Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Commonwealth of Nations inclusion

Resolved

I've notice a dispute gowing over this issue. Simply mentioning that the UK is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations (as the current edit shows), is good enough. Remember folks, this article is about the 'nation' not the 'Head of state'. GoodDay 22:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about this. Trying to think of a similar example. I looked at France, because the President of France is also one of the two the heads of state (or princes) of Andorra. The article on France doesn't mention this, but it's more significant here where we are talking about so many more countries. Also I'm sure that the Crown's constitutional relevance to these countries is more signficant. I'm also wondering whether the House of Lords sill has a constitutional role in some countries outside of the UK. Jooler 07:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what people are thinking the issue is here. The fact that EIIR is also head of state of a number of other countries hasn't been removed from the article, it's merely been shifted down to the government and politics section; it was too much detailed information for the lead (which remains overburdened as it is now).

I believe some Commonwealth Realms may still have the British Privy Council as their highest court of appeal, but is that worthy of mention in an article about the UK as opposed to in the article on the PC itself? --G2bambino 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay 20:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been removed now. Jooler 20:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Update

I've removed Elizabeth II's Commonwealth role, it's not needed at this article; it's correctly placed at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. The only way it should be re-added? If & when the 15 other Commonwealth realms have it mentioned (and the non-realms, if more accurate). GoodDay 18:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't get it. Because some other articles lack facts relevant to their status within the Queen's realm, this article should also? It's on a par to saying, because some other articles about European countries don't mention some fact (like say their levels of immigration) then neither should this article. Jooler 20:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Commonwealth role isn't neeeded here. This article is about the 'country', not the 'head of state'. As for the comparisons with the 15 other? It ties in with the discussion at Canada. GoodDay 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Queen is resident in the UK and not the other commonwealth realms. The monarch's role as head of state of those countries in which she is not resident is of consequence and worthy of mention in this article. Jooler 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the Commonwealth members are of equal status, where Elizabeth II resides is irrelevant. But more importantly, her 'Commonwealth role' is correctly placed at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. This article is about the 'country', which concerns only the UK head of state role. GoodDay 20:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I was not suggesting that the constitutional role was different. Merely that the fact that she lives here in this country AND is head of state of other countries is relevant to this article. I cannot off the top of my head (apart from the Andorra example given above) think of any other example. The uniqueness of that situation if nothing else is worthy of mention. Jooler 20:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll re-add it then (though I still think it's not needed). Hopefully, the commonwealth role will be included on the other commonwealth members articles. GoodDay 20:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The really unusual thing about the UK is that it doesn't have a Governor-General whereas every other Commonwealth Realm does. Now that is worthy of mention. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I just wish the 'Commonwealth role' was applied to the other Commonwealth realm articles. But as I've said, that dispute belongs on those articles. See Canada discussion, concerning this subject. GoodDay 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there are no guidelines that state all country articles must be identical in format and structure, but it would seem that as the Realms do mirror each other in a number of aspects, if certain information is justifiably included in one Realm article, and said information applies equally to other Realms, then there would be little argument against including it in the other articles. --G2bambino 21:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

the UK, a country or countries?

Resolved

Howabout a compromise - union of constituent countries, let's try that. GoodDay 23:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen or heard any source describe the UK in such terms before - what was wrong exactly with "a country"? - it's verifiable. Jza84 23:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Country is fine (and consistant with the other country articles); however there's some editors out who have a problem with it. GoodDay 23:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I've heard it all now - amazing! - I've just Googled it ([1]), you get 33,800 results, including [2] [3] [4]... need I really go on and Google "political union of constituent countries" or other such new definitions? Jza84 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This minority of users should really think about accepting what is published in the long-established reference, what is taken as a precedent from other articles, and what has been the consensus position in previous discussions before applying their POVs on this very fundamental issue. The UK is a country, and anything stated to the contrary is laughable. Bastin 00:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In agreement, it's one country (the one monarch, one prime minister and one Parliament, gave the clues). The consensus seals the deal. GoodDay 00:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooooo I'm not so sure - should we take it to a straw poll??? Jza84 00:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you and your fellow dissenting minority should abide by the text of the reference and the consensus. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

So, we're all in agreemtn, one country. GoodDay 00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Jza84 (and Bastun), even with quite a restrictive search string you can find 5,420, so hardly a new definition. Hell, even Downing Street is getting in on it ("The United Kingdom is made up of four countries ..."). Probably has something to do with 1801, 1707, separate and distinct judicial areas, no national football team, etc. ... --sony-youth^pléigh 00:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just saw the "source". Again to quote it, "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries ..." --sony-youth^pléigh 00:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's also made up of mountains, islands, urban areas, boroughs, counties etc etc, but it is, by definiation, a country! Different districts (named divisions of land for political purposes) have different sports teams, but they are united. And sorry, when exactly did the Welsh Olympic team win a medal? I'm sorry, but the citation and consensus really is too strong here. Jza84 00:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You are referring to the citation that directly contradicts your argument here? Please don't obfuscate discussion by referring to other definitions of "country", otherwise we'll end up writing articles describing London as a country. My point is not to push one view or the other, but to ask that valid perspectives not be dismissed out of hand just because we don't like them - and that if a source is to be cited that we read more than just its title. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I know from both your user page and personal experience that you have a dislikeing for the adjective "British", you're an Irish Republican, and are for the total dissolution of the UK - you obviously want to weaken the status of UK by any means possible. I think it's fair to say you're perspective is going to be somewhat distorted here, but I'll play along... so tell me Sony, if you're for the break up of the UK, what is it you're breaking up? Is a "Kingdom" a country? Are the 33,000 sources lying to us? Are the users who agree the UK is a country totally wrong and purposely spreading lies? Why does the UK have an olympic team, a shared monarch, a shared prime minister, entry into the EU, entry into the UN, foreign consulates, sovereignty etc, etc, etc, etc? I'll even give you an answer to your point - London isn't a country, because neither citation or a mainstream view takes that stance, and the UK is a country made up of four countries - countaining countries within its boundaries doen't stop it being a country itself by any means at all. Jza84 01:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

First, please see the second bullet point for what is considered a personal attack on Wikipedia: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." (On the last point, although irrevelent, you should be aware that in UK and Irish terminology a common distinction is drawn between Irish nationalists and republicans - and certainly so when capitalised - the latter denoting the physical force/terrorism side of affairs.) You'll no doubt withdraw anything about it being fair to say that my "perspective is going to be somewhat distorted" and so forth in you next post, so there's little reason for me retort with similarly immature speculations about you from what little I can draw from your user page or our few exchanges before.

Second, the attributes you describe are those given to sovereign states. "Country", today at least, draws in connotations of the nation state. While these (in Europe at least) generally coincide with each other, they are not always so. The UK is an example where things become confusing. The sovereign state is quite clear. Its the United Kingdom. But is the nation/country British? Or ENG/SCO/WAL/NI? I would say both, as, I suppose, you would too. And we both know that there are plenty of sources to back both cases up.

Are 33,000 sources lying to us? No, I doubt it. Could you cite one that doesn't (at least appear to) contradict the statement it is supposed to support, like the current one does? I doubt that, too. What might help is a more mature treatment of the issue rather than banding words around that have very complex meanings in this context as if the matter was straight cut and dry. Let's get it clear, I'm not saying that the UK is not a country, nor do I have any issue with it being called one, but you're going run into many people who are going to say that it is better to say it another way. One such person was our colleague GoodDay, who said, quite correctly, that the UK is a union of constituent countries. If this is unpalatable to you, as compromise might be to include both ways in the lede e.g. "... is a country and sovereign state to the north-west of mainland Europe comprised of the union of four constituent countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."

(On the matter of London being a country, there was really no need to 'answer my point'. I was asking you to cut out the obfuscation. You can 'answer' that request just by doing it.) --sony-youth^pléigh 02:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is clear the word "country" has several meanings. One of them, and a very common usage, is for sovereign states. Thus both the French and German articles say "a country". Therefore the usage is quite correct. In fact most entities we regard as "countries" consist of what in the past were also regarded as "countries". --Michael Johnson 02:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The word 'country' is commonly understood to mean a sovereign enitity. But true, it is also ambiguous. Are Scotland, Wales and Ireland 'countries"? Are Yorkshire, Cornwall or Essex 'countries'? To avoid ambiguities, perhaps 'nation' is the word to use. It has the advantage of being precise, meaning a sovereign entity.--Gazzster 10:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nation is surely going to cause more controversy than county (see the recent issue on Talk:Scotland on just that issue). If we are going to take country to mean "sovereign state" then can we drop the tautology ("country and sovereign state")? --sony-youth^pléigh 10:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) No it's not. "Nation" is just as ambiguous as "country" in a UK context. -- Arwel (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

::I was just wondering (not looking for an argument), if the UK is a union of four countries (as Tharky and Sony argue), would the UK be called the United Kingdoms? Anyways, as long as the articles on countries use country as an opening discriptive; then the UK must go along with that. GoodDay 14:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the country is called United Kingdom & not United Kingdoms, that proves further 'one country'. But I think I understand the historical pride in the four components (which I feel is occuring in this discussion). I have to be careful not to look at this from strictly a Canadian PoV - If I did, I'd be treating England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales as British provinces. Therefore (to avoid political PoV disputes), I've chosen to go along with the consensus here (and keeping in mind that, other country articles use country as an opening discriptive). GoodDay 14:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Since the country is called United Kingdom & not United Kingdoms, that proves further 'one country'." Is this looking from a North American POV i.e. its the United States not United State? Remember that a kingdom is only a form of government - think of state vs. country, these need not be the same thing, whether the state be sovereign or not. In 1800 there were two kingdoms, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland, both of which had the same king but which were run separately (distinct states). In 1801, one unified kingdom was made from both: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In the example of the United States, one united state was never created, hence plural. But yet the United States, despite being a plural, is called one country, whereas the United Kingdom, despite being called singular, continues to contains four countries - as the current reference supports.

