→Northern Ireland - one of many British-created countries: reply to Matt |
→Northern Ireland - one of many British-created countries: very interesting stuff |
||
Line 346: | Line 346: | ||
::Matt, you appear to be advocating [[Ulster nationalism]] in this post? Whatever the merits or otherwise of this ideology, it's a minority pursuit in Northern Ireland, where as you will know [[Northern_Ireland#Citizenship_and_identity|most people describe their national identity as either British or Irish]]. That illustrates one of my problems with the use of the word 'country' to describe NI - in any sense, apart from the [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/country vaguest synonym for 'region'], it generally implies a territory on a 'national' scale. Is there really any verifiable sense of Northern Irish 'nationhood'? |
::Matt, you appear to be advocating [[Ulster nationalism]] in this post? Whatever the merits or otherwise of this ideology, it's a minority pursuit in Northern Ireland, where as you will know [[Northern_Ireland#Citizenship_and_identity|most people describe their national identity as either British or Irish]]. That illustrates one of my problems with the use of the word 'country' to describe NI - in any sense, apart from the [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/country vaguest synonym for 'region'], it generally implies a territory on a 'national' scale. Is there really any verifiable sense of Northern Irish 'nationhood'? |
||
::Off on a tangent for a moment, I wonder when the first reference to Northern Ireland as a 'country' was made? I think it must be sometime after 2000, a year in which the contemporary Official UK Yearbook (an ONS publication) still referred to the place as a 'province'. By 2005 the Yearbook used 'country'. But the UK Government's submission to a 2007 UN conference on Geographic Names, and various other official sources, still used 'province'. Confusion reigns.--[[User:Pondle|Pondle]] ([[User talk:Pondle|talk]]) 22:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
::Off on a tangent for a moment, I wonder when the first reference to Northern Ireland as a 'country' was made? I think it must be sometime after 2000, a year in which the contemporary Official UK Yearbook (an ONS publication) still referred to the place as a 'province'. By 2005 the Yearbook used 'country'. But the UK Government's submission to a 2007 UN conference on Geographic Names, and various other official sources, still used 'province'. Confusion reigns.--[[User:Pondle|Pondle]] ([[User talk:Pondle|talk]]) 22:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::Very interesting stuff. So, [http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/9th-UNCSGN-Docs/E-CONF-98-48-Add1.pdf the UK submission to the 2007 United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographic Names] defines the United Kingdom thusly: |
|||
::::The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy consisting of four constituent parts: |
|||
::::* ''2 countries: England + Scotland'' |
|||
::::* ''1 principality: Wales'' |
|||
::::* ''1 province: Northern Ireland'' |
|||
:::Very interesting stuff. --RA ([[User talk:Rannpháirtí anaithnid|talk]]) 23:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:What should've been done (a long time ago), was have England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales described as ''adminstrative parts of the United Kingdom'' (disregard the usage of 'country' and 'constituent country'). It's too late now, though. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
:What should've been done (a long time ago), was have England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales described as ''adminstrative parts of the United Kingdom'' (disregard the usage of 'country' and 'constituent country'). It's too late now, though. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
::At what point in Wikipedia's history could it enforce something like that? Wikipedia is supposed to reflect, not create. [[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 20:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
::At what point in Wikipedia's history could it enforce something like that? Wikipedia is supposed to reflect, not create. [[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 20:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:01, 31 March 2010
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Section: "Countries of the United Kingdom"
This has been mentioned to above (the section was described as a "joke"). What is the purpose of the table in the section "Countries of the United Kingdom". I looks like something that belongs more in the user namespace. If the purpose, as I think, is to "demonstrate" the number of references in support of one phraseology or another then it is a clear instance of original research (the sources themselves may be fine, but "counting" them to imply something else is not).
I'm not normally a deletionist without wanting to reuse content in another way but I don't see how this can be recycled so I propose that it be removed to someone's userspace or as a subpage of this talk page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- It was one of the products of a long (and I think mediated) process and it was agreed to keep it here for reference if the issue came up again. --Snowded TALK 11:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- In that case it seems to be for project-internal rather than encyclopedic purposes, and should certainly be moved to somewhere else than the article.--Kotniski (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Any ideas? An Admin put it there in the first place. It doesn't belong on a user page as it was created in common --Snowded TALK 12:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Move it to the top of the talk page, referring to it with an invisible comment in the wikitext of the article?--Kotniski (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds cool to me, then its the standard "this has been discussed before" type notice. --Snowded TALK 13:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good too, there is probably also a better way of organising the refs for the purpose of ready use again - if that was the original purpose. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds cool to me, then its the standard "this has been discussed before" type notice. --Snowded TALK 13:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Move it to the top of the talk page, referring to it with an invisible comment in the wikitext of the article?--Kotniski (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Any ideas? An Admin put it there in the first place. It doesn't belong on a user page as it was created in common --Snowded TALK 12:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- In that case it seems to be for project-internal rather than encyclopedic purposes, and should certainly be moved to somewhere else than the article.--Kotniski (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I moved the section to a sub page and included it on this page as a template (inside a hidden template). That way it won't clutter the talk page but appears at the very top. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
"... not formal subdivisions of the United Kingdom"?
"England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales however are not formal subdivisions of the United Kingdom." - I don't understand what is meant by this sentence.
It is backed with the reference: "There is [...] no common stratum of administrative unit encompassing the United Kingdom at this very high level, and England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not be considered first-order administrative divisions in the conventional sense."
The reference is certainly sound but I don't understand what is trying to be said or if it really backs the statement. Certainly "Scotland", "Wales" and "Northern Ireland" are formally defined subdivisions with formally defined powers devolved to sub-national authorities - they are not "ad hoc subdivision" throw together in the morning and changed at night ... but I'd like to know what's meant before I edit it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think the line is basically saying that the UK isn't a federal state, and that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland aren't 'equivalent' administrative units. The UK is a unitary state where the Crown in Parliament is sovereign, but different degrees of power have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly.--Pondle (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah - I get'cha. I'll see what I try to express that a bit clearer. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
"Wales was part of England is misleading..."
At the time the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed Wales was a part of the Kingdom of England. What is misleading about saying so (and why does it require reverting an unrelated paragraph)? The offending was intended to explain give a potted history of the UK (necessary to put the rest of the article in context) and go some way to explain why the different parts of the UK are called "countries" i.e. the UK was formed by a union of three countries. Until the middle of the last century the countries of the UK (in a political and administrative sense) were distinctly "England", "Ireland" and "Scotland". Wales of course has a history independent of England and has long as long been called a "country" in it's own right (and deservedly so). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Venn diagram
That Venn diagram, it's wrong. It puts the Channel Islands outisde of the British Isles, and everyone knows that's incorrect. Could the creator of the diagram maybe correct it please? Mister Flash (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Usage is inconsistent, a point reflected on the British Isles page, albeit very poorly sourced. Geographically, the Channel Islands are obviously not part of the British Isles, whereas they are generally included as so on socio-political grounds. However, politically speaking, the term British Isles has been eclipsed by British Islands, which of course includes the UK, Mann and the CIs.--Breadandcheese (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not true. British Islands has a specific, limited meaning as I guess you already know. Mister Flash (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Considering the amount of times the phrase is used out there, the incorrect 'singular' political meaning (when it incorrectly includes the channel islands) is very rare. But any mis-use is no more prevalent (if not actually much less prevalent) than inconsistencies you find with similar terms. Esp terms related to the UK; 'England' used to mean the whole UK, 'Ireland' used to mean the whole island but the country too, etc. The geographical use of BI is broad, scientific and consistently used, and that fact is accepted by all parties on Wikipedia, even the ones who wish for an equivalent term to be used here, and who insist that various equivalents are becoming more prevalent in society. Given the amount work a number of editors have put into avoiding disruption over this term, I have to question why a seemingly experienced editor would make the above "everyone knows" statement. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Er... so are the Channel Islands in or out then (in your opinion)? Mister Flash (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Out. The term is geographical and is universally used as such, with only relatively few exceptions when you look at the whole picture. The Channel Islands are not in the archipelago of the British Isles. And you couldn't get away with including the Republic of Ireland in any recognised definition of a political construct called 'British Isles'. Some people do include the Channel Islands as a kind of anomaly (ie 'a group of islands' rather than an archipelago), but to my knowledge you won't find that to be the case in technical/scientific use - ie meteorology, geography, geology, natural history, archeology etc. General-use dictionaries do tend to include CI - but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is quite different to a general dictionary, which is inclusive and multi-definition by nature. The first job of the British Isles guideline was to give Wikipedia a clear geography-only definition of the word; given the weight of sources, it makes full sense to use the scientific 'archipelago' approach. With terms that can be unclear, all encyclopedias need to supply guides/definitions that can be adhered to, making the encyclopedia a consistent entity. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The diagram is incorrect (or at best reflects a minor/pedantic opinion). The Channel Islands are a part of the British Isles, which is a geographical term not a geological one. Contrary to what Matt writes above, it is common to include them the Channel Islands all contexts where the term is used: be it in scientific or general publications. Some example references are below (I got tired transcribing so many, there of many many many more):
- "British Isles: a group of island lying off the coast of northwestern Europe, from which they are separated by the North Sea and the English Channel. They include Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Isle of Wight, the Hebrides, the Orkney Islands, the Shetland Islands, the Scilly Isles, and the Channel Islands." - New Oxford American Dictionary
- "British Isles: a geographical term for the islands comparing Great Britain and Ireland with all their offshore islands including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands." - Oxford English Dictionary
- "British Isles: the group of island consisting of Great Britain and Ireland, and all the other smaller islands around them e.g. the Hebrides, Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man." - The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary
- "The British Isles: The British Isles constitute the largest group of islands off the European cost. They consist of two main islands - Great Britain (composing England, Scotland, and Wales) and Ireland - a number of smaller inhabited islands, and numerous small islets an docks that are of no economic value and even constitute a danger to shipping. … The British Isles are divided politically into (a) the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and (b) the Republic of Eire. … In addition, the Isle of Man and the French-speaking Channel Islands are considered dependencies, rather than parts, of the United Kingdom; they have their own parliaments, judicial institutions, and bodies of law, as well as administrations, and acts of Parliament do not apply to them unless specifically so stated." - An Atlas of European Affairs
- "Geographically, the British Isles are made up of a number of islands, and there are also a number of different political components. Very often 'England' is used as a synonym of Britain, while 'Englishman' is employed as a blanket description for all the inhabitants of the British Isles. This, as any Welshman, Irishman or Scot will quickly point out, is incorrect. The United Kingdom consists of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Isle of Man, in the Irish Sea, and the Channel Islands, off the coast of France (and formerly part of the Duchy of Normandy), are not part of the United Kingdom." - Modern Britain: an Introduction, John L. Irwin
- "The British Isles consist of two large Islands, Great Britain and Ireland, the Channel Islands, and numerous small islands lying off the the north and west coasts." Encyclopedia of World Geography, M. Ali Khan et al.
