the United Kingdom" to which 'countries of the United Kingdom' could then link. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think this articles title is acceptable although i would like to see the article itself explain more about the different terms used rather than most of the content simply focus on justification for using the term "country". Saying that after reading some of the above suggestions if this article is to have a more general focus on different terms used then id quite like to see the title changed to something like Terminology of the United Kingdom rather than listing, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. If this title is changed, it wouldnt have an impact on any of the country pages as they all use the word country on its own, and just pipelink on "part of". But like i say, im ok with the current title its the content that needs a bit of changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Wales
As Misplaced Pages already refers to Wales as "Wales still remains the largest principality in the world" on Is it not COMPLETELY incorrect to refer to it as a country. If not, should the link be amended to state it isn't a principality? Ntbear (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- That needs to be discussed on that page. This page is not concerned with problems that other pages may or may not have. Additionally, one cannot use an article on wikipedia as a reliable source for another. Furthermore, please add new sections at the end of the page, rather than the top. DDStretch (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- For information, I have now removed the sentence you are presumably using: "Wales still remains the largest principality in the world" from Principality, as it is unsourced, and it also is apparently inconsistent with reliably sourced information given in the preceding section of that article. DDStretch (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Channel Islands and Isle of Man
Not under the jurisdiction of the UK? If the fact that CI & IM legal disputes can be appealed to the UK Privy Council, the fact that various CI & IM officials are appointed by the Queen, and the fact that the UK Parliament and Privy Council reserve the right to impose legislation on the CI & IM against their will don't collectively count as jurisdiction, what does? The first (unarguable) point alone should be enough to show that UK jurisdiction and not just Crown jurisdiction is in place. 08:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- What would you suggest then? --Jza84 | Talk 12:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I can understand why that sentence might create confusion yes. How about changing " but are not under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom." to something like " but are Crown dependencies and not part of the United Kingdom." BritishWatcher (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Legal disputes in the West Indies can be referred to the Privy Council. --Snowded TALK 13:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Article title
Should the artile title be Constituent countries of the United Kingdom?--Vintagekits (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- The British government has described them as just "countries" there for i dont think we need to have "constituent" in the title. The article makes very clear that they are parts of the United Kingdom there for the constituent bit really is not needed. http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823 justifies just using country in my opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- A constituent country is a country that is part of a larger entity, such as a sovereign state. If we used Constituent countries of the United Kingdom we are descibing them twice. Titch Tucker (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. --Jza84 | Talk 13:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well the National Statistics office calls them Constituent countries of the United Kingdom, as does the Royal Mint and I feel it more accurately describes their position with the UK.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm more than confident that other reputable sources could be found that describe the four with different terms - indeed that's reflected in the content of the article. I'm in favour of moving the page to Terminology of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales (1st pref) or else Terminology of the United Kingdom though, if there's a consensus to make this so. --Jza84 | Talk 16:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well the National Statistics office calls them Constituent countries of the United Kingdom, as does the Royal Mint and I feel it more accurately describes their position with the UK.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. --Jza84 | Talk 13:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd agree strongly with either of these suggestions of Jza84. DDStretch (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would support the Terminology of the United Kingdom title (and think it would be the best name) aslong as it wasnt strongly opposed by some people. The current title seems stable as does the main content and the intros on all the UK articles. I wouldnt want a dispute to break out over renaming this article which impacts on previous agreements reached. I dont see a big problem with renaming it as Countries of the Uk can just redirect here and no changes to other articles would have to be made but depends how people feel about a change. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Let's get something straight. There are four countries of the United Kingdom, and some people want to change the name of this article? Can anyone not see what Vintagekits is trying to do? I love Ireland, I'm part Irish, but too many of them hate the fact for some reason that individually we are called countries. The name of this article is accurate and should remain as it is. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I really do not appriciate this ad hominem argument. The article title is misleading and that is the reason that I suggested the article title change. I would also argee with the article title being changed to Terminology of the United Kingdom.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Apart from your (Vintagekits) opinion that "constituent country" is a more appropriate term than "country" - which has been much debated on other pages, and not accepted - do you have any other arguments that the current title is "misleading"? If not, I agree with Titch that the existing title should be retained. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Its not my opinion - I have provided sources which outlines whos opinion it is.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Terminology of the United Kingdom is an acceptable alternative. But, if it's gonna cause an uproar, why bother. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- The reason why this is my second preference is that the terminology we're dealing with actually relates to the consistuent countries rather than the UK - spanner in the works I know, but something to consider. --Jza84 | Talk 21:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Terminology of the United Kingdom is an acceptable alternative. But, if it's gonna cause an uproar, why bother. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Its not my opinion - I have provided sources which outlines whos opinion it is.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Apart from your (Vintagekits) opinion that "constituent country" is a more appropriate term than "country" - which has been much debated on other pages, and not accepted - do you have any other arguments that the current title is "misleading"? If not, I agree with Titch that the existing title should be retained. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I really do not appriciate this ad hominem argument. The article title is misleading and that is the reason that I suggested the article title change. I would also argee with the article title being changed to Terminology of the United Kingdom.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Let's get something straight. There are four countries of the United Kingdom, and some people want to change the name of this article? Can anyone not see what Vintagekits is trying to do? I love Ireland, I'm part Irish, but too many of them hate the fact for some reason that individually we are called countries. The name of this article is accurate and should remain as it is. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would support the Terminology of the United Kingdom title (and think it would be the best name) aslong as it wasnt strongly opposed by some people. The current title seems stable as does the main content and the intros on all the UK articles. I wouldnt want a dispute to break out over renaming this article which impacts on previous agreements reached. I dont see a big problem with renaming it as Countries of the Uk can just redirect here and no changes to other articles would have to be made but depends how people feel about a change. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd agree strongly with either of these suggestions of Jza84. DDStretch (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
⬅ Why are we even talking about this? The current title is a reasonable one, it says what this is about. What we have got is an old chestnut been raised by someone coming back from a three month ban who feels it appropriate to advertise on their talk page "TWO DAYS UNTIL I BRING THE PAIN BACK TO WIKIPEDIA!". We all know the political stance involved in this, lets not give it the time of day. Snowded TALK 21:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Again another ad hominem attack which I really do not appriciate. Discuss the issue at hand or else find somewhere else to go. Another attack like that I will be reporting both of you to ANI. The title is misleading as the term "country" generally indicates a soverign state - which these "constituent countries" are not.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Countries of the United Kingdom is accurate. The British government describes the 4 parts of the United Kingdom as "countries" so i dont see the big problem. "Countries" mean different things to different people. If you look at Country you will see it does not just mean sovereign state. There is no point in trying to change the title of this article on that basis. As i said before i like Terminology of the United Kingdom But would only support change if nobody opposed it. People do oppose the change, there for the current title has to stay. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Again another ad hominem attack which I really do not appriciate. Discuss the issue at hand or else find somewhere else to go. Another attack like that I will be reporting both of you to ANI. The title is misleading as the term "country" generally indicates a soverign state - which these "constituent countries" are not.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree about "constituent countries of", but a suggestion to rename the article was brought up before this user came here. I suppose exploring the possibility to rename will either reinforce the notion we have the right title or else aid us in finding something more neutral/verifiable etc. I agree the current title is reasonable, but is it the most reasonable? --Jza84 | Talk 22:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Although I really don't think this is an issue worthy of much agonising, I'm not opposed to a change in principle, so long as any new title is unarguably an improvement. One problem with "Terminology of the United Kingdom" is that it might suggest, wrongly, that the article addresses the term "United Kingdom". I suppose that the clearest title might be "Terminology of the countries of the United Kingdom", but that could be seen as too long and would still be contentious to some. On balance I favour it being left as it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- There has always been a political position which pervades these issues which wants to argue that for something to be a country it must be fully independent. We saw this in debates on Wales or Scotland where we had both the Unionist position (these are administrative regions of the UK) and the Republican position (they are not independent so they are not countries, and under no circumstances will be ever let Northern Ireland be called a country). I don't think is ad hominem to point out that once again this issue is being used as a proxy battleground for a wider issue. I also think that two much energy goes into these proxy and tokenist battlegrounds and they should be nipped in the bud not encouraged. If Vintagekits wants to report me for saying this then s/he should feel free to do so.
