Talk:United Kingdom

UKCOUNTRYREFS - the shortcut of choice for those who accept UK countries

These Reliable Sources tables (and the Countries of the United Kingdom article they are home to) were designed to save valuable time repeating the facts within them, to those who raise again the question of whether the UK's constituent countries can in fact be called 'countries'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"United" Kingdom

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is NOT a country but a union of countries. History tells us of similar situations similar to that of the USSR. People did not come from the USSR but from Russia, or Yugoslavia. The same principal applies to Britain. People do not come from Britain, but from Scotland or Wales etc. People are not British, but Irish, Scottish, Welsh or English. Britain, in a theoretical sense does not exist. Britain is slang. A term used by those who can't concur to England not having a common stereotype.

Absolute nonsense. Germany is made up of various "countries" (eg Bavaria and Prussia) in a union as is Italy and Spain) and you don't see people from Bavaria having the same problem as you implied. British is the legal nationality for someone from Britain. If you come from the legally recognised entity of the UK (also known as Great Britain) then you are a Briton and are British. There is a British national identity and there is also a Welsh, Scottish, English and (Northern) Irish identity. People of the UK come from both Britain and Scotland/England/Wales/Northern Ireland - if not, then why not? Your arguement is completely nonsensical. Britain is NOT slang.Darkieboy236 (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry but Yugoslavia was not in the USSR but was a totally seperate union of republics which were for a large period of time under Communist rule but not under Soviet influence. And contary to your opinion the UK is a country recognised under international law which is divided into four constiuent parts or countries, 3 of which now have a degree of automony within the "Union" Penrithguy (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but lets keep in mind thatI am nonsensical. You have no point, no deprivation, no meaning, or otherwise passion. Britain IS slang, and should household waste by those of "Urban Dictionary". The Queen had her choice about who's right and what, if everything, is wrong. Everything is wrong...so is the system. The system doesn't work. That's why they have moulded your mind to believe that this "union" is a POWER and a right. But we have no right...everything we right becomes a wrong, so go back to Devonshire and praise the Lord that Margaret Thatcher isn't watching! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.63.90 (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

But Scotland is not a "country", it IS a country. Not a state, or a region of so called Britain, but a country. UNITED Kingdom...Union of countries. No problem for England, their media owns the place, so for the rest of us, we're a bit shadowed. Until something happens about this, Scotland will always be known as "that place in England."

I rest my briefcase!

Let's keep in mind WP:TALK and WP:TROLL here guys, please. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The passport used in the UK is the same for people living in Wales, England, Scotland or Northern Ireland.....if a person is naturalized that is, wasn't born in any of those countries nor were that person's parents, how can he consider himself anything other than "British" ? I mean, is there such a thing as a naturalized British being able to call himself English/Welsh/whatever , would that be right ? 189.106.50.153 (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bring some citations not opinion otherwise sorry, WP:TROLL applies --Snowded TALK 01:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why this debate is going on. The country is called the UK, United Kingdom of Great Britain. Its citizens are universally referred to as "British"; being Scottish is the same as being from Cork is in Ireland in legal terms. I think the example of a naturalised foreigner is a good one; clearly such a person is British, but not English or Scottish or Welsh. Sarah777 (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Unless Irish re-unification has occured within the last few hours (PS- I haven't watched BBC news or CNN, the last 6 hrs). GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever G'Day. NI is irrelevant. Sarah777 (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Sarah. I couldn't resist. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If the Scots want to be a separate country then all they have to do is vote for it. A rare luxury; not available to Ireland at the time of Independence; not available to many "countries" today eg the Basque Country or Catalonia. So until they vote to disassociate themselves from the British Entity they are not a proper country and are clearly part of the successor state to the genocidal British Empire. Sarah777 (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you have the courage to go to Scotland Talk and say they are "not a proper country"? "are clearly part of the successor state to the genocidal British Empire"? "and" being the other negative factor here of course. You just can't stop can you. Can't you keep your simmering dislike of Britain out of Wikipedia? I'm here to add UKCOUNTRYREFS - the shortcut of choice for those who accept UK countries. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You know me by now Matt. Would I have the courage? Absolutely. Would I go to pointlessly provoke a bunch of folk I've no issues with? No. But if one of them were to claim Scotland isn't merely an area in Britain I'd have to put them right. And would. Just as I'd completely ignore anything whatever to do with Britain on Wiki were it not for thae fact that from the "British Isles" to "Republic of Ireland" various Britons hereon are inserting British POV into Irish articles. Sarah777 (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "Irish articles" - the "Irish" don't own Ireland-related pages. Wikipedia is an international project. I also find it offensive that you seek to polarise the "British" as inserting British POV. I think that is racist. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You reckon that we are different races do you?! And there was me thinking nationality in these islands was largely down to location and a state of mind! You reckon there isn't such a thing as an "Irish article"? I'd call an article about, say, the Wicklow Mountains an Irish article. As in "an article about Ireland". I'd not seek to say anything about "the British" if they'd stop trying to insert British perspective (POV) into Irish articles. As I said. Sarah777 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Race is a taxonomic social construct, so no I don't believe that, and I didn't say that. What I did say is that I think your comment was racist... as in it was a discriminatary remark against a distinct nationality or ethnic group based on geographic locale. Certainly Sarah777, if you'd had made that remark in a place of work, you'd be looking at disciplinary action, even criminal charges if the recipient felt strongly enough. You've been blocked in the past before for anti-British remarks - I have no hesitation to reinstate a block for it again, so let's work in the spirit of what Wikipedia is about please. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is one cat, who's not going near the article Scotland. I don't wanna get skinned. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats to Sarah for some sense on this subject. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we please just calm down and agree that country is an underdefined term, and that Scotland, Wales, England, Northern Ireland, Ireland and the UK all qualify as countries according to different interpretations of what the term means (or even under the same interpretation for some usages of the word)? The fact is that there just isn't an official definition anywhere of what a country is in this context. In fact, most words aren't defined officially. So any debate about whether or not Wales or the UK is a country is more or less pointless and bound to get nowhere. There are far more important issues to spend our time discussing here, surely. garik (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that has pretty much hit the nail on the head, well done. You can call anything a country if you want but it will only really function as our generally accepted definition of a country if it has complete political independence from its neighbours and that is something that Scotland has yet to achieve. That said, do numerous countries of Europe have complete political independence from the EU? No... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

