Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Northern Ireland is not a country

Northern Ireland has never been called a nation or country in any legislation. 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)

I'd just like to concur that the above statement seems reasonable to me as well. Matt (talk) 20:28, 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 and is a part of the traditional country of Ireland, 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 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)

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)

Maybe it's because I'm a footie fan, I don't know. Thanks for the link btw. There is confusion I agree - but the whole of the UK is a bit like that. Wikipedia just has to deal with it. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked the the NI refs table for "country" - the table has around 80 unique and reliable sources that call NI a 'country' (when including the "countries of the UK" refs, and the hardly-completed "constituent country" refs) - and there is this ref on Northern Ireland that shows small sections of 3 pdf docs, from the 50's, 70's and 90's that use the phrases "Northern Ireland" and "four countries". Matt Lewis (talk) 23:11, 1 April 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

Very interesting stuff. --RA (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Very circular stuff. What a merry-go-round. I'm not advocating anything by the way. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:26, 1 April 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. 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)

"That is not what we do around here" after a misdirected lecture on synthesis ? Please be aware of irony - I'm sensitive to it. I have never said we cannot cover it all in some way, but you cannot just state that Northern Irealnd in NOT a country, as you have tried to do because you have some refs. Since you removed the tables of the varoius terminology (the ideal place for all this on NI), this article has been shifting slightly. It's time for that information to come back. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I find myself in agreement with this. If we cast our minds back (those of us who were around at the time of this article's creation), I understood the (original) purpose of this article was to be a space that would collate and publish all the terminology of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales (infact, I once proposed that the article be called that - Terminology of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, because I thought that was what it was about, and the most neutral title). I call the four entities "countries", in real life, and any rationale person seems to take that as normal, but I have always been mindful that we must not force "countries" as the only term that is used for the four; there are other terms which have validity.

I think we're all very good editors here (no really! I have a love-hate relationship with some of you here because you keep me on my toes), and see no reason why we can't make tangible improvements to the page. So, what changes need to be made to cover all views appropriately, fairly and thoroughly? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never said we cannot do things properly. You know me - I won't accept any kind of bias in the copy, even if the article lacks some information. We cannot just say "NI is not a country" because there are cites. This takes weighted and objective copy editing, and are we really all that sucesfull at that here? Please see my new edit above in #"Countries of the United Kingdom". This article needs the list of descriptive terms - I have no idea why is supposedly 'illegal' to have them, so I'm planning to put them back in some way. Where is DDStretch btw? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

PS, I always assumed an inclusive "terminology" article would be too large and potentially to hard to restrict. How would you envision it? Sometimes those things create forks anyway. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Terminology section

There seems to be some potential for edit warring over the terminology section so I've removed it so that we can take it to the talk page here rather than working it out on the page.

Potential edit waring? Do you mean you wish to revert and don't want to be re-reverted? I am putting it back as you have not given a decent reason to revert it other than you want to work on it. Fair enough - we can work on it. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have some concerns about the text that was changed. For example, the new text read, "It is generally regarded that England, Scotland and Wales started to develop into distinct countries after the Romans departed from Britain in the 5th century." This is accompanied by citations that state that Scotland and England were they were formed in the 10th and 11th centuries. Saying they developed after the fall of Rome is like saying the Soviet Unions was founded after the fall of the Mongol Empire. Quite true; but historically illiterate, there's a clean five centuries between the two events.

I'm looking for better cites - it is generally regarded that nation building was earlier than 10th C though. I did use careful language - "started to develop into distinct countries after the Romans departed from Britain in the 5th century". You are not reading the cites fully either. It is due to the ambiguity of what defines a 'country' compared to nationality (English people were referred to much earlier than the 10th c), that we can be general here - we just need good refs. There is no need for accurate dates, and this is the Dark Ages we are talking about (there are various opinions around, including 300 for Wales!). The problem with just saying "historically countries" is that the term then gets loaded regarding Northern Ireland (the focus of all this). Matt Lewis (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest, I'd like to understand why referenced content was removed. The editor concerned described the text as "provocative" but gave little more by way of explanation.

You re-wrote a paragraph that had two reactions, both positive, to a new paragraph that focused on Wales not being a Kingdom, and NI not being a country! I found it provocative, and genuinely thought it might have been an April fool. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I also received an abusive comment on my talk page. I assume this refers to a direct quotation from a reliable source concerning Wales (that "[Wales] retained its distinctive language, culture, and sense of nationhood through the centuries."). I'd like to understand further the objections that the editor who left the message has and how they can be accommodated. --RA (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Section header removed, as this concerns the same as RA's commentThe recent edits to terminology does not help much in making terminology clearer I'm afraid. When it is possible to talk about England, Scotland and Wales as countries is a complex question (well, actually three complex questions), and this article is probably not the place to continue that discussion. England, as a union of Wessex, Mercia, Deira etc etc in ninth or tenth century. Scotland (as Alba) probably ninth century (see Origins of the Kingdom of Alba), but that then did not include brythonic Kingdom of Strathclyde or the western and northern islands. Wales... I really couldn't say, despite just having read a book on the subject. I notice edits are being made as I'm writing, so I will not comment on the present wording/sources apart from them not being adequate last time I looked. My suggestion would be to depend on Kingdom of England and the above mentioned article of origins of Alba [[Kingdom of Scotland has an unadresses cn-tag on its foundation...) and find whichever phrase there is consensus for in articles concerning the history of Wales. There should be plenty of citations to pick up there. Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

EC with RA above, had not noticed his comment. Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy for people to constructively edit the paragraph - I'm replacing it so people can do so. It will take work getting right of course, but if Northern Ireland is going to be focused on in this way, we simply have to do it for all of the UK countries - or else their is bias and insinuation etc involved. It's all down to the language we use at the end of the day - this doesn't have to be a UK history article. In my experience, when we sweep these things under the carpet they just pop up again at a later date - so I think we need to give people what they want (in this case a lot more on NI), as well as we can. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

With regards the edit warring, I made an edit today that tried (without cites, my bad) to clear up the creation of Northern Ireland, out of Irish counties rather than Irish provinces (diff). There was a sort of vacuum that other things replaced. Might we leave that back in? I have sourced a cite for it, but it's somewhat vague, from The Houses of the Oireachtas; "the United Kingdom Parliament passed the Government of Ireland Act in December 1920. The Act created a separate state of Northern Ireland, consisting of the six north-eastern counties of Ulster". I know what those six counties are, but a new comer to the subject might not.