- That said I am not opposed to changing the title of the article if the change improves understanding of its content. This article is where we stored and created the citation evidence used to support the use of country on four article pages and serves as a form of disambiguation. At the moment its easy to remember (which helps pipelinking). "Terminology does not work for me as it implies that it would cover lots of other issues. As Ghmyrtle says alternatives get long and clumsy. It may well not be the most reasonable title (Agree with you Jza) but I haven't seen anything better yet and I am not sure how important it is to spend time and effort on this. --Snowded TALK 09:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why not merge Countries of the United Kingdom into Subdivisions of the United Kingdom and have one big super dooper article on how it all works?
- Saying that there are many different terms for E/S/W/NI and insisting on one for the title doesn't seem the most NPOV. Merging the article would avoid all this renaming hassle and the move could go a long way to making Subdivisions of the United Kingdom a very nice featured article perhaps.212.2.170.114 (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Although I really don't think this is an issue worthy of much agonising, I'm not opposed to a change in principle, so long as any new title is unarguably an improvement. One problem with "Terminology of the United Kingdom" is that it might suggest, wrongly, that the article addresses the term "United Kingdom". I suppose that the clearest title might be "Terminology of the countries of the United Kingdom", but that could be seen as too long and would still be contentious to some. On balance I favour it being left as it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- The countries of the United Kingdom are not subdivisions of the United Kingdom. The UK is united on the basis of four parts, not divided into four parts. --Jza84 | Talk 15:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- A proposal to merge those 2 articles failed, months ago. Lack of input, caused me to have the merge tags deleted. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- The countries of the United Kingdom are not subdivisions of the United Kingdom. The UK is united on the basis of four parts, not divided into four parts. --Jza84 | Talk 15:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
"Republic / republic of" Ireland in the intro
Surely the term Republic of Ireland is preferable to republic of Ireland. Everywhere you see the term 'Republic of Ireland' it's capitalised. We could add a rider to acknowledge that the 'official name' of the state (as opposed to its 'constitutional description') is simply Ireland. Pondle (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- It implies an official name not a description if you capitalise it. Personally I would prefer just Ireland but in the absence of that the small "r" is more accurate. --Snowded TALK 21:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be happy with the big R if it was made clear that Ireland was the actual name of the country. Otherwise small r is best.213.202.146.183 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- How about "Ireland is a republic seperate to the United Kingdom." ? --Jza84 | Talk 22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Works for me.213.202.146.183 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Me too.Pondle (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Works for me.213.202.146.183 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
"The UK is not a political union"
Predictably, an editor has blanket reverted my edits to this article. I contend that my edits clarified the situation, but I will not argue the toss with an editor who has explicitly threatened to block me if I cross his path. However, this edit summary - "The UK is not a political union" - just sticks in the craw. Of course the UK is a political union. Reading the Union with Scotland Act 1706 should clarify situation for the ill-informed. --Mais oui! (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- The United Kingdom was formed by a political union although im not sure if such a term appears in the Acts of Union and its only mentioned once on the article about the Act of Union and thats about a previous attempt by the Scottish King who ruled England to unite his Kingdoms. The United Kingdom today is not a political union between different states, it is a single sovereign state and country. Talk of a political union complicates matters, one could say England is a political union between the different counties that unified to form the Kingdom of England or the same for the different regions of Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Mais oui!, you may be enlightened that the United Kingdom is more than England and Scotland. Under what political union are Wales and Northern Ireland united??? --Jza84 | Talk 18:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well according to the Political union article which seems to be badly sourced and incorrect everything between two states coming together is a political union. It covers everything from a union between two states that form a new state, a military annexation, legal annexation, a federal union like the USA etc. Under the description used on that political union article every single country is formed in such a way. I think its inclusion does just complicate matters so agree it shouldnt be included in this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Mais oui!, you may be enlightened that the United Kingdom is more than England and Scotland. Under what political union are Wales and Northern Ireland united??? --Jza84 | Talk 18:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wales is technically part of England (witness the Flag of State - no dragon pennant there), which is why the Heir Apparent uses its Princedom as his ordinary title. Ireland as an island was conquered by English forces, effectively making it the first bag of the British Empire, so in its reduced condition, it too has no legally distinct status as a country. The Union specifically refers to Scotland and England; though as English interests were principally nourished and protected under its terms, it is necessarily skewed in an English direction.