But I don't think there even is a generally accepted definition of "country" that excludes non-independent countries like Scotland. I think the term is just underdefined in that regard. It may be that I'm wrong and most people's understanding of the term is explicit one way or the other in this regard, but in the absence of an official body or referendum on the subject, we just have to accept that the term "country" is not well enough defined to make clear whether or not Scotland can be considered one. We might as well argue about which end you should start a boiled egg from. garik (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The Penguin Dictionary of Human Geography - "country (1) any political unit on a national scale, regardless of whether it is dependent or independent".Pondle (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. Let's make that an end of it, and direct future questions on this matter to the FAQ. garik (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to argue that neither of those definitions include entities like Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland. They are not 'dependent' in the sense of a 'dependency' being an external territory of a state (rather like Gibraltar or the British Virgin Islands). As all of those areas elect MPs to the united Parliament at Westminster, it seems rather nonsensical to suggest they are 'dependent' on anything in the same way as an overseas territory which is dependent on the UK Parliament without being involved in it is. Whilst of course we exclude the UK home nations from the Wikipedia list of sovereign states, we also exclude them from the list of countries on this basis, whilst including actual non-sovereign dependencies. Yes, we can happily call them countries on Wikipedia simply out of verifiable usage, but I would argue they meet none of the accepted general definitions of a country and that such use term is simply a peculiar British idiom. --Breadandcheese (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

But this is the point: there are no accepted general definitions of a country except those established by usage. Certainly the Penguin definition includes the home nations of the UK; they are not dependent in the sense of being dependencies, but that's not the point. They are political units on national scales. garik (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh the sorta United Kingdom. What a splendid headache it can be. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

But if we analyse the proportion between unity and equality, there is a large difference. Media changes a lot of thigs. Remember the Crunchy Nut advertisement? The motto was "The Whole Nation's Gone Cruchy Nuts", referring to the United Kingdom of course. But sung along to this is the song "Land of Hope and Glory"...an English song......Bastards!

I agree completely, the English take advantage of their media power ans control. Television shows, "Kings and Queens of Britain", yes, that sounded like a good watch. Scotland, a country soaked in history with famous, and infamous Kings and Queens left right and centre, I couldn't wait for the TV show to polish up my knowledge on the subject. Scotland...NOT MENTIONED ONCE!

Tell me this, what is easier? Going to America and when being asked "Where are you from?" Do you reply Scotland, and then receive a response, "Scotland? Oh is that in England?" Then using all your might trying not to punch them. Or do you reply Britain, and hate the rest of your holiday because you can't forgive yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.128.77 (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Americans are infamous for their ignorance of the rest of the world. Try explaining the difference between Austria and Australia. Look on it as an educational opportunity. As for the rest of this post, what has it to do with improving this article? --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I know what you meant by the use of the word "American" MJ, but I'm sure many people from Canada or South America would see the irony in your statement. I believe the end of it all is whatever the Scottish government officially says. As for a single person, again it depends on what they identify with. I'm sure there are people of british descent within Scotland, as well as people of Scottish descent, maybe even some viking blood scattered around. If a person is proud of where they come from then I believe they should openly proclaim it, and I believe it is wrong for another person to tell you what you are. 207.108.15.11 (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Pre-review

This article is on my GA Sweeps Review list, and I'm concerned that as it stands I'd be forced to delist it. In spite of the volume of citations, there are large chunks without little or no sourcing at all (Other sports, for instance), and even a request for further citations tag. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be great to get this article fixed up. The focus of discussion is usually based on conflicting political perspectives (unfortuately, but probably naturally), however with the FAQs and the amount of quality regulars we should be able to fix this page up if we work together. If we could each just get two citations we'd crack this in no-time. If not, delisting it will have to be. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is total confusion between the references and footnotes, with duplicated numbers given in the text which point to references (on the one hand) and footnotes (on the other). Additionally, the format of the references is sub-standard in almost every case. I've already removed one anomalous footnote that wasn't pointing to anything really (though it was meant to refer to the currency bit in the infobox) by replacing it with a full-blown reference. I suggest we do what is done on other articles: have one monolithic section called "Notes and References" which contains all undifferentiated footnotes, no matter whether they are references or not, and then see how that goes: dividing them up into more than one conceptual category can come later. I've started that by replacing the anomalous footnote mentioned above by a ref, though it needs a real reference added, which can come at the end of the text that is currently in the footnote. Any comments?  DDStretch  (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(Additional info) It is even worse, now that I gave it another cursory glance: the footnotes section contains additional references that begin the numbering afresh and do not appear anywhere. So, we are in the situation where there are (for example) at least three types of reference indicated by a superscripted 2 in the main text: one is in the main references section; another is in the footnotes section but isn't shown as a "2" in that section; and the third is an additional reference given in a footnote that doesn't lead anywhere, though it is a full-blown reference if one looks at the source code. It is a total mess, and I would immediately downgrade it from a GA status article on this basis alone if it were me.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're right. I had at first glance thought that adding a few citations would be sufficient, but I see now after looking in more detail that there's also a serious structural problem with the citations that have been provided. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've now removed the last craziness of references within the footnotes that don't lead anywhere, and reformatted it a bit. This will more easily enable a merging of the footnotes and the references which, as I indicated above might be the best way to proceed. So, if you are reading this afresh, you won't see the last bit of craziness in the reference/footnote numbering now.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've now totally re-cast the footnotes as references, thus removing the footnotes section. In so doing, I discovered that one of the footnotes actually went nowhere, and it seems to have been replaced at some point by a reference (not my doing). Although I've made the footnotes into references, I didn't really do much in terms of making them conform, and so now we are in the situation of a monolithic references section which needs to be sorted out in terms of checking links, providing them in a uniform and complete manner, and adjusting other aspects of them.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a country as well as a union of countries. The land mass it ocupies is called Great Britain. Whether one likes it or not, all Scottish people are ultimately British as well because they are from the land mass of Great Britain. In the same way, all Scottish people are also European. The countries of Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales were all united under the Union Flag as both a union of countries and a sovereign country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.78.65 (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

When you read this article in its entirety you can't help but wonder whether this article should be called the United Kingdom of Scotland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, judging by the fact that Scotland, despite making up only 8% of the population of the UK, is easily as represented as England if not more, despite England making up 83% of the population of the UK. It's even to the point where I had to change the Symbols section as only Scotland had a main article link or photo in it.

I have looked on other articles and I can't find other country articles where a minor region is as heavily represented, such as say Bavaria constituting almost 50% of the Germany article, despite Bavaria making up 15% of the German population, compared with Scotland making up 8% of the UK's.

As for the UK being a collection of constituent countries, Germany is a federation, with states holding more seperate powers than they do in the UK, just as with states in the United States, whereas the UK is a constitutional monarchy.

I see where all this started from with trying to represent each of the constituent countries equally. This is like the United States article trying to represent all 50 states equally throughout the article, which it doesn't. This trying to represent all the constituent countries equally on the UK article has peverted what the UK is and has made it look like a collection of sovereign states like the EU, rather than a single sovereign state, which is what it actually is, whether regions like Scotland or Wales or London have parliaments or assemblies or not.