- "The British Isles comprise more than 6,000 islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe, including the countries of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) and Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland. The group also includes the United Kingdom crown dependencies of the Isle of Man, and by tradition, the Channel Islands (the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey), even though these islands are strictly speaking an archipelago immediately off the coast of Normandy (France) rather than part of the British Isles." - World Geography of Travel and Tourism: A Regional Approach, Alan A. Lew
- "British Isles: The major island components of the British Isles, geographically but not politically, are Great Britain and Ireland, 229 834 km2 (88 745 mi2). Great Britain comprises England, including the Isle of Wight, Scilly Islands and smaller islands; Wales, including Anglesey; Scotland, including the Inner Hebredes and the Orkney and Shetland Islands. Ireland, 83 851 km2 (32 375 m2), is divided into two parts: Northern Ireland, which until 1972 had an independent parliament and government under the British Crown and now is part of the United Kingdom, under direct British rule; and Ireland or Eire, which is an independent republic. From 1921 to 1937 the republic was known as the 'Irish Free State'. Smaller parts of Great Britain, but administered indirectly, are the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands." - Encyclopedia of European and Asian regional geology, Eldridge M. Moores et al.
- "The islands [the British Isles] encompass both the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which have maintained their own separate (from Westminster) system of government." - Human geography of the UK: an Ontroduction, Irene Hardill et al.
- "…the history of 'England' has overlapped repeated with that of other cultures within the British Isles (a term which should include the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, Shetlands and Orkney, as well as the larger islands of Britain and Ireland)." - The British Isles: a History of Four Nations, Hugh Kearney
- "In this book, 'the British Isles' is taken to include the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, Orkney and Shetland as well as mainland Britain and Ireland." - Language in the British Isles, Peter Trudgill
- "Although the Channel Islands (Guernesy and Jersey) and the Isles of Man are part of the geographical area known as 'the British Isles', they are not part of the United Kingdom." - Modern Treaty Law and Practice, Anthony Aust (emphasis in original)
- "As such, the Channel islands represent the British Isles' most southerly territory and enjoy a climate of milt winters and cool summers supplemented with around 1,900 hours of sunshine a year (Guernesy or Jersey are often the sunniest places in Britain.)" - Channel Island Marine Molluscs, Paul Chambers
- "Within the geographical perimeter of the British Isles, the Channel Islands (Jersey, Guernesy, Alderney, Sark, an several smaller islands) and the Isle of Man are crown dependencies, governed by a lieutenant governor but with relative autonomy, and not included in the formal United Kingdom." - The History of Great Britain, Anne B. Rodrick
- "The British Isles include, in addition to the United Kingdom, two interesting groups of islanders, those on the Isle of Man in the Irish sea and those living on the Channel Islands off the coast of France." The Development of the British Empire, Howard Robinson (NB: This source predate Irish independence)
- "The geographic term, British Isles, refers to the archipelago off the north-west coats of continental Europe, which includes the main island of Great Britain an the island of Ireland together with their subsidiary islands, including the Orkneys, Shetlands, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands." - Principles of Plant Health and Quarantine, D. L. Ebbels
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm off out for a while now, but I'll prove to you later how the above sources (compiled over a long period if they are from the infamous 'criticism' article) do not amount to a hill of beans. And hundreds of thousands of texts, big and small, polemical and mainstream, self-published to Oxbridge, relate to Ireland and the UK. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I just put them together now. I'm not familiar with the 'criticism' article. In any event, the OED, NOAD and Chambers dictionaries alone would ordinarily be enough to suffice. It's a cut and dry issue: if you don't know what a word or phrase means, look it up in a dictionary.
- I don't understand what this discussion has to do with Ireland or why you are bringing it up. The question is whether the Channel Islands are considered to be a part of the British Isles. No more, no less. No need to complicate things or turn it into a POV issue on the British Isles. The answer, simple and thoroughly supported, is yes. Verifiability, not truth.--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Just whipped them up eh? The Delia Smith of citation providing. I have to say that saying you don't understand how Ireland is involved sounds rather like you are laying up an 'WP:AGF' to me! If you read all your sources carefully, some of them have in-built caveats (inc extra-defining words), a couple of them have other mistakes (like claiming the Channel Islands are part of Great Britain), and the rest are basically the exceptions I refer too; Apart from (as I have already allowed for) general dictionaries, which do tend to be completist in their definition of BI. Human geography and the social sciences are not the most accurate of sciences technically, and the more accurate hard-science based ones (ie geology/archipelago-based) are just as heavily written. but you need to actually look for them. Encyclopedias are very different to dictionaries, and Wikipedia has a guideline/MOS structure to help keep it a consistent entity.
- I often find the fist line of Verify to be the bolt hole of the biased. I'll get together my verified sources, and we'll keep on dishing them out until it is clear that 'the truth' (in the sense of 'the reality') in the end actually matters. Geology, Natural history, archeology and meteorology will win it - not the looser socal sciences, which are notoriously varied on matter surrounding the UK anyway, and I will find plenty of archipelago-based uses of BI within them I am certain. Esp the ones that aknowledge the term 'British Islands', which was designed to disclude the Republic of Ireland - something that the archipelago-based sciences and disciplines obviously do not do: they are about the archipelago. Verified sourcing is only the fist step towards citing an article: the truth will ultimately provide the best verified definition, and is a pretty good shortcut in avoiding a shedload of wasted time too.
- So - the point about the 'archipelago definition' actually being the most sensible one for Wikipedia articles? I expect that will be steadfastly ignored by all who don't wish the term to be used on Wikipedia at all. And those people have the gall call people like me biased. I am not biased either way, I simply realise that the a term with such widespread use simply can't be placed aside. We need guidelines to help us sort out when to use it, and to scupper the definition is to scupper the guideline. I do expect that nationalist politics (as least much as inclusionist stalwarts) will prevent any kind of stability on this matter. And people like myself who just want to see a sensible working encyclopedia without troubled or locked articles will continue to be accused of bias. What a mire. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Just whipped them up eh? The Delia Smith of citation providing." You're welcome. I'm flattered but really this is dime-a-dozen stuff. It's no big deal.