- Nuttyskin (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Country categories
Hi, what exactly is your rationale for removing the "European countries" category I'd just added to the England/Scotland/Wales/NI articles? Is it that you don't consider them to be countries?--Kotniski (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- When you search for List of countries they do not appear.We have to keep it consistent and accurate.TDSDOS (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Each of the articles state that they are countries. You seem to be choosing which articles you wish to be consistent. I will be reinstating the category. Regards. Daicaregos (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- If we want a compromise, we could create a new category Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom, make it a subcategory of European countries, and move E/S/W/NI into that.--Kotniski (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine by me. Good idea.TDSDOS (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- A new category is not needed just for 4 things, this matter should be restored to the previously stable version. Ive seen several people adding and removing different ones in recent days.. lets just stick with the stable version before alterations were made . BritishWatcher (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree all the pages are now back to the stable version of 2 days ago before the category was added.TDSDOS (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- A new category is not needed just for 4 things, this matter should be restored to the previously stable version. Ive seen several people adding and removing different ones in recent days.. lets just stick with the stable version before alterations were made . BritishWatcher (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine by me. Good idea.TDSDOS (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- If we want a compromise, we could create a new category Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom, make it a subcategory of European countries, and move E/S/W/NI into that.--Kotniski (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Each of the articles state that they are countries. You seem to be choosing which articles you wish to be consistent. I will be reinstating the category. Regards. Daicaregos (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The stable version wasn't very satisfactory (for example, Category:England was in Category:European countries, but England wasn't). In fact most things about categories are not very satisfactory - but anyway, I've implemented the proposal above, and found a few more pages to put in the new category so it's not just four things. Hopefully everyone will be happy now.--Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is not the place for this discussion. Countries of the United Kingdom would be better. I'll post a notice on each of the talk pages and transclude this discussion there. Daicaregos (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion has been transcluded from User talk:TDSDOS Daicaregos (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- It has been established that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are countries.Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are in Europe. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England should be in the category ]. Thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Personally I don't mind either way, but we can (if we want) treat the new category Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom as a proper subcategory of Category:European countries, thus according to WP:DUPCAT it is not necessary for E/S/W/NI to be directly in Category:European countries (just as they are not directly in Category:Countries or other higher-level categories). --Kotniski (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think the "Constituent countries of the United Kingdom" category is the best bet and least ambigious. The subparts of the United Kingdom, are termed countries within a country. Its basically what other soverign states called "regions", for instance Germany has Bavaria and Spain has its "autonomous communities". It seems most sensible to have these in the new category that you have created and leave "European countries" just used for sovereign states, rather than regional entites. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I see that this debate has in any case been pre-empted by User:Kotniski who has created and populated the "Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom". In my opinion this is unacceptable as
- 1) the debate is still in progress, indeed it has barely begun, and
- 2) the new category name has the rejected term "constituent countries" and is therefore contrary to a decision reached after a long discussion and contradicts the main article's name (Countries of the United Kingdom) and the term found in most other relevant articles.
- Personally, I don't see why Wales et al should not be categoried as 'European countries'. I am certainly against this unilateral reversion to a contentious and rarely used term that has been rejected here. This new category is not acceptable and a consensus decision would also be needed for the proper and logical alternative, i.e. 'Countries of the United Kingdom', if the need for it is proven and accepted. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I see that this debate has in any case been pre-empted by User:Kotniski who has created and populated the "Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom". In my opinion this is unacceptable as
Because judging by the articles included, the "European countries" category refers to the usage in the sense of "sovereign state". The internal parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are not sovereign entites, synonymous to something like Spain, they're synonymous instead to something like Andalucia. Internal regions of a sovereign state, which in the UK are known as countries or constituency countries. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Whilst i supported and accepted the fact England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should be called countries. I have always said i oppose them appearing on lists of countries (where only sovereign states are listed). There for i dont think they belong there, unless actually listed under the United Kingdom, but that would complicate matters with what others should be included. Whilst i dont think its really needed I would not oppose Category:Countries of the United Kingdom or something similar. The Constituent countries one is ok, but id say best to rename it to just countries of the UK. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Such a rename would be fine by me. (I was only trying to tidy up the categories - I never realized there was all this politics behind it.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, since discussion has apparently ended, I'm going to take this to CfD, initially proposing a rename to Countries of the United Kingdom. See CfD page.--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland don't belong in the countries category, because they're not independant. Only the United Kingdom, should be there. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- GoodDay, the countries category is called just that, not 'Independant countries'. Wales, Scotland and England are countries (NI is not, but that's another matter). As they are countries they belong in the countries category, perfectly logically. In any case, this has been discussed repeatedly and the consensus is - as if we needed to be told! - that they are countries. Despite my opposition to the inclusion of the Six Counties - English Misplaced Pages has followed the political line of the New Labour UK government, a
lieline which is contrary to the Belfast Agreement - I am tempted to agree with the compromise 'Category:Countries of the United Kingdom' but would like to hear other people's opinion as well. It's disappointing and somewhat surprising that such a significant change has attracted so little comment. Perhaps what we really need here in the long term is a clearer practical distinction between the terms 'country' and 'sovereign state'. BritishWatcher says above that he "supported and accepted the fact England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should be called countries" but opposes them "appearing on lists of countries (where only sovereign states are listed)". Therein lies the nub of the problem - the argument that although E, S and W are in fact countries they should not be listed as countries: talk about Alice in Wonderland! Enaidmawr (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)- The compromise proposal (Category:Countries of the United Kingdom) is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- GoodDay, the countries category is called just that, not 'Independant countries'. Wales, Scotland and England are countries (NI is not, but that's another matter). As they are countries they belong in the countries category, perfectly logically. In any case, this has been discussed repeatedly and the consensus is - as if we needed to be told! - that they are countries. Despite my opposition to the inclusion of the Six Counties - English Misplaced Pages has followed the political line of the New Labour UK government, a
- England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland don't belong in the countries category, because they're not independant. Only the United Kingdom, should be there. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, since discussion has apparently ended, I'm going to take this to CfD, initially proposing a rename to Countries of the United Kingdom. See CfD page.--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Such a rename would be fine by me. (I was only trying to tidy up the categories - I never realized there was all this politics behind it.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we need to change all of Misplaced Pages, just to pander to obscurantist sub nationalisms. When the situation is pretty crystal clear. The constituency countries of the United Kingdom are synonymous to Spain's autonomous communities ("nations"). The UK happens to call its internal regions countries. They are not sovereign states as GoodDay pointed out, no amount of sophistry should place them simply in a category which is clearly and obviously meant for sovereign entities (the term country is usually used to mean a sovereign state, as we all know to the extent that merely holding this discussion is tedious to the extreme). Either the current cat, or shortened to "countries of the UK" is fine, though that cat itself more correctly belongs in a "European regions" scope. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please note that User:TDSDOS is a sock puppet of Wikipéire and has been blocked indefinitely. Daicaregos (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for that information, Dai. My suspicions about TDSDOS have been confirmed. And to think that all this verbage on an issue which has already been discussed ad nauseam, and supposedly resolved, is thanks to the less-than-subtle machinations of a POV-agenda editor's sock... Enaidmawr (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just to confirm: editors are not compelled to continue to discuss the matter should they find it too tedious for them. Yorkshirian says "The subparts of the United Kingdom, are termed countries within a country." Interestingly, this single reference example from this article (which begins "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.") has been chosen to confirm the theory that " ... "Constituent countries of the United Kingdom" category is the best bet ...". Why? Why has this reference been distorted and why have the dozens of other references confirming E/S/NI/W to be countries been completely discounted?