The Unites States article doesn't represent all 50 states equally because not only would be hugely impracticle but because the US is a single soverign state as there's no reason why all regions of a country should be equally represented because they're not sovereign states who are members of a political union, like the EU, which is and does try to represent all member states equally on its articles, just as other articles where sovereign states are members of something do. I feel some nationalist editors have changed the article over time to make the UK look like a political union of seperate countries or mini EU, rather than as a sovereign state. Editors only a few months ago once tried to change the introduction from The United Kingdom is a union of constituent countries to The United Kingdom is a political union of countries, and so proving what I've said.

The main thing is that by having a quota system for each section, rather than putting what's the most important information into that section, whether it's mostly from a single region, which may be the case if a single region is dominant, means that the most important information isn't added and instead a quota for information from each region is added, whether it's relevant or not. Usergreatpower (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you point out the sections that you would like to change, and how you would go about it? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically less in each section about how the UK is devolved and more on the actual subject matter across the UK as a whole rather the subject being split up into England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. There's no need to split each section in this article up into England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland as they have their own articles covering it anyway. Usergreatpower (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The main point I was trying to make anyway is that Scotland seems too heavily represented in the article. See my earlier comments here. Usergreatpower (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with your first point - something I've raised before with some limited success. There has been alot of forking about how the UK devolved - particularly Scotland. I compare it to writing about England on the basis of a region or county per paragraph. We need more about the UK as a whole. I think the 4-way split works for some sections (NHS being a good example, as the NHS is split this way), but not for others. We really need to do something about this article as the quality is clearly not improving. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jza84: many of the sections have to be divided by country to do justice to the topic under consideration. Apart from the issues of healthcare and education, other sections also have to reflect differences north and south of the border. For example, Scotland has a separate legal system from England and Wales - how could we describe law in the UK without reflecting this fully? Some may prefer the UK to be far more uniform in its organisation, but it is as it is. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I also tend to agree that there is too much time spent on issues that are better dealt with in the articles about the separate countries with just a link to the relevant sections within those articles from this one. I view the approach needed here to improve the article as being basically a "top down" one in which this article deals with the issues that are mainly common about the UK as a whole, with a great elaboration in details of differences between the countries being dealt with as a short succinct summary here and a pointer to a relevant section within the separate countries' articles. Of course, where there are significant differences within the UK, it would be sensible to have them described in this article so that they can be compared and contrasted, however, because where else would such comparative material be placed? (NHS, Law, etc) If some think equal coverage (of the countries of the UK) is required, then I would try to make it more close to equal zero (excepting the just-mentioned cases where significant differences should be described as a comparison.) This would be far more sensible than keeping the cumbersome entity of an article we have at the moment. It may require some material to be added to the separate country articles if they are found to be deficient in some specific coverage, which should help those articles as well. So winners all round!  DDStretch  (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff! On the back of that, does anybody know of any cheap and cheerful "Introduction/Short guide" to Britain books I could get online? I'm struggling finding exactly the type of thing I want on Amazon. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(<-) AFAICT, there's no reason why the following sections should be split into constituent country paragraphs:

• Geography : This should be split on a basis of something like "Overview, Relief, Soils, Rivers and drainage, climate, ecology", like (surprise, surprise) how Britannica handles it, as well as other sources.
• Transport : Paragraphs on Road, Rail, Sea, Air? Where is this stuff?
• Other sports.
• Literature.

Other issues include stop forcing the term "countries" on readers, when a neutral phrase (i.e. England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) could be used. Stop mentioning politicised proposals by nationalist governments (Scottish independance is mentioned in the Devolution section - we don't need it more than once please), per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UNDUE. Finally, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland only need linking once in the lead, not once (or more!) in every section. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that using the phrase 'countries' as appropriate would be quite acceptable to everyone in the context of the lead making clear that the UK is composed of 'constituent countries'. I can't think of any 'neutral phrase' apart from the names of the countries themselves! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've pushed for a long time that these are countries, but I'm doubley conscious, and only too aware, that not everyone agrees (as evidenced above). I'd prefer we use:

• England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have their own Football Association, national team and league.

... rather than:

• "The United Kingdom doesn't have its own Football Association. Instead, the four individual countries have..."

Not only does it flow better, but it nullifies the need to use any term over any other (although, so long as we've explained what the home nations are in the Sport overview, we could use that term in that section IMHO).

Something that's probably worth a mention in this article is that (AFAICT) having British nationality means you may play in any of the home nations' national teams. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"having British nationality means you may play in any of the home nations' national teams" - I thought that this only applies to those who acquire British nationality at some point after their birth, whereas otherwise you can play for any country where you, either parent or any grandparent was born. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's right - it's coming back to me. Jack Charlton's stance on grandparentage is coming to mind. I'm just thinking we may need to clarify the notion of "sporting nationality" a little more in the Sports section; the UK has an unusual arrangement. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone remember Zola Budd? I thought the rule with football and rugby was that a player with family connections to, let's say England and Wales, could choose to play for either, but after having appeared as an international for that nation couldn't then switch to the other.--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:United Kingdom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of October 3, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

• There are at least 10 dead links in the Notes and references section.[1]

fixed, Tom B (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Culture section has been tagged as being in need of further citations since July.

• The Symbols section is flagged as needing to be converted from a list to prose, and has an unaddressed {{fact}} tag.

fixed, Tom B (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• There are many unattributed expressions of opinion, such as "The Beatles were and still are considered one of the world's greatest bands." Who says so?

fixed Beatles, Tom B (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Large parts of the article are completely uncited, the last half of Football for instance, and almost all of the Geography and Christianity sections.