- "Geology, Natural history, archeology and meteorology will win it..." Your wish is my command:
- "Overall, the late Precambrian geology of the southern British Isles can be view as divisible into three superterranes (i.e. groups of terranes) that may be classified as Monian (Anglesey, Western Llynn, southeast Ireland), Avalonian (Sarn Camplex of Llyn, Central England, Welsh Borderland, southwest Wales), and Cadomian (Channel Islands)." - Atlas of Palaeogeography and Lithofacies, John Christopher Wolverson Cope
- "The Flora deals with the British Isles, comprising Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales), Ireland (Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic), the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands." - The Freshwater Algal Flora of the British Isles, D. M. John et al.
- "Neanderthal skeletal remains are known from two sites in the British Isles: Pontnewydd Cave in Clwyd, Wales, and La Cotte de Saint-Brelade on Jersey in the Channel Islands" - England: an Oxford Archaeological Guide to Sites from Earliest Times to AD 1600, Timothy Darvill,
- "The Channel Islands lie in the Gulf of Saint-Malo, just a few kilometers from et French coast, and have the sunniest climate in the British Isles." - Regional Climates of the British Isles, Dennis Wheeler et al.
- These kind of questions are answered by referring to a dictionary, not by performing scientific experiments or conducting field studies.
- Again, I'm sorry, I don't see what Ireland has to do with this. The only question here is: are the Channel Islands a part of the British Isles? The answer (verified) is yes. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:11, 29 November 2009 (UT
- You simply cannot say "the answer (verified) is yes" when other uses of term can be verified too. You've got to get your head around 'verify'! Exceptions are always easier to find on search engines (an often-unhelpful quirk when dealing with Wikipedia - Google is responsible for a multitude of sins!) - in this case they will come to the keyword "channel islands". I am planning to come back to BI at some point, but only with useful data, and partly from a large library near to me. Plenty of BI maps out there disclude the Channel Islands - including one I own. Others include part of France, but sometimes just as a compass mark. Sometimes they highlight the channel islands. Sometimes the CIs are included BI matters simply because they are British. But does that disallow the archipelago definition? The nearest equivalent to Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia Britannica, which appends "Some also include the Channel islands." after its clear definition on its main encyclopedia, and does not bother to append it in its children's version. Like Britannica, we are an encyclopedia, and as for my points regarding what is actually good for Wikipedia, again you have ignored them. What do you personally want to see Wikipedia do regarding sources in the guideline? Include every meaning available (political, British Islands with the ROI, and archipelago-only), or stick to the exacting archipelago sources that technically make sense in an encyclopedia? Or do you want to headcount all verifiable 'online' sources, and 'go foward' on which has the most? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- What is good for the encyclopedia is to base our articles on reliable sources, not on what would make life easier for us as editors. From my (POV) perspective, of all the sources above, World Geography of Travel and Tourism, I think, hits the nail on the head: "The British Isles ... includes the United Kingdom crown dependencies of the Isle of Man, and by tradition, the Channel Islands (the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey), even though these islands are strictly speaking an archipelago immediately off the coast of Normandy (France) rather than part of the British Isles." But we are not here to correct the English language or to tidy it up. The British Isles is a place. Like most other places, it roughly conforms to geological boundaries - but only roughly. The Channel Islands are a part of that place that pops over where we might want to draw a neat little border.
- We are a compendium of knowledge, not a producer or a corrector of it; we stick with what the books says. In the case of the British Isles, book after book says that the Channel Islands are in. Some, like Britannica, do say that they are optional - and some neglect them - but unless they explicitly say "the CIs are out", in contrast to those that explicitly say "the CIs are in", then we are only reading what we want into them. Those that explicitly say they are out, or are optional, are a small minority. Other than that the only sources we have against the CI being in are, like you have said, looking at maps and reading something into them. But if it is not explicit, it's no good.
- Regarding encyclopedias, Wikipedia:Reliable sources has something to say about tertiary sources. None the less, if you are in the mood, Encarta has this to say:
- "It consists of the large islands of Great Britain and Ireland; several island groups, namely, the Orkney Islands, the Shetland Islands, the Hebrides, and the Channel Islands; and the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, and the Isle of Man." - Encarta
- --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 02:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, I think the current into to British Isles is just fine (and by extension any similar treatment of the CIs elsewhere). In articles, we can simply explain the situation; it's only in things like lists or, like here, in a diagram, that we have to make a binary decision (in or out) and loose context. But it can be left to the actual article to explain that actually, they're on the other side of the Channel, closer to France.
- It's not a big deal to explain. Things are messy, but it's not our job to tidy them up. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 02:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Britinnica does not say the Channel Islands are 'optional', it gives its archipelago-based definition, and then says that some also include them. And that's the rub.
- The more you repeat lines this this; "What is good for the encyclopedia is to base our articles on reliable sources, not on what would make life easier for us as editors.", the more you remind me of someone active during that time you were an just an IP. How many times must I say there are 'reliable sources' on both sides? I've said I'll compile some solid ones when I have the time, so hold your bloody horses and wait for heaven's sake. There are those who "say the Channel Islands are out" (your tiny minority), and those who clearly see them as being out (which are not so easy to keyword). I've already explained the difficulty of keywording 'givens' in an online search engine - kindly stop flatly ignoring all my non-basic points: BI is not your typical Verify issue, and Wikipedia needs to recommend a single definition. I've reverted your revision to the Venn diagram. If you want to show the inconsistency, put in an asterisk and a comment (on the image itself if you like - no one would argue). You cannot completely change it to your own preferred definition. By the way, I seem to remember a certain 'controversial' diagram of your own once upon a time that was entirely Original Research - so careful with taking the moral high ground here.
- Regarding your flighty words on what our wonderful Wikipedia is all about, in terms of encyclopedic definition it simply IS our job to do a 'tidy up' for the benefit of creating an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has done this scores if not hundreds of times when it has had to - just read through MOS. THAT IS THE WHOLE ISSUE WITH BI - IT CLEARLY NEEDED/NEEDS A DEFINING GUIDELINE. If you want the word to find some kind of stability that is. Constantly cheeping the first few few notes of policy is not going to help a discussion like this. Wikipedia is more than just a couple of simple rules to be endlessly (mis) called. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- If the venn diagram is causing such controversy, and is apparently inaccurate, why not just remove it until the issue is settled? Alastairward (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to. I tried 3 times to revert the change, until I realised that Rannfairti copied over the original file, without any consensus sought or notification given. Uploading a separate file is the standard procedure with variations, not over-writing the original. I'll append some text to the original image I copied from the image history, and put something back tonight if I can. It's just as esy as re-uploading it. The diagram is a useful, if not a major, part of the article.Matt Lewis (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually - I've just noticed (seeing the diagram in here is a new thing for me) it has got flags on it! That is controversial regarding Northern Ireland, and flags simply aren't needed here. There is an old BI diagram I created myself last year some time - I'll hunt that out. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
New BI diagram
- I found the diagram from last October (see right). I'd completely forgotten about this, and I've given it both CI boundries too. It got some good support here. What stopped me moving forward with it (apart from distractions from the various taskforces I suppose) was Jza84 pointing out that the off-shore islands like Anglesey are wrongly placed in Great Britain. If I added "and off-shore islands" in small type underneath the label 'Great Britian', would anyone object if this became the new diagram?
- If we do go back to a Venn, I really don't think we should have flags in it, and should point out the two definitions of BI too (a dotted Venn line might be better than as asterisk). Matt Lewis (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- The flags are good. I vote we keep them. There's no problem with NI. The purists tell us it doesn't have a flag now, and it doesn't on the diagram. What about the Euler dialgram at British Isles? We should rationalise all these versions somehow or other. Mister Flash (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Your 'purists' are by definition only one party. It's best avoiding what could cause problems - are the flags actually needed? I wasn't that happy with them being added to the main article either - they don't really explain anything. The BI Euler was changed by Rann to include the Channel Islands a couple of years back (in a previous account of his). I imagine I created this new one in view of updating that one. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- The flags are good. I vote we keep them. There's no problem with NI. The purists tell us it doesn't have a flag now, and it doesn't on the diagram. What about the Euler dialgram at British Isles? We should rationalise all these versions somehow or other. Mister Flash (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- If we do go back to a Venn, I really don't think we should have flags in it, and should point out the two definitions of BI too (a dotted Venn line might be better than as asterisk). Matt Lewis (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- That diagram is good. And easier to comprehend that the Euler diagrams. I wouldn't worry about Anglesey and Wight, they are off-shore islands of GB in the same way as the Aran Islands, Achail, Rathlin and god knows how many others are offshore islands of Ireland. There's no need to treat them any differently. (Anyway, surely the Shetlands are more of a concern in that respect.) Some points:
- There's a spelling mistake in "Geographical archipelago"
- The scare quote around "Traditional" and elsewhere should go.
