Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/United Kingdom-related articles/Archive 3

Verifiability
A number of people have said that their reason for supporting the original proposal is the verifiablity of holding a British passport, or of holding British citizenship. Some have even said that this is the only fact that is truly verifiable. This has become such a truism that I suspect nobody has checked WP:V to see if it's actually correct. Here is WP:V: No mention of documents issued by local or national government departments. This isn't just hair-splitting. To illustrate what I'm saying, I want to give this example (again from Irish history, but only because that is something I know a little about):
 * "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."
 * An Englishman named John Stephenson grew up believing he was Irish. He became involved in Irish organisations and was jailed for the theft of arms from an Officers Training Corps school. He later changed his name, moved to Dublin and eventually became Chief of Staff of the IRA.

Now, despite the fact that he was born in England to an English family, grew up in England and spoke with an English accent, Seán Mac Stíofáin was verifiably Irish because I can cite half a dozen authoritative books on the IRA that all contain the facts I've given you, thus satisfying WP:V. If you counter that his passport shows that he was verifiably British, you are mistaken because (a) his passport is not in the public domain and (b) it is not a source of the type listed at WP:V. I think this should be borne in mind in future discussions of verifiability. Scolaire 14:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is that only a fact can possibly be verifiable. The quote above is an interesting example, in that the source chooses to describe him as 'an Englishman' and never as 'Irish'.  I don't mean that this necessarily means he was English; but it's a good example of where you can have facts - that he lived in Ireland, served in the IRA, and considered himself Irish - but it remains a matter of opinion whether he was Irish, because there is no factual standard being applied of what makes someone Irish.  As it happens, despite all those factors, the source you quote still chooses only to call him an Englishman.
 * Possibly more relevant than WP:V is this from WP:NPOV:
 * "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."
 * The British Passport is not the source; it is the fact. That someone holds, is entitled to hold, or does not hold a particular passport is a fact, which can at least potentially be cited.  That someone "is Scottish" is an opinion.  In the case of, say, Billy Connolly, it may be a completely uncontroversial opinion; but there's still no formula that can be applied to establish whether someone is Scottish, or English, or, for people during the period when there was no independent Ireland, were Irish.  That someone has Scottish ancestry; was born in Scotland; grew up in Scotland; chose to live in Scotland; called themselves Scottish; all of these are facts and can potentially be cited; and if all of them are true, then probably no-one will dispute that the person was Scottish.  In very many cases, though, it will be far less clear.  As we've seen above, someone who was born and grew up in England may choose to consider themselves Irish, and others may or may not agree with them.  Greg Rusedski, it seems, has been self-identifying as English in at least some contexts, but I think few would agree with him!
 * I completely accept that citizenship is not the only possible measure of nationality; but I do think that it is one of the few that can be verified, rather than remaining a matter of opinion; as your example above shows. Self-identification is another; but in relatively few cases (speaking over the whole span of history) will we have a definite self-identification; and even when we do, they have their own pitfalls.  TSP 15:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * TSP, that I think was quite a contradictory response. Firstly, having a passport is one of the few facts that can't be verified, at least easily. If the person is dead (and a high proportion of the biographical articles on wiki are about dead people) how can anyone verify that the person held a passport?  Equally if he's alive, unless the person himself has self-declared that he holds a passport, how is this verification going to be achieved?  "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", so the fact that anyone owns/owned a passport in 99 cases out of 100 will be unverifiable. Secondly, you say "That someone "is Scottish" is an opinion.", then you say "That someone has Scottish ancestry; was born in Scotland; grew up in Scotland; chose to live in Scotland; called themselves Scottish; all of these are facts". So one minute the nationality is an "opinion" then the next they "are facts".  --Bill Reid | Talk 16:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Passports seem to have come to dominate this debate; they weren't particularly meant to. My point is citizenship.  Someone's citizenship is a fact.  While it may be difficult to establish in some cases, at least then we are attempting to establish a provable fact, of citizenship, rather than attempting to balance opinions, of identity.  I would rather debate facts - "this source says that she was born in Australia to Australian parents, which would suggest that she would hold Australian citizenship" - than opinions - "She was born in Australia, but she grew up in Scotland, and that makes her Scottish".
 * I'm not sure what is confusing about the second point. That someone has Scottish ancestry; that is a fact; that someone was born in Scotland; that is a fact; that someone grew up in Scotland; that is a fact; that someone chooses to live in Scotland; that is a fact; that someone calls themselves Scottish; that is a fact.  No one of these, however, is universally agreed to result in the person 'being Scottish'; so that remains, as far as I can see, an opinion on which people's views may vary.  I gave a list of facts, any of which could be taken to bear on whether someone is considered Scottish; but as far as I am aware there is no definite agreement that, for example, "everyone born in Scotland has Scottish nationality".  TSP 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't been following the passport issue, only your last statement and it was you who was using it to justify nationality. You did say that being Scottish was an opinion, not a fact.  Then you produced a list of factoids of how you could define being Scottish; contradictory or not?  Also no-one is saying "everyone born in Scotland has Scottish nationality", in fact I've been saying that all along but good to see that you accept the concept of Scottish nationality. -Bill Reid | Talk 19:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

TSP, somehow you took a meaning from what I wrote that was the opposite of what I intended. Admittedly I started by calling him an Englishman, which is confusing - sorry about that - but my main point is not that "the source chooses to describe him as an Englishman" - that was me - but rather that he was verifiably Irish according to WP:V. Any talk of citizenship is not verifiable unless a reputable source is quoted. A legal precedent or whatever it is, if you don't want to focus on passports, is not enough. Nationality, much of the time, is far more easily verifiable - if a number of "books published by respected publishing houses" (or even one in some cases) say that a person was this or that nationality, then they were. End of story. Self-determination or anything else doesn't need to be established. "That someone holds, is entitled to hold, or does not hold a particular passport is a fact." Yes, and I would put a "fact" tag on it, asking for a citation. "That someone 'is Scottish' is an opinion." Maybe, but if it's supported by a citation, it's more verifiable under WP:V. Scolaire 19:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see - I'd misinterpreted your indent as signifying a quote. Sorry.
 * I intentionally took a meaning that was the opposite of what you intended; what I meant to show was that, while in your opinion those facts add up to someone being Irish, someone else might see those same facts and still conclude that the person was not Irish; because we have not established a definitive definition of what we are meaning when we say "this person is Irish"; we have left that in the realms of opinion.
 * As has been said by many people, there are different definitions of nationality. Even if, say the Encyclopedia Britannica calls someone Irish, all we can reliably cite from this is that "the Encyclopedia Britannica calls him Irish"; because there is no single factual definition of what 'Irish' means; the Encyclopedia Britannica could consider him Irish, while by other metrics and in other equally reliable sources he could be considered, say, English.  Whereas if the Encyclopedia Britannica says someone has Irish citizenship, then that is a fact with only one possible meaning, and we can cite that "he has Irish citizenship".
 * I think you are misunderstanding WP:V. It says that if a fact is reported in reputable sources, then we should take it as a fact.  It doesn't say that if an opinion is expressed by reputable sources, it becomes fact.  WP:V goes hand in hand with WP:NPOV, which says, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves".
 * WP:OR is also relevant. You say that you can verify that the person is Irish, because you can verify that they served in the IRA, called themselves Irish and so on.  Even if we had a source that said "Everyone agrees that someone who serves in the IRA is Irish", Wikipedia policy goes out of its way to forbid that kind of logic - WP:OR.
 * If we do not have a factual definition which we are applying when we state that someone is Irish, then any source we have which states they are Irish can only be giving that as an opinion. They can give facts which support this - you consider that if someone chose to live in Ireland, served in the IRA, and called themselves Irish, that makes them Irish; but others might disagree.  Citing facts which might back up an opinion; or citing sources which hold that opinion; do not alone make that opinion fact.  That doesn't mean that it can't be included if a notable source has expressed that opinion; or that the facts that you consider to add up to their Irishness aren't every bit as notable as the more nebulous concept of 'Irishness' itself; but none of them can be cited to mean that a person 'is Irish' unless we've defined what we mean when we say that.  TSP 00:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The most you can say about someone on the basis of what passport they hold is that they are a citizen of a particular country, anything else is interpretative. --sony-youth pléigh 21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. My suggestion was simply that we should say that that is what we mean, and all we mean, when we fill in the "Nationality" box on infoboxes - possibly going so far as to relabel them all 'Citizenship' - in order to lock this down to facts that are capable of verifying, rather than opinion.  I am not saying that this means that this constitutes their nationality in any broader sense; I am saying that I would prefer - in the narrow context of infoboxes, which are very bad at expressing subtlety - to avoid speculating on people's nationality in a broader sense.  TSP 00:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, no. You can't say anything at all about someone on the basis of what passport they hold. A passport is not a verifiable source for the purposes of WP:V. If you want to say that Einstein was a mathematician you don't go to the university and get a copy of his degree - you cite a reputable source. Exactly the same holds true for Einstein's nationality or his citizenship. "Interpretative" doesn't come into it. Scolaire 21:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I think this is a misunderstanding of WP:V. The passport is not the source; the passport is the fact.   Any citizenships we reported would need to be provided by some reliable source; but they are a fact that can be reported, as distinct from an opinion, which remains an opinion however reputable the source.
 * Opinions expressed by reputable sources are still opinions. They are opinions that can be reported, and the fact of the opinion is notable; but that doesn't make the thing that is expressed fact.  (For example, I can take a book in which Karl Marx asserts "Religion is the opium of the people".  I can use that as a reliable source for the fact that "Karl Marx said that religion is the opium of the people".  I can't use it as a reliable source for the fact that "religion is the opium of the people"; because that is still an opinion, even if it is one expressed in a book entitled to be considered a reliable source.)   TSP 00:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * With the greatest respect, TSP (and I do mean it, I have the greatest respect fot you), I think that you have a deep misunderstanding of what a fact is. Chambers 21st Century Dictionary defines it as "1 a thing known to be true, to exist or to have happened. 2 truth or reality, as distinct from mere statement of belief. 3 a piece of information." WP:V begins: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" so right from the off, the meaning of 'fact' for these purposes is "a piece of information", not truth. "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." That's right, I'm not playing with words, any piece of information that has been published by a reliable source is a verifiable fact. When Karl Marx said "religion is the opiate of the people" was he expressing an opinion or did he provide a dialectical proof? I don't know, I haven't read Marx, but if it was the latter then you can state that as a fact in an article on religion (WP:NPOV, however, requires you to point out that this fact is a minority point of view). To put it another way, is "religion is the worship of God" a fact, bearing in mind that the statement is disputed by Marxists?  If not, can anything be stated as fact?
 * Incidentally, Encyclopedia Britannica is an impeccable source. Anything it states as fact we can state as fact. Wikipedia has no claim to have better or truer facts than Britannica.
 * Your citation of WP:OR is also fallacious. I never attempted to 'synthesise' sources to construct an argument, I only said that the fact of the man's Irishness was asserted by numerous authors. That's what citation is. On the other hand, if you state that the same man is British, based only on a birth certificate, that is original research, by definition.
 * Finally, your continued use of the word "opinion". My nationality is a fact. If nationality was an opinion, there wouldn't be any nations, and there wouldn't be any wars, because people would have nothing to fight over. There wouldn't even be Utopia, because Utopia itself would be a nation. That a passport or any other document establishes somebody's citizenship, on the other hand, is an opinion expressed by you, and nothing more. I don't agree with that opinion - no amount of documentation will convince me that, for instance, a Palestinian living within the State of Israel is an Israeli citizen.
 * Sorry if all of that sounds a bit bolshie. I just feel it's important that we at least try to have a consensus on the meaning of words, and the meaning of WP guidelines. Scolaire 08:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay here's one to potentially confuse people - Christopher McGimpsey, who doesn't yet have an article (and may or may not meet the notability theshold, although his brother Michael McGimpsey does) is an Ulster Unionist Party politician. He also famously held (and may still hold) a passport for the Republic of Ireland - see the Supreme Court case on the Anglo-Irish Agreement brought by McGimpsey v. Ireland. So what is Chris McGimpsey's nationality? Timrollpickering 12:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm shocked to learn that Chris McGimpsey doesn't have an article. I may start it myself at some stage. But as to his nationality, if we apply Readro's criteria, we can stop at 1. What the individual self-identifies as. Chris McGimpsey identifies as Northern Irish (the Irish passport, plus if I remember correctly he studied the Irish language, suggests that he doesn't repudiate Irishness to the point where he will only self-identify as British). In this case the Irish passport is admissable under WP:V because there is a reputable source cited. But then again, it's worth quoting the entire paragraph:
 * The statement of claim contains no claim that either plaintiff is a citizen of Ireland, although it is stated that the first plaintiff is the holder of an Irish passport. No evidence was given by either plaintiff that either he or either of his parents had made the prescribed declaration pursuant to s. 7, sub-s. 1, of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956, or of any facts which would indicate that he was "otherwise an Irish citizen".
 * Wow! maybe a passport is not evidence of citizenship at all! Scolaire 19:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I'd also ask if Chris McGimpsey has identified as "Northern Irish" as opposed to, say, "an Ulsterman" - the two don't always appear to be used as interchangable and are reflective of the use of "Northern Ireland" and "Ulster" for the (six county) province. I think that given the way identities are fluid within communities any attempt to try to pick "self-definition" nationalities for Northern Ireland is going to be far too complicated and difficult to verify to work properly. What about those politicians and groups who either asserted that the border wasn't the most important thing in politics (e.g. Gerry Fitt's "it is very difficult to be a socialist without being labelled a Unionist socialist or an anti-partitionist socialist, but I am a socialist...") or who shifted their position over time (Official Sinn Féin/Workers Party or even the various Unionists and Nationalists who formed/joined Alliance).


 * My thoughts on the rest will be posted below soon. Timrollpickering 18:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Michael McGimpsey is currently described at his Wiki page as "a Northern Ireland unionist politician." What's wrong with that?


 * (And, for the record, Irish citizenship law has changed a couple times since the McGimpsey case, so it might be worth a caution that the paragraph above does not represent an interpretation of current Irish citizenship requirements.) Nuclare 03:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If I wrote that bit (I created the article) then I used the adjective "Northern Irish" to mean the political sphere in which he operates, nothing more or less. Certainly that's how I've used it on other articles and the various categories - calling Brian Mawhinney a "Northern Irish politician" or Michael Howard a "Welsh politician" just seems odd and the same applied here. Timrollpickering 06:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Which would seem to illustrate to me why an 'article by article' policy is probably the best. If calling Brian Mawhinney a "Northern Irish politician" is odd, than calling John Hume and Gerry Adams "British politicians" seems even more odd. Nuclare 02:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Back to Basics
Wait a second - I followed the link from the Village Pump to here, but it seems like this has drifted a little from what I thought I was linking to. Specifically, a large part of the original question had very little to do with nationality and everything to do with specifying names of locations, which may or may not have been resolved. The central problem there is, of course, people who don't know at least a little bit about England (and since this is an encyclopedia designed for consumption by the public, who I can guarantee you will be in at least a significant minority ignorant of this whole issue) may not know where the hell Wales is in the first place, and that if you designate a city as being Cityname, Wales, these people will either have to follow a link to find out all about the great history of the British isles (or at least get a map, assuming they can read a map, which, lamentably, is not a skill the American public, at the least, is famous for possessing) or be confused. As far as place names go, is there any remaining controversy at all with attributing the location to the parent nation?

As far as the whole nationality debate goes, I'm kind of getting the impression that actual citizens of the British Isles might not be the best authorities on the issue. Certainly, a few people take the issue very personally. What the style guide should be about is making things easy for the reader - not for most accurately capturing the whole and entire character of the individual in question by the proper assignment of his soul to the correct bin for later processing and integration. To say in the lead that Robert Terwilliger is a Scottish/British/Jovian/American/What-have-you politician is not to assign any sort of laudatory or pejorative quality to the term, but simply to indicate where the man lives. I live in Texas. Thanks to prime time television and Aaron Spelling, there's a reasonable chance that other people might know where Texas is, but if, God forbid, I should ever assume political office, and I'm important enough for somebody to write me up in Wikipedia, I would think that it would make more sense to call me American than Texan.

So I approach the issue of nationality from a different angle, perhaps - I figure that you should just call the man whatever is accurate and identifiable from the reader's perspective. Being a citizen of a wholly created nation (another reason why this particular debate is mostly peculiar to Britain), maybe I'm oversimplifying, but I really think we should avoid making the issue more complicated than it has to be trying to divine another human being's self-identity. If the majority of non-partisan secondary sources attribute a person to a given nationality, then go with that in the lead, as that's what your reader is going to be expecting to find, or will find in his further investigation. If more note needs to be made about the individual's personal struggle with his national identity, then expand on it later in the article, but for one line attributions of nationality, that makes the most sense to me, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool moe dee 345 (talk • contribs) (10:59, August 10, 2007)


 * Thank you, Cool. It's always good to have the perspective from outside. You basically raise two issues here. The first, that of place names, seems to be relatively uncontroversial and is currently being thrashed out at Settlements again, above. The second, that of nationality, is more compicated. You see, when you say that you're happy to be called an American, you're speaking as a 21st century Texan. If you lived in 1865, you might not feel the same way. The infobox and intro in the Robert E. Lee article illustrate this nicely. For the purposes of information (not for any personal or emotional reasons) it's important to state that though Lee was in the United States Army, ultimately he gave his allegiance to the Confederate States of America. The purpose of this discussion is to see how best this can be done in the present, as well as the historical, United Kingdom. Get it wrong, and we'll have edit wars over hundreds of Wiki articles.  Hope that explains it for you. Scolaire 15:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to think it would be best not to have a MOS that covers people by nationality/citizenship and instead leave such issues to be handled on a case-by-case basis. If a widely acceptable convention results, then by all means that can be added to the MOS at a later date. Waggers 10:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What "Nationality" means
It's all very well to argue how to determine someone's nationality back and forth, but i think it's a waste of time if it's not actually consistent with how the term is otherwise understood across Wikipedia. I think it's worth just briefly considering what Nationality actually says and here's the intro:


 * Nationality is a relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty. Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person, and affords the person the protection of the state.


 * Traditionally under international law and conflict of laws principles, it is the right of each state to determine who its nationals are. Today the law of nationality is increasingly coming under more international regulation by various conventions on statelessness, as well as some multilateral treaties such as the European Convention on Nationality.


 * Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis). Nationality may also be acquired later in life through naturalization. Corporations and other legal persons also have a nationality, generally in the state under whose laws the legal person was formed.


 * The legal sense of nationality, particularly in the English speaking world, may often mean citizenship, although they do not mean the same thing everywhere in the world; for instance, in the UK, citizenship is a branch of nationality which in turn ramifies to include other subcategories (see British nationality law). Citizens have rights to participate in the political life of the state of which they are a citizen, such as by voting or standing for election. Nationals need not immediately have these rights; they may often acquire them in due time.

(In regards the earlier proposed list for determining "nationality", the third parapraph pretty much says that "where someone grew up" does not in and of itself determine nationality, but they can seek to aquire it - and legal naturalisation would be as "British".)

Now it seems to me that the main part of the problem is that people are trying to using "nationality" and "citizenship" as though they are clearly defined terms with separate meanings when the truth is different - an example given on Talk:Nationality is a Bulgarian passport where the Bulgarian word for "citizenship" ("Гражданство" transliterated "Grazhdanstvo"; derived from "Grad" meaning "city") has alongside it the English word "nationality" (which in Bulgarian would be "Narodnost").

I also think the whole "the UK is a special case" argument is very POV and nonsensical. As one Wikipedian suggested above, the main reason we get more edit wars for the UK has more to do with the use of the same language by advocates of the various positions rather than some special status for the UK. There are many, many cases around the world of "countries within countries"/"nations within nations" or whatever confusing terms are used - there's the above mentioned case of Quebec & Canada; many, many people in Sardinia consider themselves to be "Sardinians" not "Italians" (and Sardinia isn't an exclusive case in Italy); then there's the Basque and Spain; self-proclaimed "Rhodesians" in modern Zimbabwe; people who still identify as "Yugoslavian" in the now six independent countries to say nothing of Kosovo & Serbia; and that's even before we get into both historic situations and the whole problem of identity amongst diasporas. All of these situations and many, many, many more raise identical questions and having one rule for them and a different for the UK would be hard to understand. Timrollpickering 18:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is nothing unique abut the UK case, why are we having this argument? Oh! Wait! It's those damned POV pushers! Pish! Don't they know the WP:TRUTH? --sony-youth pléigh 10:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it's a question of POV pushing (and I don't think that comment was very constructive), it's just a case of not seeing the wood for the trees. Timrollpickering has done well to put this into perspective.  I'm unconvinced we'll reach consensus on this though; my view (at present) is that this MOS should not cover people for the time being, but focus on places, buildings, etc. Waggers 11:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, it wasn't a very constructive comment, but I had had some faith in this page. I thought it could move on and leave partisan lines behind. What I still see (to continue a wood-from-the-tree analogy) are contributors barking up their own tree as proof that it's the only real tree in the forest.
 * There is no sense in arguing one-way-or-the-other to try to win the point. Each side (being informed, honest and knowledgable) will see the logical truth of the matter and their opponents (being misled, ignorant and irrational) will continue to bleat a response. That is why this page had to be started. Any attempt at winning the point is a falacy. It has to be given up upon and an agreement settled, regardless of what anyone thinks is the "truth" of the matter. --sony-youth pléigh 12:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I too disagree that it is always POV-pushing (although in some cases, it can be quite blatent) - the problem is that many people honestly do consider the situation of the UK to be unique when it very clearly is not. The vast majority of countries are not true nation-states, that much I feel is evident.--Breadandcheese 13:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "the problem is that many people honestly do consider the situation of the UK to be unique when it very clearly is not" - "the problem is that many people honestly don't consider the situation of the UK to be unique when it very clearly is" - "the problem is that many people honestly do consider the situation of the UK to be unique when it very clearly is not" - "the problem is that many people honestly don't consider the situation of the UK to be unique when it very clearly is" - "the problem is that many people honestly do consider the situation of the UK to be unique when it very clearly is not" - "the problem is that many people honestly don't consider the situation of the UK to be unique when it very clearly is" - "the problem is that many people honestly do consider the situation of the UK to be unique when it very clearly is not" - "the problem is that many people honestly don't consider the situation of the UK to be unique when it very clearly is" - "the problem is that many people honestly do consider the situation of the UK to be unique when it very clearly is not" - "the problem is that many people honestly don't consider the situation of the UK to be unique when it very clearly is" - "the problem is that many people honestly do consider the situation of the UK to be unique when it very clearly is not" - "the problem is that many people honestly don't consider the situation of the UK to be unique when it very clearly is" - "the problem is that many people honestly do consider the situation of the UK to be unique when it very clearly is not" - "the problem is that many people honestly don't consider the situation of the UK to be unique when it very clearly is" - ... --sony-youth pléigh 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to make a point? If you are, I'd rather you argued it reasonably than coming up with bizarre innuendo. --Breadandcheese 14:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "the problem is that many people honestly do consider the situation of the UK to be unique when it very clearly is not" - This sound peculiarly like, "I am right, but the problem is that there are people who don't agree with me, and it is particularly a problem because there are many of them." Do you suppose that those with whom you don't agree could say the same thing about you? --sony-youth pléigh 14:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim quotes the Wiki article which deals mainly with the legal situation of nationality. No-one can dispute that those born in England, Scotland or Wales are automatically British citizens (in Northern Ireland, there is a choice) but some of us arguing an alternative but equally correct definition of nationality. The Columbia Encyclopedia gives a more balanced view of nationality than Wiki does on this issue and as Tim has already given the legal definition so I quote the following from it:"Nationality, in political theory, the quality of belonging to a nation, in the sense of a group united by various strong ties. Among the usual ties are membership in the same general community, common customs, culture, tradition, history, and language. While no one of these factors is essential, some must be present for cohesion to be strong enough to justify the term nationality. Used in this sense, nationality does not necessarily denote membership within a specific political state. There are many examples of nations divided between several states and of states composed of several nations and parts of nations. Thus not all Albanians live in Albania, and, on the other hand, Switzerland has citizens whose native languages are German, French, Italian, and Romansh." --Bill Reid | Talk 11:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I get the impression that a lot of the time, 'nation' is a label used to imply that 'my culture is better than yours' - I've seen that in political debate in Scotland, the 'we're a nation, not simply a region (or province)!' when clearly there are regions and provinces out there with cultures just as distinct. Indeed, to apply this concept of national identity as if it is somehow universally agreed upon is inherently POV - under the above criteria from the Columbia Encyclopaedia, the village I grew up satisfies all the definitions of a nation.


 * I'd say as a consequence, the use of the term isn't all that useful in categorising things on Wikipedia. Although of course it can be well used to describe other things where it is relevant, ie the political ideology of nationalism and is certainly an important concept in world history. --Breadandcheese 14:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The reality of Scotland being a nation existing within a state is not even remotely in doubt. If you can't accept that, then we are a lot further back in this discussion than I thought we were.  The village you grew up in is bound to display the same characteristics as the nation at large;  its your village and mine and his that form the nation.  So your  '  ... as a consequence, the use of the term isn't all that useful in categorising things on Wikipedia '  comment is meaningless and please, lets not bring nationalism into this discussion. --Bill Reid | Talk 15:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The main reason my quote is heavily on the legal side is because that's how the intro to Nationality (which I quoted in full) is (currently) focused. (By the way if I understand correctly anyone born in Northern Ireland is automatically a British Citizen, it's just that they also have entitlement to Republic of Ireland nationality. People renouncing their British citizenship is another thing altogether.)


 * You're right about peoples living outside the borders of a current country - as well as the question of concentrated populations living in neighbouring countries there's also the mess that comes with diasporas (footballers who qualify for their national team on the "granny rule" most immediately spring to mind, some of whose national team reflects little more than who will have them), ex patriates and migrants (e.g. Patricia Hewitt, until recently Health Secretary and originally from Australia). Increasingly I feel any attempt to define anything but legal nationality will never find peace. Timrollpickering 13:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * RE: NI - a person born in NI is automatically a citizen/legal national of both the UK and RoI. Their identity (whether that be British, Irish or both) is up to the person themselves to decide, renounce, assert, not assert, etc.. Which passport they carry has generally, but not always or necessarily, decides whether the UK or RoI (or both if they carry both) makes representation on their behalf when they get into trouble abroad. They can always, and have done so in the past, call on both regardless of whether they have a passport for one or the other. Likewise, each govt. has in the past intervened in the case of people wether they had that particular passport or not.
 * For "finding peace" see my comments above. --sony-youth pléigh 13:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Tim, please reread and re-evaluate what you wrote. That anyone born in NI is automatically British, but that they have an entitlement to another nationality. Why not say that they automatically have an an entitlement to be British as well as an entitlement to be Irish. Why automatically British, yet only an entitlement to be Irish?
 * Leaving Ireland (including NI) out of the question, the logic of your argument must extend to the child of any foreign national born in the U.K. So therefore on birth they automatically become British. Yet many countries forbid dual citizenship (Saudi Arabia for instance). It just doesn't wash. Nationality is not an accident of birth. Its a choice, by either the parent or the child. MurphiaMan 16:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read what I wrote it is clearly using the legal definition of nationality. Now different countries' laws handle this differently, though international law tends to take the side of the government of the territory in question. There seems to be some uncertainty over whether or not an individual born in Northern Ireland is automatically bound as a citizen of the Republic - e.g. if they travel to another country do they have to obey any laws about Republic of Ireland citizens abroad? Does the Republic have the right to demand their extradition - say if it introduces legislation to conscript its citizens? Is there something in international law that a) determines the "default" option on citizenship when a person is entitled to more than one but each's laws bar dual nationality; and b) whether or not a state can impose citizenship on those born outside its territory (a different thing from allowing people, usually diaspora but also those in a territory of interest, the right to citizenship)? Timrollpickering 23:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is actually untrue. The Spanish state recognises multiple nationalities within its bounds, and Canada calls its native tribes, first NATIONS. None of these have that much more power than Scotland does. --MacRusgail 14:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)