Talk:Constituent country/Archive 1

"Official" term
Someone removed the word "official" from the text, while at the same time adding, as a footnote, that the term "constituent country" is actually used by the Office for National Statistics! By definition therefore, the term is official. So I am adding the word back in to the first sentence.--Mais oui! 07:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make it "official" by any means. No governmental department refers to the Home Nations as 'constituent countries', nor does any governmental office except those responsible for statistics.  The reason that the ONS uses that term is that the ONS devolves its statistical work to inferior bodies in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.  Thus, each body is considered by the ONS to be responsible for their own 'constituent countries'.  It is a term used by four government bodies in the UK; contrast with the thousands of official bodies that don't use it, and you'll see how ridiculous the original article was. Moreover, the term is never used with reference to Cornwall; the debate concerns the term 'Home Nations'. 172.216.63.212 17:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well there you go, I've been an Englishman for 55 years and never knew England was a country. When I was at school it was a Principality. Nations I have no trouble with in the American sense of birthplace and cultural groups but I think country must go with the State. I have to agree with 172.216.63.212about the term constituent countries, that website is the only place I've seen it and it wasn't a term it was just an adjective and its noun that happened to be put next to each other one day by a civil servant in Westminster. I think we are observing an interesting social phenomenon here; we are watching Wikipedia actually in the process of inventing reality rather than reporting on it. When I worked in the US in the 70's I remember people there thinking England was country and we found it amusing, maybe that's where this idea came from. It has probably gone too far now to ever unravel it, doesn't look like anyone is listening to each other anyway. I would vote for the deletion of this page in toto. Ex nihil 12:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't think England was country, what country did you think you came from, exactly? Are you seriously suggesting you were under the illusion that Britain or the United Kingdom were countries?

formerly independent, sovereign states?
Was Wales ever a independent, sovereign state? Owain 09:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's questionable. Wales has never been a centralised state.  In the 9th and 10th centuries, it did have a system similar to that of the Holy Roman Empire or Ireland in the Dark Ages, where local kings, princes, and potenates swore allegiance to a High King.  Does that mean that it was a sovereign state?  I'm inclined to believe otherwise. Bastin8 14:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps words to the effect 'the Welsh situation is more complex' would avoid the need for detailed historical explaination --Doc (?) 00:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that part of the sentence could be removed altogether, leaving us with something like "All three have always had and continue to have distinctive variations in legislative and administrative status." Owain 08:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

official usage
http://www.dca.gov.uk/constitution/city/cityind.htm uses it. but includes Northern Ireland as one. I daresay the ONS uses it this way too. also needs mention of the (very tiny) Northern Ireland/Ulster nationalist movement. Morwen - Talk 13:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

accuracy dispute
The accuracy dispute is based on the following contentions


 * the term does not come from statute (or any other form of official promulgation), so therefore does not have a single definition as presented here
 * it sees only very limited official use. the preferred word for the parts of the United Kingdom appears to be 'part', by which is meant the four
 * in the rare uses of the term by the Department for Constitutional Affairs on their website, it defines it as "four constituent countries of the United Kingdom: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."
 * the Office of National Statistics do indeed use the term a lot.  However, they include Northern Ireland as one of them as well.
 * googling for other usage of the term on .gov.uk sites includes Northern Ireland
 * therefore the claim that "constituent countries" is an official term meaning England, Wales and Scotland, but not Northern Ireland, is absurd

I suggest this is just merged to Home Nations.

Morwen - Talk 11:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not unilaterally just redirect pages. You made no attempt whatsoever to seek consensus.--Mais oui! 14:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Then let me have the accuracy dispute template then! Do you have anything substantive to say?  Do you actually object to the idea that the article is false?  WP:BOLD is operative here.  Unless you have substantive objections (ie you disagree with me) rather than procedural objects, please cease this obstructionism.  Morwen - Talk 15:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute
Google brings up most references involving statistics. This would indicate that the ONS's definition of constituent countries seems to be the prominant one. There are also uses refering the the individual members of the European Union. There could be an argument that this term is either not-UK specific or a dictionary definition. The difference between this term and home nations is not that different. The uses of constituent countries that don't equal home nations (ie non-ONS) need bringing out. We are avoiding the underlying dispute which refers to the nature of the UK and the nature of national/subnational identities. This is the devolution/independence/federalism debate. Some/many do not have a national identity that relates to a sub-unit/independent nation of the UK - but we cannot deny that some/many do. I think the answer is to be descriptive not prescriptive. Secretlondon 08:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Home nations is a term that is 99% used in sporting contexts, it is not used by the British government in any official role to refer to E, S, W and NI nor is any evidence that it ever was used. 'Constituent country' is a political term that implies rule from Westminster, if Scotland ever left the UK, it would stop being a constituent country; it would not stop being a home nation though. Similarly Ireland (as a whole) is a home nation but only a small part of it is a 'constituent country'.GordyB 12:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed
I have just cut this from the article:


 * Orkney and Shetland likewise often treated as part of Scotland, sometimes claim to be countries in their own right, especially the latter.

For a start, they are not "often treated" as part of Scotland, they are part of Scotland. But, more importantly, what is the source for this?--Mais oui! 20:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The source was Wikipedia. Mal 02:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You cannot use Wikipedia as a source: see Citing sources:
 * "Wikipedia articles should not use other Wikipedia articles as sources." (their emphasis)
 * --Mais oui! 04:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have noted what you pointed out, and amended the information as necessary, yet you STILL revert the extra information I have included for some unknown reason.


 * In what way is the nationality of the people of the constituent countries of the UK "irrelevant"?


 * Please stop reverting this article. Thank you. --Mal 00:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Orkney and Shetland were not integral to Scotland and were possessions of it, much like Berwick is to England and Wales was before the 50s. --Breadandcheese 06:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Title of this article
In the UK context, nothing smaller than England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales is ever in practice referred to as a 'constituent country'. The repeated insertion of Cornwall, Orkney, and Shetland into this article is inappropriate, not because they do not possess a degree of separate identity, but because that identity has nothing to do with the title of the article. I have left an anodyne mention in as a compromise, but even this is frankly out of place.

This is an odd article. It is not really about anything in particular; it is about a phrase and how it is used in practice. OK, fair enough; although nobody would write an article titled 'Northern Regions' or 'Cake Ingredients'. But the consequence is that the contents of the article should, surely, be confined to explanation and description of that use. I note that some edits further assume that there is an 'official' usage in contexts where no such thing exists. Thus I have edited the odd description of 'nationality' (used, I think, in error for 'citizenship') and, again, have left something there as a compromise although it really has little if anything to do with the topic. Ariwara 23:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The two things that you regard as "inappropriate" or irrelevant are, I believe, quite relevant. You yourself added information about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.


 * The references to Cornwall, Orkney and Shetland are appropriate, I believe, in the sense that independence is already mentioned in the body of the article.


 * The nationality of the people of the constituent countries of the UK is also relevant by the fact that this is the very thing each region has in common with the others.