• "Golf is one of the most popular participation sports played in the UK ...". Who says so? How popular?

fixed, Tom B (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Heathrow Airport is the world's busiest international airport and, being an island country, the UK has a considerable number of sea ports." Needs to be cited. On what basis is Heathrow the busiest international airport in the world? Again, who says so? Why is the citation shunted off to an image caption? What does a "considerable number" mean?

fixed heathrow, someone else removed non-specific bit about sea ports and ugly grammar "being an island country", Tom B (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The City of London is the world's largest financial centre alongside New York." Doesn't make sense. Is it the largest, the second largest, or are both London and New York equally large?

fixed, Tom B (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Publishers and last access dates need to be shown for all of the citations.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a union of four constituent countries:

Eh no it is not, it is a union of two countries one of which was also a union of two countries, the current wording seems to impy that Scot, Eng, Wales and NI just decided to group together one day which is totally incorrect.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Originally there were 13 states in the USA. Today the USA is a union of 50 states. If I wrote 'the USA is a union of 50 states', does that imply that all the states joined together on the same day? In the same way, the UK grew from the original union of England and Scotland (which already included Wales) to include Ireland, and then part of Ireland left, so that today the UK of a union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It has become a union of 4 distinct 'entities.' If you wish to avoid the phrase 'constituent countries' we could always say "The United Kingdom is a union of four political entities" - but I don't think that reads so well! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the point being made is that Wales isn't united with England in the same sense as England and Scotland; it was annexed into the Kingdom of England (i.e. a single state). Simillarly, Ireland was united with the Kingdom of Great Britain, not England, Wales and Scotland individually, which is where I believe Barry is getting his maths of two countries (hense the name Great Britain + Northern Ireland)

Britannica says "The United Kingdom comprises four geographic and historical parts—England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland", whilst Encarta says "England is the largest and most populous division of the island of Great Britain, making up the south and east. Wales is on the west and Scotland is to the north. Northern Ireland is located in the northeast corner of Ireland, the second largest island in the British Isles". No mention of "countries" or "union". I don't think the sources being used quite back the claim up to the letter either. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The lede as it stands is misleading and as Jza84 says is not supported by the references. It implies some voluntary process when in fact Wales was conquered then annexed, and the incorporate of Ireland was not with out conflict. It might be better to take the phrase out of the lede altogether and instead have something in the history section which charts the history in a couple of sentences. If it is in the lead the it might be best (taking Fishiehelper2's lead to say "The United Kingdom has a complex history but now comprises four political entities namely England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The pipelinks to the country pages deal immediately with the "country" word which is not necessary here. --Snowded TALK 21:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Now this is where I have to disagree. The United Kingdom does not consist of "four political entities". It is one political entity that has devolved some political responsibility for the time being to three of it's administrative regions. The UK is a unitary state, it is not a federation. The powers it has devolved to the Scottish, Welsh, and NI assemblies can be revoked by the central government at any time, whatever the political cost of such an action. Not that using "country" is much better. The problem is that while I know what people believe by the term "country", it is just that most people when using the term country refer to a sovereign state. We really have to be careful in writing this article that we do not lead readers with the impression that the UK is something it is not. I don't think the situation is helped by nationalists of various persuasions who push towards a wording that represents what they might wish for, rather than what exists. My advice to them is get out from behind you computer, become politically active to achieve the changes you want, then come back and re-write the Wikipedia article. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck on this MJ. I've lost my constituent countries arguments, months ago on this article & it's 4 related component articles. To quote Roberto Duran, no mas, no mas. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How about the minimalist approach (uses in other sources): "The United Kingdom comprises England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." Vauge perhaps but ultra NPOV. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, the more difficult issue of "country" is already handled on the pages concerned and we really do not want to revisit that. Michael your comment on nationalists may be true of several editors, although one could also make the point that there are anti-nationalists here who create an equal amount of disruption. However you cannot make that point against those who use the word "country" for Wales or Scotland as the word is used by the UK Government itself, and the monarch. Words like "administrative regions" are not really supported by citations and could be seen as provocative. I do think we need a brief history summary as well. --Snowded TALK 22:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I am neither nationalist or anti-nationalist in this context. I am a little bemused by the debate, but it is neither here nor there to me. My interest is accuracy and clarity in Wikipedia. I am not proposing the use of the term "administrative region" in the article, despite the fact it is an accurate description of the current political status of these regions. The problem this that there are several definitions of the word "country", three being a sovereign nation state, a rural region, and the one in which this article uses the word, that is a historically, culturally and geographically distinct region. The problem is the most common uses of the term is the first and the second, therefore it is incumbent on editors when using the term in the third context, the context is clear. That is all I ask. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am too much of an old-style stickler for correct grammar, but I think the suggestion needs a slight tweak to avoid being what I understood to be grammatically incorrect: It should read either: ""The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.", or "England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales comprise the United Kingdom."  DDStretch  (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I prefer the former over the latter, but won't lose any sleep over either mind. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree but I think it is important that the fact that the UK is a 'union' is not lost. At the same time I agree that the wording is not quite right. I'm trying to think of improved wording, but I'm finding it difficult! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Does not the name of the article (the UK) itself, say it's a union? United = Union. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got it! (I think!) - How about "Created by political union, the United Kingdom today consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". Any thoughts? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nay! too descriptive. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

--

Which "unions" do you have in mind Fishiehelper? The "union " between England and Wales? The "union " between England and Northern Ireland? Isn't it about time that this article at least got its basic facts right? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

--Agreed. It can still imply that the UK is politically united on that basis of four parts. I don't think the UK was created by political union alone - there was personal union too which contributed, as well as conquest, treaties, annexation, resistance and so on. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone point me towards an Act of Union between Wales and England? As Jza84 said, wasn't that simply a conquest? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a better catch all sentence to describe the status and formation of the UK in the lead, so how about:

• The United Kingdom is today defined as a sovereign island country, comprising the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The present form of the United Kingdom has it origins in the 1707 union of the Kingdom of England (which included Wales) with that of the Kingdom of Scotland, and the creation of Northern Ireland following the 1921 partition of Ireland.

Yes, it omits a lot, such as the precise details of the status of Wales, the Scotland/England personal union, and the whole Ireland thing before and after, but I think as a device to concisely inform a reader as to the current unique status of the UK while including basic historical information, it's good, no? MickMacNee (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

By who's definition is this? I think this is too lengthy for the lead though. Remember, we have the article "History of the formation of the United Kingdom" dedicated to this topic. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I can live with mick's which is accurate, but prefer the early short form from Jza84. We should not in anyway claim that the UK is a union of four companies as its simply not true. There were two acts of union (Scotland and Ireland) one conquest/annexation (Wales) and a partition (Ireland). --Snowded TALK 05:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I just have to say - poor Cornwall. :( Ottava Rima (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If Mick's suggestion were adopted, you'd have to change the "comprises" to "consists" with corresponding changes to various prepositions. As far as I was aware, comprises is used in the form "the parts comprise the whole", and it is consists that is used in the sense of "the whole consists of the parts". How about "The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It was formed through a complex process of union, conquest, and annexation over a number of centuries, and nowadays is said to be a union of four countries." Various other articles can be linked in around this basic sentence.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that: my only point is that most countries that exist today have come into being as a result of a complex process of 'conquest and annexation over a number of centuries' - the factor that is rare in the case of the UK was that the 'United' Kingdom began with a treaty between two states in which they agreed to unite to form a new state. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm still inclined to go for something succinct like "The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". I can't see us finding a sentence or two beyond that, that really encompasses the dynamics of the formation of the UK. The short approach would also keep the lead balanced in terms of word count and paragraphing, as well as be less tempting for other users to tinker with towards a point of contention. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As a development of that, how about: "The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales - a union that has evolved over centuries." Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(To Fishiehelper2) I think that your suggestion could be criticised in a similar way to you criticism of my suggestion, except that it makes it even less clear that annexation and conquest were an integral part of the process: There needs to be some way of showing that, although a union was part of the process, it was not the initiating action, since Wales was annexed and other stuff happened prior to the act of union. Your suggestion ambiguously could be interpreted to mean that the processbegan with a union/treaty between two states in which they agreed to unite to form a new state. In this case and article, given the kind of editing actions we have seen here and elsewhere by various editors, if it is capable of being misinterpreted, it will be; and it will become contentious and disruptive in many ways. We need to make it as immune as possible from tinkering on the basis of a misinterpretation. In a way, there needs to be a way of showing that the union of all is the present state, rather than the initiating state, and I now think that is getting too involved for a lead. I think if we are to be short, sweet and apt for the lead, then Jza84's original should be used, as it allows for further elaboration in the history section, where the details of the process can be explained more completely.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC),

