Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-22 United Kingdom

Request details
The debate on what to term England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has degenerated into a cesspool of bad faith and POV and may in itself be against Wikipedia policy. It has continually become heated, spawning two accusations of sock puppetry in under a week. Mediation has become inevitable.

Who are the involved parties?

 * An IP editor calling himself "Troll" contributing from various IPs
 * An IP editor calling himself "Troll" contributing from various IPs
 * An IP editor calling himself "Troll" contributing from various IPs
 * An IP editor calling himself "Troll" contributing from various IPs
 * An IP editor calling himself "Troll" contributing from various IPs
 * An IP editor calling himself "Troll" contributing from various IPs
 * An IP editor calling himself "Troll" contributing from various IPs
 * An IP editor calling himself "Troll" contributing from various IPs
 * An IP editor calling himself "Troll" contributing from various IPs
 * An IP editor calling himself "Troll" contributing from various IPs

Multiple others, too many to name. Additionally, Jack Forbes was involved, leading to his retirement from Wikipedia.

What's going on?
The debate has raged on the Scotland page for years over whether or not to describe Scotland as a nation, country, constituent country or some derivative thereof. The current debate began on the Scotland page about a week ago and led to a centralized poll on the UK page. Various polls have been created and discussed, often escalating to the point where users were in clear violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPOV and most often WP:DEMOCRACY. Currently the argument is whether or not a consensus (which may or may not even exist) that was established on the UK page can be enforced on the Scotland page.

What would you like to change about that?
This is incredibly WP:LAME and has turned otherwise productive editors against one another over an ultimately trivial matter.

Mediator notes
I'm looking over, but invite anyone to take the case. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The result was an 83.33% consensus on describing them as "Constituent country", and this was to be then put on England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. However, those at Scotland are now saying that they will not accept the centralised consensus, and require us to vote again. This situation speaks for itself really - we need to ensure that the centralized consensus is placed on all four articles. -- fone    4    me   20:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I support Constituent country for all 4 articles; my main hope is for consistency across those articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's say Scotland were to be edited per the consensus at UK. If an hour, day, or week later a consensus to the contrary emerged at Talk:Scotland, what would prevent from those editors changing the article per the new consensus? As I understand policy, a consensus only lasts until the next consensus comes along. That is why I support the efforts to find consensus at Talk:Scotland, even if it means rehashing a lot of argument. -Rrius (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless and until all editors commenting on all four talk pages accept the common proposed wording, I think any changes would be premature. The reason for this is that I understood that the entire discussion and voting was done on the premise of consistency between the four articles. Until such consistency is demonstrated, I therefore think any changes to individual articles would be premature, and I propose that any done until consistency on all articles is achieved be reverted. Finally, the form of voting used to achieve the claimed consensus seemed to be quite restrictive and included other irregularities which may have had a bearing on the outcome.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit concerned that notices were either only put late on various pages informing people of the discussions, or were not put on all relevant pages. For instance, I can see no announcement of the discussions on the page I would have thought most appropriate to host the discussion: Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board, which would have been ideal as it would have avoided any problem concerning discussions on articles' pages influencing other pages. Additionally, the wide remit of the proposals would seem to better describe it as a project-wide discussion, with notices directing people there from other articles, rather than how it was done, regardless of whether it is labelled a "centralised discussion" or not. It might also have helped to avoid any growing friction that seems to be developing on Talk:Scotland about this. I am speaking from direct experience of the problems that Template:Infobox UK place had in deployment for similar reasons.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted and noted. I'm not going to open this case (some new medcabbers might like it), but I'll hang around Scotland and test the waters, chlorinate the waters, throw water over fire, offer suggestions, ask questions... mediate generally :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is an incredibly sterile debate. It has been discussed several times on each page (and recently).  A few of us would like consistency, but not at this price.  Attempting to force a consensus on the UK page then impose it on the others as happened today is bad faith.  --Snowded (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Less likely bad faith as bad wiki practice, from what I'm seeing :-) I'm still just looking around... Xavexgoem (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the mediation template to all the relevant articles (E, S, W, NI). Hopefully we can have a full debate with all interested editors here. A mediator could decide if any further notification is needed and then editors won't be able to complain about having a decision forced on them. josh (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I saw, there was a consensus. It is just that those on Scotland are now saying they will not accept it from the centralized discussion. -- fone    4    me   07:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been said that consensus was reached on the UK page, and a percentage has been quoted in favour of certain wording, as proof. A consensus was not reached. I chose not to vote. Partly beacause the editor who set the vote up asked for votes only in support of those option given and I do not support the wording of those options. And partly because the discussion had become too heated and personal. The current debate appears to have been started by some editors wanting things to look nice and tidy, by having exactly the same wording used to define each of the countries that constitute the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (U.K.). Whether that wording is appropriate to that country, or not. Encarta defines a country as: "1. separate nation: a nation or state that is politically independent, or a land that was formerly independent and remains separate in some respects." The countries of the island of Great Britain fall within this definition. Northern Ireland (N.I.) does not. N.I. is not politically independent, nor is it a land that was formerly independent (in itself). Furthermore, there are two opposing viewpoints of the people living in N.I. The Unionists consider their country to be the UK and the Nationalists consider their country to be the island of Ireland. It is nice to see them agreeing on something though - that they will not allow N.I. to be defined as a country. I can see no compelling reason to define the constituent countries of the U.K. in similar terms. It is appropriate to define Scotland, Wales and England as countries. However, it is not appropriate to define N.I. as a country. Province may work for N.I., I don't know. That may be a separate argument. In the meantime, I propose that consensus is reached to define Scotland, Wales and England as countries and any argument relating to N.I should be separate from this.  Dai caregos (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Cameron found this, in which the guidelines for centralized discussions are given. It seems we are allowed to enforce the centralized consensus on the offspring pages. -- fone    4    me   08:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Though I think your use of "offspring pages" here is a bit misleading. The two pages are separate articles. My suggestion of the UK Wikipedians Discussion page would have made more sense and potentially cause less grief. The notices about the discussions should have been placed there as well. There is a difference between what one is allowed to do and what would be prudent to do or what would be advisable to do here. It is encapsulated in the distinction between "Doing things right" and "Doing the right thing". Can I ask how what has been done will help avoid unnecessary friction and reduce the chance of debates becoming unduly heated?  DDStretch    (talk)  08:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the "country-constituent country-not a country debate" has been discussed on all the talk pages on UK, England, Scotland, and Wales at one point or another in the last couple months. I'll admit that many of the previous discussions were about whether they were countries at all, but the difference between those and this discussion on the UK talk page was that most everyone conceded that country could be used with the adjective constituent. The difficulty is that reliable sources can be found for all view points, so in my opinion, this was more about preference since none of the options were wrong. The government websites even use the different terms. I did find it interesting that none of the 3 major encyclopedias that I checked used the term country at all to describe them. I'm not experienced on Wikipedia enough to know for sure what constitutes a consensus, but there will never be a time where everyone will be happy with the decision. Kman543210 (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with this: the attempt to impose a consensus of this type (single form of description for bits of the United Kingdom) on a variety of pages where even the reliable sources do not agree on how to describe them is a foolish consistency at this point. It would be nice to have consistency, but where a clear consistency on the matter cannot be found even in the sources it seems unnecessarily divisive to attempt to force one, especially by using language such as "enforce" and so on. When the means by which the proposed consistent wording has been decided has problems to do with unecessarily restricted options being allowed in a "vote", being placed in a sub-optimal article talk page with arguably inadequate notices about it being placed in relevant and appropriate places, and certain editors' comments being removed or otherwise attempted to be discounted, the whole process collapses, regardless of whether it was a reasonable process in which to engage in the first place. I wonder whether that the whole attempt should be immediately abandoned, noting with sadness that the problems stirred up by this may likely make it much harder for any much more reasonable and well-founded attempts in the future succeed.   DDStretch    (talk)  10:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing is, if we don't manage to agree, there will end up being continual edit wars and disputes. We have come a long way in the discussion, and although both sides can be cited, Constituent country not only has consensus, but is also more technically accurate than just generic "country". e.g. "Chocolate is a dairy food product" compared to "Chocolate is food". -- fone    4    me   10:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think editors should have the ability and self-restraint to prevent edit warring, and a look at the edit history of Scotland will show what has happened which sadly involves some of the editors involved in this mediation page. On the matter of the claim that a consensus was found, this was on the basis of restricting what was allowed to be discussed, disallowing oppose responses, and removing or otherwise discounting certain editors from commenting. A glance through the relevant discussion pages will show the manner and source of these restrictions. Given the suboptimal positioning of the discussion, the claimed consensus seems more shaky than your account describes. The presence of disputes over content may accurately reflect the real-life situation, as I and others consider is the case here, and imposing a single form of wording as a consensus seems not to be as "technically accurate" in these circumstances.  DDStretch    (talk)  10:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If country and nation  are conventional, and they seem common enough ways to describe things, why would one, or both, not be suitable for our articles? If the problem is with the nation or country articles, it is those articles, not the England or Scotland articles, which need to be fixed. There's nothing wrong with consistency - we have a Manual of Style after all - but nothing says that we have to find a magic one-size-fits-all solution. ddstretch's comment above (especially the sentence beginning "The presence of disputes ...") had me nodding in agreement. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 10:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Have we considered calling them home nations? It is somewhat workable. -- fone    4    me   11:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been suggested before, but countered in that the term is seldom used outside of sporting contexts. --Jza84 | Talk  11:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Do NOT enforce uniformity
 * The fact is, we have a situation where there are 4 highly distinct entities that we're trying to make consistent with one another. We have WP:UKNATIONALS which explains these entities in the terms of self-identification... just as it's wrong to force Britishness on Sean Connery, isn't it wrong to force Scotland to be a constituent country when there are just as many sources calling it just a country? The aforementioned essay contains some advice I find particularly relevant:

It is not possible to create a uniforming guideline, when such strong disagreement exists on the relative importance of the labels.

Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency – making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities – is strongly discouraged. Such imposed uniformity cannot, in any case, be sustained. -MichiganCharms (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have an idea. Right, I have put a merge tag on Home nations to be merged with Subdivisions of the United Kingdom. There is also already a discussion about merging the section of Constituent Country that deals with the UK, into the subdivisions of the UK article too. We could use the word "nation", which is correct, by all views, and link it to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom, which would also have info in it from "home nations", meaning we would end up with "Scotland is a nation in the United Kingdom etc". What do people think? -- fone    4    me   11:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed those templates you have recently added. They are inappropriate given the ongoing discussions here, since they will make matters far more complex immediately, all to have some kind of consensus. This latest solution offered now seems to be different, given the preceding message, to the solution previously claimed as a consensus solution. Clearly something is awary somewhere, and so I think there is adequate reason to abandon the attempt to impose any consensus here and now. If it is felt that a case can be made for merging those articles suggested, then a centralised discussion why should be started, perhaps on the UK Wikipedians talk page, and this attempt to impose a claimed consensus should be ended now until the results of any proposed merger is decided. Once the mergers are decided, then, the attempt to re-gain a consensus in the light of any existing article structure and the real-life situations can be started afresh, again, on a more suitable centralised discussion page (like the UK Wikipedians talk page.)  DDStretch    (talk)  11:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Currently, there is a consensus for "constituent country", but you stated that this could still not go ahead for other reasons. So this is another suggestion. -- fone    4    me   11:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I invite you to reflect on whether (and if so, how) this new suggestion placed and introduced here solves the problems concerning the process of reaching a consensus that were raised previously. Additionally, I invite you to consider why a solution that involves merging a number of articles and then introduces a new solution here, not previously discussed, will reconcile desires on the part of others to only act once a consensus (properly discussed and reached) has been achieved. If you want to achieve a consensus and consistency, then take small steps. I urge you to consider doing what I suggested, above, as it would seem a better way of now proceeding.  DDStretch    (talk)  12:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone who claims that a consensus cannot be imposed on an article because of the location of a discussion is plain wrong (and no, I am not claiming there is or is not any consensus yet, I am making a point on process). The restarting of the discussion on the Scotland page was a backward step, and only wastes time repeating discussions. Anyone who claims a discussion is invalid because it wasn't started on a notice board, when that discussion was linked to from all affected pages, the moment it started is obviously also completely wrong. And anyone who still keeps claiming that either position of 'country' or 'constiuent country' have enough sources for one version to trump the other, are also obviously completely wrong, and the discussion started at UK was an attempt to reach a simple consensus opinion for one proposal to exist as a compromise wording, to end the current and continuing edit wars. It should be recognised that this original simple proposal was then hijacked subsequently with a ridiculous number of short lived polls and discussions, the results of which are now being quoted in terms of percentages, because if the actual number of votes were declared, it would be obvious they are non-starters in terms of having a wide consensus. The whole process needs to be abandoned, and it should be declared a trainwreck. Agreement on a compromise position on this issue, in the face of extreme POV pushing article owners, is patently doomed to failure. MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with much of what you said. However, the suggestion you originally made on the discussion page was hardly supported at all. The polls were simply something which allowed us to find other more popular suggestions. And we did - "Constituent country". You say that quoting percentages is irrelevant due to the small number of votes - I wouldn't call 18 a small number of votes. However, since we appear to be now walking ourselves into a stalemate, I have one more thing to try to solve the situation. Please see the arbitrary break. -- fone    4    me   13:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It was support 4, Oppose 6, which, first of all is hardly a large input, and second of all, some of the opposers came from both sides of the 'it should be country/constituent country' camps, so as 'oppose' votes, they are pretty much pointless - what they should have said in that case was 'we don't believe there is currently a problem which needs a compromise solution'. A claim that 18 votes is not a small number of votes, given the time length and number of votes attracted at say an Rfa, shows a shocking naivety about how wikipedia polls generally work on matters of large importance. I would actually suggest it is your tendency and others to prematurely jump from suggestion to suggestion which has partially derailed this discussion. Opening and closing discussions over one or two days will quite obviously get nowhere. MickMacNee (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. From looking over the archives, the number of votes was compared to the other situations (which on average attracted around 6-7 votes), a very large amount. -- fone    4    me   15:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I believe Fishiehelper's suggestion Scotland (or wherever) is a country within the United Kingdom is by far the most neutral; "country" could be piped to either the country article or constituent country, as people decide, and in the case of Northern Ireland replaced with province or whatever the editors there deem appropriate. That said, I despair of this entire process. The actions of certain users make it almost impossible to have a coherent discussion, what with opening a new poll every five minutes, obdurately leaping on every remark that is made to create new and meandering arguments, deleting IP comments without sound reason, threatening to "enforce" decisions rather than discussing them openly, and switching allegiances at the drop of a hat –    . (Incidentally, the figure 83.33% is incorrect; there were 15 votes for "constituent country" and a total of 5 votes for the other proposals, which quite transparently equals 75% in support of the proposal. And besides, votes do not equal consensus.) Due process has not been followed in any way. If it weren't a waste of time, I'd suggest wiping the slate clean, shutting up about the results of previous polls, and having a fresh discussion at a neutral location such as the UK Wikiproject. However, I have a feeling that if we did that it would inevitably descend (as even this page has done) into another monumentally tedious slanging match. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Votes do not equal consensus, but they can be evidence of it, as in this case, they are.
 * So in other words, votes equal consensus? Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please try and read. It is increasingly tiring to repeat everything to you more than once, as I had to on your talk page. A vote itself is not consensus. If there are 5 for and 4 against, even though the vote has won, it is not consensus. However, if the vote shows that a clear majority believe one thing, it is evidence of consensus. -- fone    4    me   18:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are 3 votes for "country", and 15 for "constituent country"
 * There are 3 votes for "country (linking to constituent country)", 1 vote for "country (linking to country)" and 1 vote for "country within a country". Total: 5. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The other options are not even being considered, so they do not count. -- fone    4    me   18:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How does this show "switching allegiances"?
 * Because you have changed your position from "constituent country is the only possible solution" to "nation" to "nation (piped to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom" to 'a semi-autonomous constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom" within the space of less than 24 hours. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then try choosing a diff that actually shows that firstly, and secondly, the fact I have changed as the options have been made available to us shows I am not pushing POV. You however, constantly pushing for "country", are quite the contrary. -- fone    4    me   18:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And anyway, we are not (supposed to be) "allied" to something, as that shows POV. A NPOV is where consensus, evidence, and discussion is taken into consideration.
 * Just because the result you wanted Malcolm, did not come out successful, does not mean at all that we are going to restart the discussion and polls. Even suggesting such a thing shows a deep level of immaturity.
 * I forgot to mention the throwing of insults at those who disagree with you. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The simple mention of those who are POV pushing is hardly an insult compared to those I have had thrown at me by the likes of Jack forbes.
 * And with regard to "Scotland (or wherever) is a country within the United Kingdom", no, that is most certainly not going to be used, since a) there was an almost unanimous decision against it, and b) that is not NPOV at all, since it chooses "country" over "constituent country" which is what this whole thing has been about.
 * -- fone    4    me   18:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See what I mean? Back off, and let others have their say. That is the point of this mediation process. I concur with the advice Jehochman gave you when he found you guilty of sockpuppetry : "Please go find some non controversial topics to edit so you can gain experience and understanding without getting into any conflicts." Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Back off"? Who exactly do you think you are? I am perfectly entitled to reply to you. The fact it highlights your bad conduct is the only reason you wish not to be shown up. -- fone    4    me   18:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just give it a rest, man. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer of someone who does not have the gut to admit to being wrong. -- fone    4    me   18:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No more personal attacks, please. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fone, you've really stretched my good faith to the brink. Honestly, you don't seem to get it, there is no winning or losing. This is about making a better encyclopaedia, not playing out some bureaucratic fantasies... we don't vote, we discuss. We don't fight for our opinions, we compromise. We never, EVER, dismiss well sourced ideas out of hand because we feel them to be POV. Honestly, and this may be bad faith but you've led me to it, I think you're only in this for some sense of personal glory or accomplishment, feeling like your POV "won". I suggest you take Jehochman and Malcolm's advice and edit less controversial articles until you understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. And before you accuse me of being someone who disagreed with you, I'm not. I'm not any sort of nationalist (I'm not even British) and I've supported constituent country on all 4 articles long before you even joined the project. But I am someone who has been, frankly, appalled by the way you've led this discussion. -MichiganCharms (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Michigan, before you attempt to critisize me, I suggest you actually try making some suggestions yourself. You have done nothing for the discussion, and before moaning at me, even though I have developed the discussion far further than it ever has, you might want to actually try doing something for the discussion yourself - something which you have not. -- fone    4    me   15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My rant was one of annoyance and one for which I am slightly ashamed. Such bad faith was completely out of line and I do seriously apologize. As for what I have contributed, it just seems like the same options over and over again. There's nothing new to suggest. Also I'm dreadfully busy at the moment, I try to make as much time for editing as I can but often that ends up being no time at all. I do wish to further contribute but it always seems the discussion is spread over 30 pages. -MichiganCharms (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We all get stressed out sometimes. I apologize if my tone seems too assertive, but all I am trying to do is get this issue sorted once and for all. It may in fact surprise you to know that I support Scottish independance, despite the fact I have been arguing for "constituent country". That is because I am not letting my personal views get in the way of factual editing.
 * It seems there are a couple of things developing at the bottom of the page which may help us get somewhere.
 * Again, I apologize if I appear to be too assertive, and I am certainly not trying to own anything - I too, like most people, am simply trying my best to help out in the situation.
 * No hard feelings :)
 * -- fone    4    me   17:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Home nations?
I have started a developmental discussion here which may yield some results. -- fone    4    me   13:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a bit of a non-starter I'm afraid. The use of "nation" has been discussed and thrown out in the past. Whilst Home nations is used in sporting contexts, rather than geo-politics. --Jza84 | Talk  13:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I disagree with Jza84 as to exactly why "nation" is unsuitable, I do agree that it is unsuitable. The quotation from McCrone at Talk:Scotland/Archive 18 explains why "nation" is a politically charged term in this context. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * From reading the past discussions, it seems "nation" was thrown out without any real reason other than status quo. -- fone    4    me   14:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My issue with "nation" is its meaning. What has been proposed in the past is comparable to calling the Scottish people a "country" - it's bad English. The use of "nation" isn't supported by any of the "big", reputable or governmental sources either. If this is to be re-persued, I'd have to ask advocates what definition of "nation" they were alluding to, and how England would be a nation, but the UK and US not? --Jza84 | Talk  14:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a limited view of the history of the first sentence. In 2006 and 2007 the article began "Scotland ... is a nation ...". In 2005 it began "Scotland ... is a country or nation ...". In 2004 it was "Scotland is a country ...". All manner of things have been tried over the years. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with ... is a part of the United Kingdom? It's apolitical, needs no links & certainly can't be disputed. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what's wrong with it is that it eliminates the term "constituent country", which is a perfectly acceptable term, and the one used by the government when discussing the four "parts" collectively. That said, I don't think the whole discussion is worthwhile anymore. If "constituent country" will stick at E, W & NI, it should be used there. If Scotland wants to be different, so be it. -Rrius (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is worth considering... this is still a wiki :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC) what happens when 4/4 of all articles agree, and then another wants something else?


 * Fishiehelper's suggestion Scotland (or wherever) is a country within the United Kingdom could be amended to use country. However the fact that is clearly states "within the United Kingdom" makes it a clear NPOV version.  And please don't say it was rejected.  It was made early on and can be brought back give the failure of other solutions.  --Snowded (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

[un-indent] In response to Dai caregos above, I'd like to point out that all the constituent countries of the UK fall within Encarta's definition of the word country, including Northern Ireland. That Northern Ireland was formerly independent is often overshadowed by the fact that a larger part of the island of Ireland gained sovereign independence from the UK. Northern Ireland is the continuation of Ireland within the United Kingdom. That a part of the island, whether larger or smaller, more or less populous, or whether it went on to become an independent sovereign state, is neither here nor there. On top of this, Northern Ireland was the first constituent country of the UK to have devolution.

To apply the logic of Dai caregos, The RoI is not a land that was formerly independent (in itself). Viewpoints (re "unionists and nationalists) etc), while they certainly should be given credence in the appropriate fora, do not matter when reporting the facts (which is what a 'pedia is supposed to do).

Besides all that, the discussion is not about who considers what geographic extant is their country but, from what I can see, whether or not the four countries of the UK are four constituent countries of the UK.

As for Sean Connery, he is British whether he likes it or not (aside: although I'm aware of him being nationalist in terms of SNP politics, I've yet to see him express a desire to not be described as British). This is fact, and not something that Wikipedia can change. The only things that can change it is if Connery assumes another nationality or if Scotland secedes from the Union and then Connery assumes the new nationality of Scottish (or should that be "Scotland citizen"?!?). --Setanta747 (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Setanta747, welcome to the party. Sorry, but all the food and drink has gone, the music's stopped and everyone's gone home.
 * Mediation has been abandoned here, but I forgot to take the page off watch.
 * I think my logic for Ireland holds. The Republic of Ireland is not 'a land that was formerly independent (in itself).' However, it is a "separate nation: a nation or state that is politically independent". Therefore, the Republic of Ireland falls within Encarta's definition of the word country, which is: "1. separate nation: a nation or state that is politically independent, or a land that was formerly independent and remains separate in some respects."
 * The country/constituentcountry debates continue on each of the UK's country pages, well it certainly continues on the Wales Talk page, Scotland and England already appear to have agread on 'country'. See you there. Dai caregos (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Notes on consensus
First of all, consensus can be very hard to pin down. 9 times out of 10, you'll only know there was consensus after it's been broken. In the meantime, between the edit that had consensus and whatever edit changed that consensus, is silence through consensus: the only evidence of consensus is non-evidence of non-consensus.

Polls are not evidence of consensus (unless you're really lucky); they can be evidence of potential consensus, at best; or they can be used as a tool to show where consensus and compromise can be worked on. You have the polls, now you need to work with the information that the polls provided.

Does anyone have a starting off point? Xavexgoem (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: list all verified terms
I think a useful starting point is to consider what the reliable sources say as a whole. My understanding is that taken as a whole they use a number of different terms to describe the bits of the United Kingdom we are discussing, though each source on its own probably only makes use of one term. This means that in order to reflect the reliable sources accurately, and reporting all viewpoints without undue weight, we should therefore consider making sure a number of terms are used to describe them in the articles if possible. Any attempt to impose a single term to describe any one of the bits would be open to an accusation of being too POV. Consequently, some form of wording like the following seems a useful starting point, with the proviso that the main terms used in the reliable sources should be used: X is a part of the United Kingdom that is variously described as having the status of country(footnote 1), constituent country(footnote 2), nation(footnote 3), ... within the United Kingdom." The fact tags could include both references that verify that the terms are actually used, and also could include comments about whether they are used accurately (in the case of "nation", where I am in agreement with Jza84's view about the meaning of this term). This seems a reasonable way to proceed if our aim is to accurately reflect what the reliable sources say without opening the articles up to POV accusations by being too selective in opting to report only one term or even making up one (like "subnational entity" or whatever) and it need not be clumsy at all. Although I understand that footnotes and/or references are usually discouraged in lead sections, in this case, I think the justifications for having them would be compelling. The problems with all the discussions and disputes so far is that people have unnecessarily assumed and therefore restricted the discussions to options that allow for only one term to be chosen to describe the different bits of the United Kingdom. And as I said, if we remind ourselves that our aim should be to accurately reflect what the reliable sources tell us, then the solution I have given, or one very like it, becomes clear. The sentence I have suggested can be varied, of course, but I suggest that its basic content of providing a verified and cited collection of terms found in the reliable sources should always be present. DDStretch   (talk)  23:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This proposed phrasing does the job in a policy-compliant way. I'd cut "having the status of" to "a" and "within the United Kingdom" as redundant, though.  Kanguole (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I take it as implied by the above proposal that E/NI/S/W could have sentences with the same format, but with different lists of verifiable terms. Kanguole (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the idea–different bits are referred to differently, and so should have different terms as dictated by the reliable sources that provide information about each bit. (I'm using bit to try to be as neatral as possible at this point.)  DDStretch    (talk)  10:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Troll" here. I agree that "different bits are referred to differently, and so should have different terms as dictated by the reliable sources that provide information about each bit". With this in mind, and forgive me for the 'cut'n'paste', I suggested this at the Talk:Scotland and Talk:United Kingdom pages, with a compromise which employed both country and constituent country for Scotland and England, constituent country and principality for Wales, and constituent country and province for Northern Ireland. The sources for the terminology included BS ISO 3166-2:2007 (second edition), (wording as per ISO Newsletter I-9), and a selection from government (.gov.uk) web sites, including, for example:
 * Scottish Executive - Rural Development Plan for Scotland, 5.2: "Scotland is a country of some 30,414 square miles (78,772 square kilometres)".
 * DEFRA - Rural Development Programme for England 2007-2013, 3.1.1.1: "England is a country of some 50,351 square miles (130,410 square kilometers)".
 * OFT - Consultation on a market investigation reference on personal current account banking in Northern Ireland, Annex A.3: "The Geographic market is defined as the Province of Northern Ireland".
 * Home Office - Police Research Group Crime Prevention Unit Series: Paper NO.50, Vehicle Watch in Wales, 1: "Forces in the Principality of Wales have demonstrated a particularly high level of commitment to the Vehicle Watch concept".
 * Department for Constitutional Affairs - Notable features, including significance regionally or nationally *: "* 'nationally' in this context will be taken to mean within the United Kingdom as a whole or within the constituent country (England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland), or both."
 * I therefore suggest that these terms be incorporated into the all the relevant articles as follows:
 * Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England.
 * England (Cornish: Pow Sows) is a country that occupies most of the southern two-thirds of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares land borders to the north with Scotland and to the west with Wales.
 * Wales (Cymru; pronounced ) is a principality that occupies the largest western peninsula of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the east with England.
 * Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is a province that occupies the northeast of the island of Ireland. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south and west with the Republic of Ireland.


 * The above provides a compromise whereby the terms which have proved the biggest stumbling blocks to concensus are used jointly. 80.41.248.89 (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ddstretch's idea is interesting.
 * Perhaps something like:
 * "England is a subdivision of the United Kingdom that is variously described as being a constituent country, country, or nation."
 * which is based on that idea but adds in the all important "subdivisions".
 * After that, from then on in the article, we need not refer to it as constituent country, country, or nation, and can simply call it by its name, e.g. England.
 * For example, instead of "The country/constituent country/nation is blah blah blah", "England is blah blah blah".
 * -- fone    4    me   15:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Troll" again. The above suggestion by Fonez is also a worthy compromise. It'd be good to see similar examples for NI/S/W for comparisson however. 80.41.248.89 (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the set of suggestions offered by 80.41.248.89 is non-controversial, since each definition gives prominence to one term for describing the particular bit the sentence is about, and this we would be squarely back in the dispute we are trying to reach a resolution via consensus about here, centred on which term to occupy this prominent position: For England, it gives prominence to "country"; for Northern Ireland, it gives prominence to "province", for Scotland, it gives prominence to "country"; and for Wales, it gives prominence to "principality". The advantage of my suggestion is that apart from perhaps alphabetical order, no term found in reliable sources is promoted above another. I also note that a another key feature of my suggestion is missing from both this (and the earlier one by Fone4my, below): the footnotes which provide the citations of reliable sources to back up the use of each separate term used. (We also need to be careful to try to compile an accurate list of terms that have been used to describe each bit by reliable sources on the matter, and not get waylaid by people who insist on perpetuating old arguments along the lines of "England isn't a country because it doesn't have its own parliament, and any source that says it is from an official UK source can be discounted because it is biased.", which is ongoing, though died down a little, on Talk:England.)  DDStretch    (talk)  16:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Troll" here. The "prominence to one term" was not deliberate, but an attempt to mirror the structure of the existing articles. I'd have no problem with any alteration, so long as it flowed when read. The "official UK source" being "biased" can be countered by citing sources using each term which are essentially from the same source, i.e. various UK Govt. Departments. If someone quotes the "official UK source" as legitimising their POV, they must also acknowledge all other official UK sources, which may not. 80.41.248.89 (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I too think that "subdivision" is a good compromise. Just because Scottish people call Scotland a country doesn't make it an independent sovereign state. --  uk    4    ever   17:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Intermission
Er excuse me, what the hell is that account above?? It was created on the 24th of June, has the same 3-color style sig as me, has the same usage of "4" in the signature, and exactly the same format of which part of the signature links where, exactly the same font in the signature (Eurostile), and by the looks of the contributions, is trying to make itself appear like it's a sockpuppet of me by visiting every page I have edited and supporting exactly what I am supporting. -- fone    4    me   17:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In which case, take it to the relevant user page. It is not pertinent to this discussion. Malcolm XIV (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well considering it is supposed to be a new user, yet is already managing to jump into all of this, and has concentrated on following my contributions and copying my sig, I think it is apparent that it is a sockpuppet of someone at least, whoever it is, and should be blocked immediately. -- fone    4    me   17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly, but this is not the place for that discussion. Malcolm XIV (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While we must always assume good faith, this user definitely needs to change their misleadingly coloured sig. I will drop a note on their talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. MickMacNee (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Troll" here. While looking on the surface as though -- fone    4    me   has indeed found an admirer in the form of   uk    4    ever , can we get back to the discussion? 80.41.248.89 (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Call me a pessimist - but I suspect that uk4ever hasn't joined with the intention of having a particularly productive usership. To me, it looks like a single-purpose account, with dubious origin, with the intention of disrupting this process. --Jza84 | Talk  18:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with your view, Jza84.  DDStretch    (talk)  19:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * New indent That's a topic for an RFCU. I tend to agree with "Troll" (you simply must register for an account under that name!), his/her suggestions are all fine except I'd reject the separate titles for Wales and NI, Wales should be a country and NI should be constituent country per the highly charged nature of the article. -MichiganCharms (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (e/c response to MichiganCharms) How might you counter the claim, then, that since a number of terms exist in reliable sources for each bit of the United Kingdom, you preference for using only one is a POV position from the point of view of wikipedia, where we are supposed to reflect as far as possible, what is said in verifiable reliable sources? I think a major source of all the wrangles so far is to do with people's preferences being overly determined by every person's POV which are not all the same. So we have competing POV. My solution attempts to cut the ground from under all of these, as we should so according to wikipedia policy, in a way that satisfies wikipedia's policy of accurately reflecting what can be found in reliable sources, verified by suitable citations.  DDStretch    (talk)  20:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd counter that this is a situation where presenting every POV is somewhat silly. Perhaps we could add a footnote or a section to each explaining the various terms but for the first line of the intro it seems overly wordy. Sometimes NPOV is impossible, I'd say this is such a time. -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not advocating including every POV. What I am saying is that since existing reliable sources use a number of terms, we should reflect that, as we are supposed to do, by including them in the lead. I consider this can be done quite easily without it becoming wordy at all. To select which reliable sources to use and which not to, one is distorting what the reliable sources taken as a whole tell us, and this becomes a violation of NPOV. Not all points of view will be capable of having reliable sources to back them up, and so asking for terms present in reliable sources is the prime issue here.  DDStretch    (talk)


 * Interestingly, Jack forbes has just been found guilty of having three accounts (Requests for checkuser/Case/Jack Forbes) - the whole set of incidents seems rather strange, including the proxy leaving comments on my page and the new account impersonating me.
 * And can I ask people, what is wrong with:
 * "England is a subdivision of the United Kingdom that is variously described commonly as either contrarily a constituent country, country, home nation, or nation..."
 * With the terms appearing in that order alphabetically.
 * -- fone    4    me   20:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Better yet X is a part of the United Kingdom; it's apolitical, needs no links to terms (other then the UK) & can't be disputed. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I suppose it is not impossible. It could be left as that in the opening paragraph, with a later paragraph in the main text explaining the differing oppinions on the status of X, since it may not be appropriate for the opening paragraph. -- fone    4    me   20:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (e/c response to Fones4my) I look upon that version as being essentially the same as the one I proposed, with the key difference resting only in the use of the linked phrase "subdivision of the United Kingdom" in place of my one word "part". I prefer my version as "part" seems more neutral. and likely to cause less upset in people.  DDStretch    (talk)  20:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ddstretch, are you suggesting:
 * "England is a part of the United Kingdom that is variously described commonly as either contrarily a constituent country, country, home nation, or nation..."
 * I don't see how that is any more "neutral", especially since the wikipedia article itself calls it "subdivision", not "part".
 * -- fone    4    me   20:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm suggesting for example: England is a part of the United Kingdom. Straight forward & undisputable. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And I think that will not have any chance of being accepted on Scotland, and be subject to edit warring by people who have their own POV of what their preferred term should be. One could also argue that it is not accurately reflecting what reliable sources say as a kind of "error of omission" by being too non-specific. Is "part" used in any reliable sources?  DDStretch    (talk)  20:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (e/c again! reply to Fone4my) Sorry, I've struck that sentence out. I had a minor loss of attention there because of all the edit conflicts all of a sudden. I still think all the terms need to be moved as close to the front of the article as possible, with citations, as I recall that people were unhappy with their preferred POV terms being placed later on. Remember, I'm trying to satisfy the guidelines of wikipedia here with respect to having a WP:NPOV and of accurately describing what is found in reliable sources which are then verified by suitable citations. And in these cases, a number of terms are used, so should be included. I'm of the opinion that they should be included in the lead.  DDStretch    (talk)  20:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how "part" is more "neutral" than "subdivision" when linking to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom. -- fone    4    me   20:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, all the edit conflicts meant that the struck out senetnce didn't "stick". I've struck it out, as I explained in my previous response to you (I think you may have overlooked it).  DDStretch    (talk)  20:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I find myself drifting away from constituent country & prefer part (though subdivision is acceptable, too). GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So, once again, how would you counter the idea that these preferences would all fail WP:NPOV because you are asking for one term to be used when the reliable sources use a number of them? (and the other points I made, above, about satisfying the guidelines and policies of wikipedia).  DDStretch    (talk)  20:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't suggest those preferences fail NPOV, nor do I question the reliability of the sources. As for the quidelines & policies? Wiki-Ignore might be appliable. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with GoodDay and Fone4My on this one. Subdivision is an acceptable and neutral compromise.  The term "country", even in inverted commas is a regional nationalist POV and totally inappropriate for a country subdivision.  How long is this going to be discussed ad infinitum before it is just implemented, eh? --  uk    4    ever   21:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are going to impersonate me, at least do it properly. GoodDay was suggesting "part", not "subdivision". Myself and Ddstretch are suggesting including all POVs in the ways already suggested.
 * And seriously guys, am I the only one that is finding this user odd? How come he/she is new, yet already knows what the mediation cabal is? And already knows what "POV" is? And already knows how to make a signature? -- fone    4    me   21:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you suspect something (concerning UK4ever)? You know what to do, report your concerns. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It won't do anything. The last IP that was used for personal attacks was a proxy. If the person who is behind this can use proxies, then a checkuser won't yield any successful results. All we can go by is WP:DUCK. -- fone    4    me   21:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (e/c response to UK4ever) I think this attempt at mediation is even less likely to go anywhere if people start to throw around generalized accusations of "regional nationalist POV". Please focus on content by means of reliable sources that can be verified by means of appropriate citations, rather than speculating about motives that might underlie suggestions of certain terms.  DDStretch    (talk)  21:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree this is problematic. I have asked the user in question (on their talk) to avoid this page for a number of stark reasons. Given the amount of attention he/she has recieved already, I think it is appropriate to ask them to spend some time elsewhere to ensure minimal disruption to this process. So... as we were saying... --Jza84 | Talk  21:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't appreciate being referred to as a sockpuppet in all but name, but in the interests of the furthering of common sense on these articles, I will not partake in this mediation if you feel it will help. And just because I have a "4" in my name doesn't automatically make me a Fone4My copycat.  I do happen to have a lot of Wikipedia experience and am not trying to pass myself off as a newbie.  Anyway, good luck with the mediation guys. --  uk    4    ever   22:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Part of the United Kingdom?

 * So are we gonna consider this, X is a part of the United Kingdom? GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've included it in my suggested table, below, since you want to just use that sentence, though I think it isn't really in the same category as the others (and wouldn't want to rule it out as used in your sentence for that reason, as the sentence is quite different in its nature), and I think your sentence would be better expanded with the other terms found in reliable sources. Others may disagree, however, and it should certainly be considered. I suspect it may be even harder for your suggestion to get placed on the Scotland article without a lot of grief and/or edit warring than the solution I made. I'm trying to think practically here.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It would create similar conflict on Wales. We had a very long and painful debate there with two sockpuppets making the running for "part" some variation.  Removing any reference to country given the number of citations is not going to gain any agreement and in the light of the history on the various pages would be seen (legitimately I think) as a provocative POV edit.   I think DDStretch was correct in an earlier post to say that the current names are not very dissimilar.  None of them represent a nationalist or a unionist POV, they have emerged from painful debates, all have citations.   If you look at some of the references below, even where "part" is used, it is not used to contradict "country" it is a geographical description.  So if anything the sources support something which has words to the effect that W/S are countries/constituent countries which are a part of the United Kingdom. My feeling at this stage is that provided membership of the UK is acknowledged in the open paragraphs, and one of the country variants is used that is all we are going to get.  --Snowded (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What difficulties do you see with DDStretch's suggestion? Kanguole (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It starts off with "part" not with "country/constituent country". Given the overwhelming evidence for one or other of those it will be seen (although I accept that is not the intention of DDStretch) as an anti-nationalist POV.  Its interesting - there are three POV positions here.  A nationalist one, a unionist one and a anti-nationalist one (different from the Unionist position).  The anti-nationalist POV seems to be characterised by constantly moving between different descriptions in order not to allow Scotland to describe itself as a country by a forced consensus.  Wales uses constituent country and has been stable for a bit.  Given the evidence for Scotland is stronger (and the Act of Union different from conquest) I think we should just live with this as a minor difference.   There is no confusion, the membership of the UK is very clear.  --Snowded (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What the evidence is remains to be seen after the table is completed, which is one of the reasons I suggested it be completed. Unless one is engaged in a number's game, I suspect that many more alternatives than "country" and "constituent country" will have solid reliable sources to back them up. They can't all start a sentence off, and my suggestion at least has them all mentioned in the first sentence, which almost all of the alternatives do not do. As for whether the accusations are that my suggestion could be an "anti-nationalist POV", I can see why a distinction is made, but to complete the description, the solution I am offering would also, simultaneously, have to be seen as an "anti-unionist", and anti many other POV positions as well. Nevertheless, I think such accusations should be resisted, as they can only be sustained clearly if they become attached to the person or people who are advancing those positions. However, as I said, let us see what the table suggests.  DDStretch    (talk)  09:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the table is useful, but I am not sure it will be anything other than a numbers game. One admin during the Wales discussion used a table to summarise the pro and anti "country" citations and that was useful as it included a qualitative assessment.  If I have some time I will drag it out.  As I said I am making no accusations of POV in respect of your proposal intention, but I do think the definative quote it the UK Government web cite and census data (not to mention speeches by the Monarchy).  It hink that established country, and I and others on Wales accepted constituent country as a compromise to avoid an appearance of POV.  I am afraid that I do think removing country from the prime position is by definition taking a position and I still favour something very simple, I think we are over complicating things and if we are not going to leave well alone (ie leave the current concensus on each page) then simplicity and clear NPOV will be key.  --Snowded (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What terms are used for each bit of the United Kingdom under discussion here
I think it might be useful to ground ourselves a bit in seeing what the reliable sources say for each bit of the United Kingdom. So, I've started off a table that people might like to add to. The additions can be of two forms: (a) adding a new reliable source by verifying it with a suitable citation in the appropriate box of the table (use the form; and (b) by adding a new term by means of a new row to the table, though each new row should be accompanied by at least one reliable source in one of the boxes under England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, or Wales. The new table doesn't give any reliable sources, so I invite people to add to the table in the ways I've described if they have to hand any relevant sources. I suggest that we will get a picture of the "lie of the land" if we can present and complete the table, and thus inform our opinions on how to proceed.
 * "Troll" here. (Sorry to jump in). Is the point here to prove which term(s) are used more frequently than others? Or which terms can be verified as being from a reliable source? I don't see any difficulty placing entries in any of these boxes, but does sheer weight of numbers in each box have any bearing? If so, numbers may be determined by individual effort on the part of editors on the basis of their own POV. Furthermore, if a single source describes E/NI/S/W as a specific term 'collectively', do you then attribute the term to each individual box? For example, E/NI/S/W are referred to collectively as "UK Nations" at Registrar General for Scotland,  Projected Population of Scotland (2004-based), Figure 8: "UK Nations index of population, 2004-2031". Can I then attribute "Nation" to each box on the basis of a single source? Also, can I add "Kingdom" to your list of Terms?: Scottish Parliament, Your Scotland Questions: Is Scotland a country? "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the full name of the country. Scotland is a kingdom within the United Kingdom (UK)". Should we not just accept that a verifiable and reliable source can be found for each and every term and return to your original suggestion of "X is part of the UK, variously described as...". Sorry to be a pain in the ****, but I'm a bit sceptical as to what this exercise will prove/achieve. Regards 80.41.200.95 (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC) (PS. The Scottish Parliament source for "Kingdom" goes on to sum up our situation rather nicely: "As the UK has no written constitution in the usual sense, constitutional terminology is fraught with difficulties of interpretation". Boy'oh'boy, if only they knew...;) )
 * References can be doubled up by giving them a name within the syntax (see here). The table will (hopefully) be the most comprehensive wealth of source material this issue has ever mustered. Once the table has stablised, we can perhaps each state our own conclusions about them. The "sheer weight of numbers" shouldn't have a bearing on the conclusions (IMO), but rather, we can do a peer review of source's reliability (for example, I find the "nation" ones thus far to be of "lesser value" as they are by authors who are making commentary, rather than major agencies). Hope that helps, --Jza84 | Talk  23:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Troll" again. Thanks for that, I'll have a crack at some tomorrow. Lastly however, if the list starts running to 3 figures, how can we be certain some of our sources haven't accidentally been duplicated? Pretty tall order to search through 100 plus citations checking to make sure yours hasn't already been included. Just a thought. Oidhche mhath. 80.41.200.95 (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's exactly why Wikipedia is a communal piece of work! -- we'll just have to work it out between us (labourious but fruitful me thinks). Remember, there is no deadline :-) --Jza84 | Talk  00:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (reply to 60.41/200.95) I've added a "Kingdom" row as you requested, and think you need to use your own judgment about whether to add the reference concerning "Nation" to all four boxes in the relevant row (I think you migt as well). AS far as the purpose of it, I agree with all that Jza84 has written on the matter. It isn't and shouldn't be a "popularity contest" by means of numbers. The task ahead may be difficult and take some time, but that is one of the facts one has to accept if one is writing an encyclopaedia (as I know from previous paper-based efforts I have contributed to).  DDStretch    (talk)  06:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Point?
I know I'm talking to a brick wall here, but what pray tell is the point of this exercise in source collating? If you actually look at my original proposal, I made it perfectly clear that there were enough sources for all positions to be given recognition in the first sentence, this is just a basic fact, and could not be challenged (which is why pushing for 'country' exclusively is not as has been claimed an exercise in consensus that needs to be changed, but in actual fact disruption). What was needed was an agreed compromise to reflect this, not a derailment and a repeat exercise in listing every source for every term to see which one trumps the others. You won't find it, and it won't be supported if you force it. Let it go, and treat this exercise as what it should have been all along, finding a compromise wording, not to figure out which term is more sourced. In that light, there was absolutely nothing wrong with ...is a part of the United Kingdom, as a "country within a country".MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is to gather source material in a central and comprehensive way - a way which has never been done before. Source material and verifiaibility are fundamental aspects on how Wikipedia should work. It might be my experience as a post-graduate informing me here, but a literature review is a major part of any scholarly paper.


 * Just for the record, to allevate this concern about "sheer numbers" - the point of the excersise isn't to "beat" others with amounts of source material, but rather look at the quality and reputation of each source. We can each comment with our own conclusions and then advance from there. I imagine this excersise will a) nullify a number of opinions completely b) home-in on 2/3 terms in paricular for different parts of the UK c) show how one exclusive term isn't used in real-world practice.


 * From this alone (which isn't my baby by the way), I'm turning away from the whole idea of "consistency across the 5 articles", but rather agreeing on something which is ambiguous, but equally, reflects the complexity of real-world practice and yet doesn't compromise the image of Wikipedia as a serious educational tool.


 * In short, quality not quantity, then a literature review. :) --Jza84 | Talk  13:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly is wrong with what myself and Ddstretch were proposing:
 * "... is a subdivision of the United Kingdom that is variably contrarily termed as a constituent country, country, home nation, or nation..."
 * -- fone    4    me   19:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is accurate in a way but misleading and unnecessarily wordy. Lets go through it.  Home nation is only really used in Rugby and only rarely there these days.  Nation implies sovereignty.  sub-division (as is the case for area) covers London, Yorkshire, Cornwall etc as well.  What is distinct about Wales, Scotland and England is that they are countries/constituent countries who are a part of the UK.  They have also been nations in the past and they have national assemblies and a substantial and growing degree of self-government  The only accurate statement, that matches the main authoritative source (British Government documents, census returns etc) is that E/W/S are countries/constituent countries within the United Kingdom.   I can't see any reason for anyone to oppose this, less they are determined to get in area/subdivision both of which were firmly opposed (and not as a nationalist POV) on the sites in questions in recent times and a clear consensus, on the basis of evidence reached for constituent country (Wales) and country (Scotland).  In fact that remains the only real issue - should constituent country be (i) explicitly stated or (ii) a line as in country or (iii) ignored.  Oh and should we attempt to go beyond the current fairly stable position where all three of the above are present.  Any one who has been around these pages for some time (Fonez4mii I realise your ID is new to this) knows that attempts to remove, or de-prioritise country will result in edit wars. --Snowded (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ... is a part of the United Kingdom. There's no sources to squabble over & how can anyone dispute it. Is anybody gonna argue the England, Wales, Scotland and/or Northern Ireland is not a part of the UK? GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No one is going to argue that they are not a part of the UK (or at least if they do it is clear POV), but there is a clear argument (and citations) that they are countries (with sources to squabble over). So if you want modify the above to say "E/W/S are countries which are a part of the UK" I would have no objection and I cannot see that anyone could object to it as a factual statement --Snowded (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer country, constituent county, home nation, province etc, be disgarded (unless whichever's chosen is used on all 4 articles). But wouldn't it be easier, to use part (with no sources)? Less cumbersome, less politically charged & undisputable. This may be an occassion where sources are actually a hinderance. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You have been around long enough to know just how controversial it is to abandon country, it is also factually incorrect to remove it. Do you want a solution or have you given up?  --Snowded (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I want consistancy above all. Whatever's decided, apply it to all 4 articles (yes, even country). GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * " consistency is my goal too - I want it to be resilient and acceptable to as many as possible and I think we have always agreed on that. --Snowded (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's hoping all those Unionist & Nationalist PoV charges end soon. Hopefully, our approach will be adopted by others. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would not object if all of the articles used "X is a country of the United Kingdom...". However, it seems that there are reliable sources that use other terms, and I am aware that we do have an obligation to fairly represent all other positions represented by verified reliable sources (authoritative, if you like) without giving them undue weight (of course). That is why I started off the suggestion of including them all. We could then whittle the lot down if there was a strong argument in favour of this along with arguments about undue weight afterwards in the discussion. I think it is worthwhile to continue to compile the table, and then to construct a set of "canonical arguments" about the quality of the references and the evidence in favour of or against including whatever terms are decided to be included for each country. Such a set of arguments can then be stored in a separate location and referred to when yet more arguments about this crop up in the future. WE could even make them a formal MoS subpage. That way, we would drastically limit any more arguments about this matter. This approach would also counter the tedious and arguably disruptive ongoing attempts to argue that, for example, "England isn't a country because it doesn't have its own parliament and any sources you can give me that say otherwise are biased" (I parody this, but it sometimes seems very close to this kind of argument.) Consistency would be nice, but we cannot force it if the reliable sources induce us to think otherwise, which is another reason for continuing to compile the table. So, I'm also personally open to there being a solution which does not have consistency across all bits of the UK. I accept most of Snowded's arguments about the terms. However, if verifiable reliable sources that have some degree of authority give other terms, perhaps we need to find some way of mentioning them (paying attention to the undue weight limitations) if only to present an argument why they are not to be preferred, and this could be done in a footnote if not in the main text. I also wish to say that I certainly didn't want to give anyone the impression that I thought Snowded was saying that I had an "anti-Nationalist POV"–of course, I realised that he was merely stating what he thought might happen if I pushed my position onto the various article pages. I repeat that I think such kinds of accusations are unhelpful, and should not be made, which doesn't, of course, criticise Snowded. On the matter of MickMaNee's orginal message in this section, Jza84 summarized the reasons for compiling the table nicely. I will only add that if MickMacNee thinks there were enough sources for all positions to be given recognition in the first sentence", then I haven't seen them so far supplied anywhere in a centarlised list or table, which is why the table can help avoid arguments in the future. So, given that he seems familiar enough with them to make the statement I quoted, I invite him to quickly add them to the table (it shouldn't take too much time if he is really confident that they exist). Finally, if it is a basic fact that all terms could be included, then I don't see him advancing any arguments why "country" should take precedence over the others, which is what we need to attend to if we are going to finally decide to just use that single term. In this case, showing that the quality of sources lead "country" to be a preferred option is certainly crucial, and this also argues in favour of compiling the table.   DDStretch    (talk)  09:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Who said I was pushing for 'country'? Look at my proposed wording very carefully, (it seems nobody has done this yet, despite repeated requests for comment on the entire phrase throughout the process, instead it waas repeatedly and without consent reduced to a 3 word poll option). To clarify, again, my position is that there are multiple sources supporting all terms in such relative numbers that there needs to be a compromise wording, rather than justifying giving 'precedence' to one. This does not equate to listing all terms in the lead sentence, but to use a compromise wording. The sources to support this view are all in the relevant archives. The Scotland page even has a handy summary section, which we appear to be duplicating here, again, for a reason that completely escapes me at this time. To blithely suggest it would be a quick exercise to go find them all and dump them in the table below, takes the piss just as much as a certain editor's original suggestion to 'take it to the talk page' when he reverted a compromise suggestion, which kicked off this whole process in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My one mistake, which I apologise for, is to have stated that MickMacNee was in favour of "country". Instead, he is in favour of "country within a country". The sources and the handy summary he refers to is limited just to Scotland, and can be found on Talk:Scotland, whereas we are discussing all of the bits of the UK, and hence sources for all of the bits of the UK. I had assumed by his messages in this thread that he knew of references concerning or covering all bits of the UK, but it now seems that this was not the case, though it seemed to be, and my reasonable assumption was incorrect. I am not the only one who has made an error here, it appears. So, the claim that we are duplicating the information here is at best partial and hence misleading if one looks at the table. Now, if you want to assist in this process here, I'd like to kindly invite you to do so again. You have suggested previously "country within a country", and so I presume you can give some reliable sources for that. In which case, I'll add the appropriate row to the table, and I am sure it would help us all if you added any sources about this and others that haven't already been added (especially ones concerning the other bits of the UK apart from Scotland). Finally, it will not help matters at all if you make again statements that suggest that I or others are "taking the piss", or similar kinds of inferences about motives concerning me or anyone else making fun of you or someone else here. Do not do it again.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you never perused the archives of England, Wales and NI? Seriously. And for the very last time, because I am starting to lose all will to participate here, my proposal is not for the three words "country within a country" on their own. They form part of a sentence, which is a succinct compromise description, complete with explanatory, non-misleading back links, which reflects all previously established sourced viewpoints. The one source for the phrase "country within a country" ironically comes from the UK government (the url is all over the previous discussions), considering it is actually quite nationalist given some people's views here about nationalism/unionism, but this is beside the point as said. It is not the weight of the source, or the number of times it is used that is important here, and to continually assert that it is just demonstrates no one has actually got past the first stage of recognising what the problem is yet, which I have repeatedly explained already in this section. It is frankly not hard to think you are taking the piss, given some of the statements you make, and the continual mis-reading of my commments/mis-representation of my position. You are frankly starting to give me the impression I'm not even speaking English. MickMacNee (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * MickMacNee, I don't think that helps this mediation process at all. Remember to assume good faith - we're all here for more or less the same reason: to write and give away a great encyclopedia. DDStretch has spent a great amount of time and effort to set up a central reference hub; the like of which hasn't been tried before. His intentions are clearly to resolve this issue in a full and comprehensive way, a way that can (hopefully) be referred back to time and time again as a codified consensus.


 * If you're losing the will to participate, then, that's your perogative. However, I think that'd be a shame. If you're unwilling to add sources, then fine, but that's not a reason to mock or disrupt the process for those who do. Let's keep the topic of this part of the mediation on verification, if you please. --Jza84 | Talk  19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So you are with DDStretch then, pretending that no sources have ever been given in the archives of E/W/NI, and if theyre not in the table they won't count to the result here. The fact is, given your reply, and his, it is increasingly clear that some people in this process fundementally do not understand the causes of this dispute, and therefore, won't be able to solve it. It has nothing to do with counting/tabulating sources. If it closed today, with 40 for country, 10 for CC, 10 for nation, 2 for part, what are you going to do? Claim country is the winner? Clearly a non-starter if you are dismissing 10 quality sources for the others. Or you suggest listing all 4 terms with refs in the first sentence. Clearly a ridiculus solution, that makes a mockery of how wiki markup works, which can link to the articles that properly describe the situation in depth. As for it being easy to fill the table, it is clear it has just been filled by replicating the Scotland archive, this is hardly a step change in what has gone before so far. No one else is bothered to fill it, because there is no point to doing it, everyone through their own experience already knows what the sourcing situation is. The only permanent resolution to this is (without declaring it as no conensus) will be of the form I have presented or similar, to reflect in a meaningful way the presence of reliable but conflicting sources, which can then be defended against all the single term POV pushers. But it's clear above that this fact has completely gone over your heads, and you are merely going over old ground again. And insulting the efforts of the people who have published the numerous contradictory sources in the past discussions in the archives to boot. MickMacNee (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All I would ask MickMacNee is to keep cool, and assume good faith. You tone is combattative when really it shouldn't be; again, we're just trying something here to help. If you want to focus on another aspect of this process, then fine, go ahead, but I don't think slurring those that want to gather source material and persue a literature review of it is a good approach on any part of Wikipedia and isn't going to help facilitate the changes you seek. --Jza84 | Talk  19:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just think of it; X is a part of the United Kingdom requires 'no sources' (thus no sources to squabble over). GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's all well and good, but the community has a long way to go before agreeing upon that. Everyone has a favourite, but sooner or later one side or more are going to have to give some consessions if they want a conclusion out of this process. --Jza84 | Talk  19:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Yet again (I am getting really fed up with this) it turns out that one of the main protagonists in the debate [User:Fone4My]] has turned out to be running sock puppets (see here) and lying about this previous edit history. Editorial activity here is died down a bit, but the authorities are fairly clearly for country or constituent country. Given all of that can I to back to an earlier suggestion and propose the following: E/W/S are countries which are a part of the UK. It clearly states that each is a part of the UK, uses the word country, but links to constituent country. It is also short, clear and backed by the sources. I agree with DDStretch that we need to assemble this in such a way as to hold the edit wars at least for period --Snowded (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not like the above suggestion as it is an Easter egg as for the whole Fonez4my I am not going into that again as he has shown to be a lair on several occasion and is obviously a troll who has been around for a lot longer than he makes out. Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  13:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am also very disappointed, and perhaps irritated that a sock puppeteer has being interfering here. That is one reason why I think we need to get a solid foundation for the position and solution we finally decide upon, and, as far as I can see, many disruptive actions will almost always be defused or not allowed to take hold if we have a solid basis of reliable sources on which to fall back on. That is why I urge us to try to continue to complete the table of sources. Given Fonez4my was a sockpuppetteer, I think means we will have to check any references added to the table by the editor. I can help there, but would appreciate some other help (add something like "CHECKED" in the references to make sure we don't duplicate matters.) If the objection to Snowded's suggestion is that Easter Eggs are to be avoided, I think a useful suggestion would be to use something like E/W/S is a country which is a part of the UK, though other sources have used other terms to describe it.(footnote) The footnote can expand on the use of other terms. Its disadvantage is that, as far as I know, it cannot cite any sources for the other terms unless they are "inline" in the footnote. Remember, our aim is to try to prevent the edit warring and produce a reasonably stable version which can meet the requirements that all reasonable positions should be covered, without giving any of them undue weight, when a controversial topic is described. That way, we try to ensure that the version we agree upon is as immune as possible to future disruption.   DDStretch    (talk)  14:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just curious DD, why are you leaving out Northern Ireland? Also, does anybody know if Fone4My is gonna be indef blocked (along with his dirty socks). GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that I had, since I did a cut-and-paste, then edit of Snowded's suggestion, and he didn't include it. However, having a vague idea of the controversies that exist, I imagine "country" might be a bit more contentious for Northernm Ireland than it would be for the others, and I still think we should be sensitive to the fact that if the reliable sources strongly indicate it, we should be prepared to drop consistency across the board, although it would be nice to retain it if we could. I don't know the status of the sockpuppet investigations, and, I may not have the time to take on following it too much. .   DDStretch    (talk)  17:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also be interested to see if he is blocked (and if there are other aspects of a "Malta" connection) but it just goes to show you should trust your instincts when a brand new editor comes in aggressively on a controversial page demonstrating knowledge of wikipedia process.  As to the content I am in agreement with DDStretch that we should build something of substance.   If I get a chance (which will not be a for a few days so other volunteers welcome) then I will hunt down the comprehensive research that Bencherite did in the Wales archive.  I think with that there most of the references are in place.   I do know that they all supported "country" so DDStretch's suggestion above is acceptable to me (although I don't think I created an Easter Egg).  --Snowded (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I also thought it might be User:Brunodam, but now I know it's not. Fonez4Yw (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are WP articles for country and constituent country; to have the text of one as the anchor of a link to the other is certainly an Easter egg. Kanguole (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh no, not another sock. PS- please use english at the Fone4MY page. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. I've flagged the J Forbes Sock page: "Discussion" section for A l is o n  ❤ to pursue. I confess to being at a loss as to how to take the country vs constituent country forward, even with the reference table being a valuable source of info. (I have been meaning to contribute more to it, but confess it is tedious work after a while...) 80.41.237.88 (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree! 100%! 89.243.190.182 (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not use something like "part" in the lead and use all the rest in the government section? -Rrius (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because that would be inaccurate. Many other things are "parts" including counties and cities, but Wales and Scotland are (constituent) countries.  In effect saying "part" is to emphasise "not-country" hence the strong opposition.  --Snowded (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever is settled on, please don't use:
 * "Kingdom" which is technically wrong; the Acts of Union 1707 and 1800 each turned two kingdoms into one. There is only one kingdom.
 * "Subdivision", which means a division of a division.
 * (The Acts of Union 1707, incidentally, use "part", but not as a defined technical term. The Acts of Union 1707 use "country" for each of Great Britain and Ireland (not Scotland nor England), or on occasion "part". I suspect that not of all the inhabitants of wikiworld will feel that to be personally binding.)
 * "Province" and "Principality" are dodgy too. If there were official terms though we would presumably not be having this debate.
 * Howard Alexander (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Commentary on sources

 * The 10 Downing Street source could go either way... it uses country and constituent country and has long been used to source the latter. I think it should be moved. -MichiganCharms (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not! Are you really suggesting that the Office of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom cannot be used as a source? -- Maelor 14:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Some might say that it could be seen as propoganda created to dispel cries of independance from the constituent countries. Anyway thats not what the above editor is saying. MichiganCharms said that the source should be used to back constituent country and not country. I don't see it myself. Pur edi tor   14:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just looked and I can see no reference to constituent country. It starts with "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries".  Whatever the assumed motivation ( you would need a reliable source for that) it is an authoritative citation.  --Snowded (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the original comparison by MichiganCharms should have been between 'country' and the hideous 'country within a country' (which is in the bar at the top of that page). How do you interpreted the phrase 'I think it should be moved'? -- Maelor 13:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Haesly quote isn't by the author, but a survey respondent whom Haesly identifies from this quote as endorsing a nationalist ideology. Kanguole (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This one simply says they used to be countries but no longer are. Where should that fit in the table? -- fone    4    me   09:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't regard about.com as an academic source! -- Maelor 13:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Master Warning
I fear this Cabal may be in jeopardy of a returning Pupper-Master. Be on your toes people. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific, or take it to checkuser? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about Fonez4Yw, can you (or anybody else) do a checkuser on him? Uncertainty doesn't help this cabal. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem terribly bright to bring a sock with a nearly identical name into mediation ;-) Maybe he just hasn't told anyone yet.
 * Who's the returning puppet-master, if you don't mind me asking? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Troll" here. I refer you to edits by:
 * 89.243.190.182
 * Fonez4Yw
 * And see J Forbes Sock page: "Discussion" section with regard to socks which I suspect are those of Fone4My:
 * Fone4My/Fonez4mii (esp May 19th edits at User talk:MagdelenaDiArco and User_talk:Thingg/archive_3)
 * MagdelenaDiArco
 * IrzamAhmad (Also URZAM & IrzamIhramAhmad?)
 * Someone is doing a pretty good stitch up on multiple accounts here. 80.41.237.88 (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've blocked indefinately. Clearly an account set up for distruption only. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And, same rationale. Let's keep Revert, block, ignore in mind please. There's no need to take the focus off the issue in hand to feed these attention seekers. --Jza84 | Talk  19:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Back to the main topic
Are my observations correct? Is constituent country a non-starter for the 4 articles? GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Troll" here. No, not necessarily. However, I think there has to be an understanding that the 4 articles may need to be individually tailored to a common thread, and that which I know you seek, (consistency between all 4), may have to allow for a degree of flexibility here. 80.41.237.88 (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah; even I have to admit it. It's so frustrating, particularly at the Scotland article. If I may use a Star Trek quote from Khan Noonian-Sinh - "It's so useless". GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I quite admired something User:Fishiehelper2 did here. Has this been considered as a possibile way forwards? --Jza84 | Talk  19:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If all 4 articles would accept it? That would be cool. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Troll" here. It's a good politician's compromise; when is a "constituent country" not a "constituent country"? - when it's a "constituent country"! How could we incorporate this across all 4 articles when W/NI might not be seen as countryfiable? 80.41.237.88 (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Only with the support of the community. Perhaps we might want to ask some of, say, those from WP:SCOTLAND back here, so as to gauge their views? --Jza84 | Talk  20:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with it as long it mentions it being part of the UK in the first line to match the constituent adjective before country. Pur edi tor   20:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC) ie


 * Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a constituent country of the United Kingdom. It occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain and shares a land border to the south with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands including the Northern Isles and the Hebrides.


 * "Troll" here. I can see an argument further down the line that if "those from WP:SCOTLAND" accept "a constituent country of the United Kingdom", then how/why would they possibly not accept "a constituent country of the United Kingdom", and the whole shooting match begins again. Sorry, but that's what I can see happening. (Also, in the case of the Printable version of the article, could you spot the difference?) On that note, must be off. Back later... 80.41.237.88 (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, a print version would be a problem for all the proposals for subtle uses of links. Kanguole (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the workable compromises are either "a constituent country of the United Kingdom" or "a country within the United Kingdom" or possibly "a country which is a part of the United Kingdom"  --Snowded (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are MoS problems with the latter two: they are Easter eggs, and unqualified "country" in the first sentence will be confusing to a global readership (WP:ENGVAR). Having "within" or "part" nearby is a clue that something weird is going on, but that's not the same as being clear.  No such issue applies to using "country" later in the article, after the British usage has been explained.  Kanguole (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I don't agree that they are Easter eggs they reference a different page on country but they also make it clear that they are a part of the UK.  So IF someone is confused by that (and I think this is exaggerated) then the link would clarify it.  --Snowded (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Kanguole. There is confusion internationally among your common person about the four parts of the UK. If people see country as the sole term used, they are going to assume that they're sovereign without hovering the mouse over the link. Easter egg linking isn't going to help anyone. Pur edi tor   16:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems pointless to deny that these are Easter eggs: "Do not use piped links to create 'easter egg links', that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on." That seems to describe these links pretty well.  Why would anyone click on a link when they are sure they know what the word in it means?  It is also desirable that the first sentence of an article be understandable without having to follow links in it.  Kanguole (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Read your ow quote Kangoule "require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on". The two phrases you don't like clearly say that E/W/S are countries within/a part of the UK so the status is very clear. If you want more detail, then the piped link gives it to you. The sentence is perfectly understandable. --Snowded (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It tells them that something is going on, but not what. Try to put yourself in the place of a reader who understands "country" in the usual non-British sense, i.e. as synonymous with "sovereign state".  Translation: "a sovereign state within the United Kingdom" (is that like Lesotho?) or "a sovereign state which is a part of the United Kingdom" (huh? they must mean something different by those words, or is the UK not a state?).  Kanguole (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did attempt to put myself in the position of another reader and have also asked a fair amount of people I know (this does not constitute evidence, it is statement as to my attempts to gain other perspectives). As the article on constituent countries makes clear this is not just a UK issue, it applies elsewhere.  Throughout the wikipedia it is made clear that a country and a sovereign state are not the same thing.  Given a degree of self-government and the prior history you could easily argue (and I do) that introducing the phrase constituent country causes more confusion - its is a secondary explanation.  Either way I tried to address your concerns with the rewording below  --Snowded (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I just had a better idea:  E/S/W is a country which is a part of the United kingdom. That way it is a country, defined as a part of a country and the disambiguation is to the word part if it is not understood. --Snowded (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's adopted by all 4 articles? great. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the terms kingdom, principality and province are really red-herrings in this argument. The first two concepts simple refer to historic systems of rule. England and Scotland are both countries and kingdoms, and Wales is both a country and a principality. The third term come from the four ancient divisions of Ireland: Leinster, Munster, Connacht and Ulster (of which Northern Ireland is the main part). Isn't it just too easy for someone who has just been blocked to come straight back into the discussion using an anonymous IP address and carry on the same argument??? -- Maelor 14:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "I think the terms kingdom, principality and province are really red-herrings in this argument." - I agree. --Jza84 | Talk  14:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Troll" here. I don't understand how terminology from what are verifiable and reliable sources can be described as "red herrings". Please explain further. Also, would you describe using kingdom in United Kingdom to be a historical concept worthy of being described a "red herring"? (I was also under the impression Northern Ireland is a Province in the British sense, whereas Ulster is a Province in the Irish sense). 195.27.13.214 (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Northern Ireland different

 * I am slightly concerned about it as there is an article on constituent countries which has a section explaining the UK. But, that said, should it gain 4 article wide consensus I'm definately for it. Though Northern Ireland may be a problem (constituent country there was a compromise in the first place). -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Irish question is a much more sensitive issue. Wales and Scotland were once countries, but the six counties are an artificial construct from what was once a country.  There is no political neutral way to even name it (Northern Ireland/Six Counties) and there are multiple claims and positions.   I think we should aim to get a consistent E/W/S position agreed (and I think that we are now very close) and then take that consensus into a discussion on the page in question, if appropriate.  I know there have been lots of conversations and conventions have been agreed and should probably be respected.  --Snowded (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. While fearing I'll be tagged a pain in the butt, can I refer you to an earlier discussion here, where I proposed a compromise which incorporated both terms. Now,  DDStretch    (talk)  had concerns that "each definition gives prominence to one term for describing the particular bit the sentence is about", which is a fair comment. However, E/S/W were all either countries or principalities in their own right prior to the regal and political marriages and divorces which created the UK State we see today. I cannot say who created the term "constituent country", nor when it came into use with regard to E/NI/S/W, but I believe it to be a contemporary political term, with no historical usage for which I can find a reference. NI, being the youngest member of the UK 'family', was also referred to as a "province" before anyone coined the phrase "constituent country". Given the historical precedence for the terms "country", "principality" and "province", could that not be justification for the form of wording which I proposed in my previous attempt at a compromise? As with all compromises, it is far from ideal, but it does fit all four articles, is verifiable from reliable sources, and does not involve 'easter eggs' which skew what is interpreted on printed versions of the articles.195.27.13.214 (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say no to it if it gained any consensus. Pur edi tor   16:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous attempt to enforce a nationalist pov again. In case you failed to notice, it still shoves "country" right in there. 78.146.72.254 (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Its not clear who your are directing this comment at, however (i) please do not abuse people's motives and (ii) do not assume that the use of country is a nationalist POV when there are multiple sources that validate its use. --Snowded (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Aren't Unionists simply British nationalists anyway? Let's try to get a consensus free of politics. -- Maelor 14:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * British Nationalists? Certainly not! A unionist is a unionist. I think all the editors here would like a a political free consensus. But with a lot of editors here being either nationalists or unionists regarding the UK there is bound to be POV no matter what you do. Politics is clearly a key issue in the debate here. Hopefully we can get around it, we've been doing alright so far, now that the socks are gone I think we can do it. Pur edi tor   15:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, a 78.xx.xx anon IP. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the UK has dynamically assigned IPs, and 78 in the first octet is a heckuva lot of people ;-)
 * If you think there's a history of sock-puppeting, maybe it's best to take that to WP:suspected sock puppets? Xavexgoem (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * addendum: although granted, the evidence is huge, so I'm not suggesting there's a good chance you're wrong ;-)
 * Okie Dokie; these E/S/NI/W discussions have got me paranoid. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Some new input
I've been following this discussion on the various UK pages for some time now but haven't really wanted to get involved in heated debate. However, seeing as this is sorta, kinda a semi-oficial forum for this discussion, I thought it would be good to put my two pennies worth in.

It seems to me that as there are sources that use both the terms 'country' and 'constituent country' (and none that claim the terms are mutually exclusive), then both of the terms should be used in the introduction of the articles. I know that some people think that 'constituent country' is in itself a compromise as it infers that they are indeed countries, but IMO 'constituent country' swallows up the word 'country'. As someone else (was it Fishiehelper2?) has pointed out, there is a danger that 'constituent country' is seen as a complete, self-contained noun with the adjective 'constituent' therefore given too much emphasis. It is, after all, merely there to modify the noun 'country'. I noticed on the Northern Ireland talk page that the discussion regarding the term 'constituent country' would seem to back up Fishiehelper2's point; GoodDay remarked on that talk page 'You're correct NI isn't a country, it's a constituent country, just like England, Scotland & Wales; there's a difference.' The implication there being that the terms ARE mutually exclusive (not picking on you, GoodDay, just using that comment as an example of the confusing nature of the term 'constituent country':-) ) I would suggest that it is possible to be both a 'country' AND a 'constituent country' (although, I accept, maybe not in the case of Northern Ireland) and that the two terms should be clearly delineated as such.

In other words, IMO, the best wording would be Troll's suggestion


 * Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England.

I don't think we can deny that E, S and W are countries as there are sources that clearly back this up. But, of course, it must be clarified that the countries of the UK are a 'special' case and 'constituent country' then acts as a qualifier to the term 'country'. There have been discussions about the possibility of summing all these controversies up, i.e.

"England is a part of the United Kingdom that is variously described commonly as either contrarily a constituent country, country, home nation, or nation..."

but I think this is overly long and complicated and brings in home nation and nation which, I believe, haven't really been a main element in the debate.

The solution here is surely to be simple and unequivocal and state that Scotland/England/Wales ARE a country and they also ARE a constituent country. Putting 'country' first may be seen as POV but surely to be a 'constituent country', it must also be a 'country'. Just like, for example, to be a 'brown dog', it must also (and primarily) be a 'dog'.

As well as this, I have seen some people suggest that from a non-UK perspective the UK use of 'country' is confusing as outside of the UK 'country' commonly refers to a sovereign state. However, the term 'country' has various meanings and is not always a sovereign state. Surely Wikipedia sets out to put right misconceptions? Using 'constituent country' on its own, which swallows up 'country', I fear, is more confusing than illuminating. After all, 'constituent country' is a somewhat artificial term designed to differentiate countries that are located within another country, or a political union such as the EU, from their 'parent'. It is not a term that is used in everyday language. If there is any confusion over the use of the term 'country', it is then explained in the next sentence by using the term 'constituent country'.

To summarise my point;
 * E/S/W are countries
 * They are also constituent countries of the UK
 * Both points must be represented
 * They are primarily countries
 * after that, and by extension, they are constituent countries of the UK


 * The articles are talking about them as individual units so must firstly use a term that describes them in isolation, separate from the UK
 * Secondly, they must describe their position in terms of the UK (in the UK article this priority would be reversed as it is referring to the UK, the sum of the parts, not the parts on their own.)
 * The UK would not exist without its constituent countries
 * but these countries would exist without the UK as a union
 * therefore they are countries first and constituent countries second


 * The simplest and clearest description is always 'it is A. It is also B'
 * rather than 'it is sometimes A, sometimes B, maybe even C'
 * or even 'It is B' (with a subtle inference that it is also A)

In other words
 * Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England.

I think I've blabbered on enough! --She&#39;sGotSpies (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What about Northern Ireland? Anyways, I'm a few hours from giving up any hope of the 4 articles being in sync. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Troll" here. Northern Ireland is a Province in the British sense, unlike Ulster which can be argued is a Province in the Irish sense. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Er... I probably don't know enough about NI politics (which is a very thorny area, after all) to say what term should apply to that article. However, as I was just putting my support behind Troll's original suggestion, here is his (or hers!) solution for NI


 * Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is a province that occupies the northeast of the island of Ireland. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south and west with the Republic of Ireland.


 * which I would on the most part agree with. That said, I'm not really sure how it can be a province and a constituent country... but if it is verifiable then fine :-) (besides, what else could it be...? constituent province...?) And maybe all the articles can't be in sync, after all the UK is a bit of a mish mash of countries, provinces, islands etc. Maybe we should just embrace the glorious jumbled up ambiguities of the UK ;-) --She&#39;sGotSpies (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They are primarily countries after that, and by extension, they are constituent countries of the UK. That is pure POV so therefore I have to disagree with your proposal. Pur edi tor   18:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Troll" again. Forgive me for stating the obvious Pur edi tor  , but in the absence of a written constitution, everything in this discussion can be regarded as "POV". The reference table if nothing else demonstrates this in glorious detail - nobody is right, likewise nobody is wrong. It nevertheless remains for us to either work towards a common goal of concensus, or ruin GoodDay's otherwise good day and concede that the established editors of each article may continue to adopt whatever intro' they feel they must. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 'pure POV' seems a bit harsh. But then maybe I didn't explain myself well enough... I probably used the wrong word in using 'primarily'. It wasn't meant as my opinion on the merits of E/S/W over the UK but I meant it in terms of language use. What I mean is, that in order for it to be a constituent country it must also be a country. It is a country that is a part of, or constituent, of the UK. Like I said above, I think the problem is that the phrase constituent country consumes the word country. We must remember that 'constituent' is merely an adjective, a qualifier of the noun country. You can't say that something IS a constituent country but NOT a country. That would surely be a contradiction... It is like the example I used above; a 'brown dog' is still a 'dog' just like a constituent country is still a country (it is just located within another country) --She&#39;sGotSpies (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't say that something IS a constituent country but NOT a country. No but you can say that constituent country is a lot more accurate to their status and less misleading to someone. I feel that having country as its main description bring very unencyclopedic like and border line POV. Just take note of the other big respected encyclopedia such as Britannica and the rest. Country is not mentioned at all anywhere. It says part. I am happy for country to be shown but just not as the main term in the first sentence. Pur edi tor   23:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll still be watching, folks. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Troll" here. Spectators still welcome, contributors even more so. (Sox excepted!). Do you (GoodDay) see anything in the above? 195.27.13.214 (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya mean letting the articles decide for themselves? GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Troll" again. No - I mean in any of the proposals on this entire page? 195.27.13.214 (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Until the UTC turns 00:00 July 1, 2008? I'll support anything if it gets applied to all 4-articles. After that? it's open season; the 4-articles can individually adopt whatever they want. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "X is a part of the United Kingdom that is variously described as a country(footnote 1), constituent country(footnote 2), ..." is a lot less complicated than the version criticised above. Kanguole (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kanguole, don't feel offended, I wasn't criticising merely commenting... I'm not sure about your suggestion. To me this suggests that the terms are mutually exclusive. That it is either one or the other and not both. Also, it's almost as if, by putting the controversy over the terms in the first sentence, that it is Wikipedia that is creating the debate. After all, if we look at the sources, it only seems to be us that argues over one term or the other; the rest of the world picks one and gets on with it :-) It seems like we are saying in no uncertain terms, 'we don't know what to call it'. Which seems a bit unencyclopaedic. Aren't we meant to discuss these issues behind the scenes on the talk page, reach a consensus and then put the result in the article? Rather than putting the debate (which we have created) in the article? I don't know, I could be wrong but that is just my interpretation of the issue. --She&#39;sGotSpies (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's User:Ddstretch's idea, not mine. But in general, I don't think it's essential that everything have a principal name that takes priority over the alternatives.  Sometimes it just doesn't work out that way. Kanguole (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a non starter as far as i am concerned. It reads as if they are just parts of the United Kingdom but they sometimes are called countries which could be interpreted as a POV position.  The cited evidence is for country, the fact that they are parts of the UK needs to be acknowledged.  However the history of said countries, not to mention edits on these and related pages means that start with "part" has no chance of being sustained and will just generate edit wars.  We need to be realistic here.  --Snowded (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What about revisiting the idea of "X is a constituent country of the UK" with constituent being an unlinked, un-emphasised adjective? --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  04:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds good to me.What about you Snowded? Pur edi tor   05:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(indent) I accepted that on the Wales page for the sale of peace and harmony, although I think country is more accurate and constituent country very artificial. I am pretty sure it will not be accepted on Scotland (and the evidence is on the side of country so you can see why). Hence my various suggestions above. What matters to me is (i) they are countries (ii) they are part of the UK and (iii) if someone is confused they can easily find out more. Hence my suggestions of E/S/W is a country which is part of the United Kingdom. That way those who want country and part up front are satisfied and the disambiguation link to constituent country deals with the ambiguity. In terms of making progress, without country up front there is no way of avoiding edit wars and I don't think there are other viable solutions. --Snowded (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You may find "constituent country" artificial (what isn't, I wonder?) but a Google site search will demonstrate that the term is routinely used throughout the UK government. Kanguole (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The London government has been routinely trying to pretend that Wales doesn't exist in its own right for centuries. It didn't make it true in 1536 and it doesn't make it true now. She&#39;sGotSpies made several valid and well made points on the subject, which should be considered. Although I would be prepared to accept either the phrase "constituent country", or the word "part", as a secondary description, in order to reach a compromise, "country" should be the primary word used to describe each of the countries of Great Britain.
 * I think that either Troll's suggestion: " Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England." or Snowded's example E/S/W is a country which is part of the United Kingdom is the description we should finally use. Dai caregos (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong disagree, as I am sure, will many. And country certainly doesn't automatically qualify to be given the primary position. -- fone    4    me   11:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The evidence supports country up front, and as a result removing or demoting that will cause an edit war. If you want a sustainable settlement you are going to have to be prepared to compromise.  --Snowded (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fone4my

 * I don't know what's been going on here while I've been away, but I notice that sockpuppet accusations are flying everywhere. May I point out that I am not, and have not sockpuppeted. I edit from my public library on most days, so if there is any confusion to do with that, that is most likely the reason. If you run a checkuser on the IPs that I edit from during the afternoon times, you shall see they are from the public library.
 * I strongly suspect Fone4Yw to be Forbes though.
 * Anyway, Kanguole and Ddstretch have the right idea. Choosing one term over another is simply POV, considering that there are so many sources backing up each one.
 * We have already come to a result, but those users who are trying to make us use one term, are either pushing a unionalist or nationalist POV.
 * The only NPOV solution is to include all the terms.
 * May I also point out that I am not Jack forbes, along with any of the other ridiculous suggestions, including Brunodam, Iamandrewrice, Giangian15, Gozitancrabs. If you feel I am one of these, please, by all means do a checkuser. But this time, can you do all of them at once along with any others you are likely to suspect me of, because I am becoming tired of having another sockpuppet accusation thrown at me every day.
 * -- fone    4    me   07:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the major things that has happened while you have been away is that we have not been subject to aggressive accusations of POV and have had some constructive conversations with mutual respect rather than rants. Also the number of arbitrary breaks you have inserted is getting nonsensical  --Snowded (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

For those who are interested, I have left some thoughts on the sockpuppets here. -- fone    4    me   08:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fone4My, none of us are remotely interested! We all "know the score"; let's not kid ourselves.  What we are more interested in now is being able to maintain the calm, peaceful, mutually-respectful and constructive conversations/discussions which have ensued since you've been away.  PLEASE stop your aggressive rants and your accusations! You are doing yourself and your arguments absolutely no favours and if you continue in your abusive actions, you will most certainly face an indefinite block!  20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He has just been banned as a sock puppet --Snowded (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And so the nightmare of confusion ends; thank goodness. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Usage of "Country"
I think there's a varieties of English issue here. We have any number of references that the word "country" includes E/S/W/NI in British usage. However outside of the UK the word is a synonym for independent state, and is even the preferred term for that in places where "state" means something else. Major dictionaries of US English, e.g. Webster's and American Heritage, do not include meanings equivalent to the OED's "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." Thus while the term should be used in the article, using it as the primary term before the usage is explained would be misleading or confusing to the global audience of the encyclopaedia. Kanguole (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I fundamentally disagree. To say that something is a country within the United Kingdom is not in any way confusing.  The UK is not the only sovereign state to have countries.  What matters is accuracy.   The sentence I proposed makes it clear that they are a part of a sovereign state and we know that in practice removing a legitimate term like country would just lead to edit wars.  --Snowded (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What are these other countries of which you speak? Are they overseas dependent territories?  Kanguole (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Netherlands is the other case, yes. --Snowded (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles? Seems rather different from the UK case, and I doubt it touches on the discussion of US usage anyway.  Kanguole (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure its different, but it shows its not the only use (and historically there have been others). The substantial issues are (i) your claim of potential confusion and my counter position that provided it immediately says "a part of the UK" after the use of country then there is no confusion, and (ii) the point that we both know there will be edit wars if country is not up front (and that will not be POV as there is substantial evidence to justify the term).  --Snowded (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (e/c a few times) The entry for Aruba, for example, states that it is: "A country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands". Another perspective on this might be that there are countries which have various bits of themselves, for which various administrative bodies are set up which parallel to a greater or lesser degree, the devolved nature of the UK. It is a matter of indiviidual national terminology which terms are used to describe them. For instance, France has the term Overseas collectivity which is different from its term Overseas Department, and for which many have administrative bodies somewhat similar to those of E/S/W. It just so happens, one might argue, that one term we use in the UK for similar bits of the UK is "country", and this has come about because of the history of the various bits. The point of discussion here is that there are also other names or terms in reliable sources (see the contents of the tables) that are used as well as country, and reconciling them together by consensus is required, given that we are obliged to report disagreements in the reliable sources without giving undue weight to some and not others. We are looking for a compromise, and as a necessary part of any compromise, concessions need to be made as a result of reasoned argument and examination. I think there are some good reasons for making "country" occupy a prominent position in any lead, however. What are the good reasons for any other terms having the same prominence, and do those outweigh the reasons in favour of country? (I'm not looking for reasons against using a term, only for reasons in favour of using one, as I think that is a better way forward at this stage.) I'm also not including Northern Ireland, because the sensitivities surrounding it.  DDStretch    (talk)  14:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree with Dai caregos above. The best solutions so far, IMO, are either Troll's " Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England." or Snowded's E/S/W is a country which is part of the United Kingdom. Either of those seem fine to me but I would probably lean slightly more towards Troll's as he does explicitly mention constituent country, which a lot of people seem to like and the corresponding article does have a lot on the UK and the use of the phrase constituent country in relation to the UK.


 * Kanguole, if it does simply come down to differences in the British English usage of the word country with the American English usage of the word country (which I'm not entirely sure it does), then that would solve all our arguments. There is surely no article with stronger ties to Britain than these four articles. Therefore, we would have to use British English over American English, as per WP:ENGVAR. However, that is not to say that I think it can be solved that easily, but it's certainly one element of the argument. --She&#39;sGotSpies (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a little sensitivity shown for the use of the term province in the case orf Northern Ireland. A quick look at the intro for Ulster might be useful
 * Ulster (Ulaidh,, Ulster Scots: Ulstèr) is one of the four provinces of Ireland, in addition to Connacht, Munster and Leinster. The term is often used informally &mdash; and incorrectly &mdash; as a synonym for Northern Ireland, one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. In fact, three of the nine Ulster counties are part of the Republic of Ireland with the remaining six constituting Northern Ireland.
 * Can I suggest that something to dab between the 2 usages of province should also be included. Otherwise it may just be a case of exchanging one edit war for a different one. Crispness (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to be related more to the use of "Ulster" than "province". Kanguole (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * SGS, any evidence relating to US or other usage would be welcome. The bit of WP:ENGVAR I was referring to is a bit further down:
 * Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternative terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia.
 * Use an unambiguous word or phrase in preference to one that is ambiguous because of national differences.
 * To repeat, I'm talking here only about the start of the article; the rest would of course use British English, country and all. Kanguole (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Kanguole here. As an American, the overwhelming (I'd say pretty much universal) definition of country is sovereign state. Now, with respect, I must remind everyone that two thirds of native English speakers are American and that it's not uncommon to find Americans who believe Scotland and England are independent or that the Republic of Ireland is part of the UK or that the UK uses the Euro... eg We're dealing with an ignorant audience a lot of the time. We shouldn't assume that any of the over a billion English speakers not in the UK understand British parlance. -MichiganCharms (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Kanguole. My main nationality is Canadian and British English is the standard over here. The term country is indeed associated with sovereignty by the majority of British English speaking Canadians like I'm sure it is with the rest of the world and thats why I have such a problem with country being the main term. Once the situation of the four is established I'm fine with it being used. But I'd have to agree with most people here that it is very misleading and should not be used if we want an article which has a NPOV. Pur edi tor   17:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If we edited all Wikipedia pages on the basis of the average American's knowledge of world geography it would be a very strange place indeed. The use of the word country is legitimate and very common in the UK and more generally in the English speaking world.  What is important is to ensure that the word does not stand alone, but is immediately followed by a reference to "part of the UK" or similar.  That should be clear to all but the most ignorant, and also respects cultures and views other than America.  Pureditor, would you please not suggest that those of us who argue for country are NPOV.  It is not helpful, factually incorrect given the evidence, and deeply offensive to those of us who are Welsh or Scottish.  None of you (Kanguole, Pureditor and MichiganCharms) are dealing with the issue that any attempt to remove country from Scotland and Wales would result in an edit war.  .  We all know that so can we please get real and find a form of words that will gain consensus. --Snowded (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What figures do you have to justify the phrase 'most people here'? I think you mean 'three people' who all seem to be putting forward a strangely identical point of view! -- Maelor  18:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm, you were addressing this to Pureditor not me --Snowded (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct Snowded, sorry but the layout of this page is getting quite complex! -- Maelor 12:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * MichiganCharms, I see your point that not everyone understands British terms and I know, as Kanguole pointed out, that WP:ENGVAR asks us not to use a local ambiguous term (ambiguous in American English anyway) in place of an internationally unambiguous one. However, I would suggest that the entire problem with the UK articles is that there is no unambiguous term to describe the four countries. Therefore, IMO, the solution would be to use what American English considers an ambiguous term but which is correct in British English and to then explain it for the benefit of American/Canadian readers (I can't speak for the rest of the world, I don't know if they think country = sovereignty). The purpose of an encyclopaedia article is, after all, to clear up these kind of misunderstandings and to educate the 'ignorant audience' that some terms are used differently in different countries. As long as the term country is then qualified by reference to 'constituent country' or 'part of the UK' or whatever in the first paragraph, then I feel that the different use of the word country is highlighted and explained.    I fear that we can do nothing for the people who would just read the first sentence 'Scotland is a country', get completely flummoxed  and not read any further to see the explanation. However, if country is so synonymous with sovereign state in America/Canada then maybe we could have an explicit explanation in the introduction to these four articles along the lines of E/S/W is a country which is part of the United Kingdom. It is not a sovereign state. I don't know... just an idle thought. --She&#39;sGotSpies (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you guys serious? The only reason we've each spent dozens of hours over the past few weeks on this subject is because you think that Americans are too ignorant to read to the end of a sentence? I despair. This is worse than the Fone4my debacle. Dai caregos (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record the Wikipedia page country has no problem with the idea of a country which is not a sovereign state. Added to which the existence of assembly governments in Wales and Scotland both of which can now pass legislation in certain fields provides additional complications.   The key thing is for the first sentence to be clear.   Now She&#39;sGotSpies (talk is attempting to find a way out and a possible variation would go something like this.  E/S/W is a country which is part of the United Kingdom (which is the sovereign state).  I think the bracketed part is not necessary as (to support Dai caregos) the position is very clear.  However the bracket would put it beyond doubt.  However it may still be controversial given the assembly position.  However with some constructive attempts at getting the wording right we might get somewhere --Snowded (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In regards to Dai caregos's comment; personally, I think we should give the (international) reader the benefit of the doubt and assume they are able to identify that country in this context means something different to what they may believe it to mean. Especially considering that the very next sentence, or even the next part of the first sentence, would mention 'constituent country of the UK' or 'part of the UK'. However, from what I can see, other editors think this is not clear enough and so I thought what we should do is tackle head-on their objections to the word country which mainly seems to be that in American/Canadian eyes, country = sovereign state.


 * Snowded, I see where you are going with your version... In hindsight, my first example may look like it is suggesting that the UK is not a sovereign state. Hmm... what about E/S/W is a country which is part of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom Or does that use 'of the' too many times? What about E/S/W is a country, but not a sovereign state, which is part of the United Kingdom. I dunno, maybe it's getting too complicated... --She&#39;sGotSpies (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well we don't have to accept either that American/Canadian eyes country=sovereign state in the context of the UK. Most people I know in both countries are more than aware of the issues.  Neither do we have to accept that if true it should entail removing the legitimate and authoritative use of country in this context.  However we need if possible to compromise.  I would avoid "not" but I think there is potential in E/S/W is a country which is a part of the sovereign state the United Kingdom  --Snowded (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So, for those of us with the attention span necessary to be able to reach the end of two sentences, how about: "Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country, which is part of the sovereign state the United Kingdom, that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It shares a land border to the south with England." Dai caregos (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In either of those suggestions, I would say that the table we are compiling shows that we could legitimately add a phrase to the effect of "...though other terms are sometimes used to describe it." The "other terms" bit would point to a section in United Kingdom ( other terms ). I've used "terminology", though a better name could probably be chosen and it would describe the different terms used to describe the different bits. This is where a form of the table we are compiling, above, could be placed so that it can be called upon if future disputes occur. It may lengthen the sentence, but not unduly, and it would completely satisfy any objections surrounding the use of any of the other terms, especially those not already linked in the sentence.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The suggestions aren't bad. How about E/S/W/NI (everyone seems to be forgetting about NI) '''is a country within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. It is located .... and shares a border with... Pur edi tor  '''  22:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, Pureditor, your suggestion is much clearer. I was worrying about either using 'of the' twice or the phrase 'of the sovereign state the United Kingdom' (I keep wanting to put some more words between 'sovereign state' and 'United Kingdom'). ...is a country within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom solves the grammatical problems. So it would be in full;
 * "Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country, within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom, that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It shares a land border to the south with England."
 * Hmm, the only problem is we've now lost a link to constituent country... can we fit that in anywhere??
 * Oh, and ddstretch, can you put your extra sentence where you think it should go in one of the above suggestions? I think it'd help if we could see a paragraph with all the suggestions together. --She&#39;sGotSpies (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, how about a number of possibilities which incorporate my suggestion: Those kind of examples should give some idea. DDStretch   (talk)  23:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) E/S/W is a country which is part of the United Kingdom (which is the sovereign state), though other terms are sometimes used to describe it.
 * 2) "Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country, within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom, though other terms are sometimes used to describe it. It occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain, and shares a land border to the south with England."
 * 3)  E/S/W is a country within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom, though other terms are sometimes used to describe it.. It is located .... and shares a border with..
 * 4) E/S/W is a country which is part of the United Kingdom (which is the sovereign state), though other terms are sometimes used to describe it.
 * 5) E/S/W is a country which is part of the United Kingdom, though other terms are sometimes used to describe it. It is not a sovereign state.


 * These options are all far too long-winded! We need to keep it far more simple than this. I'm still convinced that all we need in the lead sentence of the individual country articles is:
 * E/S/W is a constituent country of the United Kingdom.
 * Even the most die-hard nationalist has to accept that these countries ARE currently part of the UK and will remain so until a referendum decides otherwise?
 * In the United Kingdom article we only need refer to each of them as a country (I keeping out of the NI arguement!). As for the arguments from across the pond about semantics, please assume that our readers have a little more intelligence. -- Maelor  13:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

She'sGotSpies, I agree that it is a noble aim for an encyclopaedia to lead readers from ignorance to understanding. But I think your suggestion of using a term and then explaining it is the wrong way round. Take a step back and look at the initial part of each of the suggestions listed above: they're all awkward, and the reason is the insistence on "country" as the 4th word, after which it's necessary to add "part" or "within" or "sovereign state" to avert misunderstanding of that word. Nor do those additions work: for UK readers part/within etc. are redundant, while for foreign readers they appear contradictory. Kanguole (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you are being selective here: my argument is that for any term that was used in place of "country", we would need the phrase I have added. This is so that the use of multiple terms in reliable sources in the literature was accurately described in the article at the point at which one of them was first used. So, if your own preferred phrasing was used, my additional phrase would also be added to reflect this, and that would then probably make it "clumsy" in the same way you think the above sentences are which use "country".  DDStretch    (talk)  00:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Humblest apologies: I misread your message. I was about to write out a list of all the recent "country" proposals to make my point, but then such a list suddenly appeared on the page.  I didn't notice that you'd added "though other terms are sometimes used to describe it", and that wasn't what I was criticising.  Kanguole (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your opinion Kanguole. I do not think the clarification is redundant for UK readers, it reminds them of something.  For overseas readers it is not a contradiction (many of them will be aware of it anyway).  It may invoke curiosity (something we are meant to do) and they can then invest further.   The very simple form E/S/W is a country which is a part of the United Kingdom is neither confusing or clumsy and it has a half way decent chance of getting accepted.  If you remove country then (i) you are being inaccurate and (ii) you are creating a certain edit war (a point you persist in ignoring) when the point here is to reach a consensus which can be sustained.  The more elaborate forms were being produce to try and accommodate you, but you persist in trying to demote country and that very simply is not going to work - just check this history of such attempts --Snowded (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm deliberately ignoring the edit war argument as irrelevant.


 * That "country" is synonymous with "independent state" in US usage is well-supported by dictionaries of US English and any number of US publications. Any other English-speaking country outside the UK too, I suspect.  You have only to substitute "independent state" for "country" in these proposals to see how they look to the vast majority of English speakers outside the UK. You say that including terms that contradict that meaning allows people to work out the intended meaning (possibly after reading subsidiary articles), and that is probably true, but what is the factor here that trumps clarity of expression?  No-one here is proposing that "country" be removed, but I would like to hear a clear justification (apart from edit wars) for why it absolutely must be the 4th word, rather than the 5th or the 15th. Kanguole (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Troll" here. Are we then to change what Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are because they don't fit neatly into a descriptive term understood by the American English speaking world? In that case should we on this side of the pond start refering to nappies as diapers? bumpers as fenders? postal codes as zip codes? pavements as side-walks? etc. etc. etc. Forgive me, but to suggest that what E/S/W/NI are should be determined by the understanding and use of English language dialects found in North America is simply ridiculous. Last time I saw a Californian Flag it had the words "California Republic" emblazoned on it. Therefore, because California doesn't meet the criteria of what I or your average person in the street on this side of the pond would regard as a "Republic", should we argue that the flag be changed to avoid confusion here as to what exactly California is? - Is it a Republic? Is it a State? Is it a State within a Sovereign State? Is it semi-autonomous Republic calling itself a State within a Sovereign State? Which? In answer to my own question, I wouldn't dream of arguing for such a change. As for why it should be the 4th word? Why the heck not? That is what it is, is it not, then why for pitty's sake not call it such? Why should an encyclopaedia have to justify calling a country a country? Is that clearly justified enough for you? 80.41.226.112 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Rephrasing the above comment in alphabet soupese, WP:ENGVAR suggests that American English usage should not be given priority on articles where non-American English is called for. MOS:IDENTITY also seems relevant. The principles in Naming conflict might also be relevant. Curiously, "Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?" is specifically noted as being irrelevant. I suppose that means nation has to be considered after all. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we all agree that the articles should be written in British English, "country" and all. We're talking here about the first sentence, and I'm suggesting that the bit at the end of WP:ENGVAR (Opportunities for commonality) might be relevant there.  Kanguole (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are ignoring the edit wars argument Kanguole then you are rather ignoring the whole reason we are on a mediation page rather than the page itself. It is also crystal clear that if you say something is a country within the UK then there is no ambiguity.  Your argument that your take on US views should stand is also dubious.  Having just checked an couple of directories the presence of governments in Wales and Scotland also supports the word country.  In fact the US is a minority in the English speaking world (remember India and the rest of the commonwealth).  I also fully endorse the views of 80.41.226.112 above.    --Snowded (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying you found US publications referring to Wales and Scotland as countries? Which are those?  Kanguole (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No although I think it could be done - The Welsh flag was plastered electronically over the white house and I am pretty sure the President was report as acknowledging Wales as a country last year. The awareness of former Irish and Scottish families would also produce material ( as could the Welsh in Pennsylvania where a significant amount of towns and roads has welsh names).  But its not necessary.  The current sources establish country as the most accurate description and the normal one in Britain.  I also dispute your assertion about understanding in the US and Canada which does not accord with my experience of either country.  None of that is relevant however.  My point was that dictionaries state that having a government is part of being a country and Wales and Scotland both do.   Remember that aspects of UK law are not subservient to Europe and the UK is sometimes referred to as a constituent country of Europe.  I further repeat (and will continue to doing so) that to remove the accurate upfront description of Wales and Scotland as a country will be considered POV by editors on those pages and lead to an edit war.  You simply cannot (well you can but you should not) ignore the reasons why we are in mediation in the first place.  --Snowded (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not an argument about whether American English should be ignored. This is not an American English issue. It is a world wide issue. In all of the English speaking countries outside of the UK such as Australia, NZ, Ireland, South Africa the term country is interpreted as meaning sovereign state. This is because all of those countries are sovereign and have little concept of an overriding union. Wikipedia is an English speaking encyclopedia not an English orientated encyclopedia. Therefore international usage of a term has to be recognised inorder to keep it in a NPOV. I'm very open to what the intro will be, but using country without explanation is misleading. The government thing is a non issue they are Assemblies not governments. Plenty of states (N. America) and counties world wide have their own local authorities. Also saying that all other potential intros shouldn't be used by threatening edit wars on other editors behalf isnt in the spirit of this mediation. Pur edi tor   16:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course its a world wide issue and the other English speaking nations you reference above are more than aware of the country name. You often find strong nationalist groups in those areas.  Remember that for the Commonwealth counties (a significant amount of the English Speaking world) all sporting events other than Cricket are played against England, Wales or Scotland not the UK.  No one is arguing against the need for the opening sentence to make it clear that each is a part of the UK in some way.  The question of what is or is not a government is very complex in the world.  My point about Europe was meant to illustrate this, also earlier points about Republics etc.  Given that messy nature (states, republics, countries etc) the logical thing is to go with normal local use and also government authorities in the area with explanation as possible.  It is also improper of you to use the word "threaten", please assume good faith as I did no such thing.  I have made the very simple and obvious statement that we are on a mediation page in an attempt to avoid edit wars and we have to be pragmatic about that in seeking a resolution.  --Snowded (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (outdent) This is beyond ridiculous with OR, the entire argument is OR. As I maintain serious doubts that most of the world would recognise Scotland or Wales as a 'country', which is so far from global common usage of that word, I'll accept that there is no acceptable alternative. Indeed, to anyone who has taken the time to study up, they are countries. I have no objection to the discussion continuing as if this little exchange had never taken place. -MichiganCharms (talk)
 * As far as I am concerned there was an exchange of opinion. If you want to call that OR feel free, but it will happen from time to time.  That said there are some other more substantial points in the thread (role of mediation page in respect of edit wars, sporting recognition, confusing question of legislature etc.)  I wouldn't get to holier than thou about it as you also express an opinion in respect of common use in the world.  Whatever the purpose of the wikipedia is to inform, so even if world would not recognise Wales and Scotland as countries when they are then we can help by getting an accurate phrase in place .  In practice I think we all know that a large part of the world is ignorant about many aspects of what is or is not a country, where it is located, its economics, literature etc. etc.  Our role is to help get things right.  As you say if you study the references then the clear conclusion is that country is the correct word, the issue is how, while making that clear to acknowledge the "part of the UK" point simply and in a sustainable way.  --Snowded (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Troll" again. May I point out to Pur edi tor    that if he/she scans the reference table you'll find that a NZ Govt. website uses the term "country" to describe Scotland. (ref.48). 80.41.245.209 (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC) PS Snowded, you neglected to sign your last. PPS Can I add to that list which I started with the New Zealand ref:
 * International (ISO) ref.16
 * International (UN) ref.26
 * New Zealand Govt. website ref.48
 * US Govt. website ref.49
 * Irish Govt. website ref.50
 * International (WHO) ref.54
 * International (UNESCO) ref.56


 * 16 and 26 are UK submissions, 49 has English authors and 56 is from the Scottish Exam Board. Kanguole (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Troll" here. 16 isn't UK, it's ISO. (The ONS Gazetteer ref as a source doesn't account for the change of terminology from "First-Level Divisions", which appeared in ISO Newsletter I-8 (Page 9), to "country" etc. which appeared in ISO Newsletter I-9 (Page 11). The change was ISO, not ONS, as the ONS source document reference remains unchanged across all three relevant ISO 3166-2 Newsletters, including ISO Newsletter I-2 (Page 25), which relate to the UK and its associated codes). I could go through the others also, but aside from those refs which you do dispute, and ref.48, ref.50 and ref.54 which you don't, I think the point is made that the terminology is not restricted to the UK as some would argue. 80.41.245.209 (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be right about Ireland. The other two, from the Winter deaths literature, are a bit narrow to draw any conclusions from (and one of them is reporting a Scottish paper).  Kanguole (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)26 is a UK submission and 54 had Scottish authors. As I've pointed out before, if ISO had updated the entry themselves they give ISO-3166/MA as the reference. Only the Irish gov ref seems unrelated to British authors. josh (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a direct quote from WP MOS: (sorry but I couldn't work out the link)

"====Strong national ties to a topic==== An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. For example:
 * American Civil War—(American English)
 * Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings—(British English)
 * European Union institutions—(British or Irish English)
 * Australian Defence Force—(Australian English)
 * Vancouver—(Canadian English)"

Seems to me that this topic couldn't have stronger ties to this particular neck of the woods if it tried. My vote is that we go with the British English usage of the word country. Dai caregos (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said to Angus McLellan when he raised this point: I think we all agree that the articles should be written in British English, "country" and all. We're talking here about the first sentence, and I'm suggesting that the bit at the end of WP:ENGVAR (Opportunities for commonality) might be relevant there. Kanguole (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I read it WP:ENGVAR relates more to words than an issue such as what is understood by a country. --Snowded (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well yes, "country" is a word. The last two points under WP:MOS (which I quoted above) would seem particularly relevant here.  Kanguole (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said earlier I'm fine with the British usage of country being used as long as its status was clarified to everyone else. For example Snowded's recommendation: E/S/W is a country which is a part of the sovereign state the United Kingdom or mine E/S/W/NI is a country within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. Pur edi tor   21:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia not political geography for idiots there is no need to state that the UK is a sovereign state in the intro that is what the UK page is for and the article on country makes clear that it does not always mean sovereignty Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  23:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If that's an argument, might I suggest taking a leaf out of the other professional online encyclopedias out there and using an intro similar to theirs? Pur edi tor   23:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit wars argument
It has been claimed that any solution must begin with the words "X is a country", because otherwise eternal edit wars will ensue, at least on Scotland and Wales. It seems to me that that is a poor criterion for encyclopaedia content, but I also don't understand it. To have an edit war you need people prepared to edit both ways. Why is it expected that the group who prefer that form of words will not accept a different result, but the other group will? It also doesn't seem to match the history of the England, Wales and Northern Ireland articles, all of which had had "constituent country" for some time until moves in June to change the first two to "country". Kanguole (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I ask you exactly what is your preferred solution, as I asked previously in the following section?  DDStretch    (talk)  09:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to establish the ground rules of this discussion. Kanguole (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Scotland didn't appear to have constituent country, in the time frame mentioned: it used and uses "country". It appears that much of the moves were driven by a need to impose consistency amongst all the bits of the United Kingdom, and this was driven in turn by discussions on United Kingdom controlled by Fone4My (previously Fonez4mii) who was subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry and disruption, and who made the discussions and call for views and opinions in what seems to me to have been a restricted manner. So, on reflection, one could say that the continuing discussions may well be ongoing drama brought about by the disruption caused by attempting to impose uniform solutions on different articles by means of a restricted discussion driven by an editor who was subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry and disruption. It seems to me that if what I have written is a correct summary, we may as well close this mediation attempt as resolved, because it was fallout from disruption: Let all the articles about different bits of the United Kingdom decide what to do on their own talk pages. However, I still think there is merit in continuing to complete the table and insert it in a new section on United Kingdom which I suggest be called "Terminology". This is what I propose, and so can people comment on this specific proposal? DDStretch   (talk)  09:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're right: the drive for consistency is part of the problem, not the solution. Kanguole (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC) (moved to new section to make it more noticebale)

Possible consensual solution to using "country"
Barryrob is correct up to a point given that there is no compelling reason to take into account a misconception about a term, even if the term's misconception may be apparently strongly correlated with claimed differences in varieties of English (though we have yet to see much in the way of evidence to back this claim up.) Given that the entry on country is quite clear about the matter, it is not such a major obstacle as has been claimed here. However, aware that we are seeking a compromise which means that we should be willing to make concessions, I have a suggestion that is close to the variations I have been suggesting, above, but which would avoid any of the claims of "clumsiness" that have been made as a means of earlier attempting to deal with the objections to using "country". It is this: I hope this shows that concessions are being offered. But, I remain unclear about what any preferred term or sentence from Kanguole would be. I hope my offering would be acceptable to Pureditor, since it does seem to take into account Pureditor's suggestion, though in a different way. DDStretch   (talk)  08:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "E/S/W is a country which is part of the United Kingdom 
 * There would be a new section in United Kingdom dealing with Terminology concerning E/NI/S/W and covering these issues. This section would include the table of reliable sources we are working on, and a reasoned discussion about their relative strength. I think this would cover everything required, and would represent a position that takes into account every reasonable objection.
 * Sorry, still too long-winded for me!
 * "E/S/W is a country which is part of the United Kingdom. That is all that is required! -- Maelor 10:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about E/W/S/NI is a non-sovereign country within the United Kingdom. josh (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds a little clumsy to me, but working with that as a basis, what about "E/W/S/NI is a county within the United Kingdom. It is a semi-automous region..." or "E/W/S/NI is a county within the United Kingdom, a sovereign state to the northwest of continental Europe"? --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  13:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. Nah, don't do it for me. Alternatively, along the lines of the suggestion by  Maelor : Not sure if it'll work, but I could live with it. 80.41.242.167 (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country and a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, it shares a land border to the south with England.
 * England (Cornish: Pow Sows) is a country and a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Occupying most of the southern two-thirds of the island of Great Britain, it shares land borders to the north with Scotland and to the west with Wales.
 * Wales (Cymru; pronounced ) is a country and a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Occupying the largest western peninsula of the island of Great Britain, it shares a land border to the east with England.
 * Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is a province and a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Occupying the northeast of the island of Ireland, it shares a land border to the south and west with the Republic of Ireland.


 * I am happy with the above proposal, it showing the sort of realism I have been arguing for and I would be happy to make that change on the Wales page (I think you need an established editor on each page to do it, rather than one person making all the changes). Howeer the closure proposal may render it invalid.  --Snowded (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not happy with the above proposal. I do however like josh's suggestion of E/W/S/NI is a non-sovereign country within the United Kingdom. Jza said it was clumsy, however I would disagree. Non-sovereign is a simple and informative adjective describing the countries. No more explaining would need to be done if that adjective was used. Does anyone else like the suggestion? Pur edi tor   18:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Troll" here. 'Fraid not. Sovereignty, autonomy, etc. just clutters the place up as far as I'm concerned. You're bringing elements into this which will steer the reader away from what Scotland is towards how it can possibly be what it is. The links are there for those to follow should they wish any clarification. You don't need to hold the reader's hand to steer them through the minefield of what it is that makes a country a sovereign country, a semi-autonomous country, a constituent country, or none of the aforementioned. It is a level of detail not required to be spelled out, but rather a situation which if outwardly confusing to the reader can be quickly understood via the linked articles. 80.41.215.137 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Scotland isn't a country in a conventional sense. A modifier such as "constituent" or "non-sovereign" leaves no ambiguity about over what Scotland is. Clearing up the ambiguity should not be left up to the reader following links. josh (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to end and abandon this mediation
It appears that much of the moves were driven by a need to impose consistency amongst all the bits of the United Kingdom, and this was driven in turn by discussions on United Kingdom controlled by Fone4My (previously Fonez4mii) who was subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry and disruption, and who made the discussions and call for views and opinions in what seems to me to have been a restricted manner. So, on reflection, one could say that the continuing discussions may well be ongoing drama brought about by the disruption caused by attempting to impose uniform solutions on different articles by means of a restricted discussion driven by an editor who was subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry and disruption. It seems to me that if what I have written is a correct summary, we may as well close this mediation attempt as resolved, because it was fallout from disruption: Let all the articles about different bits of the United Kingdom decide what to do on their own talk pages. However, I still think there is merit in continuing to complete the table and insert it in a new section on United Kingdom which I suggest be called "Terminology". This is what I propose, and so can people comment on this specific proposal? DDStretch   (talk)  09:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're right: the drive for consistency is part of the problem, not the solution. Kanguole (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * --I don't think the lack of a mediator is helping the process along. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  11:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Fones4me didn't intiate the conversation, he hijacked it, and it appears people aren't able to see that, let alone counter it, to focus effort on the matter at hand. Second, there was no consensus on the articles, they have all been periodically changed and locked at some point. The lack of any resolution won't change this. If this mediation had actually understood the problem, instead of wasting time re-hashing old news, perhaps we might have got somewhere. Simply stating that we don't need consistency is a pander to the edit warriors, who have still not been educated in the basic fact that there is no such thing as article talk page jurisdiction. This is one of the enablers for the edit warriors that have produced the ongoing head to head stand-off of a non-solution over this elephant in the room problem. The UK is a single entity, a universal approach is absolutely justified, especially given the existence of the Subdivisions of the United Kingdom article. Quite why a UK government source is readily dismissed in favour of a discussion about American's perception of the word country I have no idea. A simple, consistent and meaningful solution also makes the final enforcement of consensus easier too. Some people seem to just need a basic lesson in the use of (non misleading) wikilinks. Some of the formatting proposals here have been bizarre to say the least when compared to standard editorial practice. Anyway, at least now I hope certain editors can see how ridiculous it is to revert a compromise solution to an edit war resulting in protections after 10 minutes, with the edit summary 'take it to the talk page to gather consensus'. I hope the lessons have been learnt, but I severely doubt it. MickMacNee (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Firstly, Fones4me didn't intiate the conversation, he hijacked it, and it appears people aren't able to see that, let alone counter it, to focus effort on the matter at hand." Nowhere did I state that he had initiated it.  DDStretch    (talk)

I have been watching this page and welcome the proposal to end and abandon this mediation. I had serious reservations about the mediation in the first place. Having attempted to engage in dialog on the issue in Talk:Scotland I was off put by the lack of proper discussion. My problem with the hole issue was the entry by User:Fone4My see [link to edit as of at 20:28, 22 June 2008] where the title of the subject was Discussion. I noted a general tendency of the United Kingdom editors to evade discussion. I felt comments by User:Fone4My stopping discussion is soon as it started with comments such as "Perhaps a vote is not needed, and consensus from the centralized discussion should go ahead here anyway" were seriously flawed, especially given that the same user was calling for "discussion". I am new to Wikipedia and the hole affair has been an education. My original opinion was that most of the editors of United Kingdom were sabotaging the discussion and patronizing the editors of the Scotland page. Hence my reluctance to get involved in the discussion hereto. I see from events that I stand corrected. Most of the editors of United Kingdom were in good faith, and I am now aware that it possible for a minority of editors to sabotage events out of all proportions. Yours ever Czar Brodie (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As you have hopefull realised, there are no Scotland page editors and UK page editors. People are free to contribute wherever and whenever. A consensus formed in an appropriate location is applicable in any other appropriate location. Frankly, if 'Scotland editors' feel pratronised by other editor's actions, it's their problem for not understanding how wikipedia consensus works, and thinking they own certain pages. MickMacNee (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'm not surprised people are under this impression when administrators like DDStretch say things like: Let all the articles about different bits of the United Kingdom decide what to do on their own talk pages.. MickMacNee (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I ask you to consider again thew advice given to you for your previous interjections on here by Jza84: Just how do your comments here service the purpose of assisting us to reach a decision on what to do? others have tried to be helpful, and if you feel able to, please try to be helpful too; if you feel unable to do so, then that is also fine. But if your role is to make snipey comments that undermine the work being carried out here, including comments directed towards myself, then I suggest that you withdraw from this discussion.  DDStretch    (talk)  14:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How is pointing out the misconceptions, errors and mistakes being made time and again here, not helping this process? It is the continuing behaviour such as your complete ignoring of the above quote that is perpetuating the obstacles to this process. Not listening is not helpfull either. Ignoring valid analysis is not helpfull. Why are you the one binning this process if you continually assert you are here to help? What have you achieved so far bar preserving and in fact reinforcing the damaging status quo of the views of page ownership, source counting and seeing ghosts in the closet? MickMacNee (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was asking you about your contributions, and yet you choose to respond by attacking my efforts. I am saddened by this. You ask me what I have achieved so far. Well, despite being previously attacked by yourself, I have been working together with others who are all trying in a spirit of good faith to work toeards a colution here. I can point out the table containing reliable sources for the different terms that I suggested, though others should take any credit duie to completing it. I note that you were invited to contribute to it, since you previously claimed to have knowledge of sources, yet you chose not to, and called the collation together of them into question. Additionally, it was myself who finally stopped the sockpuppet from continuing to disrupt this entire process. Now, apart from demeaning my contribution here and sniping at people who do not follow your view on how things should or could be done, why not try to be more constructive in this set of discussions? No doubt you can argue that in attacking others and their viewpoints, you are being positive, but I see only unhelpful and inflammatory accusations that are not conducive to a true attempt at mediation. I doubt any of us feel a continuation of comments expressed in the manner you have used here is at all helpful. So, once again, but with more urgency, I ask you to wirthdraw from this discussion. I consider your contributions are becoming explicitly disruptive and verging, if not already overstepped, the mark with respect to a failure to assume good faith and to refrain from personal attacks. It will be unelpful for these to continue.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's clear I'm not getting through to you. I pondered repeating my points in detail to you a third time, but I can surmise that you will still not get it, and worse, use the post as an excuse to block me. Suffice to say there is not a single fact or insight on this page resulting from collating the table that has not already appeared in the archives, which are kept on record for a reason. If you want to treat this statement as a falsehood, be my guest, I am categoricaly not going to repeat others efforts just to satisfy your requirement of needing to appear constructive. I have not disrupted this mediation in any way that would have prevented the formation of a properly worded compromise solution backed by a negotiated strong consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * just for the record, MickMacNee, my opinions regarding "patronization and sabotage" relate to comments on the Talk:Scotland such as:
 * "Over on the UK discussion, there was an 83.33% consensus for "constituent country".";
 * "It seems we are allowed to enforce the centralized consensus on the offspring pages";
 * etc....
 * I do not think I have been misled by comments from DDStretch.
 * Czar Brodie (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I made it quite clear a number of times the percentage vote quoting was silly, and his way of progressing the discussion was wrong as well. It has only know been ackowledged by DDStretch, this is one of the examples of no-one being able to refocus the discussion in the face of the continual hijacking, thereby having the end result we have now, with people either leaving a while ago, refusing to participate, or if they do, refusing to get the point. Apparently though these comments were not usefull, even though they seem to have been correct given your statements. Like I said, if you think someone stating "over on the UK discussion" is patronising, it is you that has got the problem. There is nothing wrong with those statements you put bar the misleading use of percentages I have stated and restated this basic fact all over the discussions. Frankly, we do not go and pander to individual 'scotland editors' because they can't grasp the concept of centralised discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the 17% who disagree simply revert? Xavexgoem (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What 17%? The whole 'vote' thing was a farce. Please don't lets allow ourselves to fall into the trap laid by the socks. We are being distracted all over again. This is a non-issue. Dai caregos (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kinda my point :-) Voting looks like a good idea, but more often than not it just turns arguments into numbers and ends up confusing everyone. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think DDStretch has mande the most important point here.   Fones4me was allowed to hijack and then drive a conversation in a confrontational way and the troll was fed.  In my experience on these pages sock puppets seem to be the aggressive drivers and I think we might want to think about a general assumption that similar behaviour from new editors should be immedaitely treated with extreme caution.  That said the original intent was to attempt to reach an agreement that would at least reduce the possibility of edit wars.   I am happy as it happens with the formulation above which is pretty close to what several of us have been arguing.   I am therefore tempted to suggest we post it in a new section here, and then have DStretch notifiy each of the pages of a final chance to comment.   If that degenerates, then yes let us give up.   I might make the change on Wales anyway in that case as I think it is a good alternative to the present.  --Snowded (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, for practical reasons: imposing consistency on a wiki (one that could outlive us all) is nearly impossible. And it's not that consistency is entirely impossible or even wrong, it's just really, really, really hard, like an uphill battle on an 89 degree incline. Even if at some point everyone can stop and rest at, say, country (pulling up a random one), that won't prevent a new and good-faith editor to de-pipe constituent with the reasoning provided (way) above. And the result of that could be endless discussions of the previous edit having consensus, which it no longer does by virtue of the new edit and ensuing discussion, which gets ugly and tedious fast. Then back to square one. So two routes to take, here: close the case, or archive the ugly bits (socks) and start somewhere new (and quickly). Xavexgoem (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This topic is very obviously contentious. Consensus on the first paragraph descriptions for the countries of Great Britain will be fragile, even if it is achieved soon. Whatever the wording agreed on, here and now, will not be accepted by all editors, for all time. In order to save countless hours of editors time in the future, I propose that the outcome of these discussions and, hopefully our agreement, be documented (in a concise form) and kept on the talk page, without ever being archived. If, just for example, we accept that:
 * "The use of British English is considered appropriate for this [S/W/E/NI] article in accordance with WP:MOS, which includes defining a country in terms of British English."
 * Any edits could then be reverted, with the editor being referred to the talk page for explanation, without editors having to go through the sort of grief we all have over the last few weeks. Does everyone else think we can wrap this up now?Dai caregos (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Xavexgoem and Dai caregos, it is not the case that this has to be fragile for ever more. If a clear consensus had been achieved here, that is enforceable, even if a minority of editors opposed it at the time, or try to edit the article later. That is exaclty why we have policies about edit warring and disruption. Given proper enforcement by the majority backed up properly by admins quoting the produced consensus, there wouldn't be a problem. But frankly, the discussion was derailed and diverted for so long, the barely 5? people left talking is nowhere near enough people to achieve anything coming close to an enforceable position. The whole point is, people are far too willing to defer to the minority on this issue, when the minority is simply making the same points ad nauseum. I cannot believe people are still even suggesting that the original version was stable and shouldn't change. This is the kind of absolute refusal to engage and seriously consider the tabled compromises (without delving into ridiculous solutions involvin complex formatting and creative piped linking) that is the true barrier, the latest example being Maelor. MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh... OK, I understand your frustration. Possibly, it could have worked out that way; and by what you're suggesting, it still could. Not now, since our heads are filling up with steam. Should we take a break, at least? Xavexgoem (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Primarily to MickMacNee, but the end is to all. You wrote, above "I can surmise that you will still not get it, and worse, use the post as an excuse to block me." You can do as much surmising as you like, but you have no grounds for suggesting that I would block you on this matter, as an excuse or for any other reason to do with comments made on this page, because it would represent a large conflict of interest on my part. However, I can point out this gross failure to assume good faith towards me on your part, and I can also point out that such inflammatory messages are not conducive to a good working environment on Wikipedia. In another part of a recent message from you, you also wrote (about Fone4My and Fonez4mii) "I made it quite clear a number of times the percentage vote quoting was silly, and his way of progressing the discussion was wrong as well. It has only know been ackowledged by DDStretch, this is one of the examples of no-one being able to refocus the discussion in the face of the continual hijacking, thereby having the end result we have now, with people either leaving a while ago, refusing to participate, or if they do, refusing to get the point." If you look you will see that the problems with the "consensus " that was claimed on Talk:United Kingdom was that it was manipulated my Fone4My in such a way to make it, in effect a fake consensus, and that I stated this a number of times before today on other articles' talk pages. That is why a fresh discussion, such as the one tried here, was advisable. But I sensed that little progress was being made, and so it was quite legitimate to suggest that the attenpt be abandoned with the atate of affirs returning before the "fake consensus" was established, and that means, each talk page decided what it was going to do about the matters under discussion. If the previous consensus hijacked by Fone4My was fake, one cannot accuse us here of attempting to overcome any silly percentage vote in favour of any sentence that was supposedly established there, as its nature means we are free to assume it never took place. Also, in this quote from your message, your use of the phrase "refusing to get the point" suggests that what you wrote was both clear and persuasive and that some of us are willfully deciding to ignore or misinterpret what you have written, because of the way in which you used the word "refusing". You have no evidence to lead you to this as a single well-reasoned interpretation in preference to others, since there are plausible competing explanations which assume good faith in editors who have consistently shown good faith. Finally I warn you, not about your comments regarding myself, but for this comment: "This is the kind of absolute refusal to engage and seriously consider the tabled compromises (without delving into ridiculous solutions involvin complex formatting and creative piped linking) that is the true barrier, the latest example being Maelor." which is a personal attack upon Maelor. Once again, it would not be action from me, but you are putting yourself at risk of action for making personal attacks. With comments similar to this, with which some of your contributions on this page can be associated, and the failure on other's parts to truly try to reach a consensus by being open to make concessions, it is quite reasonable to abandon this attempt at mediation. It is also probably reasonable to expect that another attempt would go the same way unless some considerable time elapses before any other attempt to reach consensus about consistency is made. I hereby withdraw entirely from this discussion, though I suggest the table is added to a suitable section in Subdivisions of the United Kingdom (a better choice than United Kingdom.) If my contributions have been so worthless as an editor and as an administrator as MickMacNee suggests they have, then I apologize. DDStretch   (talk)  19:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Troll" here. No such apology required IMO. Sadly however, given so few are left and our opinions seem to have failed to converge to a point of reaching a concensus, I too feel as though the window of opportunity, on this occassion, has all but closed. May I thank all who have taken the time to contribute - it has been both enjoyable and frustrating to equal degrees, but I feel I have nothing more to bring to the table and must take my leave. Thanks all - signing off, for the last time:  " T r o l l "  80.41.215.137 (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no need for you to apologise or withdrawn DDSretch. You have been a voice of sanity here. I have disagreed with your views here and elsewhere, but you have been unfailing polite and dilligent (sorting out the latest sock puppet being one example).  To  talk: your use of words like "enforce" and aggressive remarks above, even if born of frustration do little to take the subject forward.  As far as I can see most editors have been prepared within different constraints to attempt to find a compromise.   What they have not been prepared to do is to allow a too hastily assembled vote, driven by a sock puppet on another page trigger yet another edit war.  I suggest you apologise to one of the best admins we have in the geography pages, back off and calm down.   --Snowded (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just give me a single meaningful example of someone here moving far enough from their initial position that allowed us to move on from the initial, and still current, 'it should be X', 'no it should be Y', 'but there are sources for X', 'but there are sources for Y' tedium. I'm sorry if people take offence if I express my opinion that this process has not succeeded because it has not recognised the basic issue from the outset, but that's my view. People need to either live with it, or rebutt it. What isn't usefull is ignoring or not addressing this basic point. MickMacNee (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * MickMacNee, I've been looking back through your talk pages and see that you are no stranger to edit wars and have been blocked on more than one occasion for your unreasonable behaviour of reverting without discussion. So please don't adopt a holier-than-thou attitude with other contributors who are entitled to express their own opinion even if it does contradict yours! -- Maelor 12:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What has the one issue got to do with the other issue? Have you even followed this process from the start? You were continualy pushing for an option just a day ago that was being offered up weeks ago and not gaining any ground, so excuse me if I think you are the latest incarnation of a participant here being less than helpful to produce a solution. MickMacNee (talk)


 * To be fair, it's very difficult to read everything going on here. Besides, the case is closed! Xavexgoem (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ddstretch, please do NOT withdraw from this discussion!!!! Your contributions have been constructive. Do not give in to bullies! -- Maelor 12:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * When all is said and done, I should take the wrap. There is no need to apologize, DDStretch: you've brought cohesion to this attempt. That should've been my job, and I'm very sorry. It's my job to add structure and put my foot down, not you. I frakked up. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)