The comment on Wales, that it "retained its distinciive language, culture, and sense of nationhood through the centuries", is cited, but seems a little flowery perhaps? In the absence of any better defined thought than that on my behalf, I can't really object!

With regards Northern Ireland, " In some contexts, it is considered still to be a part of the country of Ireland", I'm sure it is, but are those contexts germane to the subject article? Alastairward (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I was glad of that diffed edit, and I worked on from it, but with respect I don't think listing all the counties is going to work. It's good to have the various sources, but this article will live and die by the quality of the editor-written copy. The reason is that the article is always having to balance clashing sources and opposing politics of course. Regaring Wales - anything remotely flowery won't wash! The principality issue is a sensitive one as it's not a legal term, but does get used. It has a 'positive' and a 'negative' background/definition. We somehow need to be generalised and precise regarding fitting NI into a wider context. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

PS - people working on something is not neccesarily 'edit warring'. I want to say that as it's not always beneficial to enforce talk page text-making. It can often get uncreative, bogged down and narrowly focused (in terms of editors). The ideal is for it to be positively 'honed' on the main page, and in this article that does tend to happen (though things do change again, and go round in circles). Matt Lewis (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

@Matt, if I might ask, please don't reply inside my posts. It makes it very difficult to reply to you and (from my experience elsewhere) it makes it difficult for others to follow who is saying what.

I'll only reply to one thing you wrote: "You re-wrote a paragraph that had two reactions, both positive, to a new paragraph that focused on Wales not being a Kingdom, and NI not being a country!" Seriously, you rewrote this paragraph. That rewrite spurned four reactions: the first was to correct it, the second was to remove it, the third was to restore the original text (which I changed based on RS, which the original lacked) and the fourth was to criticise it.

@Alastair - The language of the quote is rather flowery but I thought it summarised the situation with respect to Wales quite well. I genuinely didn't expect it to attract the response from our Welsh colleague that it did. In fact, I thought it was quite complimentary to the tenacity of the Welsh people as a nation.

About Ireland, Ireland is germane to this article in the respect that this article is about the "countries of the United Kingdom". All of Ireland was once a "country of the United Kingdom". While it is not so now, as an article, it would be a very limited of us to only to discuss current "countries of the United Kingdom". We should also mention former ones too. Discussing Ireland to some extent clarifies where Northern Ireland came from and how it differs in some respects from the other countries of the UK. There is also a preponderance in the article on the word "country". We are told that England is a "country", Scotland is a "country", Wales is a "country". In that context it seems appropriate to mention that in some contexts, Northern Ireland is considered to be a part of a "country" (Ireland) is the same sense that England, Scotland and Wales are countries. Doing so makes makes it clearer why when, for example, Scotland, England and Wales field individual teams in many sports, Northern Ireland continues to field players as part of an Ireland team (with the notable exception being soccer, in which "Ireland" teams were still being fielded up until the 1950s until FIFA cut it out). It makes it clearer why, in the Olympics, Northern Ireland is a part of the Ireland Olympic team (though of course, athletes from Northern Ireland may opt to compete for the Great Britain/UK Olympic team).

@Everyone - (Note: This was written before Matt's comment above, which I largely agree with.) I don't think it is productive to go cutting across each other. There is no reason why all of the texts from today cannot be included in some form. The last place we need to be in is an either/or situation where we are butting at each others heads when (in general tems) none of the versions today were incorrect or direct replacements for each other. For that end, I'm going to resortre both copies and we can edit both in place. --RA (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"In some contexts, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are considered still to form the country of Ireland.[12]" - language like this is just wholly unacceptible. I've deleted your edit because it's a long (and hard to follow as condensed) history lesson - and this is simply not the article for that! Also (As I've said), I do not accept that Wales must be highlighted for never being a 'Kingdom'. That is just potty in my eyes. Why go this far?? We only need to explain that NI is relatively new compared to Wales et al (without being too ambiguous about it - and if the word "historically" is coming back, why even have the first line now?), and give some detail on Irish nationalism, and how some object to the term "country" being used, and perhaps how it is less used for NI if you want. Remember there are 80 refs using "country" for NI in the ref lists. Going into Kingdoms at this length and simplifying the Welsh issue is not the way to add more on NI. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Matt, we are not here to write a pseudo-history of Wales to demonstrate to the world that it is a "country". Or to rub out innocuous statements backed by reliable sources just because you feel they are "wholly unacceptable" for reasons unstated. The subject of this article is the "countries of the United Kingdom", not "101 ways to argue that Wales is a country". Please try to keep the eye on the topic. --RA (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

An eye on the topic! We are not here to write any history of Wales!!! You cannot use the 'school teacher' tone when you are putting in notoriously difficult stuff that doesn't belong and is not even explained properly. You are simply doing something inappropriate and not-needed in the over- concise way that leads to all manner of problems. You have to address my reasoning without countering it with synthesised platitudes - I've explained myself twice before now. I do feel you are trying to counter a perceived "emotionalism" regarding NI with bringing in a perceived "emotionalism" regarding Wales. It is the wrong way to go about it. We obviously cannot pin down what a country is (and when it starts) as we are going by the Wikipedia article and broader definition, and we simply don't need to. Matt Lewis (talk) 9:27 am, Today (UTC+1)

You haven't explained yourself once, Matt. What is it that is objectionable? This article is about the "countries of the United Kingdom". It is not about the question of what a "country" is - or seeing how many times we can fit the words "Wales" and "country" into a sentence together.

A little bit of background information will not go astray. Please set your national sensitives aside. -RA (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Will this be the usual war of attrition? 'A little bit of background information' (ahem) is fine if it is needed, accurate, informative (without any bias), not miseeading in any way, and is weighted properly. Your text falls down on all of these. You would need much more to explain Wales if you want to talk about 'Kingdoms' (which is your own sudden demand, nonone elses). Is this the place to write the amount of text that is needed? You removed the factual detail on NI (which was needed if you want to focus on it the way you have been doing) and replaced it essentially with extraneous (and unlear) fluff on Wales, and then Scotland. And claiming "national sensitivities" on my part is a thinly-veiled cover of your own ever-present Irish nationalism. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Now your bloods up, you've attacked the Identity section I notice. It's lasted a long time, and be looking at it later. I'm not having this article become a swamp of nationalist bias. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Chill. My "sudden demand" for "kingdoms" was simply because, when I was restoring the older text after Jza blanked yours for lack of references, I noticed that the first line lacked references. The nearest ref to hand was the Idiots Guide... and that's just how they describe the "countries of the United Kingdom" (the flowery bit about was was a quote form it the bit about Scotland and England was a summary). It wasn't by design, I promise. (And the factual detail about NI I removed, I summarised in a manner that Alisar posted above - or so was my intention.)

"Is this the place to write the amount of text that is needed?" Maybe not, but we do need to give some kind of background: not least to explain why the constituent parts of a "country" are called "countries". This article is likely to be torturous stuff, but we are all big boys and we all know each other well enough to understand that even when we exasperate each other, we all mean well.

"...your own ever-present Irish nationalism." I don't hide my perspective but I do try to be conscious of it. You know, you have touch of ever-present nationalism yourself ;-)

About the Identity section, much of it is simply sourceless (though all quite source-able). I've just marked what needs to be sourced and gave a bit more detail (and sources) to the NI section. I removed one reference that was a self-published source by primary school children - surely we can do better than that? --RA (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

RA, I hadn't objected to the mention of NI as being formed from a part of Ireland (the old state covering the entire island), I had tried to include that information I thought. It was the sentence " In some contexts, it is considered still to be a part of the country of Ireland". In what is a pretty technical article, that deals with the boundaries of certain regions/constituent countries of the world, it just seemed to muddy things somewhat. Alastairward (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"...muddy things somewhat..." - it is muddy, the article talks about sporting bodies, "countries", "nations". Those things spill across the border in Ireland. --RA (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The section on sporting bodies isn't really muddied. It cites and lays out the circumstances pretty clearly for the participation in certain sporting bodies. The section including what makes up Northern Ireland should be pretty clear too. Is there an explanation of what "contexts" were referred to? I assume discussions between Irish Republicans, but then why not include Scottish Nationalism or even Cornish Independence in the same section with reference to Scotland and England for that same reason? Alastairward (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The reference is a sociology of Ireland. A section in that deals with the idea of nation and country. It contrasts the Ireland as a "nation" and Ireland as a "country" with Scotland, also a "nation" and a "country", explaining (as others do here) that "country" and "nation" does not always co-incide with "state". Practical examples where Ireland as a "country" or as a "nation" is not equivalent to a "state" (the book doesn't give a list of low-level examples) would include sport, music and tourism.

This relates to the way in which England, Scotland and Wales are/were described as that section of the article. They are "countries", undoubtedly, but they are not "states". One might ask, 'If England, Scotland and Wales are countries, what about Northern Ireland?' In some contexts, Northern Ireland is a part of the country of Ireland. (Contexts where it would not be, for examples, would include the Commonwealth Games.) --RA (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A practical example of a context where Northern Ireland is a part of the "country" of Ireland (where "country" is meant in the same was as when people say that Scotland is a "country"). --RA (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

For a start I think a travel guide is unlikely to be looked upon as an important context in relation to this article! If we start bringing culture and sociology into it, then we very much would muddy the waters. Such things would be quite arguably beyond the remit of this article. Discussing how culture doesn't follow political borders doesn't really affect how Northern Ireland is defined for the purposes of this article. Alastairward (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The travel guide was simply a practical example. The point is merely that in some contexts, Northern Ireland is considered a part of the "country" of Ireland. In an article that ponders so greatly on the concept of "country", I thought it was relevant.

In any event, I doubt I will participate any further in this article. The reversions of today and yesterday, the removal of otherwise mundane sourced material (Ireland and "country" aside), the insertion of blatantly baised and counter-factural material, and the fraudulent use of references by one editor has put me off contributing here any further. --RA (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Terminology section (again)

Matt, can you please explain what you object to so that your view can be accommodated? It is very difficult to work on the article is seemingly innocuous text is going to be removed by you. --RA (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I did do immediately, just above. And I had done before with the same reasons for the same material, but you seem to be trying to include (some of) my own text with text I am strongly objecting to. I'm off to bed now though. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Just saw that. Replied. Good night. --RA (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sports

Just having a look at the intro referring to sports. The current intro, Paragraph 2, 2nd sentence has: “However, England, Scotland and Wales have separate national governing bodies for sport, meaning, they can compete individually in international sporting competitions; in sporting contexts, England, Northern Ireland (or all of Ireland),[5] Scotland and Wales are known as the Home Nations.” 1. Northern Ireland also has separate national governing bodies for sport. 2. An Ireland team should be noted in the lead. 3. The term Home Nations is only used in certain contexts e.g. when the teams are all playing against each other. I propose a change to: “However, the countries of the UK each have separate national governing bodies for sports, and compete as individual nations in international sporting competitions. In some sports Northern Ireland compete alongside the Republic of Ireland as an Ireland team. In sporting contexts, England, Northern Ireland (or all of Ireland),[5] Scotland and Wales are sometimes known as the Home Nations.” Any objections or amendments? Daicaregos (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Dai, I agree that Ireland and NI should come into the equation. However, I'm a bit concerned that the current text doesn't really account for the fact that a number of sports are organised on a UK or British basis: I'm thinking about UK Athletics, the British Boxing Board of Control, British Cycling, the Lawn Tennis Association etc. I think we should say separate national governing bodies for many sports in para 2, 2nd sentence.Pondle (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No objections to adding the word many. Although, as the UK compete at some events i.e. the Olympics, as a single entity there are bound to be UK wide institutions, many of which also pre-date their national body. But in reality, there are very few sports (in Wales anyway) that do not now have their own national governing body, see here. Also, here is a reference for the Sports Governing Bodies in NI. Daicaregos (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, I think its good to discuss this (and change it to better suit all POVs). I'm, as you may guess, a little concerned about NI: what do you mean by a "governing body". Yes, NI does have a governing body for sport (i.e. logically greater than 0 in number) but in most context the governing body is all Ireland. Similarly, saying that England, Scotland and Wales have separate governing bodies for sports hide UK- and GB-wide governing bodies.

I think the problem really isn't what we want to say, but (like Matt notes above) saying so much in a condensed space. I think we should consider growing these sections, where by we can discuss things in greater detail, rather than trying to replace them with equally dense sentences that give a slightly different slant. --RA (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland doesn't have a governing body for sport. It has a whole bunch - see here, (as do each of the others). You can see that there are many NI specific governing bodies as well as Ireland-wide governing bodies. Daicaregos (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, logically greater than 0 in number. (Though a greater number on that page refer to branches of the all-Ireland body or the all-Ireland body itself.) My point is that I think we have become fixed on replacing one dense text with another. That simply changes the focus from one POV to another when we need more space to explain the complexities - both on Great Britain, on Ireland, and across the United Kingdom. --RA (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how repeating the term 'logically greater than 0 in number' helps in any way. "a governing body for sport" means "one governing body for sport". Are there any specific objections or amendments to the proposed text in the lead: “However, the countries of the UK each have separate national governing bodies for many sports, and compete as individual nations in international sporting competitions. In some sports Northern Ireland compete alongside the Republic of Ireland as an Ireland team. In sporting contexts, England, Northern Ireland (or all of Ireland),[5] Scotland and Wales are sometimes known as the Home Nations.''”? Perhaps you would prefer "... In many sports Northern Ireland compete alongside the Republic ... " or perhaps we should expand the Sports section first and summarise it. Daicaregos (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain: if Daicaregos has one apple then Daicaregos has an apple. If Daicaregos has 20 apples then Daicaregos has an apple. The indefinite article "a" is not the same as the numeral "one". In any event, the sentence you propose does not use the indefinite article, it uses a plural (logically greater that one) and the word "many" (which implies a relatively large number).

The statement, "the countries of the UK each have separate national governing bodies for many sports", is correct since each of the constituent parts of the UK have national governing bodies for sport that number greater than one (I'm deliberately ignoring "many"). The unfortunate thing is what it does not say. An equally correct sentence could read, "UK-wide bodies govern many sports in each of the constituent countries of the UK".

My point is that we are just swapping one logically correct sentence for another but not addressing the POV issues raised by any variant - just swapping one POV with another. We need more space to go into the details and give an NPOV description of the situation.

So, yes, I would support expanding the sports section and summarizing it. --RA (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors should be aware of the Guidelines. In particular this which states “Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.” And if they weren't aware of it, they are now. Although it doesn't mention it explicitly, I rather think that smarmy git posts are discouraged. Thank you for replying (eventually) to my questions. I look forward to reviewing your work on the expanded section. Daicaregos (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Where was the personal attack? Also, if you will note from my first post, my suggestion was to expand the relevant sections first for the reasons I state above.

--RA (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mention a personal attack. It may seem that the majority of NI sports people compete for a combined Ireland team, but perhaps that is because those sports are more high profile e.g. Rugby, Cricket, Basketball etc. Many of the NI governing bodies field teams in their own right e.g. Athletics Northern Ireland see here - results for the Celtic Games - (NI are noted as Ulster, and the Ireland team are noted as Athletics Ireland), Volleyball see here (note that the NI Volleyball Association field what they call a “National Team”), Archery, Pool, Netball (NI are currently world ranked 15th), among others, and, of course, the Irish Football Association. That would be greater than 0 in number then. ;) Daicaregos (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The second part of these sentences is factually wrong and misleading: <<A number of sporting bodies in the island of Ireland are 'all-island' institutions, and field combined all-Ireland teams in the international arena.[15] This is mainly true of sports that have no major presence in Northern Ireland[citation needed], although rugby union is an exception, and the tennis Davis cup team is all-Ireland too>>. Several other all-Ireland sports are very strong in NI, such as Hockey and Cricket, as well as Rugby. I propose deleting the text in italics altogether.Crc (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

History

Looking at the recent edits back and forth, trying to establish a "history" paragraph under "terminology", I'm not overly optimistic that it is possible to reach a meaningful consensus. What's more important: I think it may not be necessary, or even helpful, to the article as a presentation of Countries of the United Kingdom to try to sort out just when&how the various parts of UK was countries prior to becoming part of UK. My suggestion:

• Copypaste the lead from History of the formation of the United Kingdom to section History.
• Leave section Terminology as "legal" or "official" terminology (like it is just now), and change the first sentence to "Various legal have been used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as parts of the United Kingdom" (bolding just to emphasize changes here). No citation needed for that, as this is precisely what is elaborated in the subsections Acts of union and current legal. As it stands, this sentence makes no useful meaning at all, and the {{cn}} tag looks plain ridiculous. Various terms has been used to describe for example England, including (but not limited to) "beautiful country", "lousy place" and "a state on the east coast [of USA] somewhere"... ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You've made good points here, but I'm working towards putting the 'various terms' back in (currently linked to here in this 'refs' page). when this article was created they were at the 'centre' of the article. We'll probably need to look at it all afresh when I get them back in (I still haven't decided on how yet, maybe in a parag with selected refs - they were removed on a 'technicality' and I don't want to repeat that). Matt Lewis (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Troubles ArbCom

OK. This revert has done it for me. The changes I made were to add references and numbers to statements that were already elements, to remove a self-published source (written by primary school children!) and to add {{cn}} tags to a number of relatively source-able but non-obvious statements.

As a consequence, I've been put in the the mind to place this page under the The Troubles arbcom ruling. The most immediate effect of this for contributors here is that that the page will fall under a 1RR with an immediate block (no questions asked) for any breach.

I'm not going to put it up immediately because I want to invite comments from others on the recent editing problems first.

(I've noticed since a sourced statement (quoted even) has been replaced by unsourced statement but the reference maintained as if it supported the new statement.) --RA (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The Identity section was pertty much stable for the year or so I wasn't editing, which says a lot I think. To evoke arbcom and the 'Troubles' because your change to it wasn't accepted is a bit OTT. I don't mind using relevant hatnotes and 'citations needed' tags (within reason - your can theoretically put those eveywhere). Regarding the primary school ref, I do vaguely remember it (as being reliable), but its been through a number of pairs of eyes I can assure you. If you don't like it then look for a better ref - it's not a green light to re-write it all with diferent leanings. Reference-searching/replacing for existing text is something we should of course be prepared to do before re-writing - I'll look again at the reference I kept in the sports revision I made. I'm not saying that accurate sources aren't fully important, but the main thing here is that the text isn't iffy. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read: 1RR restrictions placed on article

Subsequent to the spate of reverting that has affected the article in recent days, its clear this article is subject is affected by "Troubles"-related issues. Consequently, I've added the Troubles template to the article talk page. The effect of this is to place a 1RR rule restriction on the article with immediate blocks for violations. Please exercise caution before reverting content. Talk is better. --RA (talk)

That was just wrong of you in so many ways. Amongst other things, it blows WP:AGF out of the window. And to try and achieve 1RR to win an argument is simply the wrong reason to give this the Troubles tag. You just have no right to talk about "exercising caution before reverting", especially when this 'all-Ireland' matter regarding Sport seems to have been (rightly or wrongly) something you brought in yourself.

Everyone (except the odd IP) "talks" in this article. Apart from anything else, this Troubles cry is just plain impatience. Compromises have already been made - you simply won't get all your own way on this, whatever your (worryingly ungrammatical) reference says. Anything that looks overtly nationalistic in this article simply has to be 'disambiguated' in some way. And is this really Intro stuff?

My last edit;

"A number of sporting bodies in the island of Ireland are 'all-island' institutions, and field combined all-Ireland teams in the international arena.[4] This is mainly true of sports that have no major presence in Northern Ireland, although rugby union is an exception, and the tennis Davis cup team is all-Ireland too."

seems reasonable to me, providing we work on the All-Ireland page. You reference actually uses the "all-Ireland" term. If you don't like it then just say why. To call it 'Troubles-related' is just too disregarding of AGF, despite our open political differences (which most of us editing here hold to some degree) Matt Lewis (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

On a point of order: does any editor have the right to declare an article "Troubles"-related? And once so designated, does it remain so in perpetuity? Daicaregos (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Only an admin can do that --Snowded ^TALK 07:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I removed it. However I think that a voluntary do not revert a revert policy would make sense, with editors developing text in a sand box and then bringing it here for discussion. --Snowded ^TALK 07:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've place an enforcement request relating to this. The ArbCom ruling is that "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related." The template is merely a courtesty notice. --RA (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but no. Its not clear that the edit war here can be reasonably construed as relating to the troubles. The various edit wars over the British Isles were not so construed with it went to RFA. If you think it should be (and I think its overkill) then you should raise it at the Arbitration enforcement page, placing a notice here so it can be properly handled. --Snowded ^TALK 09:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That has been done now. See enforcement request. Daicaregos (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, I think it's related ("...Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland ... When in doubt, assume it is related."), particularly given the bones of contention, but let's see what happens.

We can agree at least there there is a problem with reverting right now? And that there are barriers to developing the article right now? I don't know about sandboxes because, without the participation of others, I see little scope for consensus below. It might help things greatly were others to comment on the discussion. --RA (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See fact tag and request below --Snowded ^TALK 10:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI - see reply Sandstein's to the enforcement request, which, if I read it correctly says, "...not actionable [because the "Troubles" 1RR restriction] is not a remedy passed by the Arbitration Committee." While not affecting (solely) this article, I'll make a request for clarification later unless someone else does first. --RA (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible inappropriate use of reference

I know I said that I would not contribute here anymore but before I go there's one piece from the current copy that concerns me.

The following sentence was added to the Sports section last Friday:

• "The Republic of Ireland's international teams of sports that have no major presence in Northern Ireland normally extend their membership there."

This statement replace an earlier one, first by changing the text (and meaning) substantially then replacing it completely. A reference that had supported the earlier statement was then re-added to support the new statement.

The original statement was:

• "For most sports, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland compete as a single international team representing Ireland. Notable exceptions include soccer..."

The quotation from the source that is provided with the reference is: "In most sports, except soccer, Northern Ireland participates with the Republic of Ireland in a combined All-Ireland team." This quotation appears to support the earlier text but does not appear to support the new text. Furthermore, I cannot find support for the newly added statement in the referenced source.

Can the editor who added the text provide a quotation from the source they cited in support of the new statement? --RA (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

OK.

I've not got the time to address this right now, but I will correct a mistake in your comment:

The original statement (actually) was:

• For most sports, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland compete as a single international team representing all Ireland. The last all Ireland association football team was fielded during the 1970s, and Commonwealth Games.

Two big differences there! You had linked the term "All Ireland" to the poor All-Ireland article (not just written 'Ireland'), and there was no "notable exceptions include soccer" line at all, just an irrelevant statement on soccer in the ROI. In that existing version there was also a gramatically broken line on the Olympics, and an actually factually incorrect line on NI soccer the 70's. In short, I was entitled to edit it.

As I said in my edit note: "This is a little misleading, as if certain sports were bigger in NI they would probably have their own teams." Then when removing 'All Ireland' , "ce, and more specific last line. Not sure of 'all-Ireland' article."

I'll comment more tomorrow if I can. I agree this particular ref can be improved (though it still broadly fits - depending on how you read its ambiguity), but you pressured me for a ref on an admins page, although there is no rule on sourcing line-by-line on Wikipedia. Certain types of 'afirmative' statements can be notoriously hard to find refs for. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. A slight correction, though I believe you "in spirit":

The original statement was as I described. It was added by me at 13:17, 30 March 2010. The text was changed to what you describe as the "original" text by Jza84 on 16:14, 30 March 2010. Jza84's change did not alter the meaning of the text substantially and did not inappropriately attribute sources. No one is disputing that your are "entitled to edit", just please don't misattribute references (also in this case the statement attributed to the reference is inaccurate).

Do you have any problems with simply removing the sentence all together and moving the reference up to where this is mentioned in the introduction (a place it should go anyway)?

(BTW, with respect to the "factual inaccuracy" - though not cited in this article, the IFA brokered an exception to the FIFA ruling in the 1950 so that "Ireland" teams could continue to be fielded for the Home Nations Championship, the last of which was played in the 1970s. This is referenced in Ireland national football team (1882–1950), though I don't know what the references there supports. Incidentally, though under the name of Shamrock Rovers XI to avoid the FIFA ban on Ireland team outside of the Home Nations Championship, an all-Ireland team played Brazil in 1973. Since then there has been no all-Ireland international soccer teams though there have been numerous all-Ireland cups, the latest being the Setanta Sports Cup.) --RA (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding removing the sentence in the Sport section - nothing should be in the intro that isn't also in an existing correspoding section in the main article. I don't approve of the "for most sports" line that has been added to the intro - I've just not had the time to look at it yet. It's just too potentially misleading to say that NI and the ROI untite as 'Ireland' in 'most sports'. Other than rugby what is there? And we have to be better (cleverer, really) with language than that in WP. The current line: "For most sports, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland compete as a single international team representing Ireland (exceptions being Northern Ireland national football team and Northern Ireland at the Commonwealth Games)." suggests that 'Ireland' becomes 'one nation' for most sports! But an ROI team that stretches its membership to NI does not necessarily make it a combined "NI and ROI" team. I actually don't think this detail is really intro stuff anyway (it wasn't included the last time I read it, or for most of its history as far as I remeber), so I'm deleting it from the intro and am adding a line on rugby union to the Sports section. What else is there other than rugby union?

Regarding the line on NI football in the 70's, the line was just plain wrong - the 1950's was the fair and honest date to put the 'brief' focus on (of the two dates), not the 1970's. But it (like rugby union history) has a complicated history (being Northern Ireland - yes?). It was just misleading way of expressing a complicated situation. That is what can happen, and we have to avoid it. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"It's just too potentially misleading to say that NI and the ROI untite as 'Ireland' in 'most sports'. Other than rugby what is there?" Cricket, basketball, hockey, water polo, tennis ... like the reference says: most sports. There are some exceptions. Soccer is the most notable.

"...an ROI team that stretches its membership to NI does not necessarily make it a combined 'NI and ROI'" That's not how it works. Look at the reference: there one Ireland team for most sports. It is not the ROI team extending it's membership to NI.

Let's stick with the references and let's not delete referenced material. That's no way to build an article. If you can find a counter reference, or one to support your understanding of the topic, that can be added later. OK? I'll fix the text and add the reference to the intro. If you are genuinely interested in this topic, and interested in building this article, you won't revert relatively trivial and referenced information about it.--RA (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell me how to build/not build an article, or question my interest. I can and will delete a referenced line if I think it is not needed and/or misleading, and I created this article (as you know full well), so obviously I have a genuine interest in it.

Regarding your list of sports - my point in saying "what other sports are there (other than Rugby)?" was that those kind of sports are not big sports in NI (or even big in Ireland I would suggest, some of them), and if they were big in NI it could easily have it's own team. Creating 'Ireland' teams should not be described as a 'norm'. Hence the edit I made. I think the key to this is to develop the All-Ireland page, and to write a more balanced paragraph with that as the centre. I can't accept anything in the intro until it's sorted out, and frankly I can't see how it is really Intro stuff anyway. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Matt, if you are unwilling to accept reliable sources can you please remove the entire sentence. It is better to remove content from an article than to have counter factual and fraudulently referenced content in an article. Many thanks. --RA (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've used your source and put in the information you want - just phrased in another way. It seems to me that it's the additional clarification you are concerned with. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Level set

Can we please have a statement from each of you (Matt & RA) which either describes why the article should stay as it is or why it should be changed? The rest of us can then review and comment. I'm tempted just to revert to a prior stable version but will hold on that for the moment --Snowded ^TALK 10:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Snowded.

There is a reference in the article that states:

• "In most sports, except soccer, Northern Ireland participates with the Republic of Ireland in a combined All-Ireland team."

This is being used to support a statment (current version) that reads:

• "A number of sporting bodies in the island of Ireland are 'all-island' institutions, and field combined all-Ireland teams in the international arena."

Whilst an improvement on previous versions, this under-represents what the reference supports (i.e. it changes "most" to "a number").

Another statement, which was previously supported by the reference but is now marked (by yourself) as citation needed, reads:

• "This is mainly true of sports that have no major presence in Northern Ireland[citation needed], although rugby union is an exception, and the tennis Davis cup team is all-Ireland too."

The essence of this sentence is counter-factual and unsupported by reference.

I am happy for either:

a) i) The second sentence to be removed (unless a supporting refernce can be found); and ii) the first sentence to be ammended to, "A number ofMost sporting bodies ion the island of Ireland are 'all-island' institutions, and field combined all-Ireland teams in the international arena"; as that is what is supported by the reference.

b) Both sentences to be removed as it is better to lose content than to have inaccurate, counter-factual, and mis-cited content in an article.

--RA (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand where has all this drama come from? It would be interesting to know what your 'stable version' is, Snowded - I might agree with it, although changes that people want need to be addressed in some way eventually of course.

As I am being asked to go through my arguments afresh having been repeating them over the past few days (Wikipedia is nothing if not arduous at times!) you'll have to wait till I have time, later tonight perhaps. I'll just say this: this article is one where 'disambiguation' is paramount, and we have a duty to be as neutral as possible, and not to mislead the reader in any way. Basically I've put in what RA wants, with his reference, and added the new "mainly true" line as I'm entitled to do. I don't see what is "counter factual" about the new line, or how it is so contentious that a 'citation needed' tag isn't good enough until I find one. We have to be careful not to disallow a growing NI from developing various sports, by suggesting that the all-Ireland senario is a 'norm'.

Matt Lewis (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

At the moment Matt I am just trying to understand what the are the options being discussed rather than the arguments (that can be worked out). Its not clear as we have edits building on edit conflicts which always confuses things. Your response on RA's options a&b would be useful --Snowded ^TALK 12:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

History of Wales

The history of the idea of Britain being composed of constituent countries is related to but not inferrable from the history of the formation of the United Kingdom. It seems to me that, from the union of the crowns in 1603 until some time in the latter half of the 19th century, it was usual to speak of the "three kingdoms", i.e. England, Scotland, and Ireland. I wonder at what point Wales was as a matter of course given equal status with the other three. Perhaps the international matches in various sports were a driving force: rugby and soccer both started in 1883; were other sports earlier/later; did they include/exclude Wales? Perhaps the truncation of Ireland to Northern Ireland was a clincher, given that Wales leapfrogged to third place in the hierarchy of size. A few non-sporting citations:

• John Speed's 1656 England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland: described and abridged with ye historic relation of things worthy memory from a farr larger voulume [i.e. the Theatre of the Kingdom of Great Britain] is the earliest Google-books instance where enumerating four countries rather than three might be interpreted as a marketing ploy, highlighting the compendiousness of an atlas, gazetteer, or cyclopedia.
• The Cambrian Quarterly magazine, 1831 uses both phrases (unless the fourth nation is Hanover?):

  In passing over the never to be forgotten plain of Waterloo, in company with two or three natives of each of the three kingdoms, during one of my regular visits, on the anniversary of the battle, I observed that, if the party wanted any veritable relics, they had better direct the peasants to dig up a skull and a pair of thigh bones, which, if fixed in a garden, with a scroll underneath, and the word "Waterloo," in grim German characters, might serve as a capital Memento Mori. It seldom happens that a proposition emanating from a representative of any one of the four nations which compose the empire of our good and patriotic king, would be acceded to by the rest; but, in this instance, the Cymro's idea was voted, instanter, quite unanswerable.

• Bernard Burke's General armoury of England, Scotland and Ireland was renamed in 1884 General armoury of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales
• 1888 Parnell proposed separate parliaments for England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales:
• Gladstone said in 1892 in the debate on the Irish Government Bill 1893:

  [The UK] is a partnership of three Kingdoms, a partnership of four nationalities, for the Principality of Wales, if not a separate Kingdom, may claim in a great degree a separate nationality.

The above is all OR, of course; but I imagine an RS academic has traced this development. jnestorius^(talk) 21:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a direct answer to the question (which may be unanswerable as these things tend to develop or emerge gradually over time), but the first piece of legislation to treat Wales as different from England is generally reckoned to be the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act 1881 (incidentally, in the same year as the first Wales v England rugby match), followed by other legislation such as the Welsh Intermediate Education Act 1889. The Council for Wales and Monmouthshire was set up in 1949, followed by the post of Minister for Welsh Affairs in 1951, and the Welsh Office in 1964, at which time the ministerial post was upgraded to Secretary of State. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree there can be no precise date, and I'm sure that any RS which turns up will do so too . I'm not sure about the 1881 Act; HC Deb 06 April 1977 vol 929 cc571-2W addresses the question and mentions the Welsh Cathedrals Act 1843 and Juries Act 1870. OTOH the Court of Great Sessions in Wales was abolished in 1830, suggesting some kind of high water mark of assimilation. jnestorius^(talk) 16:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a country in Europe!

The United Kingdom is a term used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wale....???

Why not the above, it's the most straightforward and accurate description and also the fairest since one wauldn't describe France as a term used to describe Brittany, Aquitaine, Gascony, Languedoc, Normandy and Alsace!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 21:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That phrasing is troublesome. The United Kingdom is a country, its not just a descriptive term. Your proposal ignores the very fact that all four parts, despite the three devolved administrations, are subject ultimately to one national parliament. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Brittany and Normandy, etc., were merged into France, just as Cornwall and Berwick on Tweed were merged into England. But Wales, Ireland and Scotland were never merged into England. TFD (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite true - legally, Wales certainly was, for some time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

But not entirely. Wales remained separate from England for some purposes. The U.K. is unique among the world's countries in that its constitution developed before the modern conceptions of the state and citizenship existed. TFD (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi TFD. I'm not sure about "The U.K. is unique among the world's countries in that its constitution developed before the modern conceptions of the state and citizenship existed." The idea of 'the state' and 'citizenship' existed in Roman times, over 2000 years ago, whereas the UK is a comparatively recent creation. The UK's constitution is almost unique in that it is 'unwritten' but the key thing that makes it unique is that it was created as a consequence of an international Treaty that led to the merging of previously independent countries into a new, sovereign entity. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(Going off-topic, but...) "..[T]he key thing that makes it unique is that it was created as a consequence of an international Treaty that led to the merging of previously independent countries into a new, sovereign entity." Surely not - I'd have thought that many countries in Europe and Asia, at least, developed in that way. Germany and Italy spring to mind immediately. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Modern republics copied the ancient concepts, which have replaced medieval concepts. The UK for example did not have "citizens" until 1961. All persons subject to the Crown in parliament (i.e., up to one quarter of the world's population) were subjects with the same status. In the ancient and medieval world people were citizens of cities, not countries, although the city could be a state. TFD (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think to avoid confusion this articles introduction should clearly state that the United Kingdom itself is a country too. At present it only says the UK is a sovereign state, we should clarify by stating it is a sovereign state and country. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've no probs with that. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, I'd say it's essential. --Breadandcheese (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, but I thought that being a fully sovereign state automatically made you a country also. Can anyone think of any fully sovereign state that is not considered to be a country? That being the case, stating that the United Kingdom is a sovereign state is all that is required. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The UK is a country, though. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No need for tautology --Snowded ^TALK 07:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Country is ambiguous, Sovereign state is not. ~Asarlaí 00:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying sovereign state is fine but we must also be very clear that the United Kingdom is a country. The fact the UK is a country made up of 4 countries is why this article exists and why it is so unique. Why must we hide from people the UK is a country by just saying sovereign state? The fact we have to put in the FAQ box on the UK talk page that the UK is a country means this is an important fact to include. saying its a sovereign state but nowhere pointing out its a country is problematic. Also it was not that long ago that the introduction on the UK page clearly stated it was a sovereign state and country in the first sentence. Sadly country was removed from the first sentence and has been demoted to the second paragraph of the introduction now. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the problem: not every country is a sovereign state but every sovereign state is a country. Therefore calling the UK a sovereign state, by definition, means it is also a country! Cheer Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But does every single person in the world know a "sovereign state" is still a country? Louisiana is a sovereign state. Why is the harm in clearly informing people on this page which talks of "countries of the United Kingdom", that the United Kingdom itself is a country but also a sovereign state? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No-one would argue that the UK isn't a sovereign state, but I'm sure some would argue that the UK isn't a country. Why? Because country is an ambiguous term with more than one definition. If we add it to the lead we're treating a POV as fact. ~Asarlaí 02:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"but I'm sure some would argue that the UK isn't a country." - EXACTLY! That is exactly why country needs to be stated, it is absolutely FACT that the United Kingdom is a country and attempts to suppress this fact should not be allowed. The United Kingdom being a country is not merely a point of view. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The article should be RM'd to Constituent countries of the United Kingdom & thus the UK would be described as the country. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay - you may not be aware that 'Constituent countries of the United Kingdom' redirects to this article. Changing this article's name would not, in itself, describe the UK as a country. Better the overkill of describing the UK as 'a sovereign state and country' than to start trying to rename articles. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles are moved over redirects all the time, so the existance redirects does not preclude moving an article to that title for that reason. Anyway, I'd support Constituent countries of the United Kingdom as being a clearer title. - BilCat (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't. The current title is perfectly clear as it stands. Daicaregos (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If the separate parts of the UK are backed up by sources calling them countries I don't see why there is any discussion this. Could the UK not be called a sovereign state and country while the parts of the UK be called countries? I don't understand why this would be a problem. Don't intend to sound cheeky but that just makes commonsense to me. Anyone else? Fred DeSoya (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with this being called Countries of the United Kingdom however this article should absolutely make clear that the UK is also a country (something it does not do at present) that is needed because as a post shows above, some people seem to think its a POV if the UK is a country or not. The United Kingdom is a country and its deeply offensive to suggest otherwise yet there seems to be an effort to hide the fact the United Kingdom is a country. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Having the article at Constituent countries of the United Kingdom would go a long way to making that crystal clear. - BilCat (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Previously discussed at length BilCat, discussion mediated, evidence assembled in tables no case for change is made here. BW no one is trying to hide anything, just avoid tautology.

I have no clue what "discussion mediated, evidence assembled in tables no case for change is made here" means, could someone translate it? Besides, consensus does change, and whose to say it won't now? - BilCat (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

All the terminology is ambiguous. But we already have a description for the U. K. - it is a kingdom. TFD (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The UK might be a kingdom, so might Scotland and England, but Wales is a Principality and Northern Ireland is a province. Martinvl (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

UK is a kingdom. England and Scotland used to be kingdoms, but no longer (not since 1707). Monaco & Liechtenstein are principalities, Wales isn't. As for Northern Ireland, your guess is as good as mine. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Wales was incorporated into the Kingdom of England, which merged with Scotland into the Kingdom of GB, which merged with Ireland to form the United Kingdom of GB and Ireland. The descriptions for Wales and NI date to before their incorporation into the England and the UK respectively. (Ulster was one of the four provinces of the Kingdom of Ireland.) TFD (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - "The descriptions for Wales and NI date to before their incorporation into the England and the UK respectively." Come on...Northern Ireland did not exist until the 1920's and there was therefore no terminology to describe it prior to this. However, since Northern Ireland is 2/3rds of the province of Ulster, those people who refer to Northern Ireland as 'Ulster' sometimes also refer to Northern Ireland as 'a province'. It is, however, inaccurate to describe Northern Ireland either as 'Ulster' or as 'a province.' Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

England & Scotland are no longer kingdoms. Wales is no longer a principality. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

When people refer to NI as a province they are continuing the terminology for the division of Ireland into four provinces. Of course NI contains only six of the counties of Ulster, and therefore calling it a province is controversial. However people who call it a province are referring to the province of Ulster. It is correct that Wales is not a principality, although there is a Prince of Wales, just as there is a Prince of Orange and a Duke of Normandy - modern Wales is distinct from the region ceded to England as the principality. TFD (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No offense TFD but that opening statement is entirely wrong. Northern Ireland as a province and Ulster as a province are two entirely different things. Ulster is a province of Ireland, a sub-division adopted, altered and used by the English. Northern Ireland however is a province of the United Kingdom not Ireland. I actually have it very well sourced by verifiable and reliable sources, and it explains why some people and commentators refer to NI as "the province" - its nothing to do with Ulster but the fact NI is a province of the UK. Then again it is also officially a constituent country. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide one of those reliable sources. My understanding is that there is no official description of Northern Ireland as a constituent part of the UK, merely an unofficial reference (although sometimes used in official documents) as the province. But then it is also sometimes called Ulster too, e.g., as in the RUC or UDR. TFD (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact heres a couple i can find within easy reach, i would like to think that Oxford University is a reliable source. Though i would assume these sources are using the term not in an informal way but as it has some official standing:

“ Northern Ireland, a province created by the *Government of Ireland Act of 1920, made of the six Ulster counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry, and Tyrone, and retained within the United Kingdom after the rest achieved dominion status by the *Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921. ” — Oxford Companion to Irish History, page 420. 2002, ISBN 978-0-19-923483-7

“ Northern Ireland Province of the United Kingdom made up of the six north-eastern counties of the ancient Irish province of ULSTER. ” — Reader's Digest, Encyclopedia of World History, page 462. 1996, ISBN 0-276-42287-2

Mabuska ^(talk) 22:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I would not use a tertiary source such as the Reader's Digest encyclopedia for this type of topic and the Oxford history is ambiguous. In any case the statute referred to, the Government of Ireland Act 1920, does not use the term "province". It partitioned Ireland into "Northern Ireland" and "Southern Ireland". No one ever referred to Southern Ireland as a province. TFD (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have sources that prove that the Oxford history is ambiguous? Otherwise thats simply a matter of point of view to suit ends. Personally i'm not advocated adding this into the article, but simply stating here that Northern Ireland is a province and it is sourced - and how your claims as to why its referred to as a province are very incorrect.

No-one is argueing if Southern Ireland was a province or not. For all we know it may have been or may not have been, but there is that little written about that minor entity in history who knows. Also seeing as Southern Ireland was dead before Northern Ireland rejoined the United Kingdom a few days after the creation of the Free State in December 1922 - how do we know if Northern Ireland actually became a province then or when partition happened?? Its status as a province can come into effect at any time and isn't restricted to the act of 1920.

Mabuska ^(talk) 19:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Also the Wiki defintion of a province is given as "A province is a prepositional unit, almost always an administrative division, within a country or state.". Northern Ireland and even Southern Ireland would fit that description very well especially as both had their own parliament within the United Kingdom. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

One does not require sources to state that wording is ambiguous. It is not clear whether PONI was a province of Ireland or the UK. Also, the source it uses for this claim does not use the term "province". The term "province" is an informal term used because the six counties are or were part of the Province of Ulster. If you claim that NI did not become a province in 1920, then your source is irrelevant. Saying that Ulster meets the criteria for a province is unhelpful. So presumably do England, Scotland and Wales, as well as American states and territories, yet none of them are ever called provinces. TFD (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Could I suggest that all this discussion as to whether it is appropriate to describe Northern Ireland as a province is actually not taking this discussion forward. The point of this article, as I understand it, is to explain to readers that the four 'parts' that together constitute the United Kingdom are referred to as 'countries of the United Kingdom'. This does not in any way mean that they are not also described in other terms. I know that Northern Ireland is also referred to as a province - it was described in such terms this evening on Sky News! - but that does not mean it is in any way invalid to have this article describing and explaining the use of the term 'countries of the United Kingdom'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Just call the 4 parts constituent countries. All 4 fit the definition of that term. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not proposing changing anything as stated - just showing TFD how he is wrong is saying that the confusion is purely to do with the province of Ulster. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, but constituent country would be more accurate. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay. Whether you think 'constituent country would be more accurate' is not relevant. There is an article to explain the phrase constituent country and this is an article to explain the phrase 'countries of the United Kingdom'. Both articles are needed because both descriptions are used. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)