I'd also support something short and sweet for the lead, along the lines Jza84 suggests. The details can be elaborated as necessary later. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I smelling the rare scent of consensus coming through here? I see broad support, but what do you think Fishiehelper2? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to think constructively. How about: "The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales" - that would be succinct while keeping the linkage to the idea of the UK being a union. Would anyone object to that? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I also strongly support keeping it short and sweet. garik (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that. I guess it's only going to be a matter of time before someone changes that to "Yorkshire, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales" anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a breach of WP:EGG, sorry. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was more a case of WP:BEANS. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, stupid of me. You were talking about th Easter Egg link hidden in consists. I agree, that's not good. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Yorks example is, for sure!- I was refering to the piping of "consists". I think that just confuses things for our readers. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay - any chance with this then? - "The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". I suspect not, but you never know! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Still WP:EGG. Take a look at that part of MOS - the idea is not to create unclear pipelinks. We really don't need to push policital union here to that extent. As has been pointed out, the formation of the UK is more than just a political union. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In a sense you make my point for me - in a very real sense the United Kingdom IS a Union rather than just was formed by union. Much of our politics is concerned with 'the Union', and one of the main parties is the Conservative and Unionist Party. Maybe it will be possible to insert the idea of 'the union' into a following sentence. Cheers for now. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, use Jza's original proposal. We don't need a description of the union & we don't need union mentioned (as the name of the article cover that). Keep simple. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to make the change. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the new version [2], while it is now simply a factual and accurate sentence, I'm not sure the lead now says anything helpful, either about the unique definition of the UK, or anything about how it came about in the first place. I don't think referring readers to a completely separate history article or the main section satisfies the lead section requirements at all, by not including a scrap of historical info. When looked at in comparison to the detail in the lead about the Empire, it looks odd to say the least. MickMacNee (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the lead is certainly improved in the new version - it is factually accurate (i.e. verifiable) at least, and that trumps all other thresholds of inclusion. That's also most certainly saying something helpful to our readers. I see your point, but look at France, Germany, United States - 1 sentence on formation at the most. Even mother Scotland hasn't a scrap of info on its own unification. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the formation of the UK by a political union of previously separate states is highly unusual and noteworthy - it does make the UK slightly different from other countries. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much every country in the world was formed by unification of some sort - even Scotland - it's really not that unusual. Infact, it'd be unusual if it wasn't formed by a process of unification. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, although the distinction between union and conquest is probably notable too. It seems that, in a sentence such as this, we should emphasise the modern status of the UK - so mentioning not how they united, but rather their present devolved statuses and probably a mention of how they differ quite greatly in their devolved standing. The creation of the UK is also of course important, but it's a separate matter and should not necessarily be thrown into a couple of sentences. It seems to me that we're trying to do far too much and cram a great deal of information into a couple of sentences. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I like Fishiehelper2's recent change of "Unitary state with devolved national legislatures". I think that sums the situation up as good as I've ever seen anywhere else. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Except it is basically wrong. England has no "devolved national legislature" at all with regards the UK aparatus of state. Unitary state is again, factual and not incorrect, but is so vague it is again rather valueless in the context of describing the UK in a lead (and rather redundant when you already explain the UK is a sovereign state, the current system of parliament and monarchy, and the existence of the four constituent countries) MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say England has a devolved national legislature. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  18:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(indent) That is exactly what "The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. A unitary state with devolved national legislatures, the UK is" says to me, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have devolved national legislatures. MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to me, but perhaps others agree/disagree? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mick has a point. The second sentence gives the impression that all 4 components have dissolved legislatures. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Would a slight modification to ensure no ambiguity be along the lines of "The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It is a unitary state with all except England having devolved national legislatures. The UK is..."? Surely that would satisfy all? (Sorry can't be more involved at the moment, I'm helping my son do some homework: writing a short story on "The life of a sperm", would you believe!)

Yeah, tha'll do. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I see the concern. How about "The United Kingdom is a unitary state consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, with the latter three having devolved national legislatures." Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nay! leave the unitary out, as the first sentence is fine. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What? Do you mean this: "The United Kingdom is a state consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, with the latter three having devolved national legislatures." Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd have left Unitary in (sorry), there have been calls for more context rather than less. :s --Jza84 |  Talk  19:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

More context means more headaches. Keep it simple, short & sweet. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So where are we? We could have:"The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. A unitary state with devolved national legislatures, the UK is governed by a parliamentary system with its seat of government in London, the capital." We could amend this by adding '3' so it becomes: "The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. A unitary state with 3 devolved national legislatures, the UK is governed by a parliamentary system with its seat of government in London, the capital." Or we could have: "The United Kingdom is a unitary state consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales with the latter three having devolved national legislatures. It is governed by a parliamentary system with its seat of government in London, the capital." Or some other suggestion! Opinions? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. A state with 3 devolved national legislatures... is preferable. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The constituent parts should be described as countries in the opening sentence. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In what sense is Northern Ireland a country? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Go and look at the references talked about in the section UKCOUNTRYREFS above. I can't believe we are still talking about this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly finding it hard to believe that you're still talking about this. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The constituent parts should be described?? absolutely not. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone is clear it has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, and with multiple references, that the constituent parts of the UK are countries. The references are given above, UKCOUNTRYREFS. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No. The whole point of that article shows just how diverse the descriptions of these four are. Although an acceptable and verifiable term, countries is not used exclusively, and we should not force that upon our readers. Neutral phraseology should have preference; we're not in the business in writing Britain's constitution. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a very strange argument. You seem to be saying we should give our readers less information, because if we give them any more they'll be confused. Countries is an entirely accurate, well-referenced term used officially throughout the UK, and thus neutral phraseology. The diversity argument is irrelevant - the US and Kenya are very different countries, yet they are still countries and we describe them as such. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My head is spinning. Let's stick with Jza's original idea; it's simple, short & sweet. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as we describe them as countries. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is it so important, to describe them as countries here, where it could be disputed. Why not let the individual articles Scotland, England, Wales & Northern Ireland, handle that? GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I'd argue that it's important not to describe them as countries here, especially in the lead. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