I don't think that this is any reason for not describing the UK as a country but it is something that needs to be made clear. As the current source backs up, describing the UK as a country and not saying that it is a 'country of countries' is misleading. I am also more convinced that ever that if we are going to use "country" in the sense of a sovereign state then we need to remove the tautology of "... is a country and a sovereign state ..." is simply meaningless unless what you are mean by "country" is not what is captured by the phrase "sovereign state" . --sony-youth^pléigh 16:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, United Kingdoms was a terrible example (also it's a contradictive title). Oh well, my (above) proposal union of constituent countries is still an option. GoodDay 17:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The UK is one country, made up of four former countries, which in turn in many cases were themselves amalgams of former countries. Contrast Australia, Canada and the US. These are federations where the respective constitutions divide sovereignty between the federal and state governments. Constituent former countries in the UK do not even have as much sovereignty as an Australian state. The current arrangements for self government in Scotland, for instance, can be removed or amended by the Parliament in Westminster. Ambassadors are appointed to the UK, not to England or Scotland. It is the UK defence forces that fight in Iraq, and it is through UK immigration that you must go to enter an part of the UK. Further thoughts: Tanzania is a country that includes the former country of Zanzibar, Texas is a former country now part of the US. The United Kingdom, for better or worse, is a country. --Michael Johnson 04:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nitpick: The United Republic of Tanzania includes two former countries, Tanganyika (formerly German East Africa), and Zanzibar. -- Arwel (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but then devolution kinda complicates things, doesn't it? Has the UK Parliament surrendered some of its sovereign rights to Scotland and Wales? Do those countries (nations, states, whatever) possess a measure of sovereignty? The UK is a state in transition. Who knows? Perhaps in time Scotland will move to complete independence. --Gazzster 04:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, who knows? But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. For the present the UK is a country, and Scotland is part of it. --Michael Johnson 07:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't quite my point mate. Yes, the UK is a country. But Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, perhaps Cornwall might have a claim to be called countries in a broader sense. After all, they have a tradition and an identity distinct (though interwined) with England's. The UK is perhaps restoring part of their sovereignty. But I'm just making intellectual banter, I don't care which word is used.--Gazzster 08:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone ever notice that England, has never sought independance from the UK. Back to the topic - the United Kingdom is one country. GoodDay 15:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.englishindependenceparty.com/ & http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/ - btw I'm not advocating or dismissing this, just providing the links. Jooler 15:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, there are English who desire independance (and I thought it was just an Irish, Scottish, Welsh thing). Oh well, back to the topic. GoodDay 15:45, 16 September 2007 (

Oh come on, it is one country and four countries - both are applicable and all the points you have made are valid. 4 football teams, one Prime Minister. The whole thing is subjective, I for one see myself as both -I am English and British, as well as a bit Scottish and European- and considering the usage of such terms in both contexts you won't get anywhere trying to say one is above the other - the term doesn't allow for it. So I suggest you get around the issue by saying it is a "State" - that word actually has a proper definition and isn't subject to the same divisions that country or nation is. - J Logan ^t: 08:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean drop the word "country" all together (can also drop sov. at the same time, problematic but that is another issue) - J Logan ^t: 08:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with this - it had previous said "country and soveriegn state". I edited out "sovereign state" because it made no sense having both, if what was meant by each was the same thing. I'd side with putting "soveriegn state" back in and taking "country" out.

Republic of Ireland is another example of one where "country" and "soveriegn state" collide. Which is the "country": the whole island or the sovereign state? Which is the soverign state is clear-cut, but "country" mean both. The current method exploits the blurriness of the word "country": "Ireland is a country in north-western Europe. The modern sovereign state occupies five-sixths of the island of Ireland, which was partitioned in 1921." (The proper name for the Republic is "Ireland".)

Maybe a similar "trick" could work here? --sony-youth^pléigh 08:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree too: we can call the UK a country. But then, we can call its constituent parts countries too. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own distinct traditions, and they are countries. 'Country' is an ambiguous term: it can mean a sovereign state; it can mean a geographical or cultural area.We can talk about the country of Wales, the country of Somerset, the Lake country. As with many words in English, the sense of the word is taken from the context.--Gazzster 09:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not the same thing. The "state" is the body politic of a country, not its totality. While it is undeniably true to say that the UK is a state that is an incomplete and insufficient description. Mucky Duck 09:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"A state", Mucky, not the euphemism "the state". The concept of a state includes territory, populous, administration, resources, soverignty etc. What do you feel is lacking that can only be captured by the word "country" in this case? --sony-youth^pléigh 10:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I maintain that this problem can be solved by using reliable, verifiable, citation rather than conjecturalising and spinning. Certainly the "Number 10" webspace satisfies Wikipedia's standards of quality citation, but perhaps something from the published, printed realm may strengthen the lead here too? Jza84 11:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. So you can quote a positive statement from the No.10 web site that verifies the one included here. Good. Now, can you cite it for me? --sony-youth^pléigh 12:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You want to check out your own reference, Sony:

A state is a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area. It usually includes the set of institutions that claim the authority to make the rules that govern the people of the society in that territory though its status as a state often depends in part on being recognized by a number of other states as having internal and external sovereignty over it. In sociology, the state is normally identified with these institutions: in Max Weber's influential definition, it is that organization that has a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory," which may include the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts, and police.

Of your list the concepts of tertory, population and resources are missing from the concept of state. Mucky Duck 11:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's re-examine your quote, Mucky (though Wiki is not a good source as you know, I only linked to it, didn't mean it as a reference). I'll highlight the relevent words for you:

A state is a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area. It usually includes the set of institutions that claim the authority to make the rules that govern the people of the society in that territory though its status as a state often depends in part on being recognized by a number of other states as having internal and external sovereignty over it.

The resources of the terriroty are not mentioned in the Wiki, IMO they really should be added - I cannot think of any sovereign state that does not claim to have sovereignty over the air, land, sea (as resources) of its territory.

I'd like to see Weber's definition in full, the bit that's there only mentions territory, as you can see. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it says that a state is the political association with effective dominion over a geographic area, not the geographical are itself. It says that it is the set of institutions that claim the authority to make the rules that govern the people of the society - not those people themselves. The resources of the territory are not part of the state - the state has sovereignty over them. All these things come under the meaning of country but not of state - very different things. Mucky Duck 12:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That is why I wrote that "The concept of a state includes territory, populous, administration, resources, soverignty etc." Or maybe you can think of a state that does not have territory, populous, administration, resources, soverignty (not necessarilty complete) etc. Any chance that you'll now answer my question to you? Or are you still hung up on the fact that states have territory, people, administrations, resources, sovereignty, etc.? --sony-youth^pléigh 12:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Found the Weber quote in full:

"Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state."

I hope you'll take Weber's word for it that the state is a "human community" and that "'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state." There are of couse more characteristics of the state (what I called sovereignty, Webers describes as a "monopoly" etc.). Further on he deals with administration, resources, etc. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course a state is a human community - that's what I've been saying. A country is rather more than that. By "characteristic" he is not say that territory is part of the state - he is saying that to be a state it has to be able to claim legitimate use of physical force over it the legitimate use of force over territory - ie territory is a characteristic of a state as opposed, for example, to a resistance movement. Territory is not part of a "human community" - it is, however, part of a country. Mucky Duck 08:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Let the man speak for himself: "... a state is a human community ... 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state." --sony-youth^pléigh 10:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And "a state is the political association with effective dominion over a geographic area" etc. etc. He is perfectly clear that "state" refers to the political institutions of a country: Not the country itself. Mucky Duck 11:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll just add a suggestion I've made before, but was rejected. "The UK is a sovereign country." Sovereign has most of the implications of the word state and the word country is kept, thereby eliminating the tautology. This contrasts it with constituent country, used for Scotland, England, Wales and NI. A criticism of this before was that the term sovereign country is not used, but I'm not using it as a term in itself, just a normal adjective with a noun.AlexOUK 11:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Even muckier, I'm sorry - but I applaud the direction. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't see why that's a problem - it certainly is a sovereign country, and that is not an unusual phrase. Mucky Duck 12:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For sure, there's 310,000 hits for the phrase from Google. My issue is that if the territory currently occupied by the UK could be called a country if the state of the UK ceased to exist or indeed never did. The adjective "sovereign" presupposes that we are talking about a original "country". The close tie between sovereignty and statehood implies that the "country" we are talking has achieved statehood (thus the adjective). The UK goes the other way around surely, first state, then country rather than the two arising together or fist being a country, then being a state. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. You can't have a state without a country for that state to have dominion over. That's what your quotation from Weber above was explaining. Mucky Duck 09:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's take the Irish example: the 26 counties never constitued a "country" in any sense before the formation of the Free State. It was formation of the "state" started a process whereby the 26 counties could begin to be thought of as a the "country" in some small sense. None the less, even without thinking of politics, the "country" is still thought of as the 32 counties (e.g cricket, rugby, cycling, hockey teams etc.) The territory of the state, however, is unequivically the 26 counties.