- The Oxford English Dictionary lists the first six definitions of country as:
- 1. a. A tract or expanse of land of undefined extent; a region, district.
- 2. a. A tract or district having more or less definite limits in relation to human occupation. e.g. owned by the same lord or proprietor, or inhabited by people of the same race, dialect, occupation, etc.; spec. preceded by a personal name: the region associated with a particular person or his works; also fig.
- 3. The territory or land of a nation; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories, as England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the United Kingdom, etc.
- With political changes, what were originally distinct countries have become provinces or districts of one country, and vice versa; the modern tendency being to identify the term with the existing political condition.
- 4. The land of a person's birth, citizenship, residence, etc.; used alike in the wider sense of native land, and in the narrower one of the particular district to which a person belongs.
- 5. a. ‘The parts of a region distant from cities or courts’ (J.); the rural districts as distinct from the town or towns; sometimes applied to all outside the capital, called, by eminence, ‘town’.
- 6. a. The people of a district or state; the nation.— Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, Entry "1. country".
- England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all verified as countries (see this article). Reliable sources that recognise this include: The Library of Congress quote: "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."; 10 Downing Street quote: "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland"; Commonwealth Secretariat quote: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) is a union of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; European Commission quote: The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
- So, E/NI/S/W are verified as countries and they also lie within the definition of country, which is not necessarily defined as sovereign. The only other criterion to bar E/NI/S/W from inclusion in the category "European countries" would be if they are not in Europe. Do we need to verify that too? Daicaregos (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I do not think they belong in lists which only include sovereign countries.. even if the name says "Countries", this was looked into some time ago when there was a debate about renaming all articles / lists to say sovereign states instead of countries. it was agreed then there was no need to do that, It can be confusing to have just 4 non sovereign countries in a list of dozens of sovereign ones. I would not oppose listing England, Scotland, Wales and NI underneath the UK if that has support, it seeems like a reasonable compromise on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with BritishWatcher. There's no doubt that these entities are called countries (whether they should be or not is outside the scope of our editorial decisions), but they're clearly a different kind of country than the others in the European countries category. So it's most helpful to readers if they can find them under European countries, but in a separate subcategory so they aren't mixed in with the others as if they were of a kind. --Kotniski (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Kotniski: "There's no doubt that these entities are called countries", "whether they should be or not is outside the scope of our editorial decisions" and "it's most helpful to readers if they can find them under European countries". So what part of WP:V do you disagree with in order to place them in a sub-category rather than the category in which they clearly belong?. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability says: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Sorry if I appear to be unnecessarily insulting or plain pig ignorant, but, I don't think we need to change Misplaced Pages's core content policies, just to pander to obscurantist anti nationalisms. When the situation is pretty crystal clear. And btw, they are of a kind; they are countries. Daicaregos (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- The inclusion of the United Kingdom covers England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) We often place articles in subcategories instead of directly into a category (for example, we don't put all countries into Category:Countries, we break them down at least by continent). It's not a big deal for me whether they appear directly in European countries or in a subcategory, but I think it's less confusing to readers if we separate them into a subcategory, since they're quite clearly a different kind of "country" from the others in that category. (And having the subcategory is also a good place to find other articles/lists about the parts of the UK as a set.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, it must be clarified that E/W/NI/S make up the UK. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think anybody is suggesting otherwise, GoodDay (Strange to see a Canadian republican so supportive of the UK). They already are so defined, repeatedly, in numerous articles. But they are still countries, were countries, and will still be countries long afer the UK has finally faded into the setting sun of British imperialism. I've no objection in principle to a sub-cat 'Countries of the UK', but having read some of the comments and attitudes shown here and at CfD I'm now inclined to change my opinion: I won't support the creation of the category if it results in W, E & S being classed, via this proposed cat., as "regions". That is not acceptable. Enaidmawr (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- My personal choice would be constituent country or administrative division, but I'll settled for a Category of countries of the UK. PS- I'm not supportive of monarchs, nor am I a unionist. If & when the UK breaks up, I'll have no problems with listing E/W/S/NI among independants countries. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think anybody is suggesting otherwise, GoodDay (Strange to see a Canadian republican so supportive of the UK). They already are so defined, repeatedly, in numerous articles. But they are still countries, were countries, and will still be countries long afer the UK has finally faded into the setting sun of British imperialism. I've no objection in principle to a sub-cat 'Countries of the UK', but having read some of the comments and attitudes shown here and at CfD I'm now inclined to change my opinion: I won't support the creation of the category if it results in W, E & S being classed, via this proposed cat., as "regions". That is not acceptable. Enaidmawr (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, it must be clarified that E/W/NI/S make up the UK. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) We often place articles in subcategories instead of directly into a category (for example, we don't put all countries into Category:Countries, we break them down at least by continent). It's not a big deal for me whether they appear directly in European countries or in a subcategory, but I think it's less confusing to readers if we separate them into a subcategory, since they're quite clearly a different kind of "country" from the others in that category. (And having the subcategory is also a good place to find other articles/lists about the parts of the UK as a set.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- The inclusion of the United Kingdom covers England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Kotniski: "There's no doubt that these entities are called countries", "whether they should be or not is outside the scope of our editorial decisions" and "it's most helpful to readers if they can find them under European countries". So what part of WP:V do you disagree with in order to place them in a sub-category rather than the category in which they clearly belong?. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability says: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Sorry if I appear to be unnecessarily insulting or plain pig ignorant, but, I don't think we need to change Misplaced Pages's core content policies, just to pander to obscurantist anti nationalisms. When the situation is pretty crystal clear. And btw, they are of a kind; they are countries. Daicaregos (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with BritishWatcher. There's no doubt that these entities are called countries (whether they should be or not is outside the scope of our editorial decisions), but they're clearly a different kind of country than the others in the European countries category. So it's most helpful to readers if they can find them under European countries, but in a separate subcategory so they aren't mixed in with the others as if they were of a kind. --Kotniski (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I do not think they belong in lists which only include sovereign countries.. even if the name says "Countries", this was looked into some time ago when there was a debate about renaming all articles / lists to say sovereign states instead of countries. it was agreed then there was no need to do that, It can be confusing to have just 4 non sovereign countries in a list of dozens of sovereign ones. I would not oppose listing England, Scotland, Wales and NI underneath the UK if that has support, it seeems like a reasonable compromise on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- So, E/NI/S/W are verified as countries and they also lie within the definition of country, which is not necessarily defined as sovereign. The only other criterion to bar E/NI/S/W from inclusion in the category "European countries" would be if they are not in Europe. Do we need to verify that too? Daicaregos (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) Please note: further discussion on this subject has taken place on Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 21. Daicaregos (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Cornwall
Should some slight mention - at least in passing - be made on the page to the status of Cornwall? Though not a "semi-sovereign country", if you like, and not having the same legal status from that perspective, it is regarded as a separate "nation" or some purposes. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I will strongly oppose any attempt to include cornwall on this article, it is NOT and never has been a country of the United Kingdom. To do so would undermine the status of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Cornwall is considered a nation by a tiny minority of people.. it is not a nation, it is not a country of any form. It is a county of England, that is all. Just out of interest, was it a certain wikipedia article that led you to making this comment here? if so which please. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is precluded by WP:FRINGE. No conventional, let alone reliable source includes Cornwall as one of the countries of the UK. --Jza84 | Talk 11:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not much to say here to be honest, Cornwall isn’t a country, end of discussion. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I live in Cornwall (unlike Britwatcher and Fontaine) and I recognise that Cornwall is a nation in its own right. The Cornish people are a recognised ethnic group and Cornwall is our homeland. England is still east of the tamar. I have met numerous Welsh, Irish and Scottish people who recognise that Cornwall is a nation/country, so how would it "undermine the status" of Wales, Scotland etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.253.102 (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not much to say here to be honest, Cornwall isn’t a country, end of discussion. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is precluded by WP:FRINGE. No conventional, let alone reliable source includes Cornwall as one of the countries of the UK. --Jza84 | Talk 11:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Section: "Countries of the United Kingdom"
This has been mentioned to above (the section was described as a "joke"). What is the purpose of the table in the section "Countries of the United Kingdom". I looks like something that belongs more in the user namespace. If the purpose, as I think, is to "demonstrate" the number of references in support of one phraseology or another then it is a clear instance of original research (the sources themselves may be fine, but "counting" them to imply something else is not).
I'm not normally a deletionist without wanting to reuse content in another way but I don't see how this can be recycled so I propose that it be removed to someone's userspace or as a subpage of this talk page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- It was one of the products of a long (and I think mediated) process and it was agreed to keep it here for reference if the issue came up again. --Snowded 11:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- In that case it seems to be for project-internal rather than encyclopedic purposes, and should certainly be moved to somewhere else than the article.--Kotniski (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Any ideas? An Admin put it there in the first place. It doesn't belong on a user page as it was created in common --Snowded 12:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Move it to the top of the talk page, referring to it with an invisible comment in the wikitext of the article?--Kotniski (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds cool to me, then its the standard "this has been discussed before" type notice. --Snowded 13:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good too, there is probably also a better way of organising the refs for the purpose of ready use again - if that was the original purpose. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds cool to me, then its the standard "this has been discussed before" type notice. --Snowded 13:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Move it to the top of the talk page, referring to it with an invisible comment in the wikitext of the article?--Kotniski (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Any ideas? An Admin put it there in the first place. It doesn't belong on a user page as it was created in common --Snowded 12:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- In that case it seems to be for project-internal rather than encyclopedic purposes, and should certainly be moved to somewhere else than the article.--Kotniski (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I moved the section to a sub page and included it on this page as a template (inside a hidden template). That way it won't clutter the talk page but appears at the very top. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
"... not formal subdivisions of the United Kingdom"?
"England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales however are not formal subdivisions of the United Kingdom." - I don't understand what is meant by this sentence.
It is backed with the reference: "There is no common stratum of administrative unit encompassing the United Kingdom at this very high level, and England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not be considered first-order administrative divisions in the conventional sense."
The reference is certainly sound but I don't understand what is trying to be said or if it really backs the statement. Certainly "Scotland", "Wales" and "Northern Ireland" are formally defined subdivisions with formally defined powers devolved to sub-national authorities - they are not "ad hoc subdivision" throw together in the morning and changed at night ... but I'd like to know what's meant before I edit it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think the line is basically saying that the UK isn't a federal state, and that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland aren't 'equivalent' administrative units. The UK is a unitary state where the Crown in Parliament is sovereign, but different degrees of power have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly.--Pondle (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah - I get'cha. I'll see what I try to express that a bit clearer. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
"Wales was part of England is misleading..."