- We should rethink the wording of "geographical archipelago" to refer to the sense without the CIs - it is a "geographical archipelago" with or without them - I get what's meant, but can't think of another wording right now.
- Maybe dot the widest and narrowest extent of the definition and drop putting terms on them.
- I think the coast line of continental Europe should be visible as a reference point but faded out in some way.
- There's a green blob on over Cork - is that some kind of joke, Matt? :-)
- --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- The Venn diagram has (or had) the advantage of being very easy to read. There is no problem with the flags, which make it even easier to tell the story graphically. All that needs to change is for British Islands to be added and it would be fine. The Channel Islands are not part of the British Isles, which is (supposedly) a geographical term rather than a political term. The Channel Islands only become part of the British Isles when considered in political terms. The Chausey Islands form part of the same archipelago as the Channel Islands, which is geographically part of Normandy, but are not considered to be part of the British Isles, either geographically or politically. Daicaregos (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- "British Isles: a geographical term for the islands comparing Great Britain and Ireland with all their offshore islands including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands." - Oxford English Dictionary
- Daicaregos, this and twenty (20) other citations, all explicitly including the Channel Islands, are listed above. There's nothing "political" about it ,except to the extent that geography, by definition, includes human activity.
- It would help if those who say the Channel Islands are not a part of the British Isles would provide reliable sources supporting their view (or look to the ones already provided). Matt was good enough to provide one (1) that said, "Some also include the Channel Islands". That's the closest so far to saying that the Channel Islands "not" a part of the British Isles - and yet it too carries on to treat the Channel Islands as being a part of the British Isles (e.g. "the island of Jersey, in the British Isles"). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Suggest we close
Per Alastairward above, I suggest we leave the British Isles out of the article (no map, move the link to BI terminology article down to the See Also section). This article is about the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, not the British Isles. It doesn't actually matter to this article whether the Channel Islands are a part of the British Isles or not - it's not pertinent to the topic. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agree, its a lovely job but if anything it is more difficult to interpret than text, and at least in text we can use pipelinks to make things clearer --Snowded TALK 23:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm happy to leave a BI diagram out of this article too, but it's something that has found its way in here over time, which is part of a kind of natural progression with this term. We can't abandon this matter, so essentially we would be moving this discussion to somewhere else - most likely the talk pages of British Isles. The current Euler diagram over there has the same issues with it, and the one I made above was originally made to replace that. 'BI issues' crop up everywhere lets face it, and a diagram we can all accept will be needed at some point. After almost a year off WIkipedia, I find BI all over the talk pages when I came back (to edit something entirely diferent I'd like to add!) which shows that the difficulty with it clearly hasn't gone away. Perhaps a decent diagram would help us now regarding the guideline? I assume the WP:BITASK Examples pages (I havent had a chance to properly go though them yet) follow some kind of established guideline/rules - or perhaps they are debated afresh case by case? I'll make that rhetorical as I basically need to get my head down and read them.
- I'll start a continuing section on this at BI then (tomorrow now), but I'll say here that on reflection I do think that a dotted Euler/Venn is a better choice for a diagram. I can see more each time I look at the image above why I put it aside last October. I've less desire than anyone else here to get bogged down in things, but I don't want to waste any time I put into debating, or push ultimately important things we've started to talk about to the sidelines either. The only way to resolve things is to keep pushing forward till they are done, which partly means dealing with things when they crop up. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I've started an RFC on a subpage of the British Isles task force. Before it's advertised anywhere, could you add a statement and sources (as it seems your the strongest advocate of the opposing view to my own).
- As for the matter at hand, the diagram has been changed and added to the page again. TBH, no matter what is says, I don't think it is appropraite to this article. I'm going to contact the editor that restored it but other than that is everyone otherwise OK to remove it and close this discussion with the conclusion that it was agreeded to remove the map and link to the Terminology article from the subheading inside the article, and move the Terminology link down to the 'See also' links? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hang on, I might like progression, but this is getting too much like a steamrolled consensus. Yes, I didn't mind if yesterdays earleir Venn diagram was removed - but I didn't want to see it anywhere on Wikipedia! I'm not going to stand against someone who wants to see a properly-made British Isles diagram here, as I don't actually see it as 'inappropriate' for the article. I stand in the middle regarding the term 'British Isles'. When it is done properly, the diagram will hardly damage the article. I'm not too happy with the flags on the Venn put up yesterday evening by Wdcf - the article already has flags, and over-complicating isn't what Venn diagrams are supposed to be about. But at least it better represents the Channel Islands - yes? You are moving unfairly fast, Rannparti.
- Opening an RFC on the CI's being in the British Isles at this jucture is a pretty aggressive act - there is positive movement, and there is deliberate pushiness and haste. For my part, I have told you personally that I need to read though the BI Examples (there is a lot of it), and that I need to prepare references (and why I have to – how many times now, Rannparti???) You have opened the RFC in the same ignorant "this is a no brainer" 'wind up merchant' manner you seem unable to check, no matter what I am informing you of (ie - you are repeatedly refusing to accept a point, being tendentious, and wasting other people's time in making them repeat themselves). It just makes me wonder what your admitted IP'S were the past year, as this is all too familiar behaviour. Most of the 'BI editors' feel the same as I do about needing an archeology-based definition of the term 'British Isles' within a Wikipedia guideline. Soliciting new views in this manner right now on a difficult subject is highly unappealing. You have seen how wound up some people are getting at the moment, like HighKing, and now myself, initially because be appealed and I wished to help him. You say I am the 'strongest' proponent of the CI's being in the British Isles on Wikipedia - but how do you gage strength in this? Most people either want this definition for Wikipedia or they do not. I am simply the editor who is standing up to your pushy non-consensus changes right now. The few BI editors like yourself who are into using the all-inclusive 'Channel Islands' definition on Wikipedia, often comment as IP's, and have been in the past a great deal more 'vocal' than me - but that's the nature of the beast. In my experience, that 'all-or-nothing' stance has often been taken simply to prevent any 'moderate use' guideline being made at all. In effect, it is stonewalling.Matt Lewis (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the diagram, I suggested that whatever about the Channel Islands, a diagram of the British Isles is inappropriate in this article (as well as subhead links to the British Isles terminolgy page). The article deals with a different topic. You wrote: "I'm happy to leave a BI diagram out of this article too, but it's something that has found its way in here over time, which is part of a kind of natural progression with this term." That looked like you were in agreement.
- "Opening an RFC on the CI's being in the British Isles at this jucture is a pretty aggressive act..." - ?? It was you who suggested it: "We can't abandon this matter, so essentially we would be moving this discussion to somewhere else - most likely the talk pages of British Isles." Granted, I didn't open a new section on the BI talk page. I opened a subpage of the British Isles Task Force. Since there is a task force for these matters - and since the question affects multiple pages - that seemed most appropriate.
- Regarding the rest, please, have faith. Everyone here can do without the drama of accusation of sock-puppetry and the like. I didn't mean that you were the most vocal proponent of anything on Wikipedia; only that in this discussion, you are the strongest proponent of the views opposite to my own (as I am the strongest proponent of view strongest to yours). It would have been inappropriate of me to open a discussion to wider input without your views being there as well as mine. I also stated that it would be inappropriate to open it to wider input without you having a chance to gather the references you say you will.
- Faith, brother Matthew. Faith. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's more than a little iffy that you supported your own diagram, and then wanted to go for 'no diagram at all' as soon as someone made a more informative one. Discussion focused at an RFC clearly suits you far more than further changes at British Isles too! I also object to you opening the RFC by calling it a "no brainer", when I have had to keep reapeating things that you havent yet dealt with. Such an opening is hardly a non-partisan approach - it's a Request for Comment, not Mediation Cabal. It's not good form, boyo. As for your polite offer of more time for me - why not put it where I can see it, instead of somewhere I have already said I've had no time to go through. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- "I think it's more than a little iffy that you supported your own diagram, and then wanted to go for 'no diagram at all' as soon as someone made a more informative one."
- Timeline:
- 23:12, 30 November 2009 - I suggest we leave the BIs out of this article altogher.
- 01:31, 1 December 2009 - Wdcf uploads a new version of the diagram
- 01:33, 1 December 2009 - Wdcf readds the diagram to this page
- Without access to a time machine, what you suppose to be my motiavation in fact could not be.
- Timeline:
- "Discussion focused at an RFC clearly suits you far more than further changes at British Isles too!"
- An RFC is no more than that - a "request for comment" - it's just a discussion. Having it on a subpage of the British Isles Task Force is a logical place for it since questions like this are the purpose of that task force and since this is a question that affects many articles, not just one.
- "I also object to you opening the RFC by calling it a 'no brainer' ... It's not good form, boyo."
- Fair enough. But we don't have to pretend to be non-partisan when we are not. We both have firmly held views. I have listened to yours. Mine is still that this is a "no brainer". That doesn't mean we have to start pucking the the heads of each other or that we are sworn enemies from hence forth. We are still collaborators on this project together. But I'm not going to patronise you by saying that I think that this is a complex matter when I do not. It is IMHO a "no brainer".
- "As for your polite offer of more time for me - why not put it where I can see it, instead of somewhere I have already said I've had no time to go through."
- 10:23, 1 December 2009 - I posted it here, on this talk page, in reply to a comment by you, when I informed you that I had opened the new subpage. I wrote: "Before it's advertised anywhere, could you add a statement and sources (as it seems you['re] the strongest advocate of the opposing view to my own)." You apparantly read the part in brackets.
So, are you OK with removing the diagram from this page? And moving the link to the Terminology article down to 'See also'?
Discussion of an RFC are now being cut across two pages, so let's just leave that to the talk page of the subpage of the British Isles Task Force. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- My small mistake over Wdcf's edit in the 'timeline' doesn't change anything - it's just a technicality. Wdcf's new Venn diagram clearly followed the '2 definition' approach of the diagram I proposed in the section above, just a few hours before you changed your mind (the diagram you commented on). The idea of a dual definition had backing (including in a preference for a Venn), and changes (by whoever) were clearly pending. You simply decided that no diagram was better than one with both definitions in it. You also opened an RFC after it was pretty clear a discussion move to to Talk:British Isles was pending too. I think you have been moving the issues into places that will temporarily keep the Channel Islands inside Wikipedia's BI definition! But lets move on, eh?
- As someone who sits in the middle on the diagrams inclusion here, I need to see what people like Dai Caragos etc say on the matter. The same with the flag elements - there is no point arguing over fairly superficial matters you don't like, like flags, if the majority want to include them. It has got to be a 'both definitions' diagram though - that is essential, and I think a decent Venn/Euler is preferable to my own effort above. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
RFC opened on the inclusion/disclusion of the Channel Islands
An RFC has been opened inviting comments on whether the Channel Islands should be treated as part of the British Isles on Wikipedia. All views are welcome here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Small suggestions...
Acutely aware that this article sometimes causes upset and strife, I'd like to make a suggestion to the lead of the article.
I believe the opening paragraph is strong and does not need change, but, although I like elements of the second and third paragraphs, I feel that they rather miss the point. For example, the administrative nature of the UK is explained in detail, and the induction of the UK as a member state of the UN and EU is rightly and justly mentioned, but the lead misses the extremely important home nations and how the four nations have the unusual distinction of having things like national football associations without representing sovereign entities.
I feel we should also mention a very breif, uber neutral sentence or two on the cultural and political position that the formation of the UK has left the country/countries in; i.e. something like "Unionism and nationalism play important roles in the politics of the United Kingdom. There is a split in perceptions as to the future of the countries of the UK as under one sovereign power, in a federation, or as independent states."
I feel these changes would be a little more illustrative of what the article really signifies. Thoughts? --Jza84 | Talk 15:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- All good points. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The second paragraph of this article notes "... there is an England national cricket team". The Wikilink redirects to the article England cricket team, which begins: "The England cricket team (Welsh: Tîm criced Lloegr) is the cricket team which represents England and Wales." Consequently - unless the point of including this example was to show that some English sporting bodies traditionally use players and administrative expertise from (what they consider to be) inconsequential counties without giving them any credit - the point that the UK has separate teams for sporting events is misplaced. I suggest that a different sport is mentioned, and chosen with care. Daicaregos (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- England National Football Team? --Jza84 | Talk 13:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- The cricket team is not the best example as while the team is called the England cricket team (no need for "national"), it's run by the England and Wales Cricket Board (the ECB, not sure where the W goes though). Simon Jones and Geraint Jones were the last Welshmen to play for the team, but it's still nominally the England and Wales cricket team. If the point of including the team is that the countries of the UK have individual sports teams, I suggest using rugby as an example; there are much stricter conditions in being allowed to play rugby for your country than in cricket and at the moment the "England" cricket squad contains an Irishman, two South Africans, two people born in South Africa. Nev1 (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see it's been changed to the football team, that seems fine to me. Nev1 (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
e/c Yes of course, England is actually an England/Wales cricket team. The last ashes series started in Cardiff. I don't quite see why the information begins with "However," (it seems rather a tenuous link) or why it is where it is in the Introduction to be honest. Home Nations is one thing (and they are used in sport) - but cricket is unnecessarily complex I think - it has to be fully explained, and the quirk of Wales/England just isn't going to be summarised easily. Its nothing to do with 'national feelings', cricket is just simply too complex for the Intro. Cricket doesn't actually use "Home Nations" either, does it?
The section "Identity within the UK" (now renamed I think) has a line or two on devolution/independence, which I agree can be summarised in the Intro. Given the interest in sport, perhaps we need a Culture section which we can summerise in the Intro too? I do worry that this artcle could get to the stage where it is deemed a 'fork' article of United Kingdom, and it already contains stuff on identity that isn't at UK. I'm actually happy to have a concise Culture section (always based on the countries of the UK together, of course), although I do 'believe' in multiculturalism, which I know it is a "no no" on Wikipedia to some people. My problem with arguing over hardcore 'sociology' is that I think it kind of sucks you dry, and you end up becoming a patchwork mannequin made out pieces of academic thesis. I can't say I relish it, but I'm gathering up books on British identity - although sources alone are only ever half the story of course. I'll have to buy a hose too.
Also - why was nothing added in place of the terminology table, when it was moved into Talk last year? I do wish people would do something positive when they remove something referenced by (and central to) the article, over (ahem) 'technnicalities', rather than just leave a complete hole. This is still an encyclopedia. That practically blank Terminology intro now needs to supply the terms from the columns of the table (eg region, province etc) - ie those other "various terms" which the main Introduction refers to, but the article no longer supplies at all. There could perhaps be 5 references after each term, in the standard Wikipedia way. The longer table version can stay in Talk of course (or maybe somewhere else eventually). I spent bloody hours making it strong, solid and useful (as did DDStretch), even if the 'lesser used' terms could have done with more refs, so there will be no calling it an "unneeded duplication" when some of its refs are placed back into the main article! Matt Lewis (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Daicaregos - That question crossed my mind last night. I was also thinking about the Welsh teams that compete in the English football league. Like many a UK editor who felt like commenting on an "Irish" issue, I don't feel like taking my life into my hand and so I kept my head down and stuck with my own keck of the woods ....
- ... but ...
- ... [deep breath] ...
- ... without meaning to imply that Wales is not a country (it is), is there not another sense of the word 'country' (i.e. a state)? In the region, there are three former countries in that sense of the word: the kingdoms of England, Ireland and Scotland. (Let me just repeat: Wales is a country.) In the same way that the former kingdom of Ireland is still a culturally significant reference for Northern Ireland when it comes to fielding international sports teams (football and CW Games aside), is the former Kingdom of England not also a culturally (and legally?) significant still in some instances? [runs for cover]
- I know that this is not how "Countries of the United Kingdom" is meant for the thrust of this article but I think it needs mentioning. The origins of the UK are with it first being the union of two and, at it's maximal, three such counties. (Again, for good measure, Wales is a country.) It strikes me that that sense of 'country', and it's significance for the UK, doesn't come out in the article. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Caveats aside, aren't you just comparing the 'Kingdoms' of Britain with Ireland? The 'state' that matters is the United Kingdom, the rest is the history of each individual country. One of the reasons people are touchy about Wales is that is can be 'technically devalued' in unnecessarily phrased comparisions that often don't need to be made (and can be argued are made for political reasons). That Wales was historically its own 'Principality', and not a 'Kingdom', is a matter of history (and historical fact), and is a 'technicality' in terms of independent sovereignty. Wales was once a country independent of the
UKcountries around it. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)- Wales was never a country independent of the UK. It was a country independent of England until 1284 (I think from memory) when it was assimilated into the Kingdom of England - which in turn combined with Scotland and Ireland to form the UK. The re-emergence of Wales as a separate political entity was a gradual process starting (in political terms) in the 19th century - but at the time some sports like cricket became codified, it was essentially seen by many (at least in the English establishment) as part of an entity called "England and Wales". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- How pedantic is that? Matt Lewis (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Pointing out that England is not the same as the UK? Hardly "pedantic". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid makes a valid point that the former Kingdom of England is also a culturally (and legally?) significant still in some instances. It is that some of those who retain the power in those institutions still cling to the colonial, superiority mindset. Sadly, it is not limited to the institutions either. Three Wikipedia examples spring to mind: Australian cricket team in England in 2009 (as already noted above - the first game of the tour was in Cardiff see discussion here), English law (note the article begins: English law is the legal system of England and Wales," the article even notes "Since 1967 most lawyers have referred to the legal system of England and Wales as "the Laws of England and Wales".") and English criminal law (note the article begins: "English criminal law refers to the body of law in England and Wales which ..."). Plus ça change. Daicaregos (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Pointing out that England is not the same as the UK? Hardly "pedantic". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- How pedantic is that? Matt Lewis (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wales was never a country independent of the UK. It was a country independent of England until 1284 (I think from memory) when it was assimilated into the Kingdom of England - which in turn combined with Scotland and Ireland to form the UK. The re-emergence of Wales as a separate political entity was a gradual process starting (in political terms) in the 19th century - but at the time some sports like cricket became codified, it was essentially seen by many (at least in the English establishment) as part of an entity called "England and Wales". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)... and trying again... Guys, these are all very good points, but, we really just need a quick overview in the lead - and I think we're there or thereabouts now. We should be focussing on explaining these things about sports, nationality etc in the main body of the article. The issues at play here are huge in scope - too big for the lead.
- Caveats aside, aren't you just comparing the 'Kingdoms' of Britain with Ireland? The 'state' that matters is the United Kingdom, the rest is the history of each individual country. One of the reasons people are touchy about Wales is that is can be 'technically devalued' in unnecessarily phrased comparisions that often don't need to be made (and can be argued are made for political reasons). That Wales was historically its own 'Principality', and not a 'Kingdom', is a matter of history (and historical fact), and is a 'technicality' in terms of independent sovereignty. Wales was once a country independent of the
- Why is the phrase "Various terms have been used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales" tagged for citation when there was a collossal excercise undertaken to prove this above and beyond anything else seen on Wikipedia? That's a poor show, surely? --Jza84 | Talk 14:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Crown Dependencies
Would it be more accurate to describe Isle of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey as Crown Dependencies? Being independently administered jurisdictions, none forms part of the United Kingdom or of the European Union. This quotation from the article gives an unambigious account of their status 86.40.208.206 (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Northern Ireland is not a country
Northern Ireland has never been called a nation or country in any legislation.[1] Unlike England, Wales, and Scotland which were once separate and identifiable countries Northern Ireland has never held this status; the article never mentions this disjoint between legal and "popular" use and hence is flawed. Has this "popular" use even been verified? Matt (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please see the big orange box at the top of this page - and also this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, see the references with respect to Northern Ireland on the page that you point to. Wikipedia is not the place to push British/Ulster nationalist perspectives and to deny all others. This is an international encyclopedia and we strive for a neutral point of view. Not a British or Ulster nationalist one.
- Northern Ireland is not a country in the same sense that Scotland or England are/were. It is not a county in the same sense that Canada or Azerbaijan are. Outside of a limited set of circumstances germane only the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland is scarcely ever referred to as being a "country" (unlike, say, Scotland or England).
- This article, however, deals with those limited set circumstances and so "countries" (in the loose sense that it is meant in that context) is appropriate in for this article.
- Elsewhere on the 'pedia, it never fails to shock me how determined Britain-based editors can be to refer to Northern Ireland as being a "country" - regardless of how tenious, oblique and limited the references they profer (usually the same ones you indicate above), regardless of stright-forward references to the contrary, and regardless of other, more common (and NPOV) ways of saying the same thing. You'll forgive me, Ghmyrtle, if I contrast the approach of those Britain-based editors with that of Ireland-based editors, who, in my experience, almost always take care not to refer to Ireland as being a country — something which it is commonly called, internationally and in all sorts of cirumstances — so as not to offend British sensibilities? --RA (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- I did have a look at the orange box. My statement had to do with legislation; if I am incorrect in my statement that Northern Ireland has been identified in legislation to be a country or nation then I apologise. However I am not able to find any legislation that claims that Northern Ireland is a country/nation/state (sovereign or otherwise). Matt (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- There is no such legistlation, Matt. The lynchpin for decribing Northern Ireland as a county on the 'pedia is this webpage and others like it. Elsewhere, the same website refers to Northern Ireland specifically as being a "region", "province", "part", etc. of the UK. There is no official term for the constitunent parts of the UK and, although it leaves Northern Ireland an odd-man-out, "country" (or "constitenut country") is about as close as it gets.
- Whilst that is fine (IMHO) in a collective sense, caution needs to be exercised with repsect to Northern Ireland since, unlike the other constituent parts of the UK, it is scarely referred to as being a "country" in its own right (least of all in Northern Ireland itself!).
- You should be aware of the genesis of this article: it was born out of edit wars over what to call England, Scotland and Wales in the introdcution to those articles. (And the table of references you were pointed to were collected in an effort to "win" those war.) Northern Ireland, or the appropriateness of the term with respect to Northern Ireland, didn't figure very prominently in those discussions and as far as I can tell little effort was made to invite interested perspectives from outside of the UK (or even Great Britain). --RA (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- I guess the point I was trying to make was there has been legislation and declarations in the past that have classified England, Wales and Scotland as countries / nations at some point in history (irregardless of whether that is currently the case). In the case of Northern Ireland however no legislation and/or declaration of statehood has existed (as a separate entity), through the Act of the Union 1801, the Home Rules Acts, the Government of Ireland Act 1920 (which enacted the partition of the island of Ireland), through to the 27th Amendment of the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland (2004). From a NPOV there seems to be no basis for calling Northern Ireland a country, a state (in the sovereign sense of the word), or a nation. Even the ever politically correct EU has classified Northern Ireland as a "region"; maybe the EU POV is not considered neutral. Matt (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- With respect to this edit (and the similar edit that preceded it), I don't see what was "bold" (see BRD) about your addition regarding to Northern Ireland. It seems quite innocuous to me and something that deserves stating.
- With respect to your changing of "country" to "region", I don't think you're on such solid ground. "Region of the UK" just doesn't cut it for England, Scotland or Wales (nor all of Ireland when all of it was a constituent part of the UK). "Region" is frequently used for Northern Ireland but is inappropriate for the other constituent parts in terms of the UK. (Regions of the EU are another matter.)
- So, I'd suggest leaving the "rule" ("country") and adding clarifiers about the "exception" (Northern Ireland). --RA (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Still not sure
I'm not sure about the following:
England, Scotland and Wales have historically been distinct countries. Northern Ireland however has never historically been a country in its own right[1] and is a part of the traditional country of Ireland,[2] which was itself wholly a country of the United Kingdom until to the partition of Ireland in the 1920s.
Reasons?
- "England, Scotland and Wales have historically been distinct countries" - are they no longer countries? Was Wales actually a country of "equal" status to England and Scotland (and didn't it's boundaries shift somewhat over time?)?
- "Northern Ireland however has never historically been a country in its own right" - I don't know what this means. Does this include the "historical" period between 1922 and now? Was it not a "country" in say 1950?
- " and is a part of the traditional country of Ireland," - what on earth is a "traditional country"? I presume we either mean the former Kingdom of Ireland, the former jurisdiction that was all Ireland (i.e. formerly under British rule), or some kind of cultural region that has persisted into the modern period (probably this meaning)?
- There are no page numbers provided, so the verifiability remains unclear (smallish issue I imagine).
I don't mind the "spirit" of the edits, but I'm uncomfortable with the terminology per above. --Jza84 | Talk 15:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. The words "historically", "distinct", "traditional" and "countries" are in each case too ill-defined for this section, as currently written, to be useful. The sense is broadly OK, but the terminology needs to be precise in an article like this, and is difficult to summarise while retaining the necessary precision. I think the section needs to be re-thought and re-written. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- One problem, I believe, is the insistence that the constituent parts of the UK be referred to as "country" and nothing else. There are so many senses of the word "country" being referred to at the same time that is is next to impossible to be clear what is meant in any context. (This affects far more parts of the article that just the ones being referred to above.) As a consequence, we have to all back on wishy-washy words like "historically", "distinct" and "traditional" to explain what we mean in any one context by the word "country".
- A facetious illustration:
- Northern Ireland, just as an example, is a "country" in one sense (for numerous reasons that is what constituent members of the UK are commonly called). It is a part of the UK, which is a "country" too in another sense. And it is a part of Ireland, which is also a "country" in another sense again. Ireland, in turn, also contains another "country", the Republic of Ireland, which is a "country" in the same sense that the UK is. Scotland, as another example, is a country too in the same sense that Northern Ireland is and, also, in the same sense that Ireland is. It was formerly the a country in the sense that the Republic of Ireland is, and that Ireland was, and that the United Kingdom is. However, Northern Ireland was never a county in the same sense as that the Republic of Ireland is, or that Ireland was, or is, or that the United Kingdom is, or that Scotland is in the sense that Ireland was (but it is in the same sense that Scotland is in another respect). etc.
- For someone unfamiliar with the topic, this is impossibly confusing stuff and we need flexibility with language to be able to express it properly.
- That said, I do think we have the bones of a good article here and it's been heartening to see it slowly take shape over the last few months.--RA (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Adds: Maybe some fleshing out of these terms in a sections that puts up front that there are many meanings of the word "country" in the region would be of benefit. --RA (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with RA, describing Northern Ireland as a 'country' is problematic. The use of the term seems to be a recent innovation by HMG - and even now, used inconsistently. 'Province'[1][2] or 'region'[3] have been more common in the past and still feature in both official and media sources. Sometimes NI is given no descriptor at all, e.g. the Penguin Encyclopedia of Places just calls it "6 counties of NE Ireland that form part of the UK". All this is covered, with more references, at Northern_Ireland#Descriptions_for_Northern_Ireland.--Pondle (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Just as a disclaimer, I totally agree that "country" is problematic for NI (infact I'd go further and say it is also problematic for England, Scotland, Wales and all-Ireland, though not as much so). I think the paragraph highlighted above is trying to just show that Northern Ireland as a concept, jurisdiction, whatever, is a modern one, not grounded in the ancient history that the other "units/parts/regions/countries/etc" have. That's fine - it's true and verifiable - I just think we can make a better job of it.
- I agree with RA, describing Northern Ireland as a 'country' is problematic. The use of the term seems to be a recent innovation by HMG - and even now, used inconsistently. 'Province'[1][2] or 'region'[3] have been more common in the past and still feature in both official and media sources. Sometimes NI is given no descriptor at all, e.g. the Penguin Encyclopedia of Places just calls it "6 counties of NE Ireland that form part of the UK". All this is covered, with more references, at Northern_Ireland#Descriptions_for_Northern_Ireland.--Pondle (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I do think the lead is done to death - what I'd like to see is greater expansion to the body of text, pooling all the various POVs that exist out there into one and letting the reader decide the outcome - flat, unquestionable statements like "NI has never been a historical country" isn't great surely? --Jza84 | Talk 17:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- The first edit you made this morning, Jza, made me think it was time for a large-scale copy edit of the entire article. I think there's there's the bones of a short GA in here (and I don't see much room for extensive growth to the article in future given that there are more appropriate articles to deal with each of the countries of the United Kingdom more in depth). The introduction is quite solid but very dense IMHO for an introduction. Other parts of the article could do with tightening up and strengthening.
- I wouldn't feel comfortable doing any extensive work on this article alone. We all come from different POVs on this topic and it would be very difficult for any one of us to give a thorough copy edit (including expansion where needed) to the article without turning it into our own image. Would others be willing to work extensively on it over the coming week/fortnight? Would it be best to do this on page or on a subpage? --RA (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I do think the lead is done to death - what I'd like to see is greater expansion to the body of text, pooling all the various POVs that exist out there into one and letting the reader decide the outcome - flat, unquestionable statements like "NI has never been a historical country" isn't great surely? --Jza84 | Talk 17:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Northern Ireland - one of many British-created countries
I havent got time to copy edit at the moment (I will at some point if this article has got too biased in some way), but I can always write about this subject.
Northern Ireland is a country created by the British govt (who created a number of countries across the globe), as another constituent country of the UK. It is the new British Ireland in place of the one that was re-nationalised. Like Wales it was largely run from London, but now has it's own devolved parliament. Northern Ireland not only has strong sources calling it a “country” and “constituent country”, but it behaves like a country (with its own parliament and international football team etc), and it also fits into this encyclopedia's definition of a country.
I can see all manner of the old dangers are popping up in the discussion above.
What is Northern Ireland a province/country etc of? Remember that the UK exists as a 'united' kingdom. It is not unfair to say that people who want to see Britain dissolved also want to see NI amalgamated into Ireland. In their eyes, if Britain is no more (ie Wales, Scotland, and England become fully autonomous), a Northern Ireland that is merely an 'appendage' of Britishness automatically becomes part of Ireland.
Since Power Sharing (especially the recent ground-breaking renewal of it) I personally find disallowing NI to be called a 'country' on Wikipedia actually quite bad taste. It's never looked more like a country in its history. Regarding its relative 'youth' - essentially NI has been been a British 'northern Ireland' since Ireland was conquered by the United Kingdom (remember that the plantation happened in Ulster). In 1921 Northern Ireland became the new 'British Ireland', because we didn't want to give it all back, and NI was the genuinely a British-Irish part of Ireland. Britain was creating countries all over the world during this period (30 or so years to the past and future). Look at the news – Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Israel, so many of the African countries – who re-drew and re-named them? Many are a good bit younger than Northern Ireland in the country as 'new nation' sense (ie as NI is not sovereign - but that specifically isn't the issue with this article).
I'm always wary of talk of GA's and FA's etc in difficult, contentious, or even complex articles. In my experience there is often a 'final cut' in the minds of those who promote them, and the award gets used as a kind of stamp of authority, or content seal.
There can be problems on Wikipedia when two essential extremes unite. In this case it would be the 'British dissolutionists' ('nationalists' as they are also labelled), and the 'British nationalists', who wish to somewhat downgrade (and on occasions outright deny) the 'country' status of all the constituent parts of the UK. Both would argue against NI being called a country, but for essentially opposite reasons. The danger is that a purely politicised 'consensus' could be found. We must stick with the strong sources that refer to Northern Ireland as a "country", and remember that people who refer to NI as the 'province' - like people who refer to Wales as the 'principality' - should not be seen as assuming that they cannot be 'countries' too! Matt Lewis (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Matt, we've been through this and let's not dig up bad feelings over it. You may consider it bad taste, and that is your right, but I've yet to hear the NI Executive refer to Northern Ireland as being a "country". It would cause uproar, not only among nationalists but among different strands of unionism in Northern Ireland too, and would be very much contrary to the supposed spirit of the "new Northern Ireland". The UK central government more frequently refers to Northern Ireland as a "region", a "province", a "part of the UK", terms used by the NI Executive. These are unsatisfactory too from various perspectives. Yes, there are instances where the UK central government do refer to Northern Irealand as a "country", whether by choice, convienience, slip-of-the-tongue or for want of a better word. In the commonly understood sense of the word - bear in mind that this is an international encyclopedia - Northern Ireland is not what many worldwide would understand to be meant by the word "country" (since the devolution of executive powers to London, did London become a "country"?).
- "Country" is the common term for the constituent parts of the UK. It is very suitable term for England, Scotland and Wales. But when addressing Northern Ireland (specifically) it is falls down. There is no agreed word for what Northern Ireland is - and of all of them, "country" (when speaking about Northern Ireland specifically) is among the most ill-suited for numerous reasons.
- Some references (from across all political perspectices and none) that you've seen before:
- "One problem must be adverted to in writing about Northern Ireland. This is the question of what name to give to the various geographical entities. These names can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences. ... some refer to Northern Ireland as a 'province'. That usage can arouse irritation particularly among nationalists, who claim the title 'province' should be properly reserved to the four historic provinces of Ireland-Ulster, Leinster, Munster, and Connacht. If I want to a label to apply to Northern Ireland I shall call it a 'region'. Unionists should find that title as acceptable as 'province': Northern Ireland appears as a region in the regional statistics of the United Kingdom published by the British government." - J. Whyte and G. FitzGerald, 1991, Interpreting Northern Ireland, Oxford University Press: Oxford
- A personal interpretation - he explains why he prefers 'region', and does not mention the word 'country'. He does not mention the UK gov calling it a 'country' either. We don't know his position of sovereignty regarding the term 'country'. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- "One specific problem - in both general and particular senses - is to know what to call Northern Ireland itself: in the general sense, it is not a country, or a province, or a state - although some refer to it contemptuously as a statelet: the least controversial word appears to be jurisdiction, but this might change." - S. Dunn and H. Dawson, 2000, An Alphabetical Listing of Word, Name and Place in Northern Ireland and the Living Language of Conflict, Edwin Mellen Press: Lampeter
- A sovereign reading of the term 'country' - Wikipedia doesn't use this strict meaning. Matt Lewis (talk)
- "Next - what noun is appropriate to Northern Ireland? 'Province' won't do since one-third of the province is on the wrong side of the border. 'State' implies more self-determination than Northern Ireland has ever had and 'country' or 'nation' are blatantly absurd. 'Colony' has overtones that would be resented by both communities and 'statelet' sounds too patronizing, though outsiders might consider it more precise than anything else; so one is left with the unsatisfactory word 'region'." - D. Murphy, 1979, A Place Apart, Penguin Books: London
- This is simply one person's view - he doesn't like "province" or "nation" either, which is simply divisive. What about the cases of cultural unity, like in football? Matt Lewis (talk)
- "Although a seat of government, strictly speaking Belfast is not a 'capital' since Northern Ireland is not a 'country', at least not in the same sense that England, Scotland and Wales are 'countries'." - J Morrill, 2004, The promotion of knowledge: lectures to mark the Centenary of the British Academy 1992-2002, Oxford University Press: Oxford
- The line "at least not in the same sense" evokes NI's history in comparison to the other home nations. It is not actually disallowing the label "country". Matt Lewis (talk)
- "Not a country in itself, Northern Ireland consists of six of the thirty-two original counties of Ireland, all part of the section of that island historically known as Ulster." - J V Til, 2008, Breaching Derry's walls: the quest for a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, University Press of America
- A sovereign view from America perhaps? Does it outweigh the UK gov? Matt Lewis (talk)
- "Northern Ireland is not a country in itself, but a small fragment torn from the living body of Ireland where now the last act of its long struggle for independence is being played out." - W V Shannon, Northern Ireland and America's Responsibility in K M. Cahill (ed), 1984, The American Irish revival: a decade of the Recorder, 1974-1983, Associated Faculty Press
- "A small fragment torn from the living body of Ireland"? Ahem. Matt Lewis (talk)
- "Northern Ireland (though of course not a country) was the only other place where terrorism can be said to have achieved a comparable social impact." - M Crenshaw, 1985, An Organizational Approach to the Analysis of Political Terrorism in Orbis, 29 (3)
- This looks like a direct comparison with a sovereign state.
- "The study compare attitudes in Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, the UK, Holland, Ireland, Italy and West Germany. It also includes Northern Ireland, which of course is not a country." - P Kurzer, 2001, Markets and moral regulation: cultural change in the European Union, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
- Compared to the UK et al. A sovereign view. Matt Lewis (talk)
- "As I see it, I'm an Irish Unionist. I'm Irish, that's my race if you like. My identify is British, because that it the way I have been brought up, and I identify with Britain and there are historical bonds, psychological bonds, emotional bonds, all the rest of it you know. ... But to talk of independence in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland is not a country, Northern Ireland is a province of Ireland and it is a province in the UK and I think that the notion of a national identity or group identity or racial identity or cultural identity here is a nonsense." - Michael McGimpsey quoted in F. Cochrane, 2001, Unionist politics and the politics of Unionism since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Cork University Press: Cork
- The partisan view of an "Irish unionist". He calls NI a provence of both Ireland and the UK, and actually says that an identifiable NI culture (outside of straight British or Irish culture) cannot possibly have formed (or pre-existed). Any anthropologist will say that in itself is impossible after generations (whever it started). Matt Lewis (talk)
- "Moreover, Northern Ireland is a province, not a country. Even before direct rule, many of the decisions affecting the economy, labour law, and wage bargaining were in reality taken in London, thereby diminishing the importance of local control." A Aughey, 1996, Duncan Morrow, Northern Ireland Politics, Longmon: London. --RA (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- For a start, this is clearly way out of date. And again - what is the definition of country? Is Wales by this same standard? Matt Lewis (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, I have to point out that academic presses have never stopped rolling regarding Northern Ireland and Irish/UK politics. As I say from time to time, printing presses by and large print round the clock, esp 'academic' ones. If you can find them, you will have a pool of scores of thousands of sources on the subject, saying pretty-much whatever you want them to.
Secondly, to give quotes that follow the sovereign-only interpretation of 'country' is simply misleading people. Not everyone follows that strict meaning of the term. By the standards of these quotes, Wales, England and Scotland are not countries either. You can't have it both ways.
You say of calling Northern Ireland a "country": "It would cause uproar, not only among nationalists but among different strands of unionism in Northern Ireland too, and would be very much contrary to the supposed spirit of the "new Northern Ireland". It is this highly politicised tone that I am objecting to. Where do British Unionists object to NI being called a "country" in the sense of Wales et el? When you say "the supposed spirit of the "new Northern Ireland" you seem to be essentially claiming that the new Northern Ireland is more a part of the Republic of Ireland than in was before. The reality is that NI is now less part of the UK, and less part of the ROI. As I write, the episode of 'Coast' on Northern Ireland is on TV, and it is just reminding me of how the NI article is Wikipedia's most shamefully negligent article: something I proved with examples over a year ago. It is bereft of locality and positivity. The more recent generations in NI expect a country to grow up in, not an abstract story, or a 'nowhere place' - they have one in every needed sense, except the minds of those who need to put their on need and idea of nationalism first. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Matt, you appear to be advocating Ulster nationalism in this post? Whatever the merits or otherwise of this ideology, it's a minority pursuit in Northern Ireland, where as you will know most people describe their national identity as either British or Irish. That illustrates one of my problems with the use of the word 'country' to describe NI - in any sense, apart from the vaguest synonym for 'region', it generally implies a territory on a 'national' scale. Is there really any verifiable sense of Northern Irish 'nationhood'?
- Off on a tangent for a moment, I wonder when the first reference to Northern Ireland as a 'country' was made? I think it must be sometime after 2000, a year in which the contemporary Official UK Yearbook (an ONS publication) still referred to the place as a 'province'. By 2005 the Yearbook used 'country'. But the UK Government's submission to a 2007 UN conference on Geographic Names, and various other official sources, still used 'province'. Confusion reigns.--Pondle (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Very interesting stuff. So, the UK submission to the 2007 United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographic Names defines the United Kingdom thusly:
- The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy consisting of four constituent parts:
- 2 countries: England + Scotland
- 1 principality: Wales
- 1 province: Northern Ireland
- The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy consisting of four constituent parts:
- Very interesting stuff. --RA (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Very interesting stuff. So, the UK submission to the 2007 United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographic Names defines the United Kingdom thusly:
- What should've been done (a long time ago), was have England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales described as adminstrative parts of the United Kingdom (disregard the usage of 'country' and 'constituent country'). It's too late now, though. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- At what point in Wikipedia's history could it enforce something like that? Wikipedia is supposed to reflect, not create. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- "By the standards of these quotes, Wales, England and Scotland are not countries either." No. The quotes refer to Northern Ireland, not to England, Scotland or Wales. It would require a synthesis to come to some conclusion about England, Scotland or Wales from them. That is not what we do around here.
- Matt, you do an excellent above job of showing above how the sense in which Northern Ireland is a "country" is a very limited one, relating to a specific context, and germane only to the United Kingdom. I don't disagree with you at all. But when we refer to Northern Ireland as being a "country", we need also to bear in mind all of the ways in which Northern Ireland is "not a country". This is an international encyclopedia and whereas it may be appropriate to refer to Northern Ireland as being a "country" in the sense in which that is a term used to refer to the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, for an international reader, when they hear the word "country" they are likely to imagine one of the ways in which Northern Ireland is described as being "not a country" in the references above. What I mean is: yes, you're right, in one sense Northern Ireland is a "country", but in many more senses Northern Ireland it is "not a country". We just need to be careful and curb our enthusiasm for local terminology, with limited use, that's likely to be misinterpreted or confusing. That's all.
- You make reference to the UK government. UK central government also (more frequently?) refers to Northern Ireland as being a "region", or a "province" or a "part of the UK". These are the terms used also by the Northern Ireland Executive and they are no slight against Northern Ireland. You don't object to them, do you? Of course, I don't mean to 'rule out' "country" with respect to Northern Ireland. There is a sense in which Northern Ireland is a "country". I'm just highlighting that there are other terms used in the UK, Northern Ireland, Ireland and internationally to describe what Northern Ireland is. And that there are very common senses of the word "country" in which Northern Ireland is definitely "not a country". --RA (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)