Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/United Kingdom-related articles/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements

Someone has just amended the Settlements section in line with the above page, which we need to co-ordinate with - it's a shame no-one in the original debate was aware of such a page existing. The effect of this page is to remove the UK, and mention only the constituent nation. I would ask, though, whether it's consistent with our approach to other parts of the world; to repeat something I said on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):

There may be an issue here with being neutral in our treatment of different countries. Personally, I find both "Boston, Massachusetts" and "Newport, Wales" entirely clear and unambiguous. But would we say (in an internationally-focused article) "Shillong, Meghalaya" and equally expect people to know where that is? Meghalaya has a population comparable to Wales or to, say, Nevada, and English is one of its official languages. If we wouldn't expect our readers to know where Meghalaya is, should we expect them to know where Wales or Nevada are? TSP 15:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "expect" is the wrong word. The hyperlinks mean that what one doesn't already know, one can esaily find out. I didn't know where Meghalaya was, but I do now. --Stemonitis 15:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmm... but in that case, we could say that no information needs to be stated as long as you can follow a hyperlink to find it out. I don't think that's what we normally do. We would not simply say "Bruce Willis was born in Idar-Oberstein" and expect people to follow the link to find out where that was; we'd generally give enough information for people to know where we meant - "Bruce Willis was born in Idar-Oberstein, Germany". Is a constituent country, for all international readers, always enough information? Maybe it is. If so, need we be consistent in our treatment of different countries; or is it OK to say "OUR subdivisions are famous enough to be used alone, but THEIRS aren't"? TSP 15:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is that a lot can be achieved by the context. If a reasonable proportion of the readership would not be confused by reading that someone was from "Newport, Pembrokeshire", then the fact that some would have to click to find out might an acceptable price given the improved tightness of the prose. If a large proportion of the readership are going to have to click to find out that it's in "Wales, United Kingdom", then we should include it for clarity. However, the characteristics of the readership will vary from article to article, and while it may be acceptable in some cases to omit some geographical information, it may not in others. If an articles reads "X Y is a member of the Welsh Assembly for Islwyn", then not adding ", Wales, United Kingdom" is fine, because we've already established a Welsh-specific context, whereas writing "Catherine Zeta Jones is from the Mumbles" is clearly lacking in context, and would need further specification. --Stemonitis 15:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see - yes, true. Are we saying, though, that 'UK' need never be used in a settlement name - a constituent country is always sufficient? That seems to be the implication of the guideline as it is at present. TSP 15:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

An alternative proposal

In the interests of advancing this project, and rather than just saying "I disagree", I am proposing an alternative guideline. I want to stress that this is a serious proposal, not a wind-up or a points-scoring exercise. If it is appropriate to put it on the project page, I will:

• Where it is required to state the nationality of a person from the United Kingdom, for example in an infobox, British should never be used unless (a) "Britishness" is or was an essential feature of that person, or (b) it is the best possible compromise in the absence of a definitive nationality.
• Where it is required to display a flag representing the nationality of a person from the United Kingdom, the Union Flag should be used, unless the person gave his or her allegiance to another flag (e.g. Flag of Ireland).

Scolaire 16:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this right, under your proposal, if a flag must be used in an infobox then you're suggesting that Scottish would be used? Readro 16:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think flagicons shouldn't be used as a rule in infoboxs as it will result in edit wars.--padraig 17:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - "b" is the best proposal. Where someone's identity is hazy, then I think this is appropriate.--MacRusgail 17:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bearing in mind what Padraig says, and bearing in mind also that flagicons don't always or even usually have to be followed by text, if flagicons are required Scottish would be appropriate, as long as the person did not give their allegiance to the Scottish flag.
The proposal is that British should not be used except in the case of (a) or (b). I didn't mean for people to choose one over the other. Scolaire 17:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My primary concern has always been for verifiability; which is my reason for preferring the Union flag and 'British'. If someone holds or is entitled to hold a UK passport, they have UK citizenship and in that sense nationality, regardless of what other nationalities they may hold; that is a verifiable fact. The same verifiable standard does not exist for Scottishness, Englishness or Welshness (leaving aside the separate Irish issues for now); no-one holds a Scottish or an English passport, so it is purely a matter of opinion whether someone is Scottish or not. Using constituent countries as the usual designation of nationality seems to encourage editors to take a guess at which constituent country someone would be best identified with; which doesn't seem to meet our usual standards of verifiability and seems to me more likely to lead to conflicts. TSP 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I completely agree. Readro 17:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding verifiability, passports do no more than verify that the issuing government has decided that the person is of the government's "nationality" as the government itself has defined it for its own administrative purposes. That is not a verification of nationality. It may be brought into discussions of nationality of course, but it's very far from any kind of standard guide. Nationality, like all forms of human identity, is subject to complications which go beyond the understanding of your average wiki editor, and cannot be made subject to wishy-washy POV-pushing guidelines. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal nationality is not a subset of human identity, it is a completely independent concept. Someone's identity may well be worth mentioning, but in many cases it cannot be summed up in a word and is better gleaned from content of an article rather than an outright labelling exercise. --Breadandcheese 18:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, even though I know others have not. Did you read the Village Pump debate? Pushing a POV is not the reason why this page was drafted. TSP 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Assume the assumption of good faith. Per WP:Assume good faith, Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute. If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack. Per Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith, The first rule of WP:AGF: Don't talk about WP:AGF. And yes I did read the village pump, and I have some nice quotes and analysis I can post for anyone. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is why, to my mind, verifiability should not be the key factor here, but (dare I say it a third time?) common sense. Scolaire 17:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Common sense for an encyclopaedia, I believe, would be to side on what is of substance rather than what is fluid and, dare I say, airy-fairy. --Breadandcheese 18:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. And somebody being Scottish is substance or airy-fairy? Scolaire 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Very airy-fairy! It's based on "I feel like a..." rather than "he is...", which - while the former may be interesting, is not an objective fact. --Breadandcheese 18:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So Billy Connolly is not Scottish, he only "feels" Scottish? Scolaire 18:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, entirely - that's what national allegiances are. You can be born in Scotland, live in Scotland, etc and still not be Scottish. Case in point: Tony Blair, who clearly doesn't self-identify as Scottish. Nations are effectively imagined communities. --Breadandcheese 18:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So Billy Connolly definitely isn't Scottish? Scolaire 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually prefer Sony-youth's proposal (see the Irishness section) in which -ish words are removed in favour of United Kingdom (Scotland) or Scotland (United Kingdom). Northern Ireland could/should be left on its own. Flags could be discouraged if consensus goes that way. Adrian M. H. 17:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that would help - "British" is a bit of an anomaly, if used as the national identifier for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as it clearly only really applies to one part of it.

If it was Great British, I'd agree, but it isn't. Britain has always been a flexible term and - moreover - was originally applied to the Isles rather than the island. --Breadandcheese 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we just have to resolve that no universal solution is possible, however. If we cannot agree that Northern Ireland may be described as part of the United Kingdom, then tying things down to verifiable standards is probably impossible.