 * Other than these comments, and a couple of my own edits since, I think your re-write is quite fair and complete. --Mal 00:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, on the one hand, and Cornwall, Orkney, Shetland, etc on the other is that the former require to be distinguished from the constituent countries of the UK as not being 'constituents' in the first place, although frequently thought of as such; but the latter simply have no relevance to the discussion of the phrase this article is about, any more than do Northumberland, Western Isles, or Tower Hamlets. I have left mentions of them as a compromise, as also the mention of nationality, but discussions of independence movements, whether existent or imaginary, and of the meaning of 'nationality', belong on other pages; thus the list of links at the end. This article is not here as a catch-all. Ariwara 09:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You state "The concept of ' "local" nationality' is novel and unconnected with the topic", yet you also infer that the concept of the article itself is also 'novel'. The fact is that the nationality of the people belonging to the contituent countries is indeed as I stated.  In that sense, it very much belongs in the article - being the main thing that bonds all the constituent countries together, as I indicated earlier.


 * Discussions of independence movements is also relevant, given the former independence of each of the states, and of other areas within these regions. Also, none of the concepts of independence are imaginary.


 * The inclusion of the islands and how they are treated is also very much relevent - since when did you suddenly get the right to decide how much information is included, or if the article is here as a "catch-all" or not..?


 * I added the "local" remark so as to avoid confusion between the 'nationalities' of the individual regions, and the nationality of the country: the UK, for those who are less familiar with the history, politics and geography of the British Isles. --Mal 11:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are confusing nationality with "citizenship": they are not the same thing.--Mais oui! 11:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In the case of the United Kingdom, they are the same thing. A dictionary definition of 'nationality' is: the status of belonging to a particular nation by birth or naturalization.  In the case of the British nation, the nationality and citizenship are both 'British'. Also, your point has no bearing on the article, nor on your continual deletion of additional information - I have used the terms in the correct sense given the context within the article. --Mal 11:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"Original research"
Mais Oui! has suggested that there is "original research" in my addition to this article.

I have added some wording in the last paragraph to differentiate between the local nationalities of the four constituent countries (as already mentioned earlier in the article: "are still generally regarded as possessing distinct nationalities"), and the nationality of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.

This idea is a well-established fact amongst the people of the United Kingdom, and not a new concept. The Wikipedia page on Original research states: "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source". I cite one such official source as that same source which has been quoted in the article itself: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp

I fail to see any reason that this article keeps being reverted by Mais Oui!. I can only suggest that the user Mais Oui! has, for some reason, taken a dislike to my editing style - having reverted and deleted additions made by myself several times now on this article.

I will state again: the addition of my wording is intended to give readers a clear understanding of the terminologies used, which is why I specifically expanded to include each nationality of each constituent country - so as the casual reader would not confuse those with the nationality of the state as a whole. --Mal 13:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the mention of 'nationality'/'local nationality' from the final paragraph and so reverted to the effect (on this point) before I edited. This seems to me to a pretty pointless edit war, but as it is obviously significant to some I would simply say that the concept of "local nationality" is frankly rather meaningless in this context. If you Google the phrase, it is simply used (with a very few apparent exceptions, either Chinese or neo-Nazi) to mean 'the nationality of a particular place, so 'the local nationality of Paris is French'; there is admittedly a [ http://www.stormfront.org /forum/showthread.php?t=264140 neo-Nazi distinction] as 'white race as a whole, not ... petty local nationality' . May I say with all respect that there are other articles on Wikipedia about the general concepts of nationality, citizenship; and I fully accept that these are not easy concepts, and their use varies between people and places and indeed the context in which a question is asked. But this article is not about this; it is about a phrase which presumably concerns people, and individualistic propositions such as 'Welsh is a local nationality; British is the real nationality', although novel, controversial, and interesting, are not really in point here and, I am afraid, do not give readers a 'clear understanding of the terminologies used' although doubtless intended to do so.


 * Let's cool down please before banging on another revert! Ariwara 17:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The concept of "local nationality"... well that's why I italicised the word local. It is really the only context in which the phrase would be meaningful, so I don't see how you can suggest it is not! On the television, during news and weather reports, the broadcasters in the UK often refer to "local regions" and similar phrases when there is to be a local, regional report. Propositions such as Welsh being a nationality and British also being a nationality are not "novel". This concept has existed in the UK for many, many years. The only time it becomes contraversial is by nationalists in the individual regions. For example, in Scotland, many people refuse to use the term "British" to describe themselves, and favour "Scottish" above all else. The concepts of nationality is even more complex when it comes to Northern Ireland of course.

I should point out that I never mentioned the phrase "real nationality", as I accept fully the rather unique situation of the UK having its constituent countries. And it is in this sense that the local nationalities is very much in point.

Having said all that, I think your latest edit is fair and succinct (although there was the more recent British Nationality Act of 1981 which was applicable from 1983 onward). --Mal 22:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute
The description that Northern Ireland is a "constituent country" of the United Kingdom is regarded as laughable but many Unionists (who call it a "province") and offensive by the vast majority of Nationalists. Quite what to call Northern Ireland has always been a problem, but by no conceivable definition can it be regarded as a country. England, Scotland and Wales are unambiguously countries. Northern Ireland isn't. It is at most a geopolitical entity. Suggesting that is a country is laughable to many in both communities and offensive to some. It is chronically inaccurate. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats irrelevent. A term doesn't have to be 100% accurate to be valid. Not all the continents are real continents. The Indian subcontinent contains more than just India. A U.S. state is not a true state. People use these terms as terms, not descriptions. It only on Wikipedia where people get anal about it and try and change the world. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It describes terms and is not here to judge if they are syntacticly correct or not. josh (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Accuracy "irrelevant"??? The mind boggles. You don't seem to realise that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a comic. Accuracy is everything. If a term is not accurate then it gets binned. Regarding accuracy as irrelevant has got to be the single stupidest thing I have read on 4 years working on Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)  21:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have been been working on Wikipedia for 4 years then you certainly would have known that official policy states the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnM4402 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 10 September 2006


 * I love that: John knows his Wikipolicy, but still forgets to sign his Talk page contribution. :-) Mais oui! 06:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at the 1#Examples_of_official_use_in_British_English.2C_illustrating_how_the_word_country_is_used references. The description of the term is perfectly correct. Yes we know that NI is not a country but this article never states that it is. It is the term that refers to it as a country and this is not the place to try and change that.


 * This is a used term that applies to all four parts of the UK. Your trying to redefine it to exclude NI. If you've got a problem with the term then take it up with the UK government and everyone else who uses it. Don't bring your politics here. The fact is that there isn't a decent term to accuratly describe the 4 nations so this one and 'Home Nations' are used. josh (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That offers no verifiable evidence whatsoever for your claims. The very fact that you think "Northern Ireland" is regarded as one of the "Home Nations" is indicative of your confusion on the point. In law, Ireland was described as a country, along with Scotland and Wales. Post 1922 the law has regarded the countries of the UK as England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland is described as a "geopolitical unit" or a "province". On those rare occasions where Northern Ireland has occasionally been described as a "country" it has usually been withdrawn following protects from both Unionist and Nationalist members of the House of Commons, all of whom universally regard it as a heap of crap, the product of some ignorant buffoon's mistake in Whitehall. Just because you get some references on the net to something does not make it factually right. Buckingham Palace itself admits that its website is littered with mistakes. Downing Street's website some years ago forgot three prime ministers off the list of PMs. The Irish president's website spells one of her predecessor's names wrong, and has the map of the presidential residence wrong. The Vatican's own website has Pope John Paul II alive for 8 months after his death on one of its pages. Google searches "prove" that the Prince of Wales's surname is something it isn't, and a ficticious country created by a vandal on Wikipedia three years ago now has 4000 references, from people who copied Wikipedia's article and never deleted their versions when we deleted our own. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 22:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * These are not dubious websites or errors. I can't find any government references that exclude NI from the term. As I keep telling you this is a term, not a description. Your the one thats confused. Once again I am refering to the term Home Nations. This is still in use. josh (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that you mix up Home Nations and Constituent Counties], two totally different unrelated terms, speaks volumes for your knowledge of the issue. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 00:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you'll be able to produce some obscure political reference that defines them as completely different but the majority of the time (including in Wikipedia) they are both used to describe the 4 main parts of the UK. I'm sure you know better than the rest of the world but they out number you and when it comes to defining words and terms thats all that matters. josh (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet another attempt by jtdirl to make a storm in a teacup over terminology.

As someone from Northern Ireland, I can say that it doesn't really matter whether Northern Ireland is described as a province, a country, or a home nation. I've heard all being used before and most people in NI won't care. Jtdirl, however, likes to disregard terms describing Northern Ireland such as province as being simply "unionist" and then overstates the offence caused to an  vocal extreme minority of a minority. In jtdirl's opinion Northern Ireland couldn't possibly be allowed to be described as a nation or country in its own right. Why not? A unique Northern Irish identity certainly exists and many people here are proud of "our wee country". Describing NI as "at most a geopolitical entity" shows your downright demeaning attitude towards Northern Ireland and its people, and quite frankly your attitude and edits OFFEND ME personally.

You also seem to like to push the PoV that "country" is a valid desciption only to apply to the whole island. The situation changed a long time ago, jtdirl, when the Republic decided to leave us in NI and the rest of the UK in the 1920s. Why should we solely restrict a definition to what was valid over 80 years ago? Jtdirl repeatedly edits that the word "country" cannot possibly be used to describe Northern Ireland or even to describe the United Kingdom as a whole. Why should Northern Ireland, and especially the United Kingdom, not be allowed to use the perfectly valid terminology. Whether you like it or not, words often can be ambiguous and have multiple meanings; language and terminology often evolves jtdirl - get used to it.

Regardless of all the above arguments, this article is about the term "constituent country" and not "country" so jtdirl's arguments are irrelevant. Jonto 01:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I also note that jtdirl refers to Northern Ireland as a "state" here Jonto 02:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Some people on Wikipedia take standards of accuracy seriously. Some people take the attitudes of "any old shite will do. Who cares if it is accurate?" Jonto seems to think the latter is adequate in an encyclopaedia. Josh at least tries to take standards seriously, even if his grasp of terminology is weak. One of the few things to unite Unionist, Loyalist, Nationalist and Republican is that no-one defines Northern Ireland as a country. Not even Paisley. They define it variously as a "geopolitical entity", a "province", a "statelet", or various other terms./ But all sides agree that that the UK involves three nations which qualify as countries, England, Scotland, and Wales, and one entity, Northern Ireland/North of Ireland/Ulster/The Province/the Occupied Six Counties/British Occupied Ireland, that fits no established definitionary criteria. Just because a few lazy civil servants in Whitehall can't think of anything else and try to apply "Constituent Country" (provoking laughter from Paisley, outrage in Scotland and Wales, resentment among nationalists, and dismissal internationally, and a concept that fails even the definition created by the civil servants themselves) doesn't mean that Wikipedia can accept any old spin as fact when no-one else does. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 03:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the terminology. Yes, NI isn't considered a country but this article isn't about that argument. Your confusing words within a term with an actual definition. You have admited it is used officially within the UK. I agree that it isn't correct as a description. However there isn't a decent term that accuratly describes all 4 parts of the UK. So people put up with a slightly inaccurate one. We do this sort of thing all the time. West Indies have nothing to do with india, neither do the Native Indians. How many records actually make up the record charts? There are faults in the way people use language everyday and Wikipedia can't change that so we have to put up with it too. josh (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Northern Ireland is almost always called a "province", if it's called anything at all. This, I suggest, is directly derived from the traditional four provinces of Ireland - even though, of course, Ulster was somewhat larger than what is now NI. NI could nevertheless be said to be based on Ulster, and the latter term has often been used as a synonym for NI (as in the RUC, for example). By contrast, Wales is often referred to as a "principality" - ignoring all sorts of legal and historical facts. Though much rarer, I suspect that Scotland and England would be called "kingdoms" rather than anything else, whilst Cornwall is called a "duchy" (and is also part of England, whether certain people like it or not). I would never, in normal usage, refer to NI as a "country" in any sense of the word. TharkunColl 10:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Reading through the article its all to apparent that it is weasel worded in any case. Northern Ireland is a province or subdivision of the United Kingdom and certainly not a "constituent country". The first line is perhaps the most awkwardly formulated sentence in English, and gives it away, this article is a product of original research or certainly an agenda to promote a particular status. Djegan 11:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how many ways I can put this. It's a term, not a description. Please read my comments before repeating that NI is not a country. josh (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You can put it as many ways as you want. It still is irrelevant. The term has a definition, as given by its creators. Northern Ireland doesn't meet the definition. Scotland, Wales and England do. Ipso facto, Northern Ireland isn't a Constituent Country. They are. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 16:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The term was created by the government to apply to all 4 parts of the UK. Please produce a reference where it is only used for 3. I haven't seen one. josh (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please all take a look at the additional discussion on this at Talk:Northern_Ireland. I think the "constituent country" description can be left in here for NI because it is used in the governmental documentation. Any issues with NI's inclusion can be added to text in the later paragraphs of this article. Jonto 16:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is an idiotic arguing people for pedants and people who I believe are more inclined to make it reflect their political views than anything else. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever and I believe it should be removed. Incidently, I can state that from my knowledge the Scottish courts refer to Scotland (cited as one of the 'constituent countries') as a 'territory' on occasion. --Breadandcheese 06:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that NI probably doesn't meet the strict definition of a country (though 'country' has a pretty flexible definition and we shouldn't be too strict about it). Anyway, all four are frequently referred to as the 'constituent countries' so we should certainly be mentioning NI here. DJ Clayworth 13:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 11:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Constituent Countries → Constituent countries – "Constituent countries" is not a proper noun. --Mais oui! 07:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Support --Mais oui! 07:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Robdurbar 07:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no move. -- Kjkolb 02:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Constituent country → Constituent part – For consistency between the articles England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and United Kingdom, as per User:Djegan's and User:Jtdirl's arguments that the phrase is "still disputed/need better/definitive citations", that it "needs authoritive sources" and that the sources "do not directly back claims". See Talk:Northern Ireland. --Mal 21:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~
 * Oppose. For obvious reasons. --Mal 21:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - sigh - as stated below - irrespective of the remarks above I have never (implied or stated) requested that this page be so moved. Djegan 22:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose &mdash; bad faith nomination. See below. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Ireland-up.png|15px]]\(caint)  01:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: seems more NPOV. FairHair
 * Oppose. The article is to explain the use of a phrase, see its first paragraph which has remained unedited and apparently acceptable to all through these edit wars. Ariwara 10:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose (if not too late), per what Jtdirl said, and note that protologisms are not acceptable: a slice of cake can be a "constituent part", for goodness sake. --  the     GREAT     Gavini   18:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments


 * Comment - This is a bogus and disingenuous proposal, just a cheap shot intended to publicise a dispute on content. Frankly I am disgusted, this is not the reason for requested moves. Requested moves should be serious, not for publicity sake alone. Otherwise wikipedia would be overun with these requests to settle scores this way. Djegan 22:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Incidentially whatever the result of this little farse it is not going to overide the accuracy and content dispute at Northern Ireland. WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY are not negotiable. Djegan 22:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the lamest reason yet for a move. If this was a unregistered or new user we would call it what it is, viz vandalism. Djegan 22:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The proposers latest edit to Northern Ireland simply confirms this is a bad faith nomination. Djegan 06:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I am deadly serious. I take consistency within Wikipedia articles seriously. The inclusion of the phrase in the articles England, Scotland, Wales, United Kingdom, Home Nations and this article had all specifically stated that there are four consistuent countries in the UK: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. This had been the case with the Northern Ireland article until one or two people took exception to the word country, and changed it. That left inconsistency within the related articles.
 * You asked for sources during our edit war, and I provided them in abundance (while I realise that Wikipedia is not to be cited as a source, many of those links were also used in the above mentioned articles and these citations were accepted for those articles.
 * Frankly, I'm disgusted at what appears to be a petty reversion war by you and a couple of others in a particularly point of view campaign. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox.
 * The reverts you had made included a phrase which seems to me to be original research and was wikilinked to the article Home Nations, which itself states that the UK is comprised of four constituent countries. That seems like weasel words - avoiding excplicity the facts, yet at the same time pointing to other articles which present the facts.
 * Indeed WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY are policy - and they are both policies that you seem to be ignoring, Djegan.
 * If this move results in consensus one way or the other, then consistency will have won out - you may consider that you have a "score" to settle with me. I do not think the same way.
 * Finally, I would thank you to stop bad mouthing me and instead attempt to enter into serious and polite discussion. --Mal 00:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A move request is used to discuss and arrive at a consensus for the naming of an article. A move request is not a platform to determine the accuracy and content of a related article. The issues about Northern Ireland have been discussed at lenght on the appropriate talk page, I am not discussing them here. This article is about the term "constituent country" - the article name is not about how the term should or should not be applied to Northern Ireland - or indeed how the term should be "adjusted" to suit Northern Ireland so that it becomes a one-stop shop. This move request is an act of desparation. Djegan 01:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. WP:NPA is not a gag-order for real and substantial debate and discussion. Djegan 01:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You say: "is not about how the term should or should not be applied to Northern Ireland - or indeed how the term should be "adjusted" to suit Northern Ireland". Yet that is precisely what you are doing.


 * You have brought into question the very existance of the term "Constituent country". I try to follow logic. After I had provided citations (as requested by you) which still weren't good enough for you and for Jtdirl specifically, yet had been accepted in other articles where this same dispute had surfaced (notably this one), I tried to make adjustments to my later edits in the hope of a compromise. It was logical to me therefore, to attempt to bring the relevant artricle into question by our peers. For consistancy, it would be better that the other three regions of the United Kingdom be labelled as constituent parts (or elements, or entities, or what ever other word you choose to use to avoid using the word country), and that the phrase which is also the title of this article should be brought into question.


 * Of course, I oppose such a move, as I believe that the phrase "constituent country" is applied to all four countries of the UK (as can be seen by the various citations that have been provided). This doesn't mean that the situation shouldn't be addressed.


 * As for a "gag-order" - I never mentioned such a thing. I did however suggest that you refrain from bad mouthing me because you have not, for one moment assumed good faith with regard to me (re: your comments above). --Mal 03:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you feel so strongly then you should of proposed a WP:RfC. The move propose is just a abuse of process, a stunt. Djegan 06:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith nomination
The situation is simple. The term has a consensus behind it for usage referring to England, Scotland and Wales. It is a disputed term in Northern Ireland. One community (Mal's) uses it. The other community regard the term in the Northern Ireland context as garbage, arguing that unlike England, Scotland and Wales Northern Ireland is neither a nation, a country or a constituent country, but simply a region of Northern Ireland. Background: one community uses language to claim that Northern Ireland is an ancient area, e.g., calling it Ulster, the name of a larger landmass, one of four millenium-old provinces on the island of Ireland, whereas historically Northern Ireland was actually created as a wholly new Home Rule entity in the Better Government of Ireland Act passed by the British Parliament in 1920. Because of the need to avoid allowing either community push their POV, terms like "Six Counties", "Occupied Six Counties" (both Irish Republican terms of insult to Northern Ireland), and "Ulster" (the Unionist term), etc are banned from usage in articles except to explain the existence of the terms. As "constituent country" is also exclusive to one community and seen by the other as both POV-pushing and agenda-driven, it was agreed not to use the term in the article, but to use a neutral variant "constituent entity" or "constituent part", which would then link to a footnote explaining the controversial nature of the term in a Northern Ireland context. Mal is unhappy that his community's POV is not being "pushed" through the use of the term and has consistently removed the neutral qualifier and footnote and replaced them with a statement that NI is a constituent country. Whether that is becuase he actually believes it, or because he is simply trying to insert the term as a provocative gesture to say "Wikipedia accepts our community's opinion as regards the other's viewpoint as bullshit" is a matter of opinion. WP unfortunately finds extremists in both communities trying to rewrite articles to send a "fuck you. Wikipedia accepts us, not you" message. The same people who have been reverting Mal's POV-pushing have also referred a republican POV-pusher to the arbcom. They are not part of some "republican conspiracy" as Mal believes. They simply stop both sides highjacking articles and inserting their one-sided opinions as fact.

This clearly is a bad faith nomination. I recommend that admins scrap this vote and deal appropriately with a user like Mal who abuses the renaming mechanism for bad faith nominations. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 01:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect assumption of POV
Jtdirl - please do not opt to speak on my behalf. You suggest that "my community" does that or that, but for me its not a case of my 'community' or even of my political ideology. It is logic and consistency.

The facts are the facts: Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and has been described as such by its central government. The citations I provided prove this. Because some people dislike the phrase, when applied to Northern Ireland (and really I'm not sure of the validity of this with regard to your or Djegan's reference note on the Northern Ireland page), that doesn't mean that the fact is incorrect. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It reports facts whether the desire is there for the facts to be different or not.

Your inference that I am "extremist" I find insulting. You know nothing about me as a person, yet you make assumptions and do not assume good faith.

The proposal to rename this article is at the very core of the dispute you, Djegan and myself have been having: is this phrase a valid term and applied to all four countries of the United Kingdom, or is it not? If it isn't, then none of the four articles (nor the Home Nations and United Kingdom articles) should use the term. If it is, then all the articles should use the term.

If it can be proven that there is a large number of people, from whatever political persuasion or creed, have objection to the term, then by all means include a reference note outlining this. This is what happens with other names and phrases.

To restate: please try to keep POV from the discussion as best you can. If I were truly some kind of "extremist", I can think of plenty of other articles I could most definately add a particular POV to. However, I have reverted edits which were POV from both perspectives... some more extreme than others. --Mal 03:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

UK only article?
Is this article meant to be about the UK only? If not, as I suspect is intended, it shouldn't use a template that generates "This article is part of the series: Politics and government of the United Kingdom", and most of the sections should be subsections of "United Kingdom". Rwendland 01:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How can England have no legal existence?
Just for my own education, how can a country - England - have no legal existence? Isn't England a country? wasn't it a country when it was "Kingdom of England?" How can a country not legally be a country? Amlder20 00:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it should (or is meant to) read that England does not have independant legal sovereignty. Jhamez84 23:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I know England has no independent sovereignty but neither does Wales or Scotland, no, I read on this article the other day that England was not considered a country in it's own right? How can that be? Amlder20 21:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I was wondering about this too. I had always thought "country" implied sovereignty. Over all things: law making, foreign policy and war making, economic policy, etc. And if it was not sovereign, then it was something else. Like a state, province, prefecture, special administrative territory, or something else. ? While being partially or mostly ignorant I guess I had sort of thought England had either taken over the other countries or made political alliances with them through either treaties and/or marriage. And Great Britain was a sort of government of governments, or queen/king of the local queens/kings among them. And along with Northern Ireland as the historic first place of empire building, which continues to this day with the people of Northern Ireland considering themselves along with Great Britain the United Kingdom. As I said, I'm kind of ignorant of some of this stuff. I never understood Yugoslavia being made up of a number of countries either. And how do these situations differ from a country being made up of a number of nations rather than countries, since not all nations are states nor do all nations necessarily wish to form a state or country by themselves or at all. And I would just like to note it would be POV to look down on such nations as being ignorant, backwards, or primitive. It is POV and merely opinion, perhaps culturally based, that the modern day nation/state is the least "primitive" form of political organization.

The term "country" in the US can also be an informal term meaning either a) rural areas, or b) a general area where people reside. An example of this latter example is fans of popular sporting teams will sometimes joke "this is Bear country" (a reference to the American Football team the Chicago Bears), which means this is an area in which Chicago Bears fans reside. It is this latter definition which the term "Basque country", the way it is phrased seems to imply to me. If there is a separate, different type of government in the Basque area of Spain than other local governments, shouldn't Basque country be called something else? Something along the lines of "special administrative area" of Basque?

And wouldn't Netherlands Antilles and Aruba be considered colonies of The Netherlands given their location and the historic accuracy of this? Or is it the case with Puerto Rico and the United States, in which the government of the US officially calls its colonies something else? 67.53.78.15 00:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the Netherlands Antilles, probably the first failed constituent country in history, and Aruba are not colonies  ANYMORE, now they are constituent countries, just like the Netherlands. It's just that area, population and such are a bit dissimilar, which causes people like you to confuse the one constituent country which is well over 90% of the Kingdom with the Kingdom. That the Kingdom i.e. the different constituent countries together have to do things like deciding whether Kosovo is recognized by the Kingdom as a country in its own right shows that they aren't colonies, just smaller constituent countries with their own currencies, constitutions and the like.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.112.226 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * British government is fairly odd in its slow evolution, there are few grand gestures made in our politics (at least historically) - so the constituent parts of the UK were never given names or special status like states or provinces. They are often, like Britain generally, considered to be nations in a cultural etc sense. As the pedants on Wikipedia will point out, nation refers to to the people (ergo, technically the Scottish people are a nation, but not Scotland). So we end up with country - which, to be fair, the parts were (in the full sense) for several centuries. I suppose a point to dispute is whether this is actually proper insofar as a 'country' is usually understood to refer to a sovereign state or unincorporated territory, or simply an odd British anomaly. To avoid confusion, at least, the 'constituent' prefix is almost always applied in Wikipedia and a lot of official writing.


 * My personal opinions are that it is simply Anglocentricism (Britannocentricism, even?) that led to this. Britons have very high opinions of our constituent parts - a lot of Wikipedia discussion supports this - and fundamentally, I think a lot of us do think the position of Scotland, England, Wales and NI are special when they're not. Also, a lot of cultural snobbery seems to go on - ie, "we Welsh/English/Scottish have a great and ancient culture - we're not like a state/province/region" - despite of course, many states, provinces and regions having rich and interesting cultures of their own.


 * That's me rambled on enough anyway. Oh, and by the by, the Basque country does have a status - it's an autonomous community. --Breadandcheese 12:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hard to say "England is not a country" or "a 'country' is usually understood to refer to a sovereign state or unincorporated territory" in the light of definitions in such dictionaries as OED which make plain that sovereignty or forms of government are no part of the concept. See these illustrations of official and authoritative use. There is surely nothing mind-blowing in the concept of a country being made up of a number of countries?ariwara 09:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, dictionaries simply reflect common usage. As a poster points out in that linked page of examples, it only ever is used in a non-state sense in British English to refer to the constituent countries of the UK. I'm unconvinced by the example of the Basque Country - that does not imply it is a country any more than refering to the West Country. The French "overseas country" status is quite different too - I certainly accept that colonies, unincorporated areas etc are countries - that usage is absolutely standard, and does not contradict my point. As I say above, I think it's simply inconsistent Anglocentricism. --Breadandcheese 20:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This quotation from an Australian court shows how this is not simply a British point: "the requirement that an applicant be outside his or her country and the requirement that the fear of persecution must be for a Convention reason, serve to distinguish "stateless persons" in general from those "stateless persons" who are also refugees and are therefore entitled to the protection of the Convention. These limitations do not require that "country" be defined as a sovereign state. To approach the term "country" in a narrow technical way would undermine the humanitarian purposes of the Convention by excluding some persons from its protection without any sound reason in principle for so doing. If the definition of "country" is not restricted to sovereign state, the question is how to decide whether an area is a "country" for the purposes of the Convention. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines "country" to include "the territory of nation; a region constituting an independent State, or a province .... which was formerly independent and is still distinct in institutions, language..." The Macquarie Dictionary includes "a state", "the territory of a nation" and "any considerable territory demarcated by geographical conditions or by a distinctive population" within its description of "country". The word "country" has a more extensive meaning on these descriptions than the concept of either a State or nation. "


 * Macquarie is the leading Australian-English dictionary. Chambers Dictionary has this: "country noun (countries) 1 an area of land distinguished from other areas by its culture, climate, inhabitants, political boundery, etc. 2 the population of such an area of land. 3 a nation or state. 4 one's native land. 5 (often the country) open land, away from the towns and cities, usually characterized by moors, woods, hills, fields, etc. 6 land having a certain character or connection • Burns country. 7 an area of knowledge or experience • back in the familiar country of simple arithmetic."


 * I think it is fair to say that the use of 'country' for Slovenia while in Yugoslavia, Ukraine while in the USSR, England while in the UK, whether in the phrase constituent countries or on its own, is (a) correct (b) normal usage, and not merely a "British anomaly" . Sovereignty is no part of the definition. ariwara 22:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Basque country example
This is obvious nonsense and I have removed it. Does anyone seriously disagree?

The meaning of 'country' in 'Basque country' is entirely different from that of 'country' in the context of sovereign state. While it is true that country need not indicate sovereign state alone, this is a ridiculous example plucked out of no-where. If it was 'West country or similar, it wouldn't have lasted a day. --Breadandcheese 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Consistancy
This article lists Northern Ireland, however at Northern Ireland constituent country is omitted. We need consistancy folks. GoodDay 14:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's perfectly appropriate in relation to NI. --Breadandcheese 15:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have corrected that anomaly. (Sarah777 15:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Inappropriately. --Breadandcheese 15:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly not; and please refrain from calling my reasoning "nonsense"; apologise. Ever hear of WP:CIVIL? Or would you regard that as inappropriate? The issue is disputed; a handful of references for "country" v a vast array of references for "province" etc and vast common usage - and you think that makes rejecting "country" nonsense. (Sarah777 16:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC))
 * It is nonsense. Trying to define a term of this variety by reference to flags and an incorrect assumption about songs is ludicrous. More importantly, however, this is logically fallacious. It is irrelevant to this article how often Northern Ireland is called something different, none of the other labels you can come up with contradict its status as a constituent country of the UK. Secondly, we are not talking about "country", we're discussing use of the quite different term "constituent country" - which is not commonly used in normal parlance anyway. --Breadandcheese 20:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you got one thing right, the term "constituent country" is not commonly used in normal parlance! As for the rest; I was citing some (accurate, btw) traits of a "country" (there are many more) and NI doesn't qualify by any standard. As for references from political websites - here's one to counter yours. And another one, in fact if you type "Northern Ireland is not a Country" into Google you get 18,900 hits; an extraordinary result for a six word sentence!(Sarah777 20:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC))


 * I'm more concerned with consistency on related articles, then what people are/are not comfortable with at Northern Ireland. If Northern Ireland is not gonna allow constituent country, then United Kingdom; England, Scotland & Wales shouldn't. If that's the case, those four components should be removed from this article. Consistency folks, please. GoodDay 18:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Consistency does not mean we can't call England, Scotland and Wales countries. It only means that NI should not be referred to as a country in any article. There is no rule that says the UK can't be made up of three countries and a province. That reflects reality - surely reality trumps consistency? (Sarah777 19:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC))
 * How about, using the term Home nation for the four British components, in place of constituent country, province etc. GoodDay 19:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * More difficult as NI is composed of parts of two different outside nations. (Sarah777 20:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC))
 * My mistake, my Home nation suggestion doesn't belong here. GoodDay 20:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Important Surrender Announcment: notwithstanding the obvious fact that I am entirely right (as usual) in a spirit of Wikiness, and in the absence of any visible support, I hereby withdraw my objection to describing NI as a "constituent country". (This was in no way related to the fact that Googling "NI is a country" threw up 35,000 hits). (Sarah777 21:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Constituent country v. constituent part (UK)
According to Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use, Ordnance Survej of Great Britain and International Organization for Standardization UK consisting 4 constituent parts: 2 countries (England and Scotland), 1 principality (Wales) and 1 province (Northern Ireland),. So, informations in this article are wrong. Aotearoa from Poland (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say anything is 'wrong' per se, just that we're dealing with very imprecise and poorly articulated phrases which has more to do with popular perception than technical accuracy. --Breadandcheese (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be plain to all that there just 2 countries ( England and Scotland), a Principality ( Wales) and a Province  ( Northern Ireland ) in the United Kingdom of GB and NI.

21:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)eog1916


 * I'm afraid on Wikipedia we deal with what is rather than what should be. --Breadandcheese (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference in the article that backs up the statement about all four being constituent countries is. If you like you can write to the owner of the website and point out their mistake, but until they change it I think we'll keep the reference to four countries. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So, wikipedia must wait for someone in 10 Downing Street to put the record right befor we can! I thought that Wiki was independent of UK Government interference...this must just be asperational.Eog1916 (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is, but we also like to have references to back up articles too Alastairward (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely our Polish contributer Aotearoa ( above) has given such references! Why ignore this information? Eog1916 (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't change the fact that all four parts of the UK clearly can be verifiably found to be called 'constituent countries'. The information is not being ignored, however it is extra information, not replacement information. If you wish to add mention of it in the article, feel free, but to imply Wales and Northern Ireland are not constituent countries of the UK would be, in my view, neither correct nor verifiable. --Breadandcheese (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that Wales is a principality and Northern Ireland is a province then they must be the first cases in the world where the status of a country is given to such territories. Why not call the Isle of Man a country? Eog1916 (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe plenty of people do call the Isle of Man a country. Equally, plenty of principalities are countries; and I can think of another example where a province is considered a country (or at least the people are held to constitute a nation) - Quebec. --Breadandcheese (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And we can add at least three more similar examples: the Principality of Monaco, which is a country; the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, which is a country; and the Principality of Liechtenstein, which is (guess what?) a country. BencherliteTalk 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest a name change to "Constituent area" or "Constituent part", as country only applies to some of the "constituent areas" or "parts".78.149.135.145 (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Bencherlite, Monaco is considered a country because unlike Wales, it is not part of a higher country, so it HAS to be a country. Gozitancrabz (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Constituent area" would mean that scotland, wales, and n.ireland could all be correctly described.Gozitancrabz (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

For
Support for "Constituent area" (3)


 * Strong support: Wales is not a country; it is a principality. Northern Ireland is not a country; it is a province. Naming this "constituent country" is inccorect. Gozitancrabz (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: 'country' is nonsense as NI is not a country by any conceivable measure. Sarah777 (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we can agree that the position in respect of Northern Ireland/The Six counties is more controversial, but the position in respect of Wales and Scotland is not. --Snowded (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: The term country doesn't apply to Wales or Northern Ireland in most ways and only within certain measures with England & Scotland. Therefore I agree that area is more applicable than country for this article.Wikipéire (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Against
Against "Constituent area" (4)


 * Against: No way. "Constituent area" is never used by anyone. It is just a Wikipedia invention. TharkunColl (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Against: Totally agree - a Wikipedia invention.


 * Against: This suggestion is baffling. The purpose of this article is to explain the phrase "constituent country", which as the first paragraph of the article points out is not a term of art but simply a phrase which is used in a number of contexts. ariwara (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly against: its a complete nonsense and goes against all common usage, as well as the legal strucutures provided by the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Island Assemblies --Snowded (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The references here seem to suggest otherwise. Gozitancrabz (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if you (i) take the extreme and unsupported principle that a Principality is not a country (see earlier remarks by Bencherlite and (ii) you accept a series of dubious web references from primary schools as authority.  Why don't you come straight out and declare your political agenda here?   --Snowded (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no agenda. I simply want a non-point of view. Yes, I have already replied to bencherlite if you notice. It seems you are a POV pusher, who is trying to convince us that Northern Ireland is a country, which we know for a fact it is not. Take your POV elsewhere, as wikipedia does not welcome it. Oh, and really? It may have just been me, but i'm sure i remember putting in some BBC references too... unless you would like to tell me these are incorrect?? Gozitancrabz (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, you clearly have an agenda and throwing names around will not help. If you not an earlier comment you will see I was happy to accept the compromise which has been achieved on the Northern Ireland/Six Counties page (trying to be neutral here).  However Scotland and Wales are clearly countries.  The BBC (as I have already said) also talks about regions and areas of Wales.  You are quoting out of context.  The common use is Country.  --Snowded (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow... just... wow! You actually think Wales is "clearly" a country? Scotland and England are kingdoms. Wales is a principality. Northern Ireland is a province. The UK is a country, which holds the other 4. No one disputes that. And the BBC backs up the claims very very clearly. And "compromise"? What exactly are you suggesting? Gozitancrabz (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And you say that you are trying to be neutral? Principalities can be countries and states.  If you go back to when this all started there was no concept of a "King" or a "Kingdom" in Welsh Law, Prince was the convention and the term comes from then. No one disputes that Wales, Scotland etc are a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but that does not stop them being countries I am afraid.  You are quoting the BBC out of context, in the ones you site it is correct to say area.  I found a couple of others  on a minimal search.
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/culture_preserved_03.shtml
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/553830.stm
 * Assuming (and I realise it may be asking a lot) that you will not fall back to "Wow" and "POV pusher" as a form of debate, do you regard Scotland as a country? And (feel free to not answer this) where do you come from?   --Snowded (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see that question as relevant, and will not answer it as such. However, I will tell you that my heritage would certainly not affect my point of view on this matter. And it seems we have encoutered the point of our problem then. Some sources suggest it as a country. Others suggest it as not a country. So what would be the more neutral term? *cough*Area*cough*. And I have not researched Scotland as much as this, but I know that it is more widely accepted as a country than Wales is. Gozitancrabz (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well one has to rely on your assertion that your heritage does not affect your point of view. You are running in the face of a whole body of work in anthropology and cognitive science if you really think it does not have an impact. I think a degree of openness would help here - transparency. As previously stated removing "country" and replacing with with area" is taking a political position it is not neutral. In any event you have been provided with (and failed to answer) a host of citations including UK Government ones to the effect that Wales is a country. That is all on the talk-Wales page so I will not replicate here. --Snowded (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that I am required to tell you where I am from? Do you even understand how out of policy that is? And yes, please go check the Wales talk page. Gozitancrabz (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read what I said you will see that I am not saying that you are required to. However I do think it is significant that you refuse to.  Openness and transparency are I think important.  The wikipedia rightly defends anonymity, but it is not a requirement.  Its your choice if you reveal it or not.   Even if you don't do that I am curious to see if you deal directly with the evidence for the use of country on the Wales Talk page - so far you have ignored it.  --Snowded (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Against for reasons discussed above and on Talk:Wales. BencherliteTalk 14:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That discussion has now brought us to the conclusion that there must be a name change of some kind, so that arguement is invalid. Gozitancrabz (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to tell you this but the only people to have come to that conclusion are those arguing for it in the first place (You and Wikipiere). You need to deal with the evidence my friend and I suggest you do so or have the decency to withdraw.  --Snowded (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am not going to answer my ethnicity however much you ask. And secondly, we HAVE acknowledged your quotes; that is why we need a name change - to avoid something which suggest it IS a country, and avoid something which suggests it ISN'T. Gozitancrabz (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * fair enough on the ethnicity, your choice. However you seem to be arguing a position that if there is dissent then a name must be changed.  That would allow apples to renamed as oranges if two editors thought it should.  The reality is that the UK Government refers to Wales as a country as does the constitutional monarch.  You have to counter to that to argue for the need for a change.  --Snowded (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am of Latin ethnicity, if that answers your question, although I don't see it as relevant. And the BBC says its not a country. Wikipedia works on sources. If some sources call it a country, and some say it is not, then the article has to reflect that, and it cannot say anything that gives support to "country" or "non-country". It is called NPOV. Gozitancrabz (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh for God's sake - the BBC has quotes which can be interpreted both ways. You have been given specific official statements from the constitutional authorities which state it is a country.  You have provided no authoritative and unambiguous sources, you have failed to deal with or answer official statements that contradict your position.  As you say Wikipedia deals with sources, please deal with them.  --Snowded (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The BBC states support for it being both a country and not a country, but if you are going to not pay attention to the other links:
 * This link from the BBC shows VERY clearly the mixed oppinions: "An insurance company has told a customer of 10 years in south east Wales that it could not renew his policy because Wales was not a country"
 * Another BBC link that shows VERY clearly mixed oppinions about the status of Wales: "Nevertheless we have in recent years taken to describing Wales as a country" "But Wales is not a country or a nation in another sense of the words because it doesn't have its own government"
 * Unless you would perhaps like to disregard these too? Gozitancrabz (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well now, an Insurance company in communication with a customer (God help us if Insurance companies become arbiters of fact) and an ambiguous casual story in 2001 which is not an official BBC statement which also contains the statement that the Assembly cannot legislate, which it can.  Nice try.  Now answer the UK Government OFFICIAL statements and the Speech of the Constitutional Monarch. --Snowded (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Do you actually read the links before you post them? The first one was a report about an insurance company making a mistake! "We unfortunately sent a letter in error to a customer in Wales stating that he could not renew his policy because he lived outside of the UK." It's hardly the BBC stating that Wales is not a country! The other one dates from 2001 and relies in part on the inability of the WAG to pass laws, though the situation here has rather changed. One columnist saying that Wales is a country in some sense and not in others isn't sufficiently weighty to set at naught the weighty official references to Wales as a country, on the Talk:Wales page (plus more from this article referring to Wales as a country, such as The 2001 Census (country of birth: England, Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland, ROIreland, elsewhere) and The Office of National Statistics ("In the context of the UK, each of the 4 main subdivisions (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) is referred to as a country)". Again, your sources lack authority by comparison. BencherliteTalk 16:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. You are disagreeing with a total of 5 bbc webistes. Gozitancrabz (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for once, don't say Wow, but read the material. Each of your BBC web sites has been disputed and countered or you have been shown not to have read your own reference.  You have now been given UK Government web site references,  a speech by the constitutional monarch and now statements from the official government census.  Please, for your own credibility answer those points.  --Snowded (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But you are disagreeing with the BBC. That discredits you. Gozitancrabz (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As established in several comments above, the BBC sites you quote do not support your interpretation. Now please engage in the argument, and respond to the three key sources cited above if you want to have any credibility.  To remind you (i) UK Government official web sites (ii) a formal speech by the constitution monarch and (iii) the UK census.  --Snowded (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I must agree with Snowed's interpretation here. --Breadandcheese (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you asking me to comment on them? I acknowledge what they say, which is why I suggest that there are mixed attitudes towards it, as they show one thing, and other sources show another. Gozitancrabz (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They are not comaparable sources - and how many actually say Wales isn't a country? Wikipedia must have weight on quality and quantity grounds. You are enforcing a 'for/against when there jsut isn't one. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So, every one of your sources has either had its authority questioned or being shown not to say what you said it said. In contrast official UK government sources have been quoted which clearly state that Wales is a country.   As was said earlier Wikipedia is about sources and facts not random opinions.  In the absence of any authoritative source to the contrary I think it is now clearly established that Wales is a country.  Your refusal to provide official counter sources clearly indicates that you realise you are in an indefensible position - the mature reaction would be to acknowledge that and move on. --Snowded (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already provided sources!! Gozitancrabz (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All of which have be challenged, either as to their support of your position or their authority. You have not answered those criticisms (I suspect because you can't), nor have you handled the formal and authoritative UK Government sources which name Wales as a country (again because I think you realise you can't).  Assertion without argument or support is just that, assertion.  I was always taught that you should not beat a man when he is down, and this becoming like that so if you have nothing new to add I think this is over.  --Snowded (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then please list exactly your criticisms with the content of my BBC references. Gozitancrabz (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the prior history, here and on the Wales page. I have handled some Bencherlite and others have handled others.  If after reading the contributions that others have, at some effort made to a discussion you chose to initiate.  If, when you have shown that basic courtesy, you think that you have counter arguments or some have not been handled then  list them with arguments if they have been disputed.  In parallel, and as a common courtesy you should deal with the three official points above.  --Snowded (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please can you list them here, as to the best of my knowledge, I have already countered what you were suggesting about them. And what exactly are you asking me to "deal" with them about? Gozitancrabz (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I am doing this, as you can read as well as I can. However as an act of charity -
 * Various news sites referencing "Principality" were countered (i) by pointing out that a principality can be a country (ii) by referencing a range of official UK Government sources (not press reports) which stated clearly that Wales was a country and (iii) BBC sites stating that Wales is a country.  You made no direct response to any of this, but just repeated the original point or added some new sites
 * The society of the Holy Cross was discredited (i) as it has no authority and (ii) it thinks America is a province, you made no response on this
 * BencherliteTalk 16:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC) disposed of your insurance company quote and 2001 quote from a BBC reporter (not an official BBC position)
 * I think that is it. Now please have the decency to respond to (i) UK Government official web sites (ii) a formal speech by the constitution monarch and (iii) the UK census.  Your alternative, if you want to maintain credibility is to withdraw, gracefully.   --Snowded (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Only the principality quotes which did not also mention "wales not being a country" can be disguarded.
 * Is there one? Where? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2. The BBC on some of its links states that Wales is a country, but on others, states that it is not. You cannot be selective as to which sites you choose to listen to.
 * The BBC as an institution has NEVER said Wales isn't a country - it always describes Wales as a country, and if it had a policy (although why would it?) - that would be it. The odd silly report of a salesman are meaningless - and hardly abundant! --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3. In answer to your ones, why do i need to "respond" to them? If they state that, then great, but I don't see how that changes the situation anymore than the point we are already @ Gozitancrabz (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I set out below the position so far. I think I've included all the sites mentioned by both sides. The weight of reliable sources is clearly in favour of the description of Wales as a country. BencherliteTalk 20:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done Bencherlite :) However, I am not saying to write "it is not a country". I am saying that since there is SOME mention of it being other things, we DO have to take at least some note of this - we can't just ignore it entirely, otherwise we would be taking a POV. Gozitancrabz (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I just went through them (your web sites). None of your Principality sites say that Wales is not a country, apart from about.com (a sales site) and the junior school from Kent.   NONE of your official BBC sites states that Wales is not a country, one unofficial one in 2001, reporting a reporter hints at it but has established factual errors.   You have no authority to support your position.  In contrast Bencherlite has provided a series of authoritative sites which are official UK sites which clearly and absolutely state that Wales is a country.  This is not a question of competing opinions it is a question of using poor or contradictory sources against official ones.  You have persistently failed to engage with the argument and persist in asserting a position in the face of the evidence.  That is a POV position.  --Snowded (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Well, as this all started when you {Gozitancrabz} tried to rewrite the opening sentence of the Wales article to remove reference to it being a "country" and instead to call it an "area", a description which has no support in the sources, forgive me for being surprised when you now write that you are not trying to say that Wales is not a country! However, I'm pleased that you've changed your position after this extensive discussion. As for whether the description of Wales as, e.g., a principality, needs to be included in the article, well that's a matter for discussion at Talk:Wales, but you'll find mention in the lead already that Wales is sometimes referred to as a principality.  And it's hardly POV to describe Wales as a country in the light of all the sources below that do just that. (Entirely agree with Snowded @ 20:19, above). BencherliteTalk 20:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Snouded - Pleez shəu mii witc BBC linqk yu miin wen yu seii "it haz faktual eruz"? N bentcəlaiit, i am simplii seiinq that sins thə sorsiz seii diferunt thinqz, wii shud giv eii menshun tu oll ov thum. Gozitancrabz (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Lapsing into incoherence is hardly a defence. The 2001 article is in error in respect of the current position - please see the detailed work provided by Bencherlite below.  You have NO authoritative sources to say that Wales is not a country, you have no counter to the official UK Government sites which say it is.  Not only that you are showing contempt for other contributors who are putting effort into this in an attempt to provide objective evidence.  Please, please just have the honesty to admit that you have no case and let us get on with more useful work.  --Snowded (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was bored of having been on here all day and thought I would use a little spelling reformed spelling :) And please tell me which link you are talking about. Gozitancrabz (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Very clever, but not very considerate. I have told you which reference and Bencherlite has given you very specific detail.  Please have the courtesy to answer the substantial points or withdraw.  Your persistence indifference to the efforts of other editors is becoming very boring.  --Snowded (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "But Wales is not a country or a nation in another sense of the words because it doesn't have its own government" How is that not clear enough? Gozitancrabz (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * and that point is more than adequately handled by Bencherlite below.  Please read what he says, the position is not an official BBC one, but a report of a conversation.  It is at least out of dateif not inaccurate (check recent history and the additional powers granted to the Welsh Assembly since 2001) .  It has no authoritative status.  This is not a meaningful authority.  In contrast you have multiple official UK sites which state that it is a country.  You are being perverse in not answering this points.  You are clearly taking a POV and refusing to engage in any discussion.  It is evident from your responses that you are not reading, or possibly not understanding the contributions of other editors.  Answer a very simple question:  If the UK Government official web sites say that Wales is a country,  if the constitutional monarch says that Wales is a country and if the census forms say that Wales is a country how is it possible to argue otherwise?  --Snowded (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Debate Over on country
The clear agreement above is that Wales is a country and the evidence is overwhelming. The refusal of Gozitancrabz to engage either with the challenges to his/her own evidence or the counter material is I regret to say, providing growing evidence of Troll like behaviour, let alone POV. --Snowded (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)