At the time the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed Wales was a part of the Kingdom of England. What is misleading about saying so (and why does it require reverting an unrelated paragraph)? The offending was intended to explain give a potted history of the UK (necessary to put the rest of the article in context) and go some way to explain why the different parts of the UK are called "countries" i.e. the UK was formed by a union of three countries. Until the middle of the last century the countries of the UK (in a political and administrative sense) were distinctly "England", "Ireland" and "Scotland". Wales of course has a history independent of England and has long as long been called a "country" in it's own right (and deservedly so). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Venn diagram
That Venn diagram, it's wrong. It puts the Channel Islands outisde of the British Isles, and everyone knows that's incorrect. Could the creator of the diagram maybe correct it please? Mister Flash (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Usage is inconsistent, a point reflected on the British Isles page, albeit very poorly sourced. Geographically, the Channel Islands are obviously not part of the British Isles, whereas they are generally included as so on socio-political grounds. However, politically speaking, the term British Isles has been eclipsed by British Islands, which of course includes the UK, Mann and the CIs.--Breadandcheese (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not true. British Islands has a specific, limited meaning as I guess you already know. Mister Flash (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Considering the amount of times the phrase is used out there, the incorrect 'singular' political meaning (when it incorrectly includes the channel islands) is very rare. But any mis-use is no more prevalent (if not actually much less prevalent) than inconsistencies you find with similar terms. Esp terms related to the UK; 'England' used to mean the whole UK, 'Ireland' used to mean the whole island but the country too, etc. The geographical use of BI is broad, scientific and consistently used, and that fact is accepted by all parties on Misplaced Pages, even the ones who wish for an equivalent term to be used here, and who insist that various equivalents are becoming more prevalent in society. Given the amount work a number of editors have put into avoiding disruption over this term, I have to question why a seemingly experienced editor would make the above "everyone knows" statement. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Er... so are the Channel Islands in or out then (in your opinion)? Mister Flash (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Out. The term is geographical and is universally used as such, with only relatively few exceptions when you look at the whole picture. The Channel Islands are not in the archipelago of the British Isles. And you couldn't get away with including the Republic of Ireland in any recognised definition of a political construct called 'British Isles'. Some people do include the Channel Islands as a kind of anomaly (ie 'a group of islands' rather than an archipelago), but to my knowledge you won't find that to be the case in technical/scientific use - ie meteorology, geography, geology, natural history, archeology etc. General-use dictionaries do tend to include CI - but Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, which is quite different to a general dictionary, which is inclusive and multi-definition by nature. The first job of the British Isles guideline was to give Misplaced Pages a clear geography-only definition of the word; given the weight of sources, it makes full sense to use the scientific 'archipelago' approach. With terms that can be unclear, all encyclopedias need to supply guides/definitions that can be adhered to, making the encyclopedia a consistent entity. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The diagram is incorrect (or at best reflects a minor/pedantic opinion). The Channel Islands are a part of the British Isles, which is a geographical term not a geological one. Contrary to what Matt writes above, it is common to include them the Channel Islands all contexts where the term is used: be it in scientific or general publications. Some example references are below (I got tired transcribing so many, there of many many many more):
Example sources defining that British Isles that explicitly include the Channel Islands- "British Isles: a group of island lying off the coast of northwestern Europe, from which they are separated by the North Sea and the English Channel. They include Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Isle of Wight, the Hebrides, the Orkney Islands, the Shetland Islands, the Scilly Isles, and the Channel Islands." - New Oxford American Dictionary
- "British Isles: a geographical term for the islands comparing Great Britain and Ireland with all their offshore islands including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands." - Oxford English Dictionary
- "British Isles: the group of island consisting of Great Britain and Ireland, and all the other smaller islands around them e.g. the Hebrides, Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man." - The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary
- "The British Isles: The British Isles constitute the largest group of islands off the European cost. They consist of two main islands - Great Britain (composing England, Scotland, and Wales) and Ireland - a number of smaller inhabited islands, and numerous small islets an docks that are of no economic value and even constitute a danger to shipping. … The British Isles are divided politically into (a) the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and (b) the Republic of Eire. … In addition, the Isle of Man and the French-speaking Channel Islands are considered dependencies, rather than parts, of the United Kingdom; they have their own parliaments, judicial institutions, and bodies of law, as well as administrations, and acts of Parliament do not apply to them unless specifically so stated." - An Atlas of European Affairs
- "Geographically, the British Isles are made up of a number of islands, and there are also a number of different political components. Very often 'England' is used as a synonym of Britain, while 'Englishman' is employed as a blanket description for all the inhabitants of the British Isles. This, as any Welshman, Irishman or Scot will quickly point out, is incorrect. The United Kingdom consists of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Isle of Man, in the Irish Sea, and the Channel Islands, off the coast of France (and formerly part of the Duchy of Normandy), are not part of the United Kingdom." - Modern Britain: an Introduction, John L. Irwin
- "The British Isles consist of two large Islands, Great Britain and Ireland, the Channel Islands, and numerous small islands lying off the the north and west coasts." Encyclopedia of World Geography, M. Ali Khan et al.
- "The British Isles comprise more than 6,000 islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe, including the countries of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) and Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland. The group also includes the United Kingdom crown dependencies of the Isle of Man, and by tradition, the Channel Islands (the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey), even though these islands are strictly speaking an archipelago immediately off the coast of Normandy (France) rather than part of the British Isles." - World Geography of Travel and Tourism: A Regional Approach, Alan A. Lew
- "British Isles: The major island components of the British Isles, geographically but not politically, are Great Britain and Ireland, 229 834 km2 (88 745 mi2). Great Britain comprises England, including the Isle of Wight, Scilly Islands and smaller islands; Wales, including Anglesey; Scotland, including the Inner Hebredes and the Orkney and Shetland Islands. Ireland, 83 851 km2 (32 375 m2), is divided into two parts: Northern Ireland, which until 1972 had an independent parliament and government under the British Crown and now is part of the United Kingdom, under direct British rule; and Ireland or Eire, which is an independent republic. From 1921 to 1937 the republic was known as the 'Irish Free State'. Smaller parts of Great Britain, but administered indirectly, are the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands." - Encyclopedia of European and Asian regional geology, Eldridge M. Moores et al.
- "The islands encompass both the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which have maintained their own separate (from Westminster) system of government." - Human geography of the UK: an Ontroduction, Irene Hardill et al.
- "…the history of 'England' has overlapped repeated with that of other cultures within the British Isles (a term which should include the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, Shetlands and Orkney, as well as the larger islands of Britain and Ireland)." - The British Isles: a History of Four Nations, Hugh Kearney
- "In this book, 'the British Isles' is taken to include the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, Orkney and Shetland as well as mainland Britain and Ireland." - Language in the British Isles, Peter Trudgill
- "Although the Channel Islands (Guernesy and Jersey) and the Isles of Man are part of the geographical area known as 'the British Isles', they are not part of the United Kingdom." - Modern Treaty Law and Practice, Anthony Aust (emphasis in original)
- "As such, the Channel islands represent the British Isles' most southerly territory and enjoy a climate of milt winters and cool summers supplemented with around 1,900 hours of sunshine a year (Guernesy or Jersey are often the sunniest places in Britain.)" - Channel Island Marine Molluscs, Paul Chambers
- "Within the geographical perimeter of the British Isles, the Channel Islands (Jersey, Guernesy, Alderney, Sark, an several smaller islands) and the Isle of Man are crown dependencies, governed by a lieutenant governor but with relative autonomy, and not included in the formal United Kingdom." - The History of Great Britain, Anne B. Rodrick
- "The British Isles include, in addition to the United Kingdom, two interesting groups of islanders, those on the Isle of Man in the Irish sea and those living on the Channel Islands off the coast of France." The Development of the British Empire, Howard Robinson (NB: This source predate Irish independence)
- "The geographic term, British Isles, refers to the archipelago off the north-west coats of continental Europe, which includes the main island of Great Britain an the island of Ireland together with their subsidiary islands, including the Orkneys, Shetlands, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands." - Principles of Plant Health and Quarantine, D. L. Ebbels
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm off out for a while now, but I'll prove to you later how the above sources (compiled over a long period if they are from the infamous 'criticism' article) do not amount to a hill of beans. And hundreds of thousands of texts, big and small, polemical and mainstream, self-published to Oxbridge, relate to Ireland and the UK. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I just put them together now. I'm not familiar with the 'criticism' article. In any event, the OED, NOAD and Chambers dictionaries alone would ordinarily be enough to suffice. It's a cut and dry issue: if you don't know what a word or phrase means, look it up in a dictionary.