If Common Sense is to be our guide, then no policy is necessary. On the other hand, as - unlike Verifiability - Common Sense is not provable and everyone's idea of it is different, it is also unlikely to result in unambiguous or consistent results. Possibly consistency isn't something we should seek on Wikipedia. TSP 17:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistency is good as long as it doesn't become a straitjacket. If there is a conflict between consistency and common sense, common sense should have priority. Scolaire 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not bothered if consensus goes in the direction of the "United Kingdom (Scotland)" option, but I don't understand how that is any different from "British (Scotland)" or "British (Scottish)". --Breadandcheese 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, I think flags are un encyclopaedic in articles. I don't support the Union Flag (or any other) being anywhere in relation to a person's identity.--Breadandcheese 18:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how many people are aware of the huge controversy that arose during the 2001 census and how many people complained about not being able to put "Welsh" as their nationality. Although I do agree that there are circumstances in which "British" is more appropriate than "English", "Scottish", etc., I do think it's risky to second-guess people's allegiances, and I don't agree with the use of the flag icon - on that I agree completely with the user above. Deb 18:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, that's more because options like "Scottish" were available. It was an anomaly. There are plenty of official forms where people have to tick British or "White UK". If allegiances aren't brought into it, nobody has any problems. --Breadandcheese 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea of the proposal was to move it entirely from being a question of allegiance, and make it purely a question of verifiable citizenship. TSP 18:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that was then and this is now. Surely it is clear from all of the above that "verifiable citizenship" is not enough and "allegiance" is central to the question? Scolaire 18:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegiances and identity can typically not be summed up in a word. --Breadandcheese 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps; but as allegiance is pretty much intrinsically unprovable - even if someone has called themselves 'Scottish' in one place, it's in most cases impossible to prove that they have never called themselves 'British' or indeed 'English' elsewhere - that's not really something we can write a policy on. TSP 18:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's intrinsically unprovable that Billy Connolly is Scottish? Maybe it's me that's going mad! Scolaire 18:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, not to the exclusion of British, or Glaswegian, or any number of other loyalties he may hold. He, unlike many notable people, has discussed his identity in the public arena - he's a pretty easy one to label Scottish, equally he is also known for being pro-British unity. --Breadandcheese 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Billy Connolly is British ('the passport test')? Is this verifiable? --sony-youth^pléigh 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Meaning he would verifiably prefer to be called "British" than "Scottish"? Scolaire 18:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a clue, I'm afraid. For all I know, he might like to be called Scottish by people in the UK and British by people abroad. Again, flexible. --Breadandcheese 18:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he was born in Glasgow, a city in the United Kingdom and is thus holds UK citizenship. --Breadandcheese 18:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So we can say he was "born a British subject" (as it was then), but can we verifiably say that he is a British citizen now? --sony-youth^pléigh 18:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, but very few people renounce their citizenships. I'm sure it'd be fairly notable if he did so. --Breadandcheese 19:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"United Kingdom (Scotland)" sounds good to me - and 100$ support scrapping flags. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do we necessarily treat as definitive what people prefer to be called? One of the things that brought on this proposal was the observation that there exist people who self-define as nationals of the Confederate States of America, or of Sealand; yet we do not generally honour those self-identifications. For others, particularly dead people, it will be impossible to establish how they self-identified; only how others have subsequently chosen to display them. I note that we call Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington "Anglo-Irish" despite his own famous and fervent (though admittedly possibly apocryphal) denial of Irish identity, "being born in a stable does not make one a horse". TSP 18:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, so you are equating the United Kingdom to a short-live state during a time of war? (I had never heard of Sealand before - thanks for that!) --sony-youth^pléigh 18:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No - I'm saying that people self-define as all sorts of silly things, so if we take self-definition as definitive then there's a big hole that lies THAT way as well. (Equally, I think that we'd get odd looks if we started tagging people just as 'European', even if there are people who self-define as that.) TSP 19:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - glib reply. I agree, self-identification and second-guessing self-identification are not the way to go. But neither is assuming or second-guessing non-self-identification. Just as we can't guess that all people in Scotland identify as Scottish, neither should we assume that without evidence to the contrary that they do not. (The 'passport test' doesn't really fit either and people give up their passports or become naturalized as citizens of other countries for all kind of reasons - tax, politics, migration, identity - and we can never verifiably know what passport a person holds right now.) --sony-youth^pléigh 19:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't "necessarily" do anything. Breadandcheese, above, said "again, flexibility." If flexibility is to be our guide, why can we not build flexibility into the guideline? Scolaire 19:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that the same as the situation we have without a guideline? In which case, perhaps we're better without one. TSP 19:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps. Scolaire 19:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I still see no reason why we are defining, say (again), Billy Connelly as Scottish in his infobox when any equivalent American comedian from the Deep South would be labelled American. I simply believe the policy seeks parity with the practice for other countries. --Breadandcheese 19:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I do know what you're saying, Breadandcheese. But it must be apparent by now that some people see it differently. Scolaire 19:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Although if we can all crystalise around some compromise like "United Kingdom (Scotland)" then something might still come out of this *shrugs*. I suspect that that may still be far one way for some and too far the other for others, though. We shall see! TSP 19:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It might help if we had a "sandbox" infox to play with so we can see what it looks like in situ. (From experience people often change their minds when they see a proposal as it actually will be on the page.) --sony-youth^pléigh 19:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Billy Connolly
Connolly in 2005
Born	(1942-11-24) 24 November 1942 Anderston, Glasgow, Scotland
Medium	Stand-up, television, film
Nationality	United Kingdom (Scotland)
Years active	1960s–present
Spouse	Iris Pressagh (1969–1981) Pamela Stephenson (1989–present)
Website	BillyConnolly.com

Well, OK - here's (one possible) Billy Connolly - without flags, as that's the current form on the page. (Hurrah, it even has a GFDL image so we can use it on talk pages!

I have to say that it does look odd to me, just gramatically, to answer "Nationality" with "Scotland"; but that may be a niggle worth putting up with. TSP 19:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Status quo for me. By saying that the UK or United Kingdom (Scotland) can be the only description for nationality is completely wrong. Those who were born in these islands are of course British, but I am also Scottish by birth (my birth certificate tells me so), body politic (I elect MSP's to the Scottish Parliament), community (I was educated according to a Scottish education system and live according to Scottish law), ethnic group and race (mostly celtic). So by these criteria, I am Scottish. So when an editor pens an article and he describes his or her's subject's nationality that subject can be English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish OR British, but not exclusively British --Bill Reid | Talk 19:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to tell a man what's on his own birth certificate, but it does not say you are Scottish. It simply says you were born in Scotland (or, rather more accurately, that you were born within the area in which the General Register Office for Scotland operates, and the county), there are plenty of people born in Scotland who do not see themselves as Scottish. As for politics, any EU citizen resident in Scotland can elect MSPs. Community - you live according to the law of the state you inhabit, I'd assume, and your education is simply a fact of history. Ethnic group and race and neither here nor there, IMO. While all of these would suggest your Scottishness, and certainly show a Scottish influence to your person, they do not make you Scottish. --Breadandcheese 19:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So there's actually no such thing as being Scottish? Scolaire 19:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not remotely what I'm trying to convey. None of the aforementioned things make someone Scottish in the same way as holding British citizenship makes you British. Scottishness (and indeed, any identity) is imagined rather than solid. Not to say that lessens its value in any way, some of the most human things are imagined constructs. However if I was born in Scotland, to English parents, and lived between those two parts of the UK there'd be nothing to stop me thinking "right, I'm not Scottish anymore, I'm now an Englishman". --Breadandcheese 19:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing imagined about being Scottish. In Demography of Scotland you will see "White Scottish: 4,459,071 - 88.09%". That's four and a half million (white) Scottish people, not imaginary Scottish people. There is such a thing as Scottish. It is not a figment of anybody's imagination. Everybody the world over knows what "Scottish" is. To rely on a passport in the face of 2,000 years plus of history just makes no sense whatsoever. Scolaire 20:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't play with words. I suggest you have a look at the Wiki page on Imagined communities - it might makes you realise what I'm saying. There are people, however it is within their heads that they become Scottish. Of course there is such a thing, did I ever deny it? You clearly want me to. As for the '2,000 years plus of history' (Scotland was formed rather more recently, but I'll let it slide) that's simply an appeal to emotion and hardly worthy of a debate. --Breadandcheese 20:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of playing with words. You have said, consistently, that people aren't Scottish just because they think they are. As for "2,000 years of history", I said nothing about when Scotland was "formed" - once again legalities seem to be the only reality for you. Scolaire 20:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

But you are doing that. I've said quite the opposite - people ARE Scottish just because they think they are. 2,000 years ago, the people of these islands could best be labeled as Britons, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Legalities are not the only reality by a long shot, but they are a solid foundation of fact. People's identities are a changing, fluid feature of their personalities. When we have to sum up a concept in a few words, we should side with the definite. --Breadandcheese 21:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a problem with all nationalities/national identities, not particularly for "British" ones. Millions of Americans likewise hold themselves to have two or more nationalities, and even have two of those sacred passports you seem to think are so important. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is a problem with them all, which is why I advocate giving national identities a lesser status than fact and discussing them more adequately in order to establish something more factual. --Breadandcheese 20:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Anderson's imagined communities would apply with equal validity to any collection of letters that would follow the word "Nationality" in an infobox, whether that collection of letters spell Scottish, British, European or Marsian. That one person may hold a passport that also presents their particular arrangement of letters after the word "Nationality" does not make their imagined community any less imagined. Neither does the "imagined" of Anderson's communities imply an any sense of invalidity or unreality. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship is far more tangible than personal identity. It carries with it, for example, rights and privileges and is a status of external application which cannot be shaken off with a thought. 'Neither does the "imagined" of Anderson's communities imply an any sense of invalidity or unreality' - are you trying to imply my use of the term does despite me going somewhat overboard in countering that accusation? There is nothing less important about identity over citizenship, in fact in many cases it is more important to a person, but I still don't see why 'Nationality' when used usually to sum up citizenship - and indeed, that is its only logical application - should be treated differently in UK articles. --Breadandcheese 21:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Those things are indeed among the various things that makes one's nationality Scottish. Bill has just told you, you should listen. There's no more fixed meaning to "nationality" than there is to "Britishness", "Scottishness", "Russianess", or anything else that people all over the world call their "nationality" or "national identity". Like all words, you work out the meaning by usage, not by prescription or some convoluted normative schema that you yourself want to design. Lots of people have penises and don't regard themselves as men, still the concept of "man" and "masculinity" exist in our language and sex or gender is part of various infoboxes and internet forms. Just the real world, Bread. Departing from the real world won't make this conversation look any more sensible. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a biological definition for 'man' - just as there is a legal (as well as national identity related) definition for 'British'. If someone is male, yet considers himself a woman, the latter is worthy of discussion; ditto if I am a human being but I consider myself a goat, it is worthy of discussion too. As far as I can see, you're making my point for me. I'm not attempting to depart from the real world in the least, I'm simply pointing out that British is a far more objective way of labeling a British person than to delve into their identity. --Breadandcheese 20:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the sad thing for me. You think you're being more objective, but in fact you're just trying to objectivize the subjective bureaucratic practice of a government. The government's view may have influence in common understanding of the word "nationality", but it is still a word with ambiguity, for which most of the time most people regard Scottishness as their or a nationality. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, "holding British citizenship" does not make you British. There are over a half a million people in Northern Ireland who not so much "hold" British citizenship as have it forced upon them. That does not "make" them British and never will. Scolaire 20:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem unable to grasp the difference between "British (legal concept)" and "British (identity)" simply because they share the same term (British). Perhaps a mental disambiguation is needed? --Breadandcheese 20:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem unable to grasp the concept that you cannot make somebody British. And by the way, a legal concept is only a concept - as the Deacon says, try to come back to the real world. Scolaire 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to make anyone anything, which is perhaps a point of contention here - I certainly do not seek to imply anyone has a certain identity or that they are of a certain cultural background without at least giving it relevant discussion. This is the real world, and in the real world people are British citizens and their identities are fluid things which are not really relevant to an encyclopaedia in many cases. --Breadandcheese 21:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In the real world people are not British citizens any more than they are anything else. Honestly, Breadandcheese, they're not. It's just a bee in your bonnet, nothing more. You can show me your passport from now until doomsday and it won't change the reality. It's only a piece of paper. People are what they are. Deal with it. Scolaire 21:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Softening the Britishness

I have had so many edit conflicts in the last few minutes that I just had to make a new section for convenience. To address Breadandcheese's earlier query, my (and, presumably, Sony-youth's?) rationale behind Scotland (United Kingdom) would be to soften the emphasis on the concept of nationality or Britishness and strike some balance between the two identities without stamping on either of them. Perhaps if there were not so many infoboxes involved, we could do away with nationality and replace it with place of origin or something and be done with all this, but I don't think that's a practical option. Adrian M. H. 18:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. And I wouldn't even be so bother about reading "Nationality: United Kingdom (Scotland)." --sony-youth^pléigh 19:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Right-o. Sounds perfectly fine to me then. --Breadandcheese 19:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Works for me; with an inclination towards Sony-youth's version.

Are there dissenting voices, or should we go ahead and redraft with that, and see if it makes people any happier? TSP 19:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh! I didn't see that I had reversed it. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your version came first and Adrian reversed it - I don't know if that was a thought-out choice or just happenstance. TSP 19:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I reversed the initial suggestion. It was a conscious decision because it seemed more logical to have the constituent first followed by UK. I prefer that order, but I'm open to whichever order gets consensus. Just don't leave it with both choices; edit wars that way lie. Adrian M. H. 20:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It worries me a bit that this conversation is moving so quickly. Surely we could do with waiting a bit and seeing if others had any good suggestions etc? That said, the set up you suggest is eminently sensible, IMO. --Breadandcheese 19:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure; it just seemed to me that this version couldn't be objected to more than the current version; and I'm keen for the proposal to be viewed as a 'work in progress' and freely altered by anyone who thinks they can do better. TSP 19:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not dissenting per se, just noting that the field in the infobox says nationality and two countries have been listed. Would British (Scottish) work? Readro 19:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, it looks odd to me as well; but I think that "British" has issues that "United Kingdom" doesn't. "-ish" seems to imply an identity which not all may feel; whereas citizenship is less controversial. Also "British" has its own issues when applied to Northern Ireland, which, while legally part of the UK, is not really British (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). TSP 19:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is part of the British Isles though. I think I'd prefer "United Kingdom (Scottish)" as it sounds better. For infoboxes that display flags (hated by a lot I know), what about having the Union Flag and the flag of the constituent country together? I think we'd be more likely to get a consensus with that. Readro 19:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no flag for Northern Ireland. --Red King 19:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still hold that neither the Union Jack or the Home Nation flags are particularly official, but as a matter of recognition to the unique problems of Northern Ireland, it'd probably be best to merely stick with the UJ or omit flags altogether if possible. What is done at the moment? --Breadandcheese 19:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Scotland, United Kingdom" be more appropriate and better formatted than United Kingdom (Scotland)? -81.178.104.145 19:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, yes, works for me. TSP 19:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems rather more like an address than a description of Nationality to me. I also think the UK should be emphasised as the actual state of citizenship, and to make it not too unusual when the (Whatever) is left out (as it will have to be in circumstances where 'British' alone is presently used), for the reasons gone into a lot above.--Breadandcheese 19:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is how you'd be likely to say in real life, which is probably why it reminds you of an address. And the other suggestion would surely be seen as "unusual" when you have "Northern Ireland" and not "United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)" too? -81.178.104.145

Recap: So the choices are:

1. Scotland (United Kingdom)
2. United Kingdom (Scotland)
3. Scottish (United Kingdom)
4. Scotland (British)
5. United Kingdom (Scottish)
6. British (Scotland)
7. Scottish (British)
8. British (Scottish)

? And the forerunner are 1, 2, 3, 5? --sony-youth^pléigh 19:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My mind favours, considering the discussions that have taken place in their entirety, United Kingdom (Scotland). --Breadandcheese 20:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally like 3 Scottish (United Kingdom) as answering nationality with just a country looks a bit odd Davewild 20:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. Whereas I'd prefer that they be matched - Scottish (United Kingdom) seems to imply that the person holds Scottish but not British nationality. I don't mind apart from that. TSP 20:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, hence my earlier comment about changing the name of the field. I noted that it would be impractical at this time, but I wonder if we could include a suggested field name for future templates? Or change the existing ones? That is if we decide to use this system in one of the first few forms above. Adrian M. H. 20:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I agree with TSP that they should probably match. Adrian M. H. 20:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment on list: None of the above. Leave it to the people editing the articles. That's what's gonna happen anyway. Please, all this time trying to concoct "rules" (which aren't rules, btw, and no-one has to obey them), could be much better spent editing actual articles. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh flippin' heck, we know that they are not rules; that's why MOS is just a guideline to inform editors. Adrian M. H. 20:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree entirely, we need to advocate consistency in some way. Admittedly a lot of people are unreasonable, but I do not intend to roll over and simply accept that. Discussing in a wider context is far better than simply engaging in small-scale edit wars or such similar nonsense. --Breadandcheese 20:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines inevitably involve a small number of people trying to promote a way of doing things and then "encourage" (in practice, often attempt to force) it on the larger unwary editing community. Here these suggestions are so far from the reality of wikipedia that it looks like an extreme case of such a process in action. These kind of things in general should be avoided unless it is strictly necessary. As per this moment, I'm not inclined to believe it is necessary. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistancy and factual accuracy have value in themselves and we should work towards them. It's pointless crafting out your own little empires amongst pages (as I've seen users do) and appoint themselves guardians of them and their style. As for a small number, I think we've got a decent number - and it's been put out for other people to contribute. Considering the proposal has only been open for a couple of days, I hardly expected more. --Breadandcheese 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope you understand why I think this way at least, and I hope you will also consider the possibility that coming up with guidelines that depart significantly from the reality of wikipedia may cause more problems than it solves. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Sony! At the end of the day it looks as though your compromise is no closer to getting a consensus than the original proposal. Breadandcheese has told us that "a lot of people are unreasonable." He could be right. Scolaire 20:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

At this time you made this comment, only one person had actually objected to this suggestion. --Breadandcheese 21:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There was not one suggestion, there were eight alternatives and four diverging views on which was right, plus one person that said none of them. To me, that looks like no consensus. Scolaire 21:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, as Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines says, 90% of policies and guidelines that are proposed without already being applied in practice fail. Davewild 20:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Deacon's Suggestion

1) I do not mind a guideline with some standardisation for templates. I agree that having "Scottish", "Welsh", etc, for anyone born or living after 1948 may be a little confusing to some readers. However, the term British should be avoided because of its lack of clarity and potential controversy; it is true, whether we like it or not, that the term is both ambiguous and that some people do not like it. I would have no problem with:

In some templates, there may be a row requesting information on Nationality to be entered. Enter UK (Scottish), UK (English), UK (Welsh), UK (Irish), as appropriate for 1801 onwards, and Great Britain (English), etc, for 1707 to 1801. For all English and Scottish people before 1707, enter appropriate constituent nationality; for Welsh people before 1707 or Irish people before 1801, it may be more appropriate to specify their ethnicity in relation to their constituent country if that ethnicity meant that they were strongly regarded at the time as English; for example, Anglo-Irish or Anglo-Welsh. In all other cases, enter Welsh or Irish as appropriate.

For Northern Irish people living after the independence of the Republic, there can be a seperate guide if necessary. Note this will not avoid edit disputes between claims for one nationality or the other, in which case the constituent nationality can be omitted.

Where the identity of constituent country is unclear or demonstrably unimportant, it can be omitted. Whether this is the case or not will be determined by consensus on the talk page.

This also should extend to Ireland, because it is simply unhistorical and (for those with emotions involved) unfair to distinguish the Irish in the period between 1801 and their independence from the Scots or Welsh.

2) There should be no guidelines about opening sentence specifications of nationality or national identity. This should be left to the editors. I could recommend something along the following lines:

In the opening lines of an article, it is acceptable to identify someone by their constituent nation. That a person is British follows from their constituent nationality. In some cases British might be more appropriate. The biography in question will generally make it obvious where it is more approrpriate to use which designation:

For example:

Robert Louis Stevenson was a Scottish novelist, poet, and travel writer.

Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig was a British soldier and senior commander.

In cases in which this is disputed, it should be resolved on the talk page.

There will need to be tweaks in the phraseology perhaps, and some clarity for people born before any of the important dates, but living afterwards.

At any rate, my suggestion departs from reality only with the templates. I offer it as my positive suggestion for a compromise. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

One point I'll make is that a lot of people do not like constituent country labels either. There is a body of people who exist who rank themselves as 'British, not ___' in polls. Particularly amongst ethnic minority communities, labelling oneself as 'English' is a definite no-no. These are the multitude of problems we open up by delving into identities. --Breadandcheese 21:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The view you have on the matter, as expressed above, is not accepted by many and frankly it is pointless pushing it. In cases where a member of an ethnic minority does not regard themselves to hold one of the constituent nationalities, then that's easy. Don't put the constituent nationality there; maybe a sentence about that? I these cases, it is unlikely their nationality would say simply "United Kingdom" anyways, since they'd probably be first (or maybe second) generation minorities, and wouldn't take up even a tiny proportion of articles. Something along the following lines:

In biographies about people who are immigrants to the United Kingdom, constituent nationalities may be of less importance, and can be omitted. This should be determined by consensus on the talk page of the article concerned.

? Fell free to alter. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this a good basis for the guideline. The 2. section agrees with practice and my opinion on how things should happen. However on 1. the problem is when it is unclear which constituent nation to use - there are some people for which it is too unclear which constituent nation would be appropriate. Davewild 21:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you not think this covers it, if added to the section: Where the identity of constituent country is unclear, it can be omitted. Whether this is the case or not will be determined by consensus on the talk page.?Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case the guideline would just be to put UK in infobox under nationality? Davewild 21:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. In these cases it would probably be unlikely that British would be controversial, but United Kingdom or UK would be consistent. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Deacon, I appreciate that you are trying to work towards a compromise here, but is your suggestion of UK (Irish) really meant to apply to men who died fighting for an Irish Republic? If so, it is not reasonable (and I mean in terms of logic, not of emotion). Scolaire 21:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a headache, isn't it, esp. as UK nationality didn't come about until after 1948. Do you have a suggestion for a way around this that would preserve the integrity of the guideline? In this instance, the fact if they believed the United Kingdom no longer existed for them, this may make the rules not applicable. But if they did not, I don't see any difference between them and say Lord George Murray (general) or people who died in the '45. But I do believe guidelines should mirror rather than shape reality (a way of telling newbies how things are done, often these newbies will have the same common sense assumptions as everyone else). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I see a difference between them and Flora MacDonald (who your original comment referred to) or Lord George. Great Britain (Scottish) would be wholly inappropriate for them. Please see my own proposal here which suggests, respectfully, that UK and British not be used except where necessary. Scolaire 22:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is intended as a concession to those who believe "nationality" is primarily about which sovereign state you are/were a part of. Not many people are generally aware of how little sense this makes or has made to people in the British Isles (esp. Ireland and Scotland). To people in the British Isles, it makes perfect sense and is as natural as trees and water to have Scottish, English and Welsh football teams, and an all-Ireland rugby team, but is often confusing to people elsewhere. This is partly because sovereign-statism is quite a recent development in world affairs, and has not been particularly relevant to people in this archipelago as compared with elsewhere. Like I said above, the whole issue is best sorted out in practice, and generally it is fine that way. I'm just trying to offer a basis for consensus given that this page already exists and there is some kind of push for guidelines. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: 'those who died for Ireland': I think, in fairness, it is accurate so long as it says "Irish" ("United Kingdom" is just a matter of fact, "British" would be impossible). I like both suggestion, but would provide some "best practice" examples and the logic behind them for #2. I would leave flag images out of the info boxes - is this a part of the proposal? Also, for tidiness, is there a case for merging the this MOS and the IMOS into a British-Irish MOS. Aside from this issue, I would see a lot of benefit from it, it would also cut across attempts to ignore this style on the basis that "it doesn't apply to us" and help ease things in NI. The Irish style also currently give some sound advice on minority languages, which may be useful for Wales and Scotland (but Mann and the Channel Islands, if they could be annexed also). --sony-youth^pléigh 21:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"United Kingdom" is not just a matter of fact. The Act of Union was passed by an Irish Parliament that was not representative of the Irish people. The Irish people, whether by consitutional means or by physical force, fought that Act for 120 years. During that time there was an Irish nation, whether it was recognised by British law or not. Those are the facts. Daniel O'Connell, Charles Stewart Parnell or Pádraig Pearse can not reasonably be tagged as "United Kingdom". Once again, I am talking logic here, not emotion. Scolaire 22:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Deacon's suggestions are a step forward and would work for mainland Britain though I wonder if we are in danger of confusing those who visit en.wiki seeking information, as opposed to those here who edit. Will the visitor appreciate the nuances of: English - pre 1707; Great Britain (English) - 1707 to 1801; UK (English) - post 1801.

However, Scolaire makes a good point and this demonstrates exactly why we are getting into a minefield here. This whole proposal, probably well meaning, is going to create problems that didn't previously exist. Presumably there are blocks of people in Northern Ireland (or Ireland) who would not be content with the labels Great Britain, United Kingdom or Irish in this context. However, if a majority are intent on making these changes then the Irish dimension simply can't be diverted into a side-alley just to get the changes established. --Bill Reid | Talk 10:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

One comment: Wales has never been a nation in the normal sense of the word. Before the conquest of 1282, it was just a group of principalities. What makes Welsh a nationality is that people choose it as their nationality - and, despite the lack of agreement over devolution, most Welsh people still choose it. Deb 11:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

Much of the confusion, argument and discussion here surrounds the use of the term nationality. Is it possible to define what is meant in this context by the term nationality. Are we talking about

• the place of birth, or
• the passport held, or
• the persons identity or self

Because not only are there a minimum of 4 nations within the scope of the proposal, there are also a huge number of immigrants - social, sporting and economic - to be considered. If it is going to be suggested that people like KP, Devon Malcolm and Ed Joyce can self nominate as British or English, then why cannot Billy Connolly self nominate as Scottish. And what about George I and II and Philip. Should they seriously be put down as German and Greek? And if not, why not? There needs to be a clear definition of the intention in this section. MurphiaMan 04:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

For the home nations, would childhood home (unless there are extenuating circumstances) not suffice for most people? So, Tony Blair is English on account of having spend the larger portion of his childhood there and never having made and great claims to being scottish? The issue comes with extinuating circumstances: would Monty be Irish on account of calling himself so or Australian on account of having grown-up there?

I'm sorry, but I don't see Ed Joyce being too much of an issue - unless you want to reclasifiy all of the Ozzies playing cricket for Ireland as "Irish"? And, neither, before you ask was Tony Cascarino, Irish. (Or maybe we should make official that most glorious of titles, the "honoury Irishman"?)

As for the royals - do you really think that "Nationality" is a useful space in an infobox for a royal? (Does the queen have a passport? Does it say, Canadian or New Zealander?) --sony-youth^pléigh 08:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Queen does not hold a passport as they are effectively all delegations of her authority under the Royal Prerogative. I wouldn't say she had a nationality as such: she refers to places like Canada as home. Indeed, her mother took it one step further and when she was asked in Canada whether she was 'English or Scotch' she replied 'I'm Canadian!'. I certainly don't think it's a useful thing to apply to Royals at all. Nor do I think it's particularly useful generally, but it is a very popular way of classifying people.--Breadandcheese 13:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ohhhhh, Sony. Home nations? You're not trying to be deliberately provocative are you :-) ? But I think you made my point for me very well. It seems obvious to me that trying to impose strict rules on nationality - in infoboxes or otherwise - is only going to distract us all from constructive editing. What is wrong with the status quo? Are the customers revolting? If not then why are we making changes ? MurphiaMan 20:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed Scottish comments

The following comments were on the Scottish wikipedian's talk page, and were removed by User:Lurker

• Comment - this is an obvious cheap political move, which is being backed by a few wikipedians (who shan't be named) with a lot of time on that hands, and a hatred of all things Scottish, Welsh and Irish. --MacRusgail 14:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a shocking misrepresentation of the guidelines. They do not state that British is all that can be used, it instead states that British is the relevant nationality insofar as it is the citizenship held by people born in the UK (there are also provisions for people born in NI, considering the citizenship issues arising there). While British should be used for nationality, identity is a completely different matter and - if worthy of discussion - shall be contained within the body of the article, as can plenty of other information relating to Scottishness.

For the record, there's no one person 'pushing' the policy - it was a matter of some consensus reached at the Village Pump by many individuals, one just took the initiative to form it into a policy.--Breadandcheese 13:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an honest attempt to make Wikipedia better, something your flouting of guidelines seems to be pitted against. A perusal of WP:DICK might be advantageous. You're the one putting across political opinions, meanwhile you've got no idea of anybody else's. --Breadandcheese 17:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, which just happened to come immediately after the SNP and Plaid got into power in Scotland and Wales (latter in coalition). Really coincidental - I wonder what motivated you? --MacRusgail 14:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding it rather hard to pluck anything out of a conversation of this type. At least try to be constructive and maybe even a tad objective. Like we have said, there is no conspiracy and this was not in any way 'immediately' after any elections (those happened in May). You're pressing very close to the line in terms of personal attacks here - and as you know it is well within Wikipedia guidelines to remove them, especially when they are detracting from actual discussion in this way. --Breadandcheese 15:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for a conspiracy when there really isn't one. You're seeing only what you want to see. Could you not even consider the possiblity that this was proposed for consistency within Wikipedia so as to improve it? Readro 15:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This proposal - or rather, this first draft of a proposal, which has been leapt on before ever being finished - came out of an honest debate on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) over an honest problem. It's a shame that people have since made it political. TSP 17:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That "honest debate" at Village pump had all the stink of political ideology that its successor conversation is having. It also doesn't help that it's proposer only advertised it to people he knew wouldn't disagree. There's no "since" about it, it's political nature was there from the beginning. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you ask me, your side of the debate is the one asking for special treatment and I've yet to hear one decent justification for it outside of the Irish question. We're not seeking to remove any trace of Scottish identity from people's pages, but it appears you're happy removing all trace of anything British-related. We're working, compromising, trying to find solutions - and to be frank there are a lot of people who want to ruin it for political purposes. --Breadandcheese 17:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's proposer posted a message on the Village Pump policy page about it where everyone could see it. Yes, I also posted messages on the talk pages of people involved in the discussion about creating the proposal just in case they hadn't seen it, but what am I supposed to do - post a message to every user? Readro 20:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You should have at least told the relevant notice boards and projects, which I have now done for you at: Wikipedia talk:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board, Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board, Wikipedia talk:English Wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Leithp 08:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Very good. --Breadandcheese 13:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why these boards weren't told (sarcasm). --MacRusgail 14:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You obviously can't keep to WP:AGF and your posts here contribute nothing. If you can't be constructive, I'd really suggest you don't participate at all. I really don't know how you've managed to survive on Wikipedia this long with the sort of views you've stated on here in the past couple of days. --Breadandcheese 15:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have made constructive arguments, and have been able to challenge all of your assumptions (since that's what they are). I also appear to know a lot more about the history of these islands than you do. To quote yourself "I'd really suggest you don't participate" in articles and discussions about Scotland, since you're obviously clueless on the subject.--MacRusgail 14:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If by 'challenging my assumptions' you mean droning on ad nauseum about your own pet obsessions, then quite frankly my assumptions are more challenged by the Gouranga monks on sauchiehall street. Exactly what have I said that is factually wrong? In fact, I corrected you on a point very recently regarding the Union under Cromwell. What I don't want is people politicising Wikipedia and using it as a soapbox. --Breadandcheese 18:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't correct me, I merely pointed out that the union of the crowns was abolished by Cromwell, and his attempts to form a single state were illegal, and indeed resisted all over the British isles. I suggest you stop broadcasting, and telling us to be Brits. --MacRusgail 20:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC) p.s. The name of the organisation is ISKON.

I wouldn't call it any more illegal than the reign of the present monarch, which was also established by extra-legal activities (ie, the sitting of a Convention Parliament without approval at the time of the Glorious Revolution). I am not telling you to be anything, I am merely stating two facts: people who are born in the United Kingdom are automatically British citizens and that citizenship is a better (and more obvious) candidate for responding in a one-word fashion to a question of Nationality. Are you being deliberately obtuse or can you not understand this simple concept which has been repeated countless times? --Breadandcheese 20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Because I didn't know they existed. There isn't any conspiracy here, so please stop looking for one. Readro 15:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Messages have gone missing, and relevant boards have not been notified. Which suggests either incompetence or a conspiracy. --MacRusgail 20:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the majority of Wikipedia were incompetent. --Breadandcheese 20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposal is inherently POV and is inherently polemic - to claim otherwise is, quite frankly, breathtaking. SFC9394 18:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, no it isn't. I'm beginning to wonder if a few members aren't trying to stifle debate simply by rather vicious slanders on others. It really is not on. --Breadandcheese 15:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, we've got attacking statements like You obviously can't keep to WP:AGF and your posts here contribute nothing. If you can't be constructive, I'd really suggest you don't participate at all. I really don't know how you've managed to survive on Wikipedia this long with the sort of views you've stated on here in the past couple of days. Lurker (said · done) 15:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you quite serious or just having a jab there? There are some people working constructively and then some who are clearly not and simply using this discussion board for irrelevant political chatter and hurling about insults. I hardly think informing them of this fact constitutes a personal attack, although of course in the interests of actually achieving something, a moderated tone is necessary. --Breadandcheese 15:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Woods and trees

I think this page is getting bogged down with far too many claims and counter claims abotu individual motivation and it's not really helping the situation at all.

First off there have been umpteen edit wars on numerous articles about issues relating to the UK - I don't think anyone can seriously deny that. It is not helped by a lot of guidelines using the terms "country" and "nationality" as though these terms are never confused. Equally it doesn't help when people don't agree as to what the broad group of articles are to follow the style for (The Scottish ones? All the UK ones? All in the world?), with the result that edit wars arise as each side brings the article in line with the majority of those that they regard as its fellows.

It is also not helped by people accusing one position on this matter of being political POV whilst the other is held to be "fact" when there is a lot of POV flying around in all directions.

Now maybe the current proposals aren't the best. But surely having some clarity on how to handle all this would be a darnsight better than perpetual edit wars and the details on articles coming down to who has the stamina to keep changing? Timrollpickering 15:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'd add that these are only proposals which have been the product of (at most) a couple of days of active discussion. Hopefully something will come out of these that we can used, but I certainly don't expect it to appear in an afternoon. --Breadandcheese 15:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Settlements again

I removed the historical persons part for now, as it is clearly not only not consensus, but far from it, representative of only a minority view here. As for settlements part, that does seem to have more consensus. I should add though that something needs to be said about Scottish regions, as Scotland does not have counties, and so the section needs to be edited according. It will give me no idea of how to write, for instance, Evanton. Would it be Evanton, Ross and Cromarty, Scotland; Evanton, Ross-shire, Scotland; Evanton, Highland, Scotland; or Evanton, Ross, Scotland? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Scotland does have counties (see: counties of Scotland). I believe it is accepted, however, when discussing UK places to use the form of '[name], [local authority area]' and only include counties etc in the text if they're relevant. This creates some problems where areas are commonly associated far more with their county than with their modern-day local authority - which happens rather often. --Breadandcheese 15:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, counties were abolished in 1975. --Bill Reid | Talk 15:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, they were no longer used for local governance from that point, true, but there was never any clear indication that they were abolished officially. One might be inclined to suggest, considering the above discussion, that if that was the case we could cite Scotland as abolished three hundred years ago! They still very much survive in popular perception and usage. --Breadandcheese 15:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In an ideal world, people would say "I come from Strathclyde" etc, but people still identify their local idenity by traditional Scottish counties. Not by regions. --MacRusgail 14:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

I'm really not sure "local authority area" is workable. Most places tend to identify by the town and possibly then county - outside of urban metropolises very few cite local authorities, especially on articles about things in settlements - my former prep school (Downsend School) just says it is in "Leatherhead" (or later "1 Leatherhead Road, Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 8TJ, just outside of Ashtead", perhaps realising that Downsend is on the Ashtead side of the thing many would now regard as the firm Ashtead-Leatherhead border but I digress), not "Mole Valley". No-one would ever use the name of the district council to describe where it is.

I think towns and ceremonial counties (when needed) are the best way to say where somewhere is - the counties are firmer (and the ceremonial ones avoid these awkward constructions when it comes to unitary authority areas - look for instance at Rochester, Kent) whereas local authorities are often named after the largest settlement in an area and this can cause confusion between the two. Saying "East Horsley is in Guildford" will cause no end of confusion as that would imply it's a suburb of the county town Guildford, when it's a village some distance from the town but in the local authority borough called "Guildford". Saying it's in Surrey is much clearer. The article East Horsley uses "between Leatherhead and Guildford" to pinpoint its location. Timrollpickering 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Surrey is a local authority area, a district/community/parish/whatever council area is not. While these are sometimes synonymous with counties, it is not always the case. For instance, take the difference between the Scottish county of Renfrewshire, which was separated into three local authority areas - Renfrewshire, Inverclyde and East Renfrewshire. The latter are now almost universally used on Wikipedia. --Breadandcheese 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Local authority area" is usually taken to be the district/borough council area in two tier arrangements, not the administrative county. If we try putting this term (or "municipality") into a MoS then we'll just have yet another series of problems - what do we do with counties that have both county councils and unitary authority areas - is Rochester in Kent? - or where there's no county council - where's Windsor? Timrollpickering 15:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem Scotland has is that royal administration in Scotland was not like that in England, much less real, and shires had little actual existence. They did not correspond with traditional provincial identites. "Counties", in the English rather than continental sense, were just notional areas over which sheriffs may or may not have had some kind of jurisdiction and get named after towns well after previous provincial administrative systems and communities are already in place; traditional "shires" (which never really existed) in Scotland are different from historic counties; in the early cases, it is clear that the "Shire of X" corresponds only with the area around X subject to Anglo-Norman settlement. So people from, say, Kingoldrum, would have said they were from the county of Angus, not Forfarshire, from Fordun, they would have said they were from the county of Mearns, not Kincardineshire; from Scone, county of Gowrie (doesn't even have an article), not Perthshire, people from Whithorn, Farines or Galloway, not Wigtownshire; Lennox, not Dunbartonshire; Menteith, not Stirlingshire; Lochaber, not Argyllshire; Badenoch, not .... err... whatever shire is supposed to have covered it; Lothian, not Haddingtonshire, etc, etc. Here county is an area ruled or that could be ruled by a count or similar provincial lord, not a sheriff. As a result, the Counties of Scotland (anglicized sense) and all other modern administrative divisions tend to be rather meaningless, except in the few cases where the provincial identity has been retained (e.g. Angus, Moray, Buchan, etc). In essence, it's pretty unimportant emotionally to include or exclude any of the artificial modern pen-pusher inspired regional sub-divisions of Scotland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In which case, since I think this MoS needs to go beyond England&Northern Ireland&Scotland&Wales vs United Kingdom issues, how about having separate location guidelines for each of the four parts of the UK providing they are all constitent with each other on the "country" question? Timrollpickering 16:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I think it is just Scotland that is a problem case for this. See Subdivisions of Scotland, also Area committee and Regions and districts of Scotland, and for defunct modern divisions, Registration county, Counties of Scotland and Lieutenancy areas of Scotland. Counties of Scotland is still the way more people think about how Scotland is divided than anything, but is now legally defunct and does not correspond with any government bodies. The Subdivisions of Scotland is probably the best for government sub-divisions, but is still intuitively stupid and cringeworthy. As in ... you're going up the A9, and after driving through the Highlands for nearly an hour, in the middle of the Badenoch mountains you see the sign "Welcome to Highland". "Highland" is a term that no-one actually uses, as the terms Highlands refers to an area which takes up 1/5th of Britain's and nearly 2/3rd of Scotland's geographical landmass; the Gaelic translation of the area, Gàidhealtachd, is even more stupid, since it differs even more violently from how the word is used in practice. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay what we have at the moment:

• When detailing a settlement, such as the birthplace of a notable person or the headquarters of an organisation, the county (if applicable) and constituent country of the UK should be stated.
• In cases where there is no applicable county, such as some unitary authorities, then the county should be omitted.
• Where it is required to display a flag representing the settlement, the flag of the constituent country should follow the Union Flag in accordance with standard flag-display rules.

Leaving aside the "country" issue for other parts of the discussion, "county" is another term that cannot be used raw - are we talking administrative counties (as the comment about unitary authorities - which sort of technically are administrative counties), ceremonial counties (e.g. the Rochester article is at Rochester, Kent not Rochester, Medway), historic counties or postal counties?

I think ceremonial counties are the best to use for stating where places are in England. The problem with unitary authorities (in England at least) is that they don't have the same kind of recognition as counties but rather they're popularly seen as on a par with districts - Joe Public isn't going to care that Rochester isn't under the domain of Kent County Council but rather Medway Unitary Authority but is going to consider someone from there to be a Kentish Man. And furthermore many reorganisations of local government have conferred and removed unitary authority status - in the case of Kent, Canterbury had UA status until 1974, then became a district and Medway has had UA status since 1998. As well as clear locations (e.g. Rochester), writing anything historical or about place of birth is going to be ten times harder if we're constantly having to check the fine details of how local government services were delivered at the time in question.

Kent is one of the harder examples as it has a different set of boundaries for every single version of the counties (Lewisham is only in the historic county, Bexley is in the postal and historic, Rochester in the ceremonial, postal and historic, Ashford in the administrative, ceremonial, postal and historic), but many of the problems exist elsewhere.

So can I propose the following (changes bolded):

• When detailing a settlement, such as the birthplace of a notable person or the headquarters of an organisation, the ceremonial county (if applicable) and constituent country of the UK should be stated.
• Where it is required to display a flag representing the settlement, the flag of the constituent country should follow the Union Flag in accordance with standard flag-display rules.

Any advances? Timrollpickering 19:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so even English counties are not easy to deal with. Your phrasing looks fine to me, but I would suggest that the Constituent Country should precede the UK, because the other way is counter-intuitive ... i.e. United Kingdom, England makes United Kingdom look like part of England. If there is a possible issue of precedence, then the UK flag could ... dare I suggest ... be displayed with more pixels. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Perfick Tim MurphiaMan 20:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Wales, I'm in several minds as to what "counties" to use. The problem is multifold.

• a) There are the 13 traditional counties that existed from the Middle Ages until 1974.
• b) There are the 8 preserved counties which exist for ceremonial purposes, based on the counties of 1974-1996, but there have been quite substantial changes in the boundaries of some of them since the administrative counties were abolished, particularly Clwyd/Gwynedd and Gwent/Mid-Glamorgan, with districts being switched from one county to another.
• c) The 22 post-1996 counties, cities, and county boroughs, which is complicated by the fact that some of the current counties share names with pre-1974 counties, but have little commonality of area - Rhyl was in Flintshire before 1974, then in Clwyd, and since 1996 has been in Denbighshire (both the county names being resurrected in 1996 but with very different borders).

So where do we put Welsh places? And to complicate the map of England, it's less than 2 weeks since the government announced that it's minded to split Cheshire in two in 2009... -- Arwel (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheshire won't be much of a problem for ceremonial counties. My reading of Cheshire#Politics and administration is that this is a change to the administrative county, and will be no different from the current Berkshire set-up (no county council with everywhere covered by UAs). But it doesn't look like the Lord Lieutenant of Cheshire and High Sheriff of Cheshire will be scrapped. Timrollpickering 22:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay to prevent overlap between the four, here are some sub-headers: Timrollpickering 23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

England

• Use the ceremonial counties as a point of geography - so far everyone's agreed.

• What do we do about county boundaries in a historic context? For example putting the birthplace of someone born in Sutton in the 1910s (before a lot of the urbanisation reached there) as "Sutton, London" feels odd. Articles on settlements themselves will naturally need explanation of changing boundaries, but taking time out in other articles to explain a few words seems like overkill. Would "Sutton, Surrey (now Sutton, London)" (perhaps with "now" carrying a link to a page explaining how county boundaries have changed) be an acceptable way to handle it succinctly? Timrollpickering 23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  I would say the "now" is irrelevant - the article is about the person. So "Sutton, then part of Surrey" or perhaps "Sutton, Surrey" with a footnote explaining that Sutton became part of London in 1965. My preference is the former, as it avoids having to update all such articles whenever the boundaries change. Waggers 11:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would include ceremonial counties, and mention contemporary ones if necessary. Also include details of Cornish language or Welsh language name where appropriate (some of the Marcher towns have Welsh names). --MacRusgail 17:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wales

On 22:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Arwel (talk) wrote:

With regard to Wales, I'm in several minds as to what "counties" to use. The problem is multifold.

• a) There are the 13 traditional counties that existed from the Middle Ages until 1974.
• b) There are the 8 preserved counties which exist for ceremonial purposes, based on the counties of 1974-1996, but there have been quite substantial changes in the boundaries of some of them since the administrative counties were abolished, particularly Clwyd/Gwynedd and Gwent/Mid-Glamorgan, with districts being switched from one county to another.
• c) The 22 post-1996 counties, cities, and county boroughs, which is complicated by the fact that some of the current counties share names with pre-1974 counties, but have little commonality of area - Rhyl was in Flintshire before 1974, then in Clwyd, and since 1996 has been in Denbighshire (both the county names being resurrected in 1996 but with very different borders).

So where do we put Welsh places? And to complicate the map of England, it's less than 2 weeks since the government announced that it's minded to split Cheshire in two in 2009... -- Arwel (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Difficult. But what I would suggest is to prioritise the bigger cities/towns, which are probably the easiest to deal with. They can at least be included in supercats. --MacRusgail 20:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Scotland

• Comment on Scotland. The use of "Highland" to refer to Highland region is misleading, because it leads to confusion with the Highlands. Not only are the Highlands far larger than Highland region (e.g. Argyll, Perthshire), Highland region also takes in areas which are not really in the Highlands (e.g. most of Caithness)... At the very least, care must be taken to make sure the two are not confused. --MacRusgail 14:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Follow WP:IMOS, which already covers Northern Ireland. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, lets try something radical

I proposed this because it seemed to be the consensus forming on the policy discussion page. However, it appears we have hit a few obstacles since. I don't like having United Kingdom (Scottish) or anything like that - it seems a bit odd to me. I'd rather have one viewpoint and keep it consistent rather than a mix.

What if I were to suggest the complete opposite of the guideline? We drop the whole British thing and use only the relevant constituent countries throughout Wikipedia. Would this be likely to gain consensus?

I don't have an opinion either way as to which side is taken, but my prime desire is for consistency throughout Wikipedia and I will fight for this goal. If it means we adopt constituent countries instead then as long as it is consistently applied, I am happy with that.

Would people be happier with this? Readro 15:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Will this be applied to American states, German Lander? The old provinces of France? Canada? If you're wanting consistency, you'd have to be prepared to edit them. As it stands, the UK is an anomaly. And forgive me, but I've yet to hear one good reason for it. --Breadandcheese 15:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, just the constituent countries within the UK. The UK is an anomaly, but anomalies happen. I don't believe there are edit wars going on about your other examples. There are a lot of UK-related nationality edit wars. The UK countries are the only ones that are causing inconsistencies, and I would like to fix this. Readro 16:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the Scottish comments? Lurker asked that they could be tranferred here --MacRusgail 18:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My concern has always been for verifiability; which is why I latched on to the 'citizenship' definition of nationality; it will usually be verifiable what citizenship people hold, even if people don't agree that that should be the primary marker of their nationality.

An exclusive use of constituent countries don't seem to offer the same standard of verifiability. J.K. Rowling was one of the main examples that started all this. Is she English (she was born there); Welsh (she grew up there); or Scottish (she has lived there throughout her career)? Any could be argued, so any choice between them is going to be a matter of the editors' opinion. Even with Tony Blair, it is probably unfair to label him exclusively as English when he was born in Scotland to Scottish parents. Yes, it is undisputed that Billy Connolly is Scottish; but the same certainty cannot be applied to all (or even most?) people in the UK. TSP 16:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

We can lay down guidelines. Nationality could be determined by (in order of priority) -

1. What the individual self-identifies as
2. Where the individual grew up
3. Where the individual was born

If you have guidelines like this within the proposal then it can be explicitly clear what to refer to the person as. Readro 16:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I like that, it seems a lot more constructive than the original Where it is required to state the nationality of a person from the United Kingdom, for example in an infobox, British should be used. Lurker (said · done) 16:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Could do it like how addresses for the Republic of Ireland are handled on the IMOS. Write "Scottish" but link to United Kingdom e.g. Billy Connolly: Scottish. For guidelines, I've posted my comments above under "Nationality." --sony-youth^pléigh 16:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to be negative here because Readro is being constructive but I'm not sure the criteria, as they presently stand anyway, will work. Again take Tony Blair, he was born in Scotland, spent most of his life in England and believes himself to be English but wiki applies a British nationality tag to him. It is still going to be subjective but then again, isn't that what it was anyway before this debate took place. --Bill Reid | Talk 16:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a source that he considers himself English? (Especially that he considers himself English over and above British?) That surprises me. That's one of the problems with the 'self-defining' definition - just because we have a source in which someone calls themselves 'English', it doesn't mean they don't also - and perhaps more so - consider themselves 'British' or even 'Scottish'.

While I respect Readro's search for consistency, I'm not sure that this proposal offers us anything over the current status quo of 'debate it per article', and I think could encourage editors to shoehorn people into one constituent nation or another on slim grounds. TSP 17:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the three steps above are objective -

1. What the individual self-identifies as (needs to be verifiable, if inconclusive, move to step 2)
2. Where the individual grew up (needs to be verifiable, if inconclusive, move on to step 3)
3. Where the individual was born (needs to be verifiable, likely to always be conclusive)

I am right in thinking that this applies to the infobox only, yeah? --sony-youth^pléigh 17:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the self-identification (which, let's admit it, will be applied in a selective way - if its something that the editor in question doesn't agree with, something more orthodox will be substituted) - that doesn't help the British situation at all. Individuals born or brought up in Scotland/England/Wales/etc are, by definition, born or brought up in the UK. While being born in the UK proves their citizenship, being brought up in Cornwall does not prove anyone's Cornishness, Englishness or Britishness. --Breadandcheese 18:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you realise how offensive that statement is to many people? Being born in the UK does not prove citizenship. It proves entitlement to citizenship. There is a huge difference. It may surprise you to find out that not everyone born in Britain chooses to be British. Nationality and citizenship can be a very personal choice for many people. And suggesting that because of an accident of birth that somehow they are a different nationality can be quite offensive. Please consider the language you use a little more carefully. MurphiaMan 19:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't see how it could be remotely offensive I'm afraid. As it happens, everyone born in the United Kingdom is automatically a British citizen - they need not apply for it or anything of the type. Citizenship is very, very rarely a considered choice, while increasing numbers of people are choosing to have dual citizenships, the numbers of people who actually go so far as to renounce their citizenship of birth when not forced to by the authorities in their new country of residence can most likely be counted on one hand. People are citizens of states largely by accident of birth, or indeed accident of position and rules laid down by the Home Office. It is nothing more, it is not anything particularly significant. As for consideration, I've given it plenty and I'm still unable to discern anything remotely offensive... perhaps you should consider that you may be being a tad over-sensitive.--Breadandcheese 21:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Comparing England, Scotland and Wales to American and Canadian states and German Länder, or even French counties, is the height of sillyness. No-one actually thinks they are comparable, and even those who attempt to use government structures to compare them, they know themselves they aren't comparable. This is the kind of thing that will get this page absolutely no-where. In fairness, only Breadandcheese insists on this kind of thing and other pseudo-legal fictions (see postings throughout this page). Regarding Readro's point, this is generally how it is done already, so should be the starting guide. It can be changed from then on according to more specific nuances that come up. I still think it is better to describe Field Marshall Haig as British than Scottish, and I think those kind of people have to be dealt with if there are any guidelines. In general, the designation that makes the most sense, is found already on wikipedia. The main problem is that in England British and English (and lets be honest, most of the rest of the world) are in practice interchangable, so English people more often get described as "British" than Scots, Welsh or the relevant Irish, which I assume is the reason for the objections held by some English users here (certainly that was a view expressed on Talk:J. K. Rowling). This point is probably yet another one of the reasons British will be objected to by Scots and Welsh, since it both makes them appear English and is unnecessarily vague (English, Welsh and Scots are British by extension anyway) and in practice not the way most Welsh, Scots and relevant Irish are described either on wiki or elsewhere. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no fiction at all in my proposal, legal or otherwise. Citizenship is a legal fact. What you are advocating is a fiction: that all people with a link to Scotland are 'Scottish'. If I were to somehow become notable, I could easily find myself labelled Scottish (I was born in, educated un, grew up un, live in, Scotland etc) however I am deeply uncomfortable with that label as representative of my identity and while I do have a certain Scottish identity, if asked my nationality I would reply British. This, however, is unlikely to be publicly documented unless I decide to pontificate on what is essentially a private matter - which most people do not.

The conflation of British and English is very much overstated in my opinion - although in some languages, the term for British effectively means English, not that it is in any way incorrect to do that; the English are the chief national-ethnic group in Britain.

You suggest I am somehow being disingenuous when I compare the Home Nations to German Lander or Canadian provinces, I can assure I am not. While British people do like to think their subdivisions are special, I think this is merely another form of Anglocentricism, certainly something that doesn't belong here. I'd have far more time for arguments to the contrary if they didn't inevitably lead down the sophomoric route of 'that's silly because what I say is right'. It's a ridiculous double-standard and one not belonging anywhere near something which claims to be an objective source of information.

On another point, it would be perfectly possible to be Scottish without having a British identity or British citizenship - a fact you seem to deny in the above. Scottish need not imply British. --Breadandcheese 18:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a legal fiction to say that Scottish, Welsh and English nationalities do not exist; i.e. the law does not correspond to the reality of society and language. It is a fact that Scottish, Welsh and English are understood as nationalities, as sometimes is British. If you think any of these words have some objective meaning, you have a lot to learn about the philosophy of language. If you think legal status counts towards "superior meaning", that is just your opinion, and its a minority one. Governments can say all they want, but it doesn't make it true. As for conflation with England and Britain, it is the rule, not the exception. I did undergraduate study in the US and constantly heard British being used for English, e.g. "if you're from Britain, why do you not have a British accent" or (from a professor) "Hadrian's wall ran close to the modern border between Britain and Scotland"; informally, "British" almost always was understood as meaning English. I had pretty much the same experience when I lived in Turkey. As for other languages, check out the following British government webpage, which has the message at the top İngiltere Büyükelçiliği, Türkiye’ye Hoşgeldiniz, and then look at its English page Welcome to the British Embassy, Turkey. I have no need to tell you what İngiltere Büyükelçiliği actually means. So if the British government encourage confusion of the two, what hope is there for Scottish and Welsh linguistic prescriptivists to make people obey the "true" meaning of the word "British". If you want an "objective" meaning for any of these words, British, Scottish, English, Russian, Kurdish, etc, Ovid says it all: Quid frustra simulacra fugacia captas? Quod petis, est nusquam. Since you have knowledge of Latin advertised on your user page, I won't translate that either. Ignoring all this stuff though, your view is so far from possible consensus here, let alone reality, that you can be pretty sure your own idiosyncratic view of things is not going to be accepted. Whether you think people are right or wrong, reality will ultimately decide everything. And the reality of opinion here is that your view is not going to get anywhere. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted the term 'legal fiction'. I actually agree to some extent though, the law does not have a monopoly over commonly understood terms and ones with a non-legal definition. Nationality is not a term of art at all, which is what makes this so difficult. Legal status is not superior in any way - I'm certainly not some dyed-in-the-wool statist, quite the opposite in fact. However the lawful definition of Nationality is a convenient, accurate and encyclopaedic method of categorisation, which is more than can be said for the amateur sociology which you're advocating.

Incidentally, I've suffered similar: "You come from Scotland, how come you don't have a Scottish accent" when they mean either a stereotypical Highland accent or some John Reidesque urban drawl. Welcome to the real world: we come with stereotypes. On the other matter, the British Government can do what it likes; as you've so eloquently pointed out above, they are not the guardians of fact. Moreover, I have no problem whatsoever with people using terms for English ethnicity to apply to the UK, it is after this country's largest pseudo-ethnic group - and that is a rather common way of describing nations whether the minorities like it or not. Anyway, to emphasise a point: the legal definition does not exclude the idea of identity from Nationality, it complements it. --Breadandcheese 21:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly a more useful comparison for Scotland and Wales would be Slovenia or Azerbaijan. If you want to know where they are, there is no other way but to look them up. Twenty years ago you could have said "it's in Yugoslavia" or "it's in the Soviet Union" but now you can't. It's quite conceivable that in another twenty years the United Kingdom might be dissolved, and Scotland and Wales will be in a similar situation. So, that being said, why do we have to specify that they're in the United Kingdom today ("because they are" is not a good enough answer).
Readro, I fully support your proposition. I won't mention that I made the identical proposition 24 hours ago (Aw, heck! I will). Scolaire 18:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it's the practice used in all other wikipedia pages, chiefly. Start using more localised forms in other pages and I wouldn't complain one bit. Scotland and Wales are in no way comparible with independent sovereign states and, to be frank, predictions on their future development are enormously irrelevant (I personally think they're far more likely to become part of a federal European state, but I'm not arguing for Glasgow, EU am I? --Breadandcheese 18:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No you're not, but if you look at your passport (which the Brits here have been banging on about) it says European Union - therefore, shouldn't wikipedia be "forward looking", and put all the UK nationalities next to "the ring of stars"? (Devil's Advocate) Even people like David Steel, though unionists, would describe themselves as "Scottish". --MacRusgail 18:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I would assume a Unionist would have to be someone who recognised the identities of the Home Nations - otherwise they'd be a British nationalist rather than someone who wanted a 'union' between certain nations. Yes, most people who identify as British are happy to be considered Scottish; vice-versa is also true. However in cases, certain people do not identify in these ways.

Why shouldn't European status be recognised. Well, I'm not saying it would be incorrect to do so, but it would be contrary to international Wikipedian practice for one, and it would be an incompatible comparison for another (everyone has a sovereign state, not everyone has a supernational governmental structure, or a sub-national one for that matter). I'd certainly be happier for someone to call me a European (which I am; as a holder of European citizenship) than something I am not. --Breadandcheese 19:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Home nations", "put them in their place" - what next? You claim you've expressed no political statements, but those two quotes quite clearly demonstrate your thinking. I don't want to be "put into my place" or "know my place" - this is allegedly a democracy. As for the European stuff - I suggest you posit this elsewhere, and see the reaction from the Brits. Then you'll find us "extremists" aren't quite as extreme as you imagined. Around a third of Scots consider themselves "Scottish not British", and the ones who feel strongly about Britishness these days in Scotland are often either posh, or support Rangers/Orange Order. It's not how it was even thirty years ago. Things change, and Britishness is a dead duck - that's why Brown wants the Union Jack everywhere. --MacRusgail 19:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Home nations" is a common term used in the UK to describe England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Do you actually live here? Because to suggest there is something political about so common a statement strikes me as odd.

This discussion isn't about who feels what - it is about objective fact, and I really think you should drop the ridiculous stereotypes from your mind - which are rather daft considering the largest pro-union party in Scotland is a working class democratic socialist party. Where you feel the British national identity is going is entirely an irrelevance to me and my position, so I don't see why you continue to trumpet it like a child who's just managed to make a play-doh giraffe. It's not relevant, it's not original, it's not interesting and its not from any sort of respected source; ergo, I don't care. --Breadandcheese 22:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Home nations, if you care to read about it, has a number of different meanings most of which are in some way controversial. You say that it may be a common term in the UK, but I would suggest that the farther one gets from London the less common is the usage. Its actually quite provincial. Its rarely used in Ireland. And the fact that its usage it strikes you as odd suggests to me a failure on your part to appreciate the POV nature of the discussion and the points of contention. Simply put, there are other POV's to yours - mine included - and, ergo, yours is not necessarily a Neutral POV.

So we need to consider all the POV's in deciding what is the NPOV. MurphiaMan 04:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Do we have a source that he [Blair] considers himself English?" - Alastair Campbell, his new book - back in library so can't quote the page.

• 1. What the individual self-identifies as (needs to be verifiable, if inconclusive, move to step 2) - many people don't wear their preferred nationality on their lapel
  2. Where the individual grew up (needs to be verifiable, if inconclusive, move on to step 3) - where a person grows up I don't see has a lot to do with it. I've an acquaintance who grew up in Cyprus to Scottish parents and he plays the bagpipes.
  3. Where the individual was born (needs to be verifiable, likely to always be conclusive) - see last point and also Alastair Campbell who was born in England to Scots parents (and who does consider himself Scottish, btw). --Bill Reid | Talk 19:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill, pick a person then go down through the list. e.g. Blair would end at step 1: he identifies himself as English, full stop. For your fiend in Cyprus, I don't know them, but if they self identify as Scottish then I don't see what they are doing in step 2. For Alastair Campbell - what is he doing all the way down in step 3?? If he consider's himself Scottish then like Blair and your friend from Cyprus, he also would not have any need to go past step 1. For other people, who like you say "don't wear their preferred nationality on their lapel", move on to step 2. If that is inconclusive then move on to on step 3. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask where precisely Blair has said he identifies as "English" and precisely where he chooses that identity over "British" or "Scottish"? (I do concede that he is more likely to be offered the English Garter than the Scottish Thistle.) Very few people, with the exception of nationalists, tend to make explicit statements on this matter and many will give "British" or "English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish/Northern Irish/Ulsterman" depending on the circumstances without seeing a contradiction or feeling the need to declare alleigance to both all the time, lest they get written up as "British (not Scottish)" or "Welsh (not British)".

Taking Northern Ireland as one example, purely because I have John Whyte's "Interpreting Northern Ireland]] on my shelf and there's a sub-chapter in it on national identity summarising several studies on national identity. Some interesting features spring out that suggest national identity is not always one single hard and fast thing. The studies have found that over time the proportions of Protestants in Northern Ireland giving their national identity as "Irish" collapsed dramatically with The Troubles - from 20% in 1968 to 3% in 1986. One 1987 study of Northern Ireland probed in depth and found that the proptions amonst Protestants varied given particular circumstances, whereas for Catholics the proportions stayed the same. Indeed there were three situations in which more Protestants chose "Irish" than "British" - "being amongst English people", "injustice and discrimination against Irish people" and "watching Ireland play rugby". Even Ian Paisley once said he would never repudiate that he was an Irishman.

If we are to go with some form of self-definition for people's national identity then it's going to be a nightmare for all bar a few (and if people start quoting offline sources then it'll be even harder to check context in edit wars). Timrollpickering 23:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Blair self-identifies as English. I've heard him call himself such. A quick dredge brings up this - "Prime Minister Tony Blair has ordered the English flag to be flown over his office on days when the team is playing World Cup matches." ("Tony Blair flies the flag for England" 2006 Financial Times Ltd.)--MacRusgail 19:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Which doesn't mean much because Blair was also on record at the time advocating that everyone in the UK should support the only team from the UK in the competition (and demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the nature of football rivalries) and Brown was also making it well known that he was cheering on England. Both cases sound like someone asserting that they're British above all else. Is there anything on record about where Blair's loyalty lay when any two Home Nations teams were playing, particularly England vs Scotland? Timrollpickering 19:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Brown supposedly celebrated when Paul Gascoigne scored against Scotland in 1996.[1] I wonder what that proves, since he is not in any way anything but Scottish? Maybe there should be a rule that anyone with political ambitions in England should be labelled British, with no reference to national identity.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually doubt Brown did celebrate that goal at the time. I have a suspicion this is a classic case of a politician trying to make themselves look like they're in touch with popular culture when in actual fact they haven't got a clue so rely on briefings and other titbits they've picked up without realising what the context is. In some sports fans of one side will quite openly say something complementary about a supposedly "classic" point scored by the team playing against them. Football is not one of these sports. What this really proves above all else is that Brown frankly doesn't have the mentality of the average Scottish football fan (though come to think of it does every Scot care about the football?) and with this he wasn't doing a good job at repackaging himself as "English friendly" either. Timrollpickering 20:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the above the above is missing the point on two counts:

1. "Self-determination" is nowhere described as a willingness to die rather than be called anything else. It simply means what the person would ordinarily say if he/she was asked what they were. In Tony Blairs case, if that can be supported by a citation (Bill Reid says it's in the Campbell book), then he considers himself English and further detective work is unnecessary.
2. English versus British is not relevant to this proposal. The proposal is that British be dropped altogether and the constituent country be determined by self-identification etc. So the 'many will give "British" or "English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish/Northern Irish/Ulsterman" depending on the circumstances' argument doesn't apply here, or rather that is precisly why we are discussing this particular proposal. Scolaire 07:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to answer the Blair and England bit then that's me finished on that particular topic. As I said above the Alastair Campbell book is back in the library, but anyone can get their hands on it. Inevitably true allegiances come out when it comes down to basics - football. TB said in a phone-in in BBC Five Live "I support England very strongly, but if Scotland was playing - not England - but a game against someone else why [take the attitude] that I don't want Scotland to win when they are part of the United Kingdom?" [2] --Bill Reid | Talk 09:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

English versus British is relevant because using the constituent country is controversial, as seen on numerous edit wars. Describing Westminster level politicians who give "British", or nothing clear, as "English" or "Scottish" etc... is a POV. Currently we have Ruth Kelly described as a "British politician". Describing her as a "Northern Irish politician" would be utterly absurd. And how this is handled in other countries is relevant - Jean Charest, former PM and leader of a federal party in Canada and now provincial premier of Quebec, is described as "a Canadian lawyer and politician from the province of Quebec" not a "Quebec politician" (sp?) - and to dismiss Quebec as not being a comparable case is strange. The reason there are inconsistencies on UK articles has more due to editors inserting and warring over the descriptions (as well as the division into the Home Nations for sports and some other purposes) than objective assessment of the situations themselves. Timrollpickering 12:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't got the time to go through wiki looking for edit wars so can someone please post details of them here so I can go see what people are talking about. Don't agree that British can be dropped altogether, though and I think Tim's correct when talking about poiticians who operate in a British environment as opposed to a purely English or Scottish. A Scotsman who is a Westminster MP should be described as a British MP. If being Scottish was pertinent to the article then that should also be mentioned. In John Reid's article the opening statement is:

John Reid (born 8 May 1947) is a British politician who is the former Home Secretary and Member of Parliament (MP) for the Scottish constituency of Airdrie and Shotts in the United Kingdom.

so I don't see any problem in having British and Scottish used (in the same sentence even) in an article. --Bill Reid | Talk 15:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill, first of all you're absolutely right - there is no problem in having British and Scottish used, in the same sentence even. There are a number of separate issues here that have tended to be lumped together. One of these is the infobox. If the infobox asks for nationality, realistically only one answer is allowed. I, and Readro, have proposed that British not be used here. Readro has come up with a priority list to decide which constituent country should be used. In the case of Ruth Kelly, if she had not expressed a wish to be known as English or Irish, the place where she grew up would be used. That would make her English. Of course the fact that she was born in Northern Ireland would be stated, and also the fact that she is a British Member of Parliament. For examples of edit wars you could try J. K. Rowling, Tony Blair and Peter Green (musician) (in Peter Green's case the war lasted from 6 April to 25 June 2007; haven't checked the others).

Tim, the situation with Canada and Quebec is complicated by the fact that anglophone Wikipedians are in the main federalists, while francophones tend to read/edit French Wikipedia. If they were both editing the same articles in the same Wikipedia I have no doubt that Jean Charest would be the subject of serious edit wars.

Actually, since I wrote that I checked French Wikipedia and found this: "Jean Charest...est un avocat canadien et homme politique québécois et canadien." Smacks of compromise? Scolaire 20:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)