In precise terms, it is not that you cannot have a state without a country, it is that you cannot have a state without territory. But territory and country are two different things. Take the Netherlands as another example, the country is entirly based in Europe, but the territory of the state inclues the Antilles and Aruba.

A country is not equal to the territory of a state (although they do quite often overlap). My question was if the UK ceased to be a state, or before it ever became one, would the territory of Great Britain and Northern Ireland be thuoght of as a "country." --sony-youth^pléigh 10:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Irish example: Yes, the territory of the state, not the state.

I don't disagree with you that territory and country are not coterminous terms. Apart from the differences that you point out country refers to much more than territory - people, culture, history. I do not think that is the discussion, though. Neither of us, I think, would claim that "The UK is a territory..." would be satisfactory. The point is that this article is about much more than the state - pretty much all of the article except section 2 in fact. Mucky Duck 11:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I missed your question, apologies. A country can certainly get its countryship through being the dominion of a single state. In fact that's probably the normal case. But it's not relevant; it doesn't make it into a state, just administered by one. This article is not about the state but about the country. Mucky Duck 11:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK we're a loggerheads and we're not going to agree. Semantic arguments about the territory/people/etc. of a state, I think are about a meaningful as arguments about the territory/people/etc. of a country. That the UK is a country, in my view, is solely so because it is a state first-and-foremost. The current set-up doesn't really bother me so much (I made the edit) as it did when it was described as a "country and sovereign state" (tautology in this case). However, the current reference is woeful, there are surely better ones out there.

I've two suggestions for compromise:

Compromise #1: Described first as a "state" then in all other instances refer to it as a "country."

Compromise #2: Keeping country as the word but linking to "state." (The country article is essentially a long-form disambiguation page anyway between state, nation and constituent country - of which state is clearly the choice here.

(Incidentally, I only just looked at the country article, it discusses exactly what we've been arguing here, and even refers to the UK directly.) --sony-youth^pléigh 11:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what else you think discussion about the meaning of a word is going to be other than semantic! ;-)

Your first suggestion doesn't serve. It is fine to use the term state when actually talking about the state (in section 2, primarily) but that would be incorrect as the defintion for the entire article which discusses much more than that. Your second suggestion just seems rather odd. I agree that "country and sovereign state" is ugly and unnecessary. Personally I think it should read exactly as it does now, no reference should really be needed here - other articles don't use one. But if we must have one I'm sure we could find one we can agree on - I'll have a dig when I get a chance. Mucky Duck 12:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How about Britannica? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mucky Duck (talk • contribs) 12:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unarch your back - I've never denied that the UK is a country (though you are intent on denying that it is a state) - remember I made the current edit call it such - all I want is accuracy and helfullness to our readers. So the follow the country link - then what - what kind of country did we mean? --sony-youth^pléigh 12:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"semantics" - touché!

Mucky, "the state" (maning soley the administration of a state) is a euphimism. From the Oxford dictionary:

State: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government

Government: the system by which a state or community is governed

It is only the fifth definition of state that says that it can mean "the civil government of a country." Please stop obfuscating these two. You will surely agree that the United Kingdom is a nation or a territory that is organized politically under one government.

Calling it a "country" (OED: "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.") fine - I'm not going to go near the argument about whether the UK is a "nation" - but could we 1) have accuracy and helpfullness for our readers so as to link to the most appropriate article, since in this case we are clearly talking about a state 2) have a little curtesy from you so as to not to deny that the UK is a state. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You've done it again: The quotation explains it perfectly. "State" is the political aspect of the country - "considered as an organized political community". Of course the UK is that, I don't for one moment deny it. But it is more as the whole of sections 3, 4 and 8 (at least) demonstrate. Mucky Duck 13:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Both definitions bring in questions of government. But, I would answer that it is you that has done it again - like the straight-forward Weber quote that you paraphrased and rewrote until it resembled nothing of its original form.

If what the word "state" means only "the political aspect of the country" why is the 5th definition of "state" ("the civil government of a country" i.e. what you would call "the political aspect of the country") a seperate definition to the one that I am dealing with i.e. definition 2? Pause. Take a breath. Unarch the back. Then re-read it. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not call the "civil government of a country" the political aspect of that country. There is more to politics than that. That is why we have the concept of state and it's why OED has a number of defintions all surroinding that political entity.

I paraphrased the Weber quote, I didn't rewrite it. I was trying to demonstrate that your assertion that "A state is a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area" should be read as "a state is a geographic area" was erroneous where Weber is actually explaining that territory is an important characteristic of a state (as opposed to an insurrection, for example). I think perhaps you should unarch your back and reread your Weber who is quite clear on this subject. Mucky Duck 14:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I lament, Mucky. And really, I am asking myself why I should care if the UK article is NPOV and accurate. I've watched many times before as British editors were beaten off this talk page for rasing the same issues. If its something that a section of UK editors want to surpress. Then so be it. There is a river in Sweden. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This argument is ridiculous! It's full of original research, and appears to be purely for the benefit of the article writers rather than for the benefit of readers. What value does the country/state/nation/territory distinction have at the opening paragraph of the United Kingdom article? The UK is referred to as a country often enough (and demonstrably so, e.g. via the No. 10 reference) that using this term in the opener is fine. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, and its about the 10th time this argument or something similar has appeared on this talk page. Jooler 12:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Then take it as a sign that there is an issue that needs to be solved. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"... and demonstrably so, e.g. via the No. 10 reference ..." - as with the last person to claim this, I'm sure you an quote that source positively saying so? I'll mark the citation with {{Citequote}} in the mean time. I'm sure you'll be able to do so, so it won't be there long.

What do you mean? The quotation is already cited (actually, better still, it's directly referred). Mucky Duck 13:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cite the quatation from the source e.g. if a source is used to back up a statement that the UK is in Europe then there will be a statement in the source saying something akin to, "The UK is in Europe". In this case a source is being used to back up a statement that the UK is a country. Please quote a section of the sources that positively says so. (Actually I know that there is none. Really my point is to hurry up the process of getting a better reference).

The clinging onto this pawltry reference - that does not even say what it is being used to support - is more evidience to me of the neurotic attitude of some editors here to any suggestion that the "country" issue of the UK be dealt with in a decent fashion. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the reference is there because, despite your assertion, some editors were insisting that, virtually uniquely, the UK is not a country. This was probably before your time which is why you are unaware. At one point we had about half a dozen references there, most of which have been deleted over time - sometimes fraudulently with dishonest edit summaries to try to hide the fact. It isn't a brilliant reference and there are plenty of better ones (Britannica, for example, as I suggested earlier). Mucky Duck 14:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've taken it out again - honestly, point to where it says that the UK is a country and I'll be happy with it. Just quote the source, that's all. Let the source speak for itself.

I can imagine that there were lots of people going on about the UK not being a "country" - its a thing that can be argued and any half-way meaningful discussion about the UK and nation/state/country will arrive at it very quickly. But surely alarm bells rang in your head and you thought - "Hmmm, for the sake of NPOV we better explain the UK situation better than just writing 'The UK is a country and a sovereign state PERIOD'." No? Shame. That needs improvement.

The EU 2005 reference is particularly weak and should be replaced ASAP. Britannica is something better, at least is makes a positive statement. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It used to say the UK is a country and had a wodge of references to that effect (because a small number of people denied that). The "and sovereign state" bit was added as a bit of a sulk by one of those editors but by that time noone was in any mood to tidy it up - it was at least true. Removal of that phrase would do the article no harm at all - it would be an improvement. There is no way you could discuss all the political and cultural ambiguities in the United Kingdom in an introductory sentence, to try to do so would make it completely useless so the period must be there. Discussion on the UK's special circumstances has to come later. But to exclude everything bar the politics in that first sentence by defining it as a state is equally unhelpful.

One of the objections raised to describing the UK as a country was that it is made up of countries. The reference that you don't like was there to explain that a country of countries is a perfectly valid concept. It says, quite clearly, that the UK is a country in the title, which is the bit that is quoted. Mucky Duck 18:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't appear to like Weber or OED's explanation that state refers to the body politic of a country. How about Britannica? Or here? Mucky Duck 18:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As for OR, well, as the only person who cited any published material throughout the discussion, I have to agree. It has sense moved on - e.g. removing the tautology - since it stated though.

For all else see the the style guide regarding the lead section. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Red Hat, I'd have to disagree with you on this: The distinction is an important one. To call a country a state is a bit like saying "such and such a school is is a group of teachers".

Jooler is right, we have had this argument out often before, with the answer being that the UK should be described as a country. That doesn't make the argument ridiculous.