- I don't understand what this discussion has to do with Ireland or why you are bringing it up. The question is whether the Channel Islands are considered to be a part of the British Isles. No more, no less. No need to complicate things or turn it into a POV issue on the British Isles. The answer, simple and thoroughly supported, is yes. Verifiability, not truth.--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Just whipped them up eh? The Delia Smith of citation providing. I have to say that saying you don't understand how Ireland is involved sounds rather like you are laying up an 'WP:AGF' to me! If you read all your sources carefully, some of them have in-built caveats (inc extra-defining words), a couple of them have other mistakes (like claiming the Channel Islands are part of Great Britain), and the rest are basically the exceptions I refer too; Apart from (as I have already allowed for) general dictionaries, which do tend to be completist in their definition of BI. Human geography and the social sciences are not the most accurate of sciences technically, and the more accurate hard-science based ones (ie geology/archipelago-based) are just as heavily written. but you need to actually look for them. Encyclopedias are very different to dictionaries, and Misplaced Pages has a guideline/MOS structure to help keep it a consistent entity.
- I often find the fist line of Verify to be the bolt hole of the biased. I'll get together my verified sources, and we'll keep on dishing them out until it is clear that 'the truth' (in the sense of 'the reality') in the end actually matters. Geology, Natural history, archeology and meteorology will win it - not the looser socal sciences, which are notoriously varied on matter surrounding the UK anyway, and I will find plenty of archipelago-based uses of BI within them I am certain. Esp the ones that aknowledge the term 'British Islands', which was designed to disclude the Republic of Ireland - something that the archipelago-based sciences and disciplines obviously do not do: they are about the archipelago. Verified sourcing is only the fist step towards citing an article: the truth will ultimately provide the best verified definition, and is a pretty good shortcut in avoiding a shedload of wasted time too.
- So - the point about the 'archipelago definition' actually being the most sensible one for Misplaced Pages articles? I expect that will be steadfastly ignored by all who don't wish the term to be used on Misplaced Pages at all. And those people have the gall call people like me biased. I am not biased either way, I simply realise that the a term with such widespread use simply can't be placed aside. We need guidelines to help us sort out when to use it, and to scupper the definition is to scupper the guideline. I do expect that nationalist politics (as least much as inclusionist stalwarts) will prevent any kind of stability on this matter. And people like myself who just want to see a sensible working encyclopedia without troubled or locked articles will continue to be accused of bias. What a mire. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Just whipped them up eh? The Delia Smith of citation providing." You're welcome. I'm flattered but really this is dime-a-dozen stuff. It's no big deal.
- "Geology, Natural history, archeology and meteorology will win it..." Your wish is my command:
- "Overall, the late Precambrian geology of the southern British Isles can be view as divisible into three superterranes (i.e. groups of terranes) that may be classified as Monian (Anglesey, Western Llynn, southeast Ireland), Avalonian (Sarn Camplex of Llyn, Central England, Welsh Borderland, southwest Wales), and Cadomian (Channel Islands)." - Atlas of Palaeogeography and Lithofacies, John Christopher Wolverson Cope
- "The Flora deals with the British Isles, comprising Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales), Ireland (Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic), the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands." - The Freshwater Algal Flora of the British Isles, D. M. John et al.
- "Neanderthal skeletal remains are known from two sites in the British Isles: Pontnewydd Cave in Clwyd, Wales, and La Cotte de Saint-Brelade on Jersey in the Channel Islands" - England: an Oxford Archaeological Guide to Sites from Earliest Times to AD 1600, Timothy Darvill,
- "The Channel Islands lie in the Gulf of Saint-Malo, just a few kilometers from et French coast, and have the sunniest climate in the British Isles." - Regional Climates of the British Isles, Dennis Wheeler et al.
- These kind of questions are answered by referring to a dictionary, not by performing scientific experiments or conducting field studies.
- Again, I'm sorry, I don't see what Ireland has to do with this. The only question here is: are the Channel Islands a part of the British Isles? The answer (verified) is yes. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:11, 29 November 2009 (UT
- You simply cannot say "the answer (verified) is yes" when other uses of term can be verified too. You've got to get your head around 'verify'! Exceptions are always easier to find on search engines (an often-unhelpful quirk when dealing with Misplaced Pages - Google is responsible for a multitude of sins!) - in this case they will come to the keyword "channel islands". I am planning to come back to BI at some point, but only with useful data, and partly from a large library near to me. Plenty of BI maps out there disclude the Channel Islands - including one I own. Others include part of France, but sometimes just as a compass mark. Sometimes they highlight the channel islands. Sometimes the CIs are included BI matters simply because they are British. But does that disallow the archipelago definition? The nearest equivalent to Misplaced Pages is the Encyclopedia Britannica, which appends "Some also include the Channel islands." after its clear definition on its main encyclopedia, and does not bother to append it in its children's version. Like Britannica, we are an encyclopedia, and as for my points regarding what is actually good for Misplaced Pages, again you have ignored them. What do you personally want to see Misplaced Pages do regarding sources in the guideline? Include every meaning available (political, British Islands with the ROI, and archipelago-only), or stick to the exacting archipelago sources that technically make sense in an encyclopedia? Or do you want to headcount all verifiable 'online' sources, and 'go foward' on which has the most? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- What is good for the encyclopedia is to base our articles on reliable sources, not on what would make life easier for us as editors. From my (POV) perspective, of all the sources above, World Geography of Travel and Tourism, I think, hits the nail on the head: "The British Isles ... includes the United Kingdom crown dependencies of the Isle of Man, and by tradition, the Channel Islands (the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey), even though these islands are strictly speaking an archipelago immediately off the coast of Normandy (France) rather than part of the British Isles." But we are not here to correct the English language or to tidy it up. The British Isles is a place. Like most other places, it roughly conforms to geological boundaries - but only roughly. The Channel Islands are a part of that place that pops over where we might want to draw a neat little border.