-

There are abundant references given above, so the disputation can only be by people who ignore the references. Read the references (especially the official ones from the UK government), and if you can refute every one of them then we can discuss the matter. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I am for including unitary as in unitary state, and deleting national in devolved national legislatures. And if you use the word "country" it must be qualified. England and Scotland are not countries in the way the US and Kenya are countries, they are countries in the way Bavaria and Sicily are countries. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have references for Bavaria and Sicily being countries or is this just an opinion you hold without any basis in fact? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Bavaria & Sicily? the former is a German state, the latter is an Italian region. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hu? That is just silly. Obviously both Bavaria and Sicily have all the charataristics that the British "countries" have, with one exception they were much more recently sovereign states. Bavaria, as a German federal state, at least retains part of it's sovereign status. So what are you saying? That the definition of a "country" is a sovereign nation state plus England, Scotland, Wales and NI? --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that your personal opinion is against them being countries is not really very relevant. Yes, they are not countries 'in the same way' as the US and Kenya, but the US is not the same as Kenya which is not the same as Thailand. Being different kinds of countries does not make them not a country. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't need any description here, let the individual articles handle it. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

NO. The US, Kenya and Thailand are all countries in the way that they are sovereign nation states. In what way are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island sovereign nation states? I am not opposed to using the word "country", but if it is used it should be made clear the context in which it is used. Otherwise, I might think it is used in the way we use it in Australia, sparcely populated rural areas inhabited by people with limited access to culture and educational opportuinities. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that Australia still claims New Zealand (a sovereign state) in its constitution you are not in a strong position here. We use country to describe non urban elements here as well (with no requirement for limited access). It may have escaped your notice but many words in English have different meanings in different contexts. You do not have to be a sovereign state to be a country. This has been extensively debated and you can look up the various talk pages, the {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom table of references] and a whole host of material on this. We really don't need to go through it all over again. That said this page does not need to mention it. The simple form of Jza's idea is best here. Lets just settle on that. I am getting really weary of constantly repeating country debates when all an editor has to do is check the history. --Snowded TALK 22:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely that words have different meanings, and that is precisely my point. The article has to clearly define the context in which the word is used, simply because it is not the first meaning that comes to peoples minds (at least people outside the UK). And how on earth am I personally responsible for the Australian constitution act, passed over 100 years ago? Even if you interpretation is anything like correct, which it isn't. It seems to me I am becoming subject to ad hominem attacks simply because I am introducing the elephant in the room. It increasingly seems to me that some editors are happy to leave the context fuzzy, and the only reason I can see for that is that it reflects their POV. Let me repeat, I don't care if the word "country" is used, so long as the context is clear. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Try and keep a sense of humour, its hardly a ad hominem attack to point out that there are lots and lots of ambiguity around issues of nationhood etc. You have not read (from your comments but I could be wrong) the previous exchanges on country and the cited material. Its not unreasonable to suggest you do that. You are not so much introducing an elephant to the room, more coming into a room now clear of elephants, but insisting that you can see pachyderms. --Snowded TALK 05:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Arr humour! I thought it was a bit silly. --Michael Johnson (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We should not lose sight of the idea that a lead section exists to summarise the main parts of entire article, it is not acceptable to brush the summarisation of large parts of an article under the carpet with regards the lead on the basis that the details exist in other articles, or we don't need the hassle in including it. The very fact that there are two separate sub-articles on these issue, Countries of the United Kingdom and History of the United Kingdom, and not just article sections, should give a clue as to their importance to the lead. I think the whole lead is currently way too short anyway, and there is ample scope for expansion for clarification without verbosity or undue weight. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's go with Jza's version, it's simple, short & sweet. Let the 4 component articles handle the rest. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And pretty lacking in any information at all. At the very least the Countries of the United Kingdom article should be mentioned, having to click four articles to ascertain their relationship with each other as the UK is just not good practice at all. How can we have a FAQ about this on the talk page, but no mention of it in the lead? MickMacNee (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Simple, we can have a FAQ about it & but no mention of it in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That would only be true if that was what the FAQ said, which it doesn't. It reflects the clear consensus that they are all countries, the collection of which forms a sovereign state. If that can't be put in the lead section of the article about the UK, then the FAQ and several other previous debates must be wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See Jza's response (below). GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

... because no other encyclopedia gives the issue of naming the four parts according to political and cultural perspectives any space. It's only a recurring problem here because of Wikipedia's system of editting by popular consensus - that's why we have a FAQ section (obviously). The "Countries of the United Kingdom" is a breach of WP:POVFORK if you ask me - nothing like it exists in Britannica, Encarta, Mind Alive etc, nor should that title have been used over any other when government sources themselves assert that "constitutional terminology is fraught with difficulties of interpretation" and the four have no formal description (see the pre-existing Subdivisions of the United Kingdom lead). The naming of the four parts is not important to what the UK is, what is important is that they are there and they are mentioned.... Like other encyclopedias tackle it. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't have said that better myself, honestly. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Brittanica (my 1990 paper Micropædia) makes up its mind what each thing is in the first sentence (UK is a "nation", Scotland is a "component country") and in other relevant sentences (In Scotland: "[the 1707 act] joined the countries into the Kingdom of GB".), and hardly brings up the issue of terminology again anywhere that I can see, in preference to the repetition or ommission of the article names. And that is the go-to fact checking part of EB, I havent checked the in-depth Macropædia.

So you are half right about them never having terminology type forks at least in the go-to part (by all means put the country fork up for deletion, I am ambivolent, a #section link would serve that article's current purpose without needing forks), but you are not right about there being no treatment of the issue at all in proper works like Brittanicca. They take an early stand on the 'what' issue and refer to it where necessary, ignoring it most other times, but that is not the same as ignoring the issue altogether in a lead section when it is clearly relevant to summarising the main article.

We don't have the luxury of taking such a stand like these paper works, Wikipedia is, for better or worse, a completely different animal. We deal with that by weighing sources and providing a balanced viewpoint (which clearly concludes they are the countries comprising/consisting/making up the UK, in a UK specific but also generally accepted meaning of the word country as compared to sovereign state), it is not dealt with by removing the issue from the lead completely, and requiring the reader to Fact Hunt through the main article or other articles, before they can even get a vague idea of what a lead section is saying (or not in this case). Even if it was totally and demonstrably the case that the relation was unclear/totally disputed, that fact would still have to appear in a lead in preference to no mention at all. MickMacNee (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Acts of Union 1707 joins two countries. Yes.... but it doesn't say they remain countries after the union. Furthermore, that means Wales wasn't a country if you're using this logic. You're saying this is a fact hunt when the fact is there is no fact, only perspective. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You lost me with this reply. I was not making a case in the above that any term was correct, all I was trying to point out is that the approach you are advocating here, of making no mention at all of any term in the lead or any desription of the situation, is not what happens in the proper works. Perspective is dealt with through NPOV etc. MickMacNee (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

arb. break

How about taking the form suggested by Jza, supported by others, but adding in (as a pipelink) the reference to Countries of the United Kingdom as suggested by Mick. That way the context is clear for this article, the detailed explanation is one click away for those who need it. Matt put a lot of effort into Countries (with support from others) to try and create a place where these issues could be handled rather than popping up all the time so lets use it. --Snowded TALK 05:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If that was the suggesting right back at the beginning, sounds good to me. --Michael Johnson (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - we're forcing one term upon our readers where neutral phraseology exists. How about we put <ref>"As the UK has no written constitution in the usual sense, constitutional terminology is fraught with difficulties of interpretation and it is common usage nowadays to describe the four constituent parts of the UK (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) as “countries”." See [[Countries of the United Kingdom]].</ref> after the four names are given, as a footnote. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I though you wanted a phrase that would avoid it here? However I like the above sentence, it would help a lot so I support. --Snowded TALK 10:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I do, but I'm trying (very hard!) to compromise. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  10:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone is on this exchange which is encouraging after past experience! --Snowded TALK 10:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest two small changes to your suggested sentence? 1: Delete the phrase "in the usual sense" and 2: Delete the word "nowadays". Otherwise, I support. Yours Daicaregos (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a quote from Is Scotland a country?, but we could paraphrase it if that's prefered. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ommission of clarification where clarification could be reasonably expected is not neutrality, it is just....bad practice. The UK being a sovereign state while consisting of four countries is definitely something that is unusual and readers would expect clarification about. (The four countries bit is found out by the reader by looking at all four articles even if we delete POV fork articles, so you cannot say this perspective is not being presented through ommission here, it is just harder to find - again, not neutrality, just bad practice). MickMacNee (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point again. "Countries" is not official, not exclusive, not neutral. You're advocating we force a term on our readers where others exist. That is bad practice. No term is needed here. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure they aren't officially countries? Countries of the United Kingdom and (just at random) this implies that they are. Daicaregos (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

...official by way of the constitution of the United Kingdom. number10.gov.uk is not constistutional material. Whilst Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Come on, this is pretty basic stuff. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Number 10.gov.uk site is subtitled 'The official site of the Prime Minister's Office'. Did you spot the similarity between the word 'official' that you stated "Countries" were not, and the word between 'The' and 'site' in the subtitle of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom's website? For future reference, it would be easier to know which words you mean if you were to actually use them. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution, what evidence would be acceptable to show that they are countries? Would references to 'countries' in legislation be sufficient? If not - what? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head - all the sources we've found are merely interpretations of what they believe. They're secondary sources based on no primary source. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You have it completely wrong with regards primary sources, Osama bin Laden doesn't call himself a terrorist, but the description terrorist appears in his lead section. The German Democratic Republic self identified as a democratic republic, but it is not to be seen in the lead. Absence of official primary sources has nothing to do with it in the face of abundant verifiable sources from inside and outside the entity, this isn't even a case of preventing systemic bias, it certainly is not neutrality with regards NPOV. Once again, if the issue is explaining basic things like the history or existence of an unwritten constitution, then there is ample space for explanation in the lead which is light as it is, which is vastly preferable to saying nothing (but implying it by linking the country articles which all describe them as countries). MickMacNee (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You'll find bucket loads of references here: Countries of the United Kingdom#Other terms in use. The elephant in the room, which some appear to be determined to ignore, is that the current lead gives the names of constituent parts of the UK, but does not state what they are:

• USA "is a constitutional federal republic comprising fifty states and a federal district"
• Germany "is a federal parliamentary republic of sixteen states (Länder)"
• Netherlands "is often called Holland, which is formally incorrect as North and South Holland are merely two of its twelve provinces"
• Switzerland "is a federal republic consisting of 26 states called cantons"
• Austria "is a parliamentary representative democracy comprising nine federal states"
• Poland "is a unitary state made up of sixteen voivodeships (Polish: województwo)"
• Canada is "a federation comprising ten provinces and three territories"

Need I go on? We are in danger of pandering to a few who wish to ignore the social, geo-political and dare I say constitutional nature of the UK, simply because it does not fit comfortably into a category which can be applied equally elsewhere. To treat that which cannot be proven to exist in the same form elsewhere, as though it then simply does not exist at all, strikes me as being an extremely odd approach to take. The UK is unique in its structure. Let us not shy away from that fact simply in order to keep things nice and neat for those who wish them to be so. Endrick Shellycoat 08:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So you're advocating original research? For clarity I'm not saying these are not countries (I think they are!), but I'm also conscious that we shouldn't be forcing this on our readers at every opportunity on the basis that it is the current popular fashion on the talk page. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't need people calling for/protesting against the term countries, constituent countries, parts of.. etc, etc. Let's keep Jza's version; simple, short & sweet. GoodDay (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have and will firmly advocate that Wales and Scotland are countries based on the evidence. But it does not mean that we always have to state it. Jza84's solution is fine here. This is getting as bad as people who always want to add in British Isles and others who always want to remove it. --Snowded TALK 17:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Presenting verifiable facts without undue weight is not original research. And mentioning it once in the lead section of the singly most relevant article is not "forcing this on our readers at every opportunity", in fact it is a complete violation of WP:LEAD. MickMacNee (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I still say, keep it simple, short and sweet. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, why don't you write the essay Wikipedia:keep it simple, short and sweet, perhaps as a collorary to Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy, so that I can understand what you mean by this in terms of policy and writing better articles. Now that we have reached the stage of repeating the same poiints, I think it's time for a third opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinon? why not. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

drafting now. MickMacNee (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Request third opinion

This talk section opened with an objection to the lead statement "The United Kingdom is a union of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.", on the understandable objection that the complex history of the UK means that the idea 'union of 4' is not entirely accurate. (Wales was conquered, England and Wales united with Scotland, the current NI was created as part of the union after a complex set of events not merely described as a basic addition). There were also prior monarchical unions without political unions. Also, the term constituent countries and alternatives has a history of debate behind it.

Some discussion ensued, and has produced the current version, omitting 'union' and any mention of a description of E/N/S/NI or their relation with the UK beyond including their article names and 'consists of':

"The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales."

Some support this statement as being:

• factual
• neutral
• consise
• short and sweet
• 'union' is redundant to the title
• there is no official description of the relation, so why add it?
• the status of E/NI/S/W can be found at their articles, thus the relationship can be inferred and is not needed to explained in the UK lead
• other state articles do not use descriptive qualifiers in the case of unions/federations of countries
• paper encyclopoedias refer exclusively to the entities UK/E/S.NI/W rather than pick/describe their nature w.r.t. the UK
• a primary source is required to support any statement of fact (of this nature?)

Some oppose, based on:

• it is short but not concise in the sense of writing good articles, it lacks any context
• it does not reflect the unique nature of the union which is a major part of the article, violating WP:LEAD
• other state articles do use descriptive qualifiers in the case of unions/federations of countries*it is confusing to outside readers (UK is a state, E/S/W/NI are countries according to their articles)
• the lead should state that E/S/NI/W are countries as well
• the article Countries of the United Kingdom should be included somehow, to reflect why E/NI/S/W can be countries, but the UK is a sovereign state
• at least Brittannica 1990 refers to the entities UK/E/S.NI/W where necessary, in the first sentence and other crucial sentences for context
• ommission of basic verifiable facts, presented in multiple venues both within and outwith the UK so not systemically biased, is not being neutral in the sense of the NPOV
• a primary source is not required to support any statement of fact, as lost as it meets WP:V and is not WP:UNDUE

On a related note, after much debate, there seems stable consensus in the leads at Scotland, NI, England and Wales that they are countrys, and the relationship with the UK is described by pipelinkng the explanatory articles Countries of the United Kingdom (wales) or Subdivisions of the United Kingdom (eng, scot) (although these articles are subject of a stalled merge proposal, and are described by one party supporting the new version as POV forks / original research.

MickMacNee (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, because this sometimes seems to be ignored, the description of the constituent parts of the UK as countries is supported by multiple, reliable, official sources. Many, many of them. See the UKCOUNTRYREFS section above which I copied back to this page, it having been archived. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is simply not true that "other state articles do not use descriptive qualifiers in the case of unions/federations of countries". Many articles about countries say what the subdivisions are called in the introduction, as specified by Endrick Shellycoat 08:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC) (see ). DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

University pictures

Having Oxford and Cambridge alone doesn't really represent the diveristy How about three - old stone, red brick and plate glass to take the three main periods of building, and pick the oldest one in each to play fair?

While I might be a bit biased, the Northampton University is both one of the new unis and its plate glass building has received accolades? --Narson ~ Talk • 22:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And there was me going with the award winning architecture of Lancaster! I think the easiest thing is to take the first established in each period otherwise we will have multiple arguments ....

Does anybody remember General Melchett & Captain Blackadder's conversation about how the latter (as it turned out erroneusly) caught the German Spy? GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and never a better example the issues! --Snowded TALK 22:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ahem* the former was a complete dump, not the latter, according to Melchitt. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I know; just that Cambridge & Oxford reminded me of that comical scene. I believe Hull was the other university. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Education is more than just university - I'm not sure that multiple university pictures are needed. (As an aside, I've a soft spot for Aberdeen University which was formed by the merger of Kings College and Marischal College - Aberdeen had two universities while the whole of England just had Oxford and Cambridge!) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Were England and Scotland 'countries' or 'states' prior to the Union of 1707?

An editor has changed the word 'countries' to 'states'. I think this is wrong but rather than just revert I thought we should discuss it first. Some questions that arise: If England and Scotland were not countries in 1707, were there any countries in the world back then - or were they all just states? Was the entity created by the 1707 union a state or a country? If the entity created in 1707 was a state, is it still a state or at which point did it become a country? If the entity created in 1707 was a country, what made it a 'country' that had not previously made England and Scotland countries?

The more I write this, the more I am convinced that the edit should be reverted - but I'll wait to read comments first! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

They were countries, but more accurately they were states, sovereign states. The UK is a country and sovereign state. A state is a type of country; it's not that contentious, really. User:Endrick Shellycoat objected to the original revert I made privately, you may wish to contact him. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. you may also note that the Kingdom of Scotland has called itself a state in its article for a very long time. Again, this isn't something new or contentious. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In that case, would it also be more accurate to describe the United Kingdom as a 'state' rather than a 'country'? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

'Sovereign state' is less ambiguous than 'country', it would seem, however both are verifiable and notable facts. The intro to the UK article clearly mentions both. As such, it is a matter of considered discretion: what is more appropriate in the context and what is more likely to best inform the reader. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My edit was based on the somewhat confusing (IMO) sentence which stated that prior to 1707 England and Scotland were "separate countries". Now, unless I and countless others are very much mistaken, it is my understanding that they remain separate countries to this day. From May 1707 England and Scotland ceased to be separate sovereign States, but remained separate countries within a single unified sovereign State; granted a somewhat unique situation in global terms both then and now, but as we all know one which has existed for over three centuries. The term State to describe pre-1707 England and Scotland is both verifiable and, as has been said previously, appears elsewhere on related articles. Use of this term may assist the reader in distinguishing between what was then and what is now, and also help them understand the nature of the UK as a unified sovereign State, consisting of geo-political entities which are widely referred to as countries. Please revert the edit if you consider it to have only confused rather than helped clarify. Endrick Shellycoat 12:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"..it is my understanding that they remain separate countries to this day." While they do, of course, remain 'countries', they are not 'separate countries' since they are joined to one another as a result of the 1707 Union. I suppose the analogy is to a marriage: prior to the marriage we have two single individuals - after the marriage we still have two 'individuals' but they are not 'single' anymore. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

They are still separate, though (but not separated). I would argue that, in the same way, Engliand and Scotland can still be described a separate countries, implying that they have at least some characteristics which prevent them from being considered as a whole (such as their histories, education and legal systems). Wiktionary isn't much help, but [Ask Oxford's second adjectival definition] seems to cover the use here. Bazza (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

GDP figures

The figures for GDP seem to be 1000 times larger than they should be. They are > $2,000,000,000,000,000!Evan3scent (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted! I've fixed it! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. The PPP GDP is still wrong though. (I can't edit it myself as I'm not autoconfirmed yet)Evan3scent (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that was the figure for first thing this morning? It's nearly midday now - I wouldn't rule out a 99,000% drop in that time. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've just discovered I can't manage to change it. Sorry Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)