Sony, you published material which shows that state <> country. That material was fine for me, no extra references required. Mucky Duck 12:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mucky Duck on that one - it's simillar to the Scotland article describing the territory as a group of people.... However, I have to ask Sony here, by what criteria is the UK NOT a country? What source material are you basing this on?.... and yes we know it is made of four constituent countries (although one could argue it is made of two when looking at successive legistlation - the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - hense the title), but I'm looking for a source that explicitly prooves the UK is not a country. Jza84 13:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the UK is a country (like Canada, USA, Australia etc). Those English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish prideful PoV's are getting annoying. GoodDay 13:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Read below Goodday - please no personal attacks. It is this assumption of bad faith that has these issues locked up. It has nothing to do with any "prideful PoV's". And nobody is denying that the UK is a country. If more time was spent trying to understand the issue, rather than attacking it blindly then we would all be in a better place (both those of us who enjoy accurate and informative encyclopedias, and those of us who assume bad faith and make personal attacks). --sony-youth^pléigh 13:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lord! I feel like crying! This is why this argument keeps popping up on this page. If anyone questions the way things are written then it is automatticly assumed that they are denying that the UK is a country. I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT THE UK IS NOT A COUNTRY AND NEITHER HAS ANYONE WHO BRINGS THIS ISSUE UP. Understand?

If people are tired of this issue constantly cropping up then is might be time to LISTEN to what the issue rather than assuming what the other person is saying and trying to beat them off the page with a knee-jerk reactions. At least this time the tautology has been gotten rid of - but if any more progess is to be made then people must stop leaping in and assuming its some mad argument that they have to fight off with all their might.

Jza82, please take a break, find a blackboard and write "EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THE UK IS A COUNTRY" 100 times. That should be starting starting exercise for anyone who want to join in on this discussion. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I sense that the editting community here would much rather you take a break, but that's another issue. So Sony, is that an admission of baseless original research that you've been pushing? I.E. there is no sourse that the UK is not a country??... and Sony, you're not making yourself clear as to what your side of the dispute is now about, so what exactly is the problem here? Why are you requesting a citation in the lead for the word country? Where is the problem with the article? Jza84 14:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"original research that you've been pushing? I.E. there is no sourse that the UK is not a country??" - I see your trip to the blackboard done you no good. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote far above - right after you presonally attacked me, I had assume then that you were going to apologies for that but hadn't seen you sense - : "Let's get it clear, I'm not saying that the UK is not a country, nor do I have any issue with it being called one, but you're going run into many people who are going to say that it is better to say it another way." Just before you attacked me, I wrote, "My point is not to push one view or the other, but to ask that valid perspectives not be dismissed out of hand just because we don't like them - and that if a source is to be cited that we read more than just its title." These probably aren't sentiments that you would share. I can live with that, as I wrote above to Mucky, it's lamentable that the UK article cannot reflecta similar maturity. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a shame you've had to get personal about this. I'm not sure why you're "mad" at me - it's not my fault that multiple citation and scholarly definition supports that the UK is a country. If it didn't, I'd be on your side, as I just follow source material, policy and consensus. And Sony, the length of this disscussion and your edit history demonstrates you are/were ideologically opposed to describing the UK as a "country", including spinning it in any way you could to disprove it is so. I'm sorry you feel the need to try and make a mockery of my attempts to engage with you, but I really feel you are mistaken about this issue, and do not have the article's best interests at heart. Jza84 14:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sony, you should put your suggestion up for 'peer review'. PS- Sorry about my emotionalism, I'm usually mild-mannered. I'm certain you're also frustrated (given this continous logjam). GoodDay 15:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, Goodday - if I understand what you mean - I've seen before where actual examples of rewrites are understood far quicker than trying to discuss a making one, and make better starting ponits for discussion. And sorry too - I'm very frustrated at this discussion - it's like banging my head of a brick wall. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm frustrated at he how the discussion is going on. It's like a pitched battle!

"your edit history demonstrates you are/were ideologically opposed to describing the UK as a 'country'," - Wikipedia is not a war. I told you before not to make such assumptions about people. Few editors fall neatly into black or white. If were were all to take this line then the it would be easy to say that you would be ideologically oppose to describing the UK as anything other than a country, no? Seriously, I am still waiting for an apology for before. Describing any editor here as an Irish Repubublican is not on - especially when you know very well that it means terrorist - it's a plain personal attack.

"I really feel you ... do not have the article's best interests at heart." Assume good faith, okay? As I've already said, if this issue is cropping up again and again then there must be good reason for it. Don't beat people away just because you assume that they must have some crazed ideology pushing them to mollest this article. That's not the way to achieve NPOV. Don't you agree?

"... it's not my fault that multiple citation and scholarly definition supports that the UK is a country" - Then can we please quote them instead of the Micky Mouse citations we have at present, this is just a request to improve the article. However, you know as well as I do that any scholarly discussion of the UK's country-ness is going to describe that it's not a straight forward as other places i.e. the "country withing a country" aspect of the UK, as 10 Downing St. describes it. That needs to come across more, not wanting it to, is just as POV'd as only wanting only that aspect shown.

And seriously, apologies for the accusations before and this time around, would be appreciated. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me folks, if I seem out of touch with the discussion. The description of 'four constituent countries' is shown on the 2nd paragraph of this article. Why isn't that a good enough compromise? GoodDay 15:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That second paragraph is quite insane (and yes, it's all part of the same issue of not dealing adaqutely with the UK's "country-ness" - or in fact even "state-ness"in this case). It slings the countries - see the 10 Downing St. ref if that word doesn't sit happily with some people - that form the UK alongside a bunch of places that are not even in the UK. Clarity would be to deal with the constituent counties in one go, when introducing the UK and deal with the dependencies and over-seas territories seperately (maybe not even in the lede) so that people know that they are two different things.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing false writtent there, but it's just all balled up together. To me anyway, at least. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked the paragraph over again. I find it quite clear & understandable - mentioning the 'four constituent countries there is fine; it's in a seperate sentence from the British dependencies and over seas territories. I honestly fail to see what's so alarming. GoodDay 16:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, GoodDay, some basic questions then. The manual of style for the lede section says that "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article ... briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." So, from the lede section alone (no sneaking at the rest of the article or other articles!), what can you tell me about the UK:

1. To what extent do you surmise that the Isle of Man and the UK share common or mutually agreed law?
2. Do you imagine that the UK comprises a single legal jurisdiction?
3. Is there anything unusual about how people from the UK describe their nationality? Anything unusual about how national allegiance is expressed compared to other countries?
4. Are there any areas of the UK governed separately from the rest?
5. The UK is in the EU. Are the Channel Islands? Its over-seas territories?
6. How long has the UK existed? Are there any parts of it that seceded? Joined? Basically, where did the UK come from? Has it always existed?
7. Is there any part of the UK were there is political instability of international note?
8. Are there any serious questions regarding the future of the UK as an entity?

These are fairly basic questions that any other county articles would cover very briefly. If there is nothing alarming about the lede to this article, you will be able to answer most of them. (Even if you can only answer one or two then that's fine.) However, I suspect that you will not be able to answer any and that is what is alarming.

There have been much accusations of "nationalist POVs" (or "prideful POVs", as you called them). You should know that in the current political climate of the UK, these nationalist nasties come with equally nasty opposite numbers who want to emphasise the unity of the United Kingdom above all else. As I'm sure you're aware, an NPOV is what is called for on Wikipedia. Let's see how NPOV this lede is. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I must confess (as a Canadian), I do tend to view the UK as a country (which it is) and its four components as something like provinces (which they're not called). More frustratingly, world medias (including the BBC) tend to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as countries, yet at other times descibe the UK as a country. There's only 'two' ways to end this logjam -- adopt my compromise (see beginning of discussion -Sept.14-) and/or see what the consensus is concerning this topic. GoodDay 18:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to inform. Give a go to answering the questions. Maybe they will explain a few things for you. If you can't, I can answer them for you and you can judge if the lede is NPOV or not. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Quiz respose: First five questions are above my head; Answer #6-UK cam into existance in 1801, formerly Great Britain and Ireland (GB came into existants in 1707, England and Scotland united). Answer #7-Instability in Northern Ireland (IRA want N.Ireland to break from the UK and joins the Irish Republic) and Answer #8-UK's future? that depends on the Scottish independance movement (not to mention how things turn out in Northern Ireland). GoodDay 18:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK - well done, but that was general knowledge not from the lede which "should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article ... and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Full answers as follows:

1. A common passport (UK), UK is responsible for Man's military defense and high-level international represenations. No common or mutually agreed laws.
2. The United Kingdom has never comprised a single jurisdiction for law: England and Wales (together), Scotland and Northern Ireland (formerly Ireland) are completely separate legal jurisdictions with separate laws, courts, legal systems, etc.
3. Majority of UK citizens identify themselves as "English"/"Scottish"/etc. to the exclusion of British (a minority identify as both or British only). National sporting teams represent England/Scotland/etc. separately and rivalry is intense (epitomized best by the attitude in Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland to support the opposing team when England plays someone else)
4. Northern Ireland was autonomous until 1972. Today Scotland has an great degree of home rule, Wales less so. Scotland is expected to support greater home rule, effectively autonomy, and there is a possibility that they may favour complete independence. Self-rule has returned to Northern Ireland, the plan is to roll out ever increasing autonomy over several years and in parallel to this to develop joint areas of governance between Northern Ireland and the Republic, several key elements are these are up and running. The Republic must be consulted on all matters of governance originating from London that realate to Northern Ireland.
5. Neither the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any of the over-seas territories are members of the EU.
6. A single monarch as ruled all of the current territory of the UK since 1604. Ireland and England have had a common monarch since 1172, Wales since 1284, Scotland since 1604. The English parliament legislated for Ireland since 1494, Wales since 1535 and Scotland since 1707. The 1801 date is for the formal creation of a single Kingdom between Great Britain and Ireland. Scotland and England (including Wales) formed a single Kingdom called Great Britain in 1707.
7. Northern Ireland, as you said.
8. Scotland, as you said.

Okay, so that's just a taster. Does it challenge any impression you got from the lede? Do you feel that there is anything absent lede after hearing it? Given the current political climate in the UK - where one POV wants to emphasize the internal differences in the UK and another the emphasize the unity of the UK - are you any more alarmed that the lede may be a little biased to one side or the other? I said, I'd leave it to you to judge. What ever you decide, I'll go with. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem, internally Brits view themselves as English, Scottish, Welsh and (Northern) Irish. Externally (international PoV), the UK is viewed as a single country - membership in the United Nations, British PM, British monarchy, British MPs (English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish). I'd say, let's get a consensus on this topic & follow that consensus - since the UK seems to be both a country and a union of four countries. PS- England and Scotland were independant of each other 'til 1707 (despite sharing a monarch since 1603). GoodDay 19:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, what a lot of hot air has been expended here since my last visit. Is it worth it? No. Jooler 19:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Only at Wikipedia can so many get so worked up about so little. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is mainetain 'status quo', I'm following the consensus (and the United Nations recognition). GoodDay 20:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

UN recognises "states" not "countries" :P but I ain't going near this one without without consensus either, and it looks like the consensus ain't gonna change it's mind. OK. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

UK divisions

Stale

A map showing the relative locations of Scotland, Wales and England is needed on here, in addition to ones which do not show the internal boundaries --MacRusgail 14:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Resolved

Sony, I have no objection at all to Britannica as a reference to the fact that the UK is a country - if you look back you'll see that it was I who proposed it. The reference that you dislike most certainly does state that the the UK is a country - one containing countries "countries within a country" - and since this goes to the heart of, and is explaining some people's problem with the term then this is a useful reference. Mucky Duck 15:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It implies it in the title, I can see that, but doesn't actually say it. If the point is to say that ENG/SCO/WAL/NI are also countries then it's a nice straight forward reference, but if the point is to support that the UK is a country end-of-story then, at best, it's weak as hell (like the "Member States" document as a source) for something that consensus says should be straight forward.

(To be honest many of those opening sources are weak, not just that one, and a few of the links no-longer work - esp. "federacy".) --sony-youth^pléigh 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not the point of it. People have problems with saying that the UK is a country because it is equally true that the constituents are also countries - without this reference it keeps being changed to less satisfactory alternatives. Perhaps the first sentence needs to be rephrased to say something like "the UK is a country -ref the Britannica reference- of Northern Europe made up of the four constituent countries England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland -ref the Downing St reference-". The problem with going down this sort of road is that it becomes cluttered, and consequently less useful. The immediate problem I can see with that sentence, for example, is that some would want to explore the exact consitutional position of NI at this level and squeeze all of that into the first sentence too. Mucky Duck 09:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The arguments here could be applied to practically every country in Europe, and many beyond. The word country has a number of meanings, one of which is a sovereign nation state internationally recognised. Calling the UK a country does not diminish the meaning in other contexts. --Michael Johnson 10:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it needs a rephrasing. Michael you wrote: " Calling the UK a country does not diminish the meaning in other contexts." True, if it did then we wouldn't really have this problem. It's meaning in other contexts remain, and we need to explain in what context we mean it. I think you are over-estimating how uncontroversial it is to call the UK a "country" without explanation. Finding refs that out-right deny it isn't such a difficult job, for example:

"Together, Scotland, Wales, and England are the largest British island. With Northern Ireland they for the United Kingdom, which is a kingdom, not a country." - Simons, G.F., 2002 EuroDiversity: A Business Guide to Managing Difference, Elsevier: London

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not a country or a geographical entity of any kind. It is a political entity, a unions of people living in the countries of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ..." - von Waldheim, G. et al., 1957, Participación alemana en el cultivo y comercio del azúcar de caña, Ministério da Educação e Cultura: Mozambique

And bearing in mind the OED definition of a 'country' being a "nation with its own govenment":

"The United Kingdom is a state rather than a nation, a set of political arrangements rather than a culture. England, Scotland and Wales on the other hand are nations with distinct cultural differences." - Cochrane, F., 1994, Any Takers? The Isolation of Northern Ireland, Political Studies, Volume 42 Issue 3 Page 378-395, September 1994

"British as a word, and certainly as an object of affection, is riddled with ruling-class and imperial attributes. Britain is a state, rather than a nation." - Cole, M., The Politics of Multiracial Education, 1987, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Jun., 1987), pp. 291-292

My preference is still for state and I'm unconvinced by the way you keep with the narrowest definition - exactly what does the word lose compared to country, except the ambiguity of "nation"? See more definitions:

• "Combination of people, territory, and sovereign government.
• "A group of people occupying a particular region and organized under a single government; a nation or a subunit of a nation."

I cannot help but feel that when the subject of this article has the word "kingdom" in it's name, when it has a national anthem, an elected government, a flag and coat or arms, a standing army, citizens, an economy and it's own currency, that it should be quite plain to say that we are talking about a state. Arguments like "it's not just a state, it's more than that", I feel, need to get a little perspective. None the less, a re-write at least would take the edge of this.

There are also other smaller problems. The "federacy" formed between the CI's, IoM and the UK for example - the ref is dead and a Google search only brings up mirrors of this page and very abstract discussion of federal governments (none of which put "federacy" in the same sentence as the CI/IoM and the UK, only on the same page). I, personally, have never seen it described like that before - and, like "country", maybe using "federacy" in that context doesn't diminish it meaning in other contexts, but requires that you make clear that this is not a federacy like the reader might imagine when the hear the word. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus above, is for the UK to be describe as a country. The references ought to reflect that fact. GoodDay 14:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Consensus above, Jza84 16:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

'*sobs quietly into drink*' AJKGordon 10:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war over inclusion of Ulster Banner

Resolved

I noticed the back-and-forth over this but cannot see any discussion here since the last one in August, so I am opening this as a discussion of whether we should include this here. It seems to me that we should either have all four (equally unofficial) flags or none at all here, but the main thing is to discuss rationally rather than edit warring. If the edit war continues I shall have to consider my options. Please let's discuss here instead. Thank you. --John 17:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed this, which may be relevant if it gets anywhere. --John 17:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles were supposed to remain at the same position when mediation began- unfortuantly two editors (Padraig and Fennesey) continued to edit war on this issue after agreeing to mediation. I think they should be changed back, and then let mediation begin. Astrotrain 17:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There was never any agreement on that, also if that was the case explain your attempts to add a image of a montage of flags to this article.--Padraig 17:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I havn't made any edits on the Northern Flag issue in the mainspace since agreeing to mediation. Unfortunatly you have not and continue to edit war on this issue. Why enter mediation if you continue to edit war on this issue. It is disruptive. Astrotrain 18:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

John its not a edit war as such, the Ulster banner dosent represent Northern Ireland today as a state/country neither the British government or the Northern Ireland Assembly even recognise the flag, therefore it shouldn't be used.--Padraig 17:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that we should cut to the chase and hold a straw poll. Jza84 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We could do, but I would prefer to revert to the position at the begining of mediation and then continue with that process. Astrotrain 18:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If persuing this, all relevant notice boards and wikiprojects should be contacted to ensure this is as representative a result as possible. Jza84 18:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What would this strawpoll achieve, the use of the Ulster Banner as a symbol/flag to represent Northern Ireland today is breaches WP:POV and WP:OR, the flag ceased to officially exist in 1973 when the government which it was the governmental banner of was dissolved under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The British Government and Northern Ireland Executive which is the current Northern Ireland government don't recognise it.--Padraig 18:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel the heading of this section is a bit misleading it is the UB flag being used as the flag of NI that causes conflict not the flag itself when used properly. BigDunc 18:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we agree then that all four images should be removed? After all they are all unofficial. Perhaps a better solution will emerge but at the moment I am not seeing it. --John 19:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

John that has been tried already, they keep restoring them.--Padraig 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Padraig, a straw poll would achieve a lasting quantifiable consensus. Granted the Ulster Banner as a symbol/flag to represent Northern Ireland today is officially redundant, but there was a footnote explaining this, and users may (or may not) have found that useful. The straw poll allows editors to express (based on all the factors in the dispute) which option that believe will be most useful for our readers. For the record I'm not condoning either side or approach. "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making," and in this capacity, I see this as the most obvious, fair approach to settling this. There could/would of course be an option of no flags. Jza84 20:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You say a straw poll would achieve a lasting quantifiable consensus. your wrong read WP:CONSENSUS and you will see:

So in summary, wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting ("Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy"). This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se. Polling is generally discouraged, except in specialized processes such as AFD.

This poll has no binding effect, as WP:V is the policy involved here and the inclusion of the Ulster Banner in a table relating to Northern Ireland today is in breach of that and can be removed.--Padraig 18:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The section is about symbols. All four symbols are unofficial, and all four symbols are used for sporting events, representing the home nations of the United Kingdom. Either we have all four symbols, with the note about the Ulster Banner being notably 'unofficial', or we just scrap the entire section. Frankly I think the latter would be a bit sad. Biofoundationsoflanguage 20:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, if my recent edit ruffled any feathers (didn't know about the dispute). I wasn't aware that Northern Ireland had no flag - guess a fella learns something new everday. GoodDay 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

See Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg for the flag- look here its being used by FIFA [5] Astrotrain 22:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a article on sport in the UK, who cares if FIFA uses it that has nothing to do with this issue.--Padraig 22:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You said " the Ulster banner dosent represent Northern Ireland today as a state/country " above- clearly it is being used to represent Northern Ireland by this international body. Astrotrain 22:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

FIFA like the Commonwealth games use the symbols provided by the sports body of that state provided, they pass no judgement on these or does their use by them imply any status to the symbol.--Padraig 22:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

They use the internationally recognised flag Astrotrain 22:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Astrotrain I emailed them months ago on this and they use the symbols provided by the local sport body in each country.--Padraig

And the use the Northern Ireland flag not a map outline. Astrotrain 12:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Banner Straw Poll

Please note that contributors of dubious usership (such as sockpuppets) are likely to have their votes dis-counted by the editting community. Jza84 22:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• What should we do about the table of symbols regarding Northern Ireland and the Ulster Banner?
• Please select from the following options and sign your comments:

• • A Depict the Ulster Banner as the flag of NI with a footnote about its status.
  • B Depict no flag for NI with a footnote about its status.
  • C Depict the Union Flag as the flag of NI with a footnote about its status.
  • D Depict no flags for any of the home nations.
  • E Depict a map of NI (currently used) with a footnote about its status.
  • F Use the Irish Tricolour
  • G Depict the flax symbol as this is the symbol used by the Northern Ireland Assembly

Please sign below:

• A seems the most useful.Abtract 22:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• A agreed, it's the next best thing to an official flag. GoodDay 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• B or C, Northern Ireland has no official flag of it's own, it uses the Union Jack. GoodDay 23:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This issue is being dealt with here and is also part of a ongoing arbcom, so this strawpoll is a waste of time.--Padraig 22:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• • This general topic (edit warring over NI issues) is currently the subject of an Arbitration Committee investigation. Hence it is not a good time to start organising polls over those same issues. It would be better to wait for the outcome of the investigation so that we can form a clearer opinion over how we should deal with disagreements on NI topics. So please hold on. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • This straw poll relates to this article's circumstances only. That dispute pertains to a handful of users. "Parties should have made an attempt at some form of initial, informal resolution" - I believe there is no harm in gathering the results from here and does not infringe upon the proceedings of that case or the user's dignity. I've contacted about 10 WikiProjects to pass comment - something those users have never bothered to do. I maintain that the poll continue- there should be no fear from any party in gathering such data. Jza84 23:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• A is the only one that is useful Keith D 23:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• A, or D, I don't mind which. Definitely not E. --John 23:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC) amended --John 03:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• A, if it's good enough for Britannica [6] it's good enough for me. Under no circumstances E.The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Did you read what Britannica says [7].--Padraig 00:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment yes, unofficial flag of a unit of the United Kingdom... says it all really. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• E. Also agree with Padraig that this straw poll is disruptive and unnecessary.(Sarah777 02:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)) - voted twice

Comment Adding in an extra option after discussion had started without discussing or making it clear what you were doing was not helpful. Neither is suggesting we make up a symbol; that would breach WP:NOR. I'm amending my !vote in the light of your change. --John 03:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Completely agree with that sentiment, amended my vote too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well John, this straw poll is not helpful; and it is failing to give the appropriate range of options without the symbol. Remember; NI has no specific official flag because the British Government refuses to allow the restoration of an offensive sectarian symbol - which is what the UB is. (Sarah777 10:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

• A- if it says "flag" in the table heading, and then has a footnote to explain the flag is not official, then what is the problem? Astrotrain 08:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, as you well know, that the UB is not the flag of NI. I could agree with leaving the location blank with a footnote to explain that NI has no specific flag. What is the problem then? (Sarah777 10:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

It is not the official flag (taking the definition of official in this context to be as approved by the central government)- it is an unofficial and defacto flag used to represent Northern Ireland. It is used, it exists therefore we can show it in Wikipedia given we have a free use image for it. It is rather silly to have a heading for flag and then show nothing. Astrotrain 10:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is used to represent NI in the same way the tricolour is used by Nationalists to represent NI. We have free images of that too? Should I add an option "F" here? (Sarah777 11:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

What is the point of this straw poll this matter is being discussed elsewhere so a waste of time. BigDunc 11:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." In what way will the results of this infringe upon the dignity of the arbcom between a handful of sectarian editors who never took the step to engage with the wider community and get hold of a representative view on how to tackle it? This poll doesn't effect the flag's use in other situations, just in this article. If those who have a strong view not to include a flag would be so kind as to allow others to pass comment freely??? - we might learn what the mainstream take on this is, and hell, they may even know about the status of the flag, but want it shown in what they think is the most useful way here. Jza84 11:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• E Its the only one that really works. A is factually inaccurate. Therefore it will be reverted regardless of whether or not people have voted for it. B and D both look bad on aesthetic grounds- and D could also be seen as petty and disruptive. C is technically accurate, but in this context would confuse most readers. Lurker (said · done) 12:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

E is factually inaccurate as a map outline is not a flag! A shows the unofficial defacto flag as used by many other sources. Look at the World Flag Database [8] which shows all 4 flags and has a note on Northern Ireland. That is what is proposed here. Astrotrain 12:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes - E is factually incorrect but also is A and you "voted" for that. There is no flag of Northern Ireland so one shouldnt be used. The Welsh Assembly uses the Welsh flag, so does the Scottish - but the Northern Irish ones doesnt - there is a reason for this. I also consider this a very devisive straw poll to start with especially as there has been 1.000's of words written about this subject on the Northern Ireland talk page and the concensus there was not to us this offensive sectarian flag and also because there is an ongoing mediation about the subject which you are invloved in.--Vintagekits 12:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We are following sources (World Flag Database, Britannica etc), so A is not incorrect as the flag image is shown and then discussed. The flag is also a free use image and can be used anywhere on Wikipedia. The Northern Ireland Assembly does not use the flag, but then the table doesn't say "Flags used by assemblies and parliaments", as flag use in the modern day is decided by the population as a whole. The Assembly has only existed for a few years (the bulk of that time it was suspended due to spying by Sinn Fein) while the flag has existed and been used for over 50 years. Also Wikipedia does not follow what governments do, for instance the article on Burma is at Burma and not the official government name. Astrotrain 12:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• A Bluap 12:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment To me, the Ulster Banner is the flag of Northern Ireland. It is used regularly in various forms in many places to indicate N Ireland (both on and off WP). There is, though, a serious issue of the political nature of the flag and we must give due regard to this. Whilst my first position would be A, I think we need to consider how this would work carefully. May I suggest its inclusion with a note saying "This is a former official flag for Northern Ireland which has sectarian connotations and has not been adopted by the current NI Assembly. The flag continues to be used by several non governmental organisations." Regan123 12:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good Regan. It shows editors the flag in question and provides information on its background. Astrotrain 12:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• A - it may not be the official flag, but it's probably the most widely recognised - so going along similar lines as WP:NAME, we should use the most popularly recognised flag. A Google image search produces fairly conclusive results. Waggers 13:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• A The section is about symbols. All four unofficial flags are used at sporting events. They are all symbols of the United Kingdom's 'home nations'. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• A - we should treat the 'symbol', or flag, that represents Northern Ireland in exactly the same way we treat the 'symbols', or flags, of the other constituent countries of the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no good reason to make Wikipedia look stupid and petty by treating Northern Ireland differently. --Mal 23:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • --Comment: there is no option for F; could you clarify what you mean exactly? Choosing an option from the list as it currently exists may be a more worthwhile choice anyway. Jza84 23:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply to question: I thought my comment was pretty self-explanitory and detailed. I believe that the flag of Northern Ireland should not be treated any differently to that of the flag of Scotland, the flag of England or the flag of Wales (or indeed any of the other flags of the region, such as the Cornish flag etc. Wikipedia is censored. Treating the flag of Northern Ireland differently to the other flags which represent similar UK territory types amounts to censorship and inconsistency. --Mal 00:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment what is option "F" though? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What flag of Northern Ireland, it dosen't have a flag unless your refering to the Union Flag.--Padraig 00:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question, the flag of Northern Ireland does have a flag: the flag of Northern Ireland is the flag of Northern Ireland. I'm pretty sure I've informed you of this before. --Mal 09:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Ah, the Saddam Hussein defence. You can't try me because this court isn't legal. We can't have a straw poll on the flag of Northern Ireland because it doesn't have a flag. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Let's not forget that it is quite verifiable that the status of Ulster Banner as the flag of Northern Ireland is, at very least, complicated, if not, dubious. It is also the approach of other major encyclopedias to include it, but make it explicit that it should not be used in an official capacity. Are you sure you don't want to reconsider your vote? - I can't see F polling well. -- Jza84 · ^(talk) 00:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Other major encyclopedias do include the flag of Northern Ireland. I have access to a couple of printed ones, notably printed well after 1972, that include the flag in the intro to the article subsection on Northern Ireland.. being consistent with the fact that they also include the flags of Scotland, England and Wales on those article subsections, and the Union Jack on the main United Kingdom article page. So, as a matter of fact, it is Original Research for Wikipedia to suddenly suggest that the flag of Northern Ireland has winked out of existence. --Mal 09:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

comment Option 'f' would perhaps be a bit idealistic. Ultimately the Ulster Banner is no different to any other of the constituent countries: unofficial, primarily sporting, stopped being official either 300 or 30 years ago, etc. The footnote to go with the flag is MORE than generous to those who would rather the flag didn't exist. In fact, it's bordering on unencyclopaedic because it implies that the other flags do have this magical 'official' status. Maybe there ought to be a footnote for the flag of england saying that it stopped being official in 1707? Hmm? Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Jza84 I have reconsidered my vote (I am free to edit now, after having been needlessly blocked over a related issue), and I therefore have amended it. I stress though that, while option A is effectively the same as my option F suggestion, we need to be consistent in Wikipedia. --Mal 09:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• A - The Ulster Banner is the unofficial but de facto flag used to represent Northern Ireland. Why we should compromise its use on the basis of being unofficial or, I daresay, having "sectarian connotations", defies reason. -- Chris B • talk 10:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Do yu have a source to support your claim of de facto status, because unless you can provide one then that is WP:OR, the banner is not recognised by the nationalist population or the Northern Ireland government/British government.--Padraig 16:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Here's evidence. [9] Here's some more from Britannica "unofficial flag of a unit of the United Kingdom" [10] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• E— But this strawpoll really is a waste of time as even if most people vote A, it can't possibly be used as it's not the flag of N Ireland; after all, wikipedia isn't a democracy. D is just plain unhelpful to people new to the subject. Whats more, saying that using a useful and neutral symbol is WP:NOR(the territory of an area is hardly bias in any way) is a gross misinterpretation of that policy. Fennessy 13:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Not only can the flag of Northern Ireland be used to represent Northern Ireland, but the flag of Northern Ireland is used to represent Northern Ireland. --Mal 09:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Fennessy and Padraig, where is the WP policy that states "all flags used in Wikipedia articles must have official status in law"? Your position relies on this assumption being true, or at the very least, it relies on the assumption that the presence of a flag in a WP article implies it is true. The latter case can be dispensed with via a footnote, and if the former were true (which it is not), none of the other UK constituent countries' flags would be allowed either, as has oft been pointed out. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• E If the two executive bodies that run Northern Ireland do not recognize the Ulster Banner as its flag I fail to see why wikipedia should --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 14:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: A little mischievious of my part, but I'll remember that one for the British nationality debate. -- Jza84 · (talk)

• • • Comment: How so ? im pretty sure one of the of the executive bodies in the UK recognize something other than British :P --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 03:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• E, failing that F. As the argument for the unofficial, unrecognised sectarian UB seems to consist of endless repetition of "the UB is the unofficial flag on NI" then it is time to cut the bull and proclaim the truth, which manifestly is that the Irish Tricolour is the unofficial flag of NI. (Sarah777 17:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
  • Comment: It is my view that that's a little unhelpful; by the same logic the flag of Pakistan is also the unofficial flag of parts of northern England, but it is not an encyclopedic approach. The tricolor clearly isn't going to be in the article about the UK - it's a flag of another country. Option F was not an original option, and in this capacity I've striken it with this sig. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: Option F emerges organically from the arguments to defend the unofficial, sectarian Ulster Banner, which is not a British flag but the favoured flag of some British people in NI; just like the tricolour. Please restore the option I added as I don't wish to engage in edit-warring. But obviously your nationalistic abitrary non-encyclopedic partisan editing cannot stand. (Sarah777 20:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
    • Reply: It's just not going to happen. Firstly the tricolor won't appear in an article about the UK, or a divison of the UK in the same way the flag of France, Italy, or any other different country won't appear; neither by citation, debate or consensus, we've got to be real here. Secondly, Mal has already asserted that "F" means something different (the antithesis of your point of view), which I've also noted as unsuitable. Thirdly my "nationalistic etc" editting?... not a very accurate or engaging comment about someone who's neither voted, or editted this or indeed any article about the Ulster Banner - infact you'd be surprised what my viewpoint is on the matter. So, would you be so kind as to strike that sentence, as it is somewhat unfounded, unhelpful and un-necessary? -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• A, an encyclopaedia reports things as they are. The UB is often used, has no offical standing, is seen by some as an affront, and is seen by others as a rallying symbol. The article should report all of that and show us an image of the object being reported on. The article should not support either side, but it should report that there are sides. Sources should be given. It would be helpful if everyone could agree on the article, we need not agree on the politics - merely mention the points of view. --Chris Jefferies 23:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• A Until such time as a new official flag is created for Northern Ireland, I think this option is the best. The Ulster banner is no more or less "official" than any other flag used to represent the constituent countries of the united Kingdom.Claudia 03:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: On the issue of National flags of Britain, some editors point to this flags.net as an Authority to support their arguement, so they may be interested in this, they have produced a book on 'British Flags & Emblems' which shows a number of sample pages from the book click on the first sample page image and it shows the National flags and displays images of the flags of England, Scotland and Wales with discriptions, for Northern Ireland it shows NO Flag, and has this discription where it states Northern Ireland is currently without a National flag, pending a new design to mark the resumpation of self-rule. So according to this claimed authoritive source, the Ulster Banner is not included as a British National flag, and no National flag exists for Northern Ireland.--Padraig 09:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • Note: The flags.net website was quite different until after a Wikipedia editor contacted the editor of the site, citing government policy. --Mal 09:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment:: The subdivision page [11] clearly shows the Northern Ireland flag, noting its unofficial status and use by Unionists and sport. We have already established the lack of central government use, and it may well be likely that the Nothern Ireland Assembly design a new national flag. However, since they have not, the current unofficial flag is still used in international situations and when a Northern Irish flag is needed. Astrotrain 12:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• A With a footnote about it's contested status. Wikipedia needs to report things as they currently are, but can also report strongly held or minority views to the contrary, where they are referenced. MarkThomas 15:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• A It seems that an image of the flag with a footnote on status is a good compromise and alerts the reader to the issues surrounding the status and use of the flag in the current day. Thunderwing 08:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I count 13 to A and 4 to E at the time of this time stamped signature; I think a consensus is pretty clear at this moment in time that regardless of status (and I think an emphasis should be made on that point) there is a consensus among users who agree that the most helpful approach in depicting "a" (not necessarily "the") flag of Northern Ireland in the symbol box on this article, should be one that has the Ulster Banner with a footnote on its status. Unless there is a significant wave of votes in the next few hours, I propose this straw poll be closed. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: there is currently no other flag that represents Northern Ireland. The flag of Northern Ireland is the only flag of Northern Ireland. --Mal 09:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm counting only the minutes until the pizza arrives, to be eaten while Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage (hopefully) resolves the issue. Suggest all here do similar.--Alf ^melmac 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And if it doesn't resolve it?? And how inclusive has that arbcom been? Did those users attempt to engage all relevant WikiProjects? Do those users show a sectarian affinity? "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making.". Granted polls are gernerally discouraged, but they do help in gauging support (and conversely - lack of), and form the basis of how the community should go about tackling thorny issues. It seems to me that, looking at the factors, the overwhelming majority of contributors insist the Ulster Banner be depicted in this article's circumstances. W

What I'm concerned about is those who were against A are those who are somehow trying to nullify/disregard the status of the results, even though had the poll turned out differently, would be shouting a that they had scored resounding successful consensus. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So, the Arbcom (50 participants) is "not inclusive" but this process of "forced majority" is? This ain't concensus - this is simply an illustration of the obvious; there are more British than Irish editors and they can use the numbers to say that black is white; as in this case. (Sarah777 06:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

I have closed the straw poll with this signature. One can count 14 to A and 4 to E. This should now form the basis of a way forwards here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There were 14 A votes at the time you made this entry Jza84. I have edited your entry accordingly. --Mal 16:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And I've reopened it. It was closed after 4 days, for crying out loud. Lurker (said · done) 16:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So when do you propose it be closed? I'm assuming good faith that re-opening the poll is not an act of protest or distruption; you have already asserted that the poll was a waste of time, yet having failed to secure simillar votes with your sentiments are now extending it. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It could be argued that your closing the poll was an act of protest or distruption, seeing as you clearly aren't an objective observer and have some kind of a misguided intrested in promoting the use of this defunct flag. Fennessy 17:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And where did I assert that the poll was a waste of time, Jza84? Lurker (said · done) 18:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologise Lurker - I misread your contribution and I was totally wrong about that. Though there still have been no votes, and given I made a proposal to close it and there were no objections, I think I made the right decision. I assure you that A will poll the highest... though of course the poll only counts if "your" side wins ;). I propose that if there are no votes in the next 24 hours we re-close the poll. And, Fennessy, really, no need for such comments; it's just not plesant. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jza84 you should read the section below.--Padraig 21:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

B the dispute over the flag isn't limited to wikipedia, I feel. D.C.Rigate 05:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, if you had a tune you could sing that!(Sarah777 20:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

G as this is the only official symbol used to depict NI, or E as a neutral image, it could be argued that possibly even F has more weight to it than the Ulster Banner as this has some official status to depict NI after the UB weas defunct.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Strawpoll result

You cannot close a strawpoll after only four days and claim consensus, many editors didn't take part in this poll because the issue in subject to an ongoing mediation discussion, and is also subject as part of a ongoing arbcom, which was made clear when this strawpoll was started. Also consensus dosen't overrule WP:V and any inclusion of the Ulster Banner can be removed as it is WP:OR to include it without proper references to support the claim that is the flag of Northern Ireland.--Padraig 15:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Had the result been one that matches your point of view, would you have been so keen to disregard the overwhelming desire from the editing community? Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making; even a majority of a limited group of editors (as in that arbcom case) will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies. WP:OR is a policy used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, and one that you're misappropriating now in protest to not my standpoint, but the community's shared sentiments. Nobody is saying the Ulster Banner is the flag of Northern Ireland - the community has stated that they think it is the most helpful approach to include it on this article (with what could be seen as a generous footnote on its status) as "a" symbol of Northern Ireland.

Padraig, the straw poll now needs to be used as a reference to a way forwards - you're in the minority. What can you bring to the table as a means of compromise to the majority who want this symbol included? -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Very extensive use of the phrase "the community". So how come the Arbcom (50 participants) is less representative of "the editing community" than this poll, with 16 participants (and stated to be invalid)? I would argue that when we have two competing views from two specific sections of "the community" and where one has a huge built-in numerical advantage then a forum such as Arbcom is the only way to resolve things. This silly poll is a simply an expression of the fact of the numerical advantage British pov enjoys; it has nothing to do with consensus. (Sarah777 07:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

By edit warring, Padraig has also removed the image from List of British flags, Template:UKFlags and even the Northern Ireland article itself. The results here clearly show community consensus to include the unofficial Northern Ireland where appropiate and explain the situation- and we can now add it back to those articles. We can now move forward and discuss usage in other situations such as navigational templates in the mediation. Astrotrain 16:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a "strawpoll" or "consensus" type issue. The use of the flag violates multiple Wikipedia policies, as well as three of the Five pillars of Wikipedia. Just following this strawpoll would set a disturbing president and is a blow to Wikipedia's credibility. Fennessy 16:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So, are those editors who voted; who, having reviewed the debate and come to a decision on what they think is the right way forwards; those who are the vast majority; are they acting in bad faith? Are they totally wrong and don't have a valid opinion? Again, what can you bring as a minority view holder to the table as a compromise to the majority who want this flag? I see nothing of a compromise still. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The table is for Symbols for each nation/state, but some editors seem to be confusing Flags with Symbols, I have added the table below:

Flag	Country	Patron saint	Flower
	England	St. George	Red and White Rose
	Scotland	St. Andrew	Cotton Thistle
	Wales	St. David	Leek/Daffodil
1	Northern Ireland	St. Patrick	Shamrock/Flax

_{^1 There is no official flag of Northern Ireland following the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. However, the Ulster Banner is often used for sporting events. See Northern Ireland flags issue.}

The Fourth column shows the symbols used by each nation/state, not the flags, therefore to use the Ulster Banner in this table fails WP:V as it has been shown that it is not the flag of Northern Ireland.--Padraig 17:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you not think the footnote is a reasonable compromise? -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would if its is used on its own without the flag image, as most people see the image and will ignore the fotnote or not see it, with the footnote on its own they will see it and can link to Northern Ireland flag issue where they see the reason why there is no current flag.--Padraig 17:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No because the Ulster banner is a devicive and secterian symbol, as well as not even being the flag of N Ireland. A reasonable compromise would be to only use the Ulster banner where it is vaild, and not to misuse it. Talking of misuse... Misuse of statistics Fennessy 17:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, if (as some suggest) the straw poll is invalid (poll a waste of time), why the dispute over closing it? PS- howabout we have in the template first column Flag/Symbol? GoodDay 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No we are disputing their claim of consensus by closing an invalid poll after only four days.--Padraig 17:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you (plural) view the poll as invalid, why dispute when it's being closed? Why bother voting in? By voting in it and saying it should remain open, you (plural) are treating it as valid. Please explain. GoodDay 17:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

When the poll was started it was pointed out the issue was subject to mediation and also part of a ongoing arbcom therefore any poll would be invalid, they then closed the poll after only four days claiming consensus, but if they read WP:CONSENSUS they would see:

So in summary, wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting ("Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy"). This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se. Polling is generally discouraged, except in specialized processes such as AFD.

This poll has no binding effect, as WP:V is the policy involved here and the inclusion of the Ulster Banner in a table relating to Northern Ireland today is in breach of that and can be removed.--Padraig 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the proposal to create a flag to use for Northern Ireland, that is a non-runner. See here, for example. While the counting aspect of this strawpoll cannot be regarded as binding, the arguments advanced so far seem to indicate a consensus for using the flag with its footnote. Simply repeating over and over again that in your view the flag should not be used is not helpful. Is there a compromise you could live with? --John 19:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

John I answered that above in my rely to Jza84 timestamped 17:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC) below the table.--Padraig 19:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Those who dispute the validity of the straw poll, should not be concerned if/when that poll closes. Nor should they have voted in it (in the first place) if that was their attitude about the validity of it. It's like they're saying -I don't want that barn built and please don't paint it blue. GoodDay 19:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I came here to add to the discussion, only to find that a "consensus" had been reached. But I'll add my tuppence worth anyway. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Inventing new flags and using non-flag stand-ins specifically forbids invented flags. The Ulster Banner is not the flag of Northern Ireland: using it as such offends against policy. The fact that one section of the community continues to use it despite its disestablishment 35 years ago (and despite the wishes of the other segment) does not give it legitimacy - indeed the contrary. --Red King 19:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The flag of Northern Ireland is the flag of Northern Ireland Red King. FYI, it was 'invented' around 1924 (as far as I remember reading). Despite your assertion to the contrary, Northern Ireland did not undergo a disestablishment - it still exists, and it still has a flag. The fact that it exists and has a flag gives it all the legitimacy it needs. --Mal 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

NI does not have a flag. (Sarah777 07:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Northern Ireland does have a flag: the flag of Northern Ireland is Northern Ireland's flag. --Mal 19:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

To add to Red King comment above Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#Overbroad_use_of_flags_with_politicized_connotations also deals with the Ulster Banner.--Padraig 19:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

All flags have politicised connotations. --Mal 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I also recommend reading Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags), where there is an active proposal to remove all flags from infoboxes unless they are critically important to the article. (And I agree with the editor who argues that he has yet to see one). --Red King 19:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

When I was at University (I did go honestly), on Irish-British relations my lecturer said "the trouble with the Irish is they never forget; the British never remember". It's absolutely crystal clear that there is deadlock, and citation and arguements for and against using the Ulser Banner - most worryingly along sectarian lines. We need a lasting compromise. How about users from opposing camps each consider putting one forwards along the lines of WP:ENEMY??? -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest for a compromise - Add to the first column title of the template Flag/Symbol or Flag/Banner. That may make the Ulster Banner more acceptable to everyone. GoodDay 21:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a ongoing mediation on the use of the Ulster Banner. Where I have put forward a compromise suggestion.--Padraig 21:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

---

In Case anyone is confused as to the Status of Flags in the UK read this:

• The Union Flags and flags of the United Kingdom

The English, Scottish and Welsh Flags are National Flags, but none for Northern Ireland except the Union Flag.--Padraig 13:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

---

In case anyone is confused as to the existence of the flag of Northern Ireland, look at this:

Northern Ireland does have a flag which represents it. --Mal 19:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

An incorrectly named flag does not make it the flag of NI no more than if I uploaded an Irish Tri colour and called it the flag of NI. BigDunc 19:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The flag is not incorrectly named BigDunc. It is recognisable as the flag of Northern Ireland and is therefore appropriately named. The Irish Tricolour, on the other hand, is not recognised as the flag of Northern Ireland. That is why it is not named 'the flag of Northern Ireland'. You see the difference there, I'm sure. --Mal 19:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I must confess myself baffled and amused by the inane verbosity that has been expended on a complete and absolute NON issue, mostly it seems by individuals with little knowledge and even less common sense. The flag of Ireland is the Irish Saltire that is incorporated in the Union Flag. (That part of Ireland now independant is represented by the Irish Tricolour.) The part of Ireland that remained within the U.K. after 1922 is STILL represented within the Union Jack. Now, the fact that, owing to political sensitivities, mealy-mouthed politicians choose not to allow anything to be 'official' is neither here nor there. It's an historical fact, and there for all to see. I can understand the Red hand of the Unionists being somewhat contentious, but fail to see how the Irish Saltire can be. Here it is, a constituent and integral part of the Union JAck; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick%27s_cross De facto, it IS the flag representing Northern Ireland on the Union Jack. To fail to show this is completely bizzare, makes a complete mockery of Wikipedia, and is probably a reflection of the U.S. - centred nature of Wiki. Is there anyone capable of editing this article who has the vestiges of any logic and common sense left...? Lawdy; - Only on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.244.18 (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)