- We are a compendium of knowledge, not a producer or a corrector of it; we stick with what the books says. In the case of the British Isles, book after book says that the Channel Islands are in. Some, like Britannica, do say that they are optional - and some neglect them - but unless they explicitly say "the CIs are out", in contrast to those that explicitly say "the CIs are in", then we are only reading what we want into them. Those that explicitly say they are out, or are optional, are a small minority. Other than that the only sources we have against the CI being in are, like you have said, looking at maps and reading something into them. But if it is not explicit, it's no good.
- Regarding encyclopedias, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources has something to say about tertiary sources. None the less, if you are in the mood, Encarta has this to say:
- "It consists of the large islands of Great Britain and Ireland; several island groups, namely, the Orkney Islands, the Shetland Islands, the Hebrides, and the Channel Islands; and the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, and the Isle of Man." - Encarta
- --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 02:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, I think the current into to British Isles is just fine (and by extension any similar treatment of the CIs elsewhere). In articles, we can simply explain the situation; it's only in things like lists or, like here, in a diagram, that we have to make a binary decision (in or out) and loose context. But it can be left to the actual article to explain that actually, they're on the other side of the Channel, closer to France.
- It's not a big deal to explain. Things are messy, but it's not our job to tidy them up. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 02:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Britinnica does not say the Channel Islands are 'optional', it gives its archipelago-based definition, and then says that some also include them. And that's the rub.
- The more you repeat lines this this; "What is good for the encyclopedia is to base our articles on reliable sources, not on what would make life easier for us as editors.", the more you remind me of someone active during that time you were an just an IP. How many times must I say there are 'reliable sources' on both sides? I've said I'll compile some solid ones when I have the time, so hold your bloody horses and wait for heaven's sake. There are those who "say the Channel Islands are out" (your tiny minority), and those who clearly see them as being out (which are not so easy to keyword). I've already explained the difficulty of keywording 'givens' in an online search engine - kindly stop flatly ignoring all my non-basic points: BI is not your typical Verify issue, and Misplaced Pages needs to recommend a single definition. I've reverted your revision to the Venn diagram. If you want to show the inconsistency, put in an asterisk and a comment (on the image itself if you like - no one would argue). You cannot completely change it to your own preferred definition. By the way, I seem to remember a certain 'controversial' diagram of your own once upon a time that was entirely Original Research - so careful with taking the moral high ground here.
- Regarding your flighty words on what our wonderful Misplaced Pages is all about, in terms of encyclopedic definition it simply IS our job to do a 'tidy up' for the benefit of creating an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages has done this scores if not hundreds of times when it has had to - just read through MOS. THAT IS THE WHOLE ISSUE WITH BI - IT CLEARLY NEEDED/NEEDS A DEFINING GUIDELINE. If you want the word to find some kind of stability that is. Constantly cheeping the first few few notes of policy is not going to help a discussion like this. Misplaced Pages is more than just a couple of simple rules to be endlessly (mis) called. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- If the venn diagram is causing such controversy, and is apparently inaccurate, why not just remove it until the issue is settled? Alastairward (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to. I tried 3 times to revert the change, until I realised that Rannfairti copied over the original file, without any consensus sought or notification given. Uploading a separate file is the standard procedure with variations, not over-writing the original. I'll append some text to the original image I copied from the image history, and put something back tonight if I can. It's just as esy as re-uploading it. The diagram is a useful, if not a major, part of the article.Matt Lewis (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually - I've just noticed (seeing the diagram in here is a new thing for me) it has got flags on it! That is controversial regarding Northern Ireland, and flags simply aren't needed here. There is an old BI diagram I created myself last year some time - I'll hunt that out. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
New BI diagram
- I found the diagram from last October (see right). I'd completely forgotten about this, and I've given it both CI boundries too. It got some good support here. What stopped me moving forward with it (apart from distractions from the various taskforces I suppose) was Jza84 pointing out that the off-shore islands like Anglesey are wrongly placed in Great Britain. If I added "and off-shore islands" in small type underneath the label 'Great Britian', would anyone object if this became the new diagram?
- If we do go back to a Venn, I really don't think we should have flags in it, and should point out the two definitions of BI too (a dotted Venn line might be better than as asterisk). Matt Lewis (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- The flags are good. I vote we keep them. There's no problem with NI. The purists tell us it doesn't have a flag now, and it doesn't on the diagram. What about the Euler dialgram at British Isles? We should rationalise all these versions somehow or other. Mister Flash (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Your 'purists' are by definition only one party. It's best avoiding what could cause problems - are the flags actually needed? I wasn't that happy with them being added to the main article either - they don't really explain anything. The BI Euler was changed by Rann to include the Channel Islands a couple of years back (in a previous account of his). I imagine I created this new one in view of updating that one. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- The flags are good. I vote we keep them. There's no problem with NI. The purists tell us it doesn't have a flag now, and it doesn't on the diagram. What about the Euler dialgram at British Isles? We should rationalise all these versions somehow or other. Mister Flash (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- If we do go back to a Venn, I really don't think we should have flags in it, and should point out the two definitions of BI too (a dotted Venn line might be better than as asterisk). Matt Lewis (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- That diagram is good. And easier to comprehend that the Euler diagrams. I wouldn't worry about Anglesey and Wight, they are off-shore islands of GB in the same way as the Aran Islands, Achail, Rathlin and god knows how many others are offshore islands of Ireland. There's no need to treat them any differently. (Anyway, surely the Shetlands are more of a concern in that respect.) Some points:
- There's a spelling mistake in "Geographical archipelago"
- The scare quote around "Traditional" and elsewhere should go.
- We should rethink the wording of "geographical archipelago" to refer to the sense without the CIs - it is a "geographical archipelago" with or without them - I get what's meant, but can't think of another wording right now.
- Maybe dot the widest and narrowest extent of the definition and drop putting terms on them.
- I think the coast line of continental Europe should be visible as a reference point but faded out in some way.
- There's a green blob on over Cork - is that some kind of joke, Matt? :-)
- --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class United Kingdom articles
- Top-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- Start-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- High-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- Start-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- Start-Class UK geography articles
- Top-importance UK geography articles
- Start-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles