Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/Archive 2

Wales
As Wikipedia already refers to Wales as "Wales still remains the largest principality in the world" on Is it not COMPLETELY incorrect to refer to it as a country. If not, should the link be amended to state it isn't a principality? Ntbear (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That needs to be discussed on that page. This page is not concerned with problems that other pages may or may not have. Additionally, one cannot use an article on wikipedia as a reliable source for another. Furthermore, please add new sections at the end of the page, rather than the top.  DDStretch    (talk)  11:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For information, I have now removed the sentence you are presumably using: "Wales still remains the largest principality in the world" from Principality, as it is unsourced, and it also is apparently inconsistent with reliably sourced information given in the preceding section of that article.  DDStretch    (talk)  11:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Channel Islands and Isle of Man
Not under the jurisdiction of the UK? If the fact that CI & IM legal disputes can be appealed to the UK Privy Council, the fact that various CI & IM officials are appointed by the Queen, and the fact that the UK Parliament and Privy Council reserve the right to impose legislation on the CI & IM against their will don't collectively count as jurisdiction, what does? The first (unarguable) point alone should be enough to show that UK jurisdiction and not just Crown jurisdiction is in place. 08:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What would you suggest then? --Jza84 | Talk  12:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand why that sentence might create confusion yes. How about changing " but are not under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom." to something like " but are Crown dependencies and not part of the United Kingdom." BritishWatcher (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Legal disputes in the West Indies can be referred to the Privy Council. -- Snowded   TALK  13:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Article title
Should the artile title be Constituent countries of the United Kingdom?--Vintagekits (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The British government has described them as just "countries" there for i dont think we need to have "constituent" in the title. The article makes very clear that they are parts of the United Kingdom there for the constituent bit really is not needed. http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823 justifies just using country in my opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A constituent country is a country that is part of a larger entity, such as a sovereign state. If we used Constituent countries of the United Kingdom we are descibing them twice. Titch Tucker (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. --Jza84 | Talk  13:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the National Statistics office calls them Constituent countries of the United Kingdom, as does the Royal Mint and I feel it more accurately describes their position with the UK.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm more than confident that other reputable sources could be found that describe the four with different terms - indeed that's reflected in the content of the article. I'm in favour of moving the page to Terminology of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales (1st pref) or else Terminology of the United Kingdom though, if there's a consensus to make this so. --Jza84 | Talk  16:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd agree strongly with either of these suggestions of Jza84.  DDStretch    (talk)  16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support the Terminology of the United Kingdom title (and think it would be the best name) aslong as it wasnt strongly opposed by some people. The current title seems stable as does the main content and the intros on all the UK articles. I wouldnt want a dispute to break out over renaming this article which impacts on previous agreements reached. I dont see a big problem with renaming it as Countries of the Uk can just redirect here and no changes to other articles would have to be made but depends how people feel about a change. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's get something straight. There are four countries of the United Kingdom, and some people want to change the name of this article? Can anyone not see what Vintagekits is trying to do? I love Ireland, I'm part Irish, but too many of them hate the fact for some reason that individually we are called countries. The name of this article is accurate and should remain as it is. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I really do not appriciate this ad hominem argument. The article title is misleading and that is the reason that I suggested the article title change. I would also argee with the article title being changed to Terminology of the United Kingdom.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Apart from your (Vintagekits) opinion that "constituent country" is a more appropriate term than "country" - which has been much debated on other pages, and not accepted - do you have any other arguments that the current title is "misleading"? If not, I agree with Titch that the existing title should be retained.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not my opinion - I have provided sources which outlines whos opinion it is.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Terminology of the United Kingdom is an acceptable alternative. But, if it's gonna cause an uproar, why bother. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason why this is my second preference is that the terminology we're dealing with actually relates to the consistuent countries rather than the UK - spanner in the works I know, but something to consider. --Jza84 | Talk  21:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

⬅ Why are we even talking about this? The current title is a reasonable one, it says what this is about. What we have got is an old chestnut been raised by someone coming back from a three month ban who feels it appropriate to advertise on their talk page "TWO DAYS UNTIL I BRING THE PAIN BACK TO WIKIPEDIA!". We all know the political stance involved in this, lets not give it the time of day. Snowded  TALK  21:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again another ad hominem attack which I really do not appriciate. Discuss the issue at hand or else find somewhere else to go. Another attack like that I will be reporting both of you to ANI. The title is misleading as the term "country" generally indicates a soverign state - which these "constituent countries" are not.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Countries of the United Kingdom is accurate. The British government describes the 4 parts of the United Kingdom as "countries" so i dont see the big problem. "Countries" mean different things to different people. If you look at Country you will see it does not just mean sovereign state. There is no point in trying to change the title of this article on that basis. As i said before i like Terminology of the United Kingdom But would only support change if nobody opposed it. People do oppose the change, there for the current title has to stay. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree about "constituent countries of", but a suggestion to rename the article was brought up before this user came here. I suppose exploring the possibility to rename will either reinforce the notion we have the right title or else aid us in finding something more neutral/verifiable etc. I agree the current title is reasonable, but is it the most reasonable? --Jza84 | Talk  22:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I really don't think this is an issue worthy of much agonising, I'm not opposed to a change in principle, so long as any new title is unarguably an improvement. One problem with "Terminology of the United Kingdom" is that it might suggest, wrongly, that the article addresses the term "United Kingdom".  I suppose that the clearest title might be "Terminology of the countries of the United Kingdom", but that could be seen as too long and would still be contentious to some.  On balance I favour it being left as it is.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There has always been a political position which pervades these issues which wants to argue that for something to be a country it must be fully independent. We saw this in debates on Wales or Scotland where we had both the Unionist position (these are administrative regions of the UK) and the Republican position (they are not independent so they are not countries, and under no circumstances will be ever let Northern Ireland be called a country).  I don't think is ad hominem to point out that once again this issue is being used as a proxy battleground for a wider issue.  I also think that two much energy goes into these proxy and tokenist battlegrounds and they should be nipped in the bud not encouraged.  If Vintagekits wants to report me for saying this then s/he should feel free to do so.
 * That said I am not opposed to changing the title of the article if the change improves understanding of its content.  This article is where we stored and created the citation evidence used to support the use of country on four article pages and serves as a form of disambiguation.  At the moment its easy to remember (which helps pipelinking).  "Terminology does not work for me as it implies that it would cover lots of other issues.  As Ghmyrtle says alternatives get long and clumsy.  It may well not be the most reasonable title (Agree with you Jza) but I haven't seen anything better yet and I am not sure how important it is to spend time and effort on this.  -- Snowded   TALK  09:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not merge Countries of the United Kingdom into Subdivisions of the United Kingdom and have one big super dooper article on how it all works?
 * Saying that there are many different terms for E/S/W/NI and insisting on one for the title doesn't seem the most NPOV. Merging the article would avoid all this renaming hassle and the move could go a long way to making Subdivisions of the United Kingdom a very nice featured article perhaps.212.2.170.114 (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The countries of the United Kingdom are not subdivisions of the United Kingdom. The UK is united on the basis of four parts, not divided into four parts. --Jza84 | Talk  15:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A proposal to merge those 2 articles failed, months ago. Lack of input, caused me to have the merge tags deleted. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Republic / republic of" Ireland in the intro
Surely the term Republic of Ireland is preferable to republic of Ireland. Everywhere you see the term 'Republic of Ireland' it's capitalised. We could add a rider to acknowledge that the 'official name' of the state (as opposed to its 'constitutional description') is simply Ireland. Pondle (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It implies an official name not a description if you capitalise it. Personally I would prefer just Ireland but in the absence of that the small "r" is more accurate.  -- Snowded   TALK  21:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy with the big R if it was made clear that Ireland was the actual name of the country. Otherwise small r is best.213.202.146.183 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "Ireland is a republic seperate to the United Kingdom." ? --Jza84 | Talk  22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Works for me.213.202.146.183 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too.Pondle (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"The UK is not a political union"
Predictably, an editor has blanket reverted my edits to this article. I contend that my edits clarified the situation, but I will not argue the toss with an editor who has explicitly threatened to block me if I cross his path. However, this edit summary - "The UK is not a political union" - just sticks in the craw. Of course the UK is a political union. Reading the Union with Scotland Act 1706 should clarify situation for the ill-informed. --Mais oui! (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The United Kingdom was formed by a political union although im not sure if such a term appears in the Acts of Union and its only mentioned once on the article about the Act of Union and thats about a previous attempt by the Scottish King who ruled England to unite his Kingdoms. The United Kingdom today is not a political union between different states, it is a single sovereign state and country. Talk of a political union complicates matters, one could say England is a political union between the different counties that unified to form the Kingdom of England or the same for the different regions of Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Mais oui!, you may be enlightened that the United Kingdom is more than England and Scotland. Under what political union are Wales and Northern Ireland united??? --Jza84 | Talk  18:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well according to the Political union article which seems to be badly sourced and incorrect everything between two states coming together is a political union. It covers everything from a union between two states that form a new state, a military annexation, legal annexation, a federal union like the USA etc. Under the description used on that political union article every single country is formed in such a way. I think its inclusion does just complicate matters so agree it shouldnt be included in this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wales is technically part of England (witness the Flag of State - no dragon pennant there), which is why the Heir Apparent uses its Princedom as his ordinary title. Ireland as an island was conquered by English forces, effectively making it the first bag of the British Empire, so in its reduced condition, it too has no legally distinct status as a country. The Union specifically refers to Scotland and England; though as English interests were principally nourished and protected under its terms, it is necessarily skewed in an English direction.
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Country categories
Hi, what exactly is your rationale for removing the "European countries" category I'd just added to the England/Scotland/Wales/NI articles? Is it that you don't consider them to be countries?--Kotniski (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * When you search for List of countries they do not appear.We have to keep it consistent and accurate.TDSDOS (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Each of the articles state that they are countries. You seem to be choosing which articles you wish to be consistent. I will be reinstating the category. Regards. Daicaregos (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we want a compromise, we could create a new category Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom, make it a subcategory of European countries, and move E/S/W/NI into that.--Kotniski (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. Good idea.TDSDOS (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A new category is not needed just for 4 things, this matter should be restored to the previously stable version. Ive seen several people adding and removing different ones in recent days.. lets just stick with the stable version before alterations were made . BritishWatcher (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree all the pages are now back to the stable version of 2 days ago before the category was added.TDSDOS (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The stable version wasn't very satisfactory (for example, Category:England was in Category:European countries, but England wasn't). In fact most things about categories are not very satisfactory - but anyway, I've implemented the proposal above, and found a few more pages to put in the new category so it's not just four things. Hopefully everyone will be happy now.--Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not the place for this discussion. Countries of the United Kingdom would be better. I'll post a notice on each of the talk pages and transclude this discussion there. Daicaregos (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion has been transcluded from User talk:TDSDOS Daicaregos (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been established that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are countries.Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are in Europe. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England should be in the category . Thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't mind either way, but we can (if we want) treat the new category Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom as a proper subcategory of Category:European countries, thus according to WP:DUPCAT it is not necessary for E/S/W/NI to be directly in Category:European countries (just as they are not directly in Category:Countries or other higher-level categories). --Kotniski (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the "Constituent countries of the United Kingdom" category is the best bet and least ambigious. The subparts of the United Kingdom, are termed countries within a country. Its basically what other soverign states called "regions", for instance Germany has Bavaria and Spain has its "autonomous communities". It seems most sensible to have these in the new category that you have created and leave "European countries" just used for sovereign states, rather than regional entites. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that this debate has in any case been pre-empted by User:Kotniski who has created and populated the "Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom". In my opinion this is unacceptable as
 * 1) the debate is still in progress, indeed it has barely begun, and
 * 2) the new category name has the rejected term "constituent countries" and is therefore contrary to a decision reached after a long discussion and contradicts the main article's name (Countries of the United Kingdom) and the term found in most other relevant articles.
 * Personally, I don't see why Wales et al should not be categoried as 'European countries'. I am certainly against this unilateral reversion to a contentious and rarely used term that has been rejected here. This new category is not acceptable and a consensus decision would also be needed for the proper and logical alternative, i.e. 'Countries of the United Kingdom', if the need for it is proven and accepted. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Because judging by the articles included, the "European countries" category refers to the usage in the sense of "sovereign state". The internal parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are not sovereign entites, synonymous to something like Spain, they're synonymous instead to something like Andalucia. Internal regions of a sovereign state, which in the UK are known as countries or constituency countries. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Whilst i supported and accepted the fact England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should be called countries. I have always said i oppose them appearing on lists of countries (where only sovereign states are listed). There for i dont think they belong there, unless actually listed under the United Kingdom, but that would complicate matters with what others should be included. Whilst i dont think its really needed I would not oppose Category:Countries of the United Kingdom or something similar. The Constituent countries one is ok, but id say best to rename it to just countries of the UK. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Such a rename would be fine by me. (I was only trying to tidy up the categories - I never realized there was all this politics behind it.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since discussion has apparently ended, I'm going to take this to CfD, initially proposing a rename to Countries of the United Kingdom. See CfD page.--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland don't belong in the countries category, because they're not independant. Only the United Kingdom, should be there. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, the countries category is called just that, not 'Independant countries'. Wales, Scotland and England are countries (NI is not, but that's another matter). As they are countries they belong in the countries category, perfectly logically. In any case, this has been discussed repeatedly and the consensus is - as if we needed to be told! - that they are countries. Despite my opposition to the inclusion of the Six Counties - English Wikipedia has followed the political line of the New Labour UK government, a lie line which is contrary to the Belfast Agreement - I am tempted to agree with the compromise 'Category:Countries of the United Kingdom' but would like to hear other people's opinion as well. It's disappointing and somewhat surprising that such a significant change has attracted so little comment. Perhaps what we really need here in the long term is a clearer practical distinction between the terms 'country' and 'sovereign state'. BritishWatcher says above that he "supported and accepted the fact England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should be called countries" but opposes them "appearing on lists of countries (where only sovereign states are listed)". Therein lies the nub of the problem - the argument that although E, S and W are in fact countries they should not be listed as countries: talk about Alice in Wonderland! Enaidmawr (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The compromise proposal (Category:Countries of the United Kingdom) is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to change all of Wikipedia, just to pander to obscurantist sub nationalisms. When the situation is pretty crystal clear. The constituency countries of the United Kingdom are synonymous to Spain's autonomous communities ("nations"). The UK happens to call its internal regions countries. They are not sovereign states as GoodDay pointed out, no amount of sophistry should place them simply in a category which is clearly and obviously meant for sovereign entities (the term country is usually used to mean a sovereign state, as we all know to the extent that merely holding this discussion is tedious to the extreme). Either the current cat, or shortened to "countries of the UK" is fine, though that cat itself more correctly belongs in a "European regions" scope. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that User:TDSDOS is a sock puppet of Wikipéire and has been blocked indefinitely. Daicaregos (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that information, Dai. My suspicions about TDSDOS have been confirmed. And to think that all this verbage on an issue which has already been discussed ad nauseam, and supposedly resolved, is thanks to the less-than-subtle machinations of a POV-agenda editor's sock... Enaidmawr (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to confirm: editors are not compelled to continue to discuss the matter should they find it too tedious for them. Yorkshirian says "The subparts of the United Kingdom, are termed countries within a country." Interestingly, this single reference example from this article (which begins "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.") has been chosen to confirm the theory that " ... "Constituent countries of the United Kingdom" category is the best bet ...". Why? Why has this reference been distorted and why have the dozens of other references confirming E/S/NI/W to be countries been completely discounted?
 * The Oxford English Dictionary lists the first six definitions of country as: "*1. a. A tract or expanse of land of undefined extent; a region, district.
 * 2. a. A tract or district having more or less definite limits in relation to human occupation. e.g. owned by the same lord or proprietor, or inhabited by people of the same race, dialect, occupation, etc.; spec. preceded by a personal name: the region associated with a particular person or his works; also fig.
 * 3. The territory or land of a nation; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories, as England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the United Kingdom, etc.
 * With political changes, what were originally distinct countries have become provinces or districts of one country, and vice versa; the modern tendency being to identify the term with the existing political condition.
 * 4. The land of a person's birth, citizenship, residence, etc.; used alike in the wider sense of native land, and in the narrower one of the particular district to which a person belongs.
 * 5. a. ‘The parts of a region distant from cities or courts’ (J.); the rural districts as distinct from the town or towns; sometimes applied to all outside the capital, called, by eminence, ‘town’.
 * 6. a. The people of a district or state; the nation."

- Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, Entry "1. country" .
 * England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all verified as countries (see this article). Reliable sources that recognise this include: The Library of Congress quote: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the collective name of four countries, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The four separate countries were united under a single Parliament through a series of Acts of Union."; 10 Downing Street quote: "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland"; Commonwealth Secretariat quote: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) is a union of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; European Commission quote: The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.


 * So, E/NI/S/W are verified as countries and they also lie within the definition of country, which is not necessarily defined as sovereign. The only other criterion to bar E/NI/S/W from inclusion in the category "European countries" would be if they are not in Europe. Do we need to verify that too? Daicaregos (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think they belong in lists which only include sovereign countries.. even if the name says "Countries", this was looked into some time ago when there was a debate about renaming all articles / lists to say sovereign states instead of countries. it was agreed then there was no need to do that, It can be confusing to have just 4 non sovereign countries in a list of dozens of sovereign ones. I would not oppose listing England, Scotland, Wales and NI underneath the UK if that has support, it seeems like a reasonable compromise on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with BritishWatcher. There's no doubt that these entities are called countries (whether they should be or not is outside the scope of our editorial decisions), but they're clearly a different kind of country than the others in the European countries category. So it's most helpful to readers if they can find them under European countries, but in a separate subcategory so they aren't mixed in with the others as if they were of a kind. --Kotniski (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kotniski: "There's no doubt that these entities are called countries", "whether they should be or not is outside the scope of our editorial decisions" and "it's most helpful to readers if they can find them under European countries". So what part of WP:V do you disagree with in order to place them in a sub-category rather than the category in which they clearly belong?. Verifiability says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Sorry if I appear to be unnecessarily insulting or plain pig ignorant, but, I don't think we need to change Wikipedia's core content policies, just to pander to obscurantist anti nationalisms. When the situation is pretty crystal clear. And btw, they are of a kind; they are countries. Daicaregos (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the United Kingdom covers England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) We often place articles in subcategories instead of directly into a category (for example, we don't put all countries into Category:Countries, we break them down at least by continent). It's not a big deal for me whether they appear directly in European countries or in a subcategory, but I think it's less confusing to readers if we separate them into a subcategory, since they're quite clearly a different kind of "country" from the others in that category. (And having the subcategory is also a good place to find other articles/lists about the parts of the UK as a set.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it must be clarified that E/W/NI/S make up the UK. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody is suggesting otherwise, GoodDay (Strange to see a Canadian republican so supportive of the UK). They already are so defined, repeatedly, in numerous articles. But they are still countries, were countries, and will still be countries [perpetual exception: NI] long afer the UK has finally faded into the setting sun of British imperialism. I've no objection in principle to a sub-cat 'Countries of the UK', but having read some of the comments and attitudes shown here and at CfD I'm now inclined to change my opinion: I won't support the creation of the category if it results in W, E & S being classed, via this proposed cat., as "regions". That is not acceptable. Enaidmawr (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My personal choice would be constituent country or administrative division, but I'll settled for a Category of countries of the UK. PS- I'm not supportive of monarchs, nor am I a unionist. If & when the UK breaks up, I'll have no problems with listing E/W/S/NI among independants countries. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Please note: further discussion on this subject has taken place on Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 21. Daicaregos (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall
Should some slight mention - at least in passing - be made on the page to the status of Cornwall? Though not a "semi-sovereign country", if you like, and not having the same legal status from that perspective, it is regarded as a separate "nation" or some purposes. Grutness...wha?  23:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will strongly oppose any attempt to include cornwall on this article, it is NOT and never has been a country of the United Kingdom. To do so would undermine the status of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cornwall is considered a nation by a tiny minority of people.. it is not a nation, it is not a country of any form. It is a county of England, that is all. Just out of interest, was it a certain wikipedia article that led you to making this comment here? if so which please. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is precluded by WP:FRINGE. No conventional, let alone reliable source includes Cornwall as one of the countries of the UK. --Jza84 | Talk  11:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not much to say here to be honest, Cornwall isn’t a country, end of discussion. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I live in Cornwall (unlike Britwatcher and Fontaine) and I recognise that Cornwall is a nation in its own right. The Cornish people are a recognised ethnic group and Cornwall is our homeland.  England is still east of the tamar.  I have met numerous Welsh, Irish and Scottish people who recognise that Cornwall is a nation/country, so how would it "undermine the status" of Wales, Scotland etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.253.102 (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"... not formal subdivisions of the United Kingdom"?
"England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales however are not formal subdivisions of the United Kingdom." - I don't understand what is meant by this sentence.

It is backed with the reference: "There is [...] no common stratum of administrative unit encompassing the United Kingdom at this very high level, and England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not be considered first-order administrative divisions in the conventional sense."

The reference is certainly sound but I don't understand what is trying to be said or if it really backs the statement. Certainly "Scotland", "Wales" and "Northern Ireland" are formally defined subdivisions with formally defined powers devolved to sub-national authorities - they are not "ad hoc subdivision" throw together in the morning and changed at night ... but I'd like to know what's meant before I edit it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the line is basically saying that the UK isn't a federal state, and that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland aren't 'equivalent' administrative units. The UK is a unitary state where the Crown in Parliament is sovereign, but different degrees of power have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly.--Pondle (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah - I get'cha. I'll see what I try to express that a bit clearer. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Wales was part of England is misleading..."
At the time the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed Wales was a part of the Kingdom of England. What is misleading about saying so (and why does it require reverting an unrelated paragraph)? The offending was intended to explain give a potted history of the UK (necessary to put the rest of the article in context) and go some way to explain why the different parts of the UK are called "countries" i.e. the UK was formed by a union of three countries. Until the middle of the last century the countries of the UK (in a political and administrative sense) were distinctly "England", "Ireland" and "Scotland". Wales of course has a history independent of England and has long as long been called a "country" in it's own right (and deservedly so). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Venn diagram
That Venn diagram, it's wrong. It puts the Channel Islands outisde of the British Isles, and everyone knows that's incorrect. Could the creator of the diagram maybe correct it please? Mister Flash (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Usage is inconsistent, a point reflected on the British Isles page, albeit very poorly sourced. Geographically, the Channel Islands are obviously not part of the British Isles, whereas they are generally included as so on socio-political grounds. However, politically speaking, the term British Isles has been eclipsed by British Islands, which of course includes the UK, Mann and the CIs.--Breadandcheese (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not true. British Islands has a specific, limited meaning as I guess you already know. Mister Flash (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering the amount of times the phrase is used out there, the incorrect 'singular' political meaning (when it incorrectly includes the channel islands) is very rare. But any mis-use is no more prevalent (if not actually much less prevalent) than inconsistencies you find with similar terms. Esp terms related to the UK; 'England' used to mean the whole UK, 'Ireland' used to mean the whole island but the country too, etc. The geographical use of BI is broad, scientific and consistently used, and that fact is accepted by all parties on Wikipedia, even the ones who wish for an equivalent term to be used here, and who insist that various equivalents are becoming more prevalent in society. Given the amount work a number of editors have put into avoiding disruption over this term, I have to question why a seemingly experienced editor would make the above "everyone knows" statement. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Er... so are the Channel Islands in or out then (in your opinion)? Mister Flash (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Out. The term is geographical and is universally used as such, with only relatively few exceptions when you look at the whole picture. The Channel Islands are not in the archipelago of the British Isles. And you couldn't get away with including the Republic of Ireland in any recognised definition of a political construct called 'British Isles'. Some people do include the Channel Islands as a kind of anomaly (ie 'a group of islands' rather than an archipelago), but to my knowledge you won't find that to be the case in technical/scientific use - ie meteorology, geography, geology, natural history, archeology etc. General-use dictionaries do tend to include CI - but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is quite different to a general dictionary, which is inclusive and multi-definition by nature. The first job of the British Isles guideline was to give Wikipedia a clear geography-only definition of the word; given the weight of sources, it makes full sense to use the scientific 'archipelago' approach. With terms that can be unclear, all encyclopedias need to supply guides/definitions that can be adhered to, making the encyclopedia a consistent entity. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The diagram is incorrect (or at best reflects a minor/pedantic opinion). The Channel Islands are a part of the British Isles, which is a geographical term not a geological one. Contrary to what Matt writes above, it is common to include them the Channel Islands all contexts where the term is used: be it in scientific or general publications. Some example references are below (I got tired transcribing so many, there of many many many more):

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm off out for a while now, but I'll prove to you later how the above sources (compiled over a long period if they are from the infamous 'criticism' article) do not amount to a hill of beans. And hundreds of thousands of texts, big and small, polemical and mainstream, self-published to Oxbridge, relate to Ireland and the UK. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just put them together now. I'm not familiar with the 'criticism' article. In any event, the OED, NOAD and Chambers dictionaries alone would ordinarily be enough to suffice. It's a cut and dry issue: if you don't know what a word or phrase means, look it up in a dictionary.
 * I don't understand what this discussion has to do with Ireland or why you are bringing it up. The question is whether the Channel Islands are considered to be a part of the British Isles. No more, no less. No need to complicate things or turn it into a POV issue on the British Isles. The answer, simple and thoroughly supported, is yes. Verifiability, not truth.--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just whipped them up eh? The Delia Smith of citation providing. I have to say that saying you don't understand how Ireland is involved sounds rather like you are laying up an 'WP:AGF' to me! If you read all your sources carefully, some of them have in-built caveats (inc extra-defining words), a couple of them have other mistakes (like claiming the Channel Islands are part of Great Britain), and the rest are basically the exceptions I refer too; Apart from (as I have already allowed for) general dictionaries, which do tend to be completist in their definition of BI. Human geography and the social sciences are not the most accurate of sciences technically, and the more accurate hard-science based ones (ie geology/archipelago-based) are just as heavily written. but you need to actually look for them. Encyclopedias are very different to dictionaries, and Wikipedia has a guideline/MOS structure to help keep it a consistent entity.


 * I often find the fist line of Verify to be the bolt hole of the biased. I'll get together my verified sources, and we'll keep on dishing them out until it is clear that 'the truth' (in the sense of 'the reality') in the end actually matters. Geology, Natural history, archeology and meteorology will win it - not the looser socal sciences, which are notoriously varied on matter surrounding the UK anyway, and I will find plenty of archipelago-based uses of BI within them I am certain. Esp the ones that aknowledge the term 'British Islands', which was designed to disclude the Republic of Ireland - something that the archipelago-based sciences and disciplines obviously do not do: they are about the archipelago. Verified sourcing is only the fist step towards citing an article: the truth will ultimately provide the best verified definition, and is a pretty good shortcut in avoiding a shedload of wasted time too.


 * So - the point about the 'archipelago definition' actually being the most sensible one for Wikipedia articles? I expect that will be steadfastly ignored by all who don't wish the term to be used on Wikipedia at all. And those people have the gall call people like me biased. I am not biased either way, I simply realise that the a term with such widespread use simply can't be placed aside. We need guidelines to help us sort out when to use it, and to scupper the definition is to scupper the guideline. I do expect that nationalist politics (as least much as inclusionist stalwarts) will prevent any kind of stability on this matter. And people like myself who just want to see a sensible working encyclopedia without troubled or locked articles will continue to be accused of bias. What a mire. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Just whipped them up eh? The Delia Smith of citation providing." You're welcome. I'm flattered but really this is dime-a-dozen stuff. It's no big deal.
 * "Geology, Natural history, archeology and meteorology will win it..." Your wish is my command:
 * "Overall, the late Precambrian geology of the southern British Isles can be view as divisible into three superterranes (i.e. groups of terranes) that may be classified as Monian (Anglesey, Western Llynn, southeast Ireland), Avalonian (Sarn Camplex of Llyn, Central England, Welsh Borderland, southwest Wales), and Cadomian (Channel Islands)." - Atlas of Palaeogeography and Lithofacies, John Christopher Wolverson Cope
 * "The Flora deals with the British Isles, comprising Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales), Ireland (Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic), the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands." - The Freshwater Algal Flora of the British Isles, D. M. John et al.
 * "Neanderthal skeletal remains are known from two sites in the British Isles: Pontnewydd Cave in Clwyd, Wales, and La Cotte de Saint-Brelade on Jersey in the Channel Islands" - England: an Oxford Archaeological Guide to Sites from Earliest Times to AD 1600, Timothy Darvill,
 * "The Channel Islands lie in the Gulf of Saint-Malo, just a few kilometers from et French coast, and have the sunniest climate in the British Isles." - Regional Climates of the British Isles, Dennis Wheeler et al.
 * These kind of questions are answered by referring to a dictionary, not by performing scientific experiments or conducting field studies.
 * Again, I'm sorry, I don't see what Ireland has to do with this. The only question here is: are the Channel Islands a part of the British Isles? The answer (verified) is yes. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:11, 29 November 2009 (UT
 * You simply cannot say "the answer (verified) is yes" when other uses of term can be verified too. You've got to get your head around 'verify'! Exceptions are always easier to find on search engines (an often-unhelpful quirk when dealing with Wikipedia - Google is responsible for a multitude of sins!) - in this case they will come to the keyword "channel islands". I am planning to come back to BI at some point, but only with useful data, and partly from a large library near to me. Plenty of BI maps out there disclude the Channel Islands - including one I own. Others include part of France, but sometimes just as a compass mark. Sometimes they highlight the channel islands. Sometimes the CIs are included BI matters simply because they are British. But does that disallow the archipelago definition? The nearest equivalent to Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia Britannica, which appends "Some also include the Channel islands." after its clear definition on its main encyclopedia, and does not bother to append it in its children's version. Like Britannica, we are an encyclopedia, and as for my points regarding what is actually good for Wikipedia, again you have ignored them. What do you personally want to see Wikipedia do regarding sources in the guideline? Include every meaning available (political, British Islands with the ROI, and archipelago-only), or stick to the exacting archipelago sources that technically make sense in an encyclopedia? Or do you want to headcount all verifiable 'online' sources, and 'go foward' on which has the most? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What is good for the encyclopedia is to base our articles on reliable sources, not on what would make life easier for us as editors. From my (POV) perspective, of all the sources above, World Geography of Travel and Tourism, I think, hits the nail on the head: "The British Isles ... includes the United Kingdom crown dependencies of the Isle of Man, and by tradition, the Channel Islands (the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey), even though these islands are strictly speaking an archipelago immediately off the coast of Normandy (France) rather than part of the British Isles." But we are not here to correct the English language or to tidy it up. The British Isles is a place. Like most other places, it roughly conforms to geological boundaries - but only roughly. The Channel Islands are a part of that place that pops over where we might want to draw a neat little border.
 * We are a compendium of knowledge, not a producer or a corrector of it; we stick with what the books says. In the case of the British Isles, book after book says that the Channel Islands are in. Some, like Britannica, do say that they are optional - and some neglect them - but unless they explicitly say "the CIs are out", in contrast to those that explicitly say "the CIs are in", then we are only reading what we want into them. Those that explicitly say they are out, or are optional, are a small minority. Other than that the only sources we have against the CI being in are, like you have said, looking at maps and reading something into them. But if it is not explicit, it's no good.
 * Regarding encyclopedias, Reliable sources has something to say about tertiary sources. None the less, if you are in the mood, Encarta has this to say:
 * "It consists of the large islands of Great Britain and Ireland; several island groups, namely, the Orkney Islands, the Shetland Islands, the Hebrides, and the Channel Islands; and the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, and the Isle of Man." - Encarta
 * --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 02:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, I think the current into to British Isles is just fine (and by extension any similar treatment of the CIs elsewhere). In articles, we can simply explain the situation; it's only in things like lists or, like here, in a diagram, that we have to make a binary decision (in or out) and loose context. But it can be left to the actual article to explain that actually, they're on the other side of the Channel, closer to France.
 * It's not a big deal to explain. Things are messy, but it's not our job to tidy them up. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 02:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Britinnica does not say the Channel Islands are 'optional', it gives its archipelago-based definition, and then says that some also include them. And that's the rub.


 * The more you repeat lines this this; "What is good for the encyclopedia is to base our articles on reliable sources, not on what would make life easier for us as editors.", the more you remind me of someone active during that time you were an just an IP. How many times must I say there are 'reliable sources' on both sides? I've said I'll compile some solid ones when I have the time, so hold your bloody horses and wait for heaven's sake. There are those who "say the Channel Islands are out" (your tiny minority), and those who clearly see them as being out (which are not so easy to keyword). I've already explained the difficulty of keywording 'givens' in an online search engine - kindly stop flatly ignoring all my non-basic points: BI is not your typical Verify issue, and Wikipedia needs to recommend a single definition. I've reverted your revision to the Venn diagram. If you want to show the inconsistency, put in an asterisk and a comment (on the image itself if you like - no one would argue). You cannot completely change it to your own preferred definition. By the way, I seem to remember a certain 'controversial' diagram of your own once upon a time that was entirely Original Research - so careful with taking the moral high ground here.


 * Regarding your flighty words on what our wonderful Wikipedia is all about, in terms of encyclopedic definition it simply IS our job to do a 'tidy up' for the benefit of creating an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has done this scores if not hundreds of times when it has had to - just read through MOS. THAT IS THE WHOLE ISSUE WITH BI - IT CLEARLY NEEDED/NEEDS A DEFINING GUIDELINE. If you want the word to find some kind of stability that is. Constantly cheeping the first few few notes of policy is not going to help a discussion like this. Wikipedia is more than just a couple of simple rules to be endlessly (mis) called. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the venn diagram is causing such controversy, and is apparently inaccurate, why not just remove it until the issue is settled? Alastairward (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to. I tried 3 times to revert the change, until I realised that Rannfairti copied over the original file, without any consensus sought or notification given. Uploading a separate file is the standard procedure with variations, not over-writing the original. I'll append some text to the original image I copied from the image history, and put something back tonight if I can. It's just as esy as re-uploading it. The diagram is a useful, if not a major, part of the article.Matt Lewis (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually - I've just noticed (seeing the diagram in here is a new thing for me) it has got flags on it! That is controversial regarding Northern Ireland, and flags simply aren't needed here. There is an old BI diagram I created myself last year some time - I'll hunt that out. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

New BI diagram



 * I found the diagram from last October (see right). I'd completely forgotten about this, and I've given it both CI boundries too. It got some good support here. What stopped me moving forward with it (apart from distractions from the various taskforces I suppose) was Jza84 pointing out that the off-shore islands like Anglesey are wrongly placed in Great Britain. If I added "and off-shore islands" in small type underneath the label 'Great Britian', would anyone object if this became the new diagram?


 * If we do go back to a Venn, I really don't think we should have flags in it, and should point out the two definitions of BI too (a dotted Venn line might be better than as asterisk). Matt Lewis (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The flags are good. I vote we keep them. There's no problem with NI. The purists tell us it doesn't have a flag now, and it doesn't on the diagram. What about the Euler dialgram at British Isles? We should rationalise all these versions somehow or other. Mister Flash (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your 'purists' are by definition only one party. It's best avoiding what could cause problems - are the flags actually needed? I wasn't that happy with them being added to the main article either - they don't really explain anything. The BI Euler was changed by Rann to include the Channel Islands a couple of years back (in a previous account of his). I imagine I created this new one in view of updating that one. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That diagram is good. And easier to comprehend that the Euler diagrams. I wouldn't worry about Anglesey and Wight, they are off-shore islands of GB in the same way as the Aran Islands, Achail, Rathlin and god knows how many others are offshore islands of Ireland. There's no need to treat them any differently. (Anyway, surely the Shetlands are more of a concern in that respect.) Some points:
 * There's a spelling mistake in "Geographical archipelago"
 * The scare quote around "Traditional" and elsewhere should go.
 * We should rethink the wording of "geographical archipelago" to refer to the sense without the CIs - it is a "geographical archipelago" with or without them - I get what's meant, but can't think of another wording right now.
 * Maybe dot the widest and narrowest extent of the definition and drop putting terms on them.
 * I think the coast line of continental Europe should be visible as a reference point but faded out in some way.
 * There's a green blob on over Cork - is that some kind of joke, Matt? :-)
 * --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Venn diagram has (or had) the advantage of being very easy to read. There is no problem with the flags, which make it even easier to tell the story graphically. All that needs to change is for British Islands to be added and it would be fine. The Channel Islands are not part of the British Isles, which is (supposedly) a geographical term rather than a political term. The Channel Islands only become part of the British Isles when considered in political terms. The Chausey Islands form part of the same archipelago as the Channel Islands, which is geographically part of Normandy, but are not considered to be part of the British Isles, either geographically or politically. Daicaregos (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "British Isles: a geographical term for the islands comparing Great Britain and Ireland with all their offshore islands including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands." - Oxford English Dictionary
 * Daicaregos, this and twenty (20) other citations, all explicitly including the Channel Islands, are listed above. There's nothing "political" about it ,except to the extent that geography, by definition, includes human activity.
 * It would help if those who say the Channel Islands are not a part of the British Isles would provide reliable sources supporting their view (or look to the ones already provided). Matt was good enough to provide one (1) that said, "Some also include the Channel Islands". That's the closest so far to saying that the Channel Islands "not" a part of the British Isles - and yet it too carries on to treat the Channel Islands as being a part of the British Isles (e.g. "the island of Jersey, in the British Isles"). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggest we close
Per Alastairward above, I suggest we leave the British Isles out of the article (no map, move the link to BI terminology article down to the See Also section). This article is about the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, not the British Isles. It doesn't actually matter to this article whether the Channel Islands are a part of the British Isles or not - it's not pertinent to the topic. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, its a lovely job but if anything it is more difficult to interpret than text, and at least in text we can use pipelinks to make things clearer -- Snowded TALK  23:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to leave a BI diagram out of this article too, but it's something that has found its way in here over time, which is part of a kind of natural progression with this term. We can't abandon this matter, so essentially we would be moving this discussion to somewhere else - most likely the talk pages of British Isles. The current Euler diagram over there has the same issues with it, and the one I made above was originally made to replace that. 'BI issues' crop up everywhere lets face it, and a diagram we can all accept will be needed at some point. After almost a year off WIkipedia, I find BI all over the talk pages when I came back (to edit something entirely diferent I'd like to add!) which shows that the difficulty with it clearly hasn't gone away. Perhaps a decent diagram would help us now regarding the guideline? I assume the WP:BITASK Examples pages (I havent had a chance to properly go though them yet) follow some kind of established guideline/rules - or perhaps they are debated afresh case by case? I'll make that rhetorical as I basically need to get my head down and read them.


 * I'll start a continuing section on this at BI then (tomorrow now), but I'll say here that on reflection I do think that a dotted Euler/Venn is a better choice for a diagram. I can see more each time I look at the image above why I put it aside last October. I've less desire than anyone else here to get bogged down in things, but I don't want to waste any time I put into debating, or push ultimately important things we've started to talk about to the sidelines either. The only way to resolve things is to keep pushing forward till they are done, which partly means dealing with things when they crop up. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, I've started an RFC on a subpage of the British Isles task force. Before it's advertised anywhere, could you add a statement and sources (as it seems your the strongest advocate of the opposing view to my own).
 * As for the matter at hand, the diagram has been changed and added to the page again. TBH, no matter what is says, I don't think it is appropraite to this article. I'm going to contact the editor that restored it but other than that is everyone otherwise OK to remove it and close this discussion with the conclusion that it was agreeded to remove the map and link to the Terminology article from the subheading inside the article, and move the Terminology link down to the 'See also' links? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hang on, I might like progression, but this is getting too much like a steamrolled consensus. Yes, I didn't mind if yesterdays earleir Venn diagram was removed - but I didn't want to see it anywhere on Wikipedia! I'm not going to stand against someone who wants to see a properly-made British Isles diagram here, as I don't actually see it as 'inappropriate' for the article. I stand in the middle regarding the term 'British Isles'. When it is done properly, the diagram will hardly damage the article. I'm not too happy with the flags on the Venn put up yesterday evening by Wdcf - the article already has flags, and over-complicating isn't what Venn diagrams are supposed to be about. But at least it better represents the Channel Islands - yes? You are moving unfairly fast, Rannparti.


 * Opening an RFC on the CI's being in the British Isles at this jucture is a pretty aggressive act - there is positive movement, and there is deliberate pushiness and haste. For my part, I have told you personally that I need to read though the BI Examples (there is a lot of it), and that I need to prepare references (and why I have to – how many times now, Rannparti???) You have opened the RFC in the same ignorant "this is a no brainer" 'wind up merchant' manner you seem unable to check, no matter what I am informing you of (ie - you are repeatedly refusing to accept a point, being tendentious, and wasting other people's time in making them repeat themselves). It just makes me wonder what your admitted IP'S were the past year, as this is all too familiar behaviour. Most of the 'BI editors' feel the same as I do about needing an archeology-based definition of the term 'British Isles' within a Wikipedia guideline. Soliciting new views in this manner right now on a difficult subject is highly unappealing. You have seen how wound up some people are getting at the moment, like HighKing, and now myself, initially because be appealed and I wished to help him. You say I am the 'strongest' proponent of the CI's being in the British Isles on Wikipedia - but how do you gage strength in this? Most people either want this definition for Wikipedia or they do not. I am simply the editor who is standing up to your pushy non-consensus changes right now. The few BI editors like yourself who are into using the all-inclusive 'Channel Islands' definition on Wikipedia, often comment as IP's, and have been in the past a great deal more 'vocal' than me - but that's the nature of the beast. In my experience, that 'all-or-nothing' stance has often been taken simply to prevent any 'moderate use' guideline being made at all. In effect, it is stonewalling.Matt Lewis (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the diagram, I suggested that whatever about the Channel Islands, a diagram of the British Isles is inappropriate in this article (as well as subhead links to the British Isles terminolgy page). The article deals with a different topic. You wrote: "I'm happy to leave a BI diagram out of this article too, but it's something that has found its way in here over time, which is part of a kind of natural progression with this term." That looked like you were in agreement.
 * "Opening an RFC on the CI's being in the British Isles at this jucture is a pretty aggressive act..." - ?? It was you who suggested it: "We can't abandon this matter, so essentially we would be moving this discussion to somewhere else - most likely the talk pages of British Isles." Granted, I didn't open a new section on the BI talk page. I opened a subpage of the British Isles Task Force. Since there is a task force for these matters - and since the question affects multiple pages - that seemed most appropriate.
 * Regarding the rest, please, have faith. Everyone here can do without the drama of accusation of sock-puppetry and the like. I didn't mean that you were the most vocal proponent of anything on Wikipedia; only that in this discussion, you are the strongest proponent of the views opposite to my own (as I am the strongest proponent of view strongest to yours). It would have been inappropriate of me to open a discussion to wider input without your views being there as well as mine. I also stated that it would be inappropriate to open it to wider input without you having a chance to gather the references you say you will.
 * Faith, brother Matthew. Faith. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's more than a little iffy that you supported your own diagram, and then wanted to go for 'no diagram at all' as soon as someone made a more informative one. Discussion focused at an RFC clearly suits you far more than further changes at British Isles too! I also object to you opening the RFC by calling it a "no brainer", when I have had to keep reapeating things that you havent yet dealt with. Such an opening is hardly a non-partisan approach - it's a Request for Comment, not Mediation Cabal. It's not good form, boyo. As for your polite offer of more time for me - why not put it where I can see it, instead of somewhere I have already said I've had no time to go through. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "I think it's more than a little iffy that you supported your own diagram, and then wanted to go for 'no diagram at all' as soon as someone made a more informative one."
 * Timeline:
 * 23:12, 30 November 2009 - I suggest we leave the BIs out of this article altogher.
 * 01:31, 1 December 2009 - Wdcf uploads a new version of the diagram
 * 01:33, 1 December 2009 - Wdcf readds the diagram to this page
 * Without access to a time machine, what you suppose to be my motiavation in fact could not be.
 * "Discussion focused at an RFC clearly suits you far more than further changes at British Isles too!"
 * An RFC is no more than that - a "request for comment" - it's just a discussion. Having it on a subpage of the British Isles Task Force is a logical place for it since questions like this are the purpose of that task force and since this is a question that affects many articles, not just one.
 * "I also object to you opening the RFC by calling it a 'no brainer' ... It's not good form, boyo."
 * Fair enough. But we don't have to pretend to be non-partisan when we are not. We both have firmly held views. I have listened to yours. Mine is still that this is a "no brainer". That doesn't mean we have to start pucking the the heads of each other or that we are sworn enemies from hence forth. We are still collaborators on this project together. But I'm not going to patronise you by saying that I think that this is a complex matter when I do not. It is IMHO a "no brainer".
 * "As for your polite offer of more time for me - why not put it where I can see it, instead of somewhere I have already said I've had no time to go through."
 * 10:23, 1 December 2009 - I posted it here, on this talk page, in reply to a comment by you, when I informed you that I had opened the new subpage. I wrote: "Before it's advertised anywhere, could you add a statement and sources (as it seems you['re] the strongest advocate of the opposing view to my own)." You apparantly read the part in brackets.

So, are you OK with removing the diagram from this page? And moving the link to the Terminology article down to 'See also'?

Discussion of an RFC are now being cut across two pages, so let's just leave that to the talk page of the subpage of the British Isles Task Force. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My small mistake over Wdcf's edit in the 'timeline' doesn't change anything - it's just a technicality. Wdcf's new Venn diagram clearly followed the '2 definition' approach of the diagram I proposed in the section above, just a few hours before you changed your mind (the diagram you commented on). The idea of a dual definition had backing (including in a preference for a Venn), and changes (by whoever) were clearly pending. You simply decided that no diagram was better than one with both definitions in it. You also opened an RFC after it was pretty clear a discussion move to to Talk:British Isles was pending too. I think you have been moving the issues into places that will temporarily keep the Channel Islands inside Wikipedia's BI definition! But lets move on, eh?


 * As someone who sits in the middle on the diagrams inclusion here, I need to see what people like Dai Caragos etc say on the matter. The same with the flag elements - there is no point arguing over fairly superficial matters you don't like, like flags, if the majority want to include them. It has got to be a 'both definitions' diagram though - that is essential, and I think a decent Venn/Euler is preferable to my own effort above. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC opened on the inclusion/disclusion of the Channel Islands
An RFC has been opened inviting comments on whether the Channel Islands should be treated as part of the British Isles on Wikipedia. All views are welcome here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Section: "Countries of the United Kingdom"
This has been mentioned to above (the section was described as a "joke"). What is the purpose of the table in the section "Countries of the United Kingdom". I looks like something that belongs more in the user namespace. If the purpose, as I think, is to "demonstrate" the number of references in support of one phraseology or another then it is a clear instance of original research (the sources themselves may be fine, but "counting" them to imply something else is not).

I'm not normally a deletionist without wanting to reuse content in another way but I don't see how this can be recycled so I propose that it be removed to someone's userspace or as a subpage of this talk page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It was one of the products of a long (and I think mediated) process and it was agreed to keep it here for reference if the issue came up again. -- Snowded  TALK  11:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case it seems to be for project-internal rather than encyclopedic purposes, and should certainly be moved to somewhere else than the article.--Kotniski (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any ideas? An Admin put it there in the first place.  It doesn't belong on a user page as it was created in common -- Snowded  TALK  12:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Move it to the top of the talk page, referring to it with an invisible comment in the wikitext of the article?--Kotniski (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds cool to me, then its the standard "this has been discussed before" type notice. -- Snowded  TALK  13:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good too, there is probably also a better way of organising the refs for the purpose of ready use again - if that was the original purpose. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I moved the section to a sub page and included it on this page as a template (inside a hidden template). That way it won't clutter the talk page but appears at the very top. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not happy about this, and I can't see any significant consensus above at all. Why is this list of descriptive terms in use not suitable for article space? That the list (with the sources) is helpful and informative is simply beyond doubt. Nobody has put a convincing argument that the tables are somehow 'illegal' (or even particularly irregular) in article space. I've seen tables used in a number of Wikipedia articles, and in the countless list articles too. If it was just a case of some of the language used (such as "the following tables") - that can easily be rectified.

Wikipedia is a multimedia encyclopedia, and these did no harm at all. In light of the recent copy edits (and the directions they are taking), it is clear to me that the article will clearly benefit in many ways from having them back, and I am preparing to put them back in in some similar form. The alternative (which is a second-best solution in my opinion) is to create another article called something like "List of terms use to describe the countries of the United Kingdom, and link it in a hatnote to the Terminology section.

This encyclopedic list being demoted to a sub-page of Talk is just simply wrong. It is for all those who read the article, not just Wikipedia editors who are inclined to back-read the archives. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Small suggestions...
Acutely aware that this article sometimes causes upset and strife, I'd like to make a suggestion to the lead of the article.

I believe the opening paragraph is strong and does not need change, but, although I like elements of the second and third paragraphs, I feel that they rather miss the point. For example, the administrative nature of the UK is explained in detail, and the induction of the UK as a member state of the UN and EU is rightly and justly mentioned, but the lead misses the extremely important home nations and how the four nations have the unusual distinction of having things like national football associations without representing sovereign entities.

I feel we should also mention a very breif, uber neutral sentence or two on the cultural and political position that the formation of the UK has left the country/countries in; i.e. something like "Unionism and nationalism play important roles in the politics of the United Kingdom. There is a split in perceptions as to the future of the countries of the UK as under one sovereign power, in a federation, or as independent states."

I feel these changes would be a little more illustrative of what the article really signifies. Thoughts? --Jza84 | Talk  15:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All good points. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

England national cricket team
The second paragraph of this article notes "... there is an England national cricket team". The Wikilink redirects to the article England cricket team, which begins: "The England cricket team (Tîm criced Lloegr) is the cricket team which represents England and Wales." Consequently - unless the point of including this example was to show that some English sporting bodies traditionally use players and administrative expertise from (what they consider to be) inconsequential counties without giving them any credit - the point that the UK has separate teams for sporting events is misplaced. I suggest that a different sport is mentioned, and chosen with care. Daicaregos (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * England National Football Team? --Jza84 | Talk  13:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The cricket team is not the best example as while the team is called the England cricket team (no need for "national"), it's run by the England and Wales Cricket Board (the ECB, not sure where the W goes though). Simon Jones and Geraint Jones were the last Welshmen to play for the team, but it's still nominally the England and Wales cricket team. If the point of including the team is that the countries of the UK have individual sports teams, I suggest using rugby as an example; there are much stricter conditions in being allowed to play rugby for your country than in cricket and at the moment the "England" cricket squad contains an Irishman, two South Africans, two people born in South Africa. Nev1 (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see it's been changed to the football team, that seems fine to me. Nev1 (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

e/c Yes of course, England is actually an England/Wales cricket team. The last ashes series started in Cardiff. I don't quite see why the information begins with "However," (it seems rather a tenuous link) or why it is where it is in the Introduction to be honest. Home Nations is one thing (and they are used in sport) - but cricket is unnecessarily complex I think - it has to be fully explained, and the quirk of Wales/England just isn't going to be summarised easily. Its nothing to do with 'national feelings', cricket is just simply too complex for the Intro. Cricket doesn't actually use "Home Nations" either, does it?

The section "Identity within the UK" (now renamed I think) has a line or two on devolution/independence, which I agree can be summarised in the Intro. Given the interest in sport, perhaps we need a Culture section which we can summerise in the Intro too? I do worry that this artcle could get to the stage where it is deemed a 'fork' article of United Kingdom, and it already contains stuff on identity that isn't at UK. I'm actually happy to have a concise Culture section (always based on the countries of the UK together, of course), although I do 'believe' in multiculturalism, which I know it is a "no no" on Wikipedia to some people. My problem with arguing over hardcore 'sociology' is that I think it kind of sucks you dry, and you end up becoming a patchwork mannequin made out pieces of academic thesis. I can't say I relish it, but I'm gathering up books on British identity - although sources alone are only ever half the story of course. I'll have to buy a hose too.

Also - why was nothing added in place of the terminology table, when it was moved into Talk last year? I do wish people would do something positive when they remove something referenced by (and central to) the article, over (ahem) 'technnicalities', rather than just leave a complete hole. This is still an encyclopedia. That practically blank Terminology intro now needs to supply the terms from the columns of the table (eg region, province etc) - ie those other "various terms" which the main Introduction refers to, but the article no longer supplies at all. There could perhaps be 5 references after each term, in the standard Wikipedia way. The longer table version can stay in Talk of course (or maybe somewhere else eventually). I spent bloody hours making it strong, solid and useful (as did DDStretch), even if the 'lesser used' terms could have done with more refs, so there will be no calling it an "unneeded duplication" when some of its refs are placed back into the main article! Matt Lewis (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * @Daicaregos - That question crossed my mind last night. I was also thinking about the Welsh teams that compete in the English football league. Like many a UK editor who felt like commenting on an "Irish" issue, I don't feel like taking my life into my hand and so I kept my head down and stuck with my own keck of the woods ....
 * ... but ...
 * ... [deep breath] ...
 * ... without meaning to imply that Wales is not a country (it is), is there not another sense of the word 'country' (i.e. a state)? In the region, there are three former countries in that sense of the word: the kingdoms of England, Ireland and Scotland. (Let me just repeat: Wales is a country.) In the same way that the former kingdom of Ireland is still a culturally significant reference for Northern Ireland when it comes to fielding international sports teams (football and CW Games aside), is the former Kingdom of England not also a culturally (and legally?) significant still in some instances? [runs for cover]
 * I know that this is not how "Countries of the United Kingdom" is meant for the thrust of this article but I think it needs mentioning. The origins of the UK are with it first being the union of two and, at it's maximal, three such counties. (Again, for good measure, Wales is a country.) It strikes me that that sense of 'country', and it's significance for the UK, doesn't come out in the article. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Caveats aside, aren't you just comparing the 'Kingdoms' of Britain with Ireland? The 'state' that matters is the United Kingdom, the rest is the history of each individual country. One of the reasons people are touchy about Wales is that is can be 'technically devalued' in unnecessarily phrased comparisions that often don't need to be made (and can be argued are made for political reasons). That Wales was historically its own 'Principality', and not a 'Kingdom', is a matter of history (and historical fact), and is a 'technicality' in terms of independent sovereignty. Wales was once a country independent of the UK countries around it. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wales was never a country independent of the UK. It was a country independent of England until 1284 (I think from memory) when it was assimilated into the Kingdom of England - which in turn combined with Scotland and Ireland to form the UK.  The re-emergence of Wales as a separate political entity was a gradual process starting (in political terms) in the 19th century - but at the time some sports like cricket became codified, it was essentially seen by many (at least in the English establishment) as part of an entity called "England and Wales".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How pedantic is that? Matt Lewis (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that England is not the same as the UK? Hardly "pedantic". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid makes a valid point that the former Kingdom of England is also a culturally (and legally?) significant still in some instances. It is that some of those who retain the power in those institutions still cling to the colonial, superiority mindset. Sadly, it is not limited to the institutions either. Three Wikipedia examples spring to mind: Australian cricket team in England in 2009 (as already noted above - the first game of the tour was in Cardiff see discussion here), English law (note the article begins: English law is the legal system of England and Wales," the article even notes "Since 1967 most lawyers have referred to the legal system of England and Wales as "the Laws of England and Wales".") and English criminal law (note the article begins: "English criminal law refers to the body of law in England and Wales which ..."). Plus ça change. Daicaregos (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ... and trying again... Guys, these are all very good points, but, we really just need a quick overview in the lead - and I think we're there or thereabouts now. We should be focussing on explaining these things about sports, nationality etc in the main body of the article. The issues at play here are huge in scope - too big for the lead.


 * Why is the phrase "Various terms have been used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales" tagged for citation when there was a collossal excercise undertaken to prove this above and beyond anything else seen on Wikipedia? That's a poor show, surely? --Jza84 | Talk  14:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Crown Dependencies
Would it be more accurate to describe Isle of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey as Crown Dependencies? Being independently administered jurisdictions, none forms part of the United Kingdom or of the European Union. This quotation from the article gives an unambigious account of their status 86.40.208.206 (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. I amended the lede in relation this. -- RA (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)