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

Place, Nation, UK

Just to be clear is Place, Nation, UK i.e. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK vandalism or not?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.228.253 (talk • contribs)

No, going against convention is not vandalism in and of itself. Bear in mind also that this is only a proposal at the moment, and even if/when it advances beyond that, it will be a guideline, not policy. Waggers 09:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but you can depend on endless edit wars breaking out with finger pointing back at the guideline. --Bill Reid | Talk 09:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There is so much of it happening recently. It would be good to come to a sensible consencious as to what the correct format would be. Certain users have a real issue with removing UK from the Place, Nation and call it vandalism?!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.228.253 (talk • contribs)

No, like it has already been discussed elsewhere, it is going to become an 'address'. To say, Banff, Aberdeenshire, Scotland, UK is ridiculous. UK is plainly superfluous to the description. --Bill Reid | Talk 07:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OR Scotland is - there's only one Aberdeenshire in the UK. Waggers 07:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Really silly question but how many Banffs are there in Scotland, the UK or anywhere? (I honestly don't know.) Timrollpickering 09:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Only one Banff in Scotland which was the county town of the former county of Banffshire. There is also Banff, Alberta but don't know of any others. --Bill Reid | Talk 09:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, wikipedia's got a heck of a job ahead removing the words 'Scotland', 'England', 'Northern Ireland', 'London', 'Greater Manchester', etc from articles and substituting instead the term 'United Kingdom'. --Bill Reid | Talk 09:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I find this argument that it 'sounds like an address' unconvincing in the extreme. For one, it's rarely relevant: eg, the Aberdeenshire example - to quote its article: "Aberdeenshire... is one of the 32 unitary council areas in Scotland."

Placing "Scotland, UK" there would not be remotely address-like. I've also taken an example at random here: Ardrossan. "Ardrossan... is a town located on the North Ayrshire coast in western Scotland. " - meanwhile predictably enough, it's Canadian counterpart is introduced thus: "Ardrossan is a hamlet in Strathcona County, central Alberta, Canada." It's not policy elsewhere, so why should it be suggested to be 'consistant' practice in relation to the UK?

More importantly there are places where UK patently should be included - twin towns, for example - where we'd never even consider the possibility of applying the 'it might look a bit addressy' standard to any other country. --Breadandcheese 22:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

B & c, you got in one. "Aberdeenshire... is one of the 32 unitary council areas in Scotland". It doesn't mention UK because it doesn't need to, Scotland is enough. Same with Ardossan (Scotland). Check out Beaver, Pennsylvania - its opening sentence is "Beaver is a borough in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, at the confluence of the Beaver and Ohio Rivers." - doesn't mention United States because it doesn't need to. There is no policy anywhere, its down to individual editors applying common sense.

Go to any place name in any of the constituent countries and try and find any that has UK or United Kingdom in its opening sentence. Please accept that what you wan't just isn't going to happen. --Bill Reid | Talk 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What it needs to do and what is consistant practice are quite different. I remind you that Aberdeenshire, unlike Beaver, is not a settlement, but rather a county. And, unsurprisingly, the county mentions the US in its opening paragraph. One could argue that commas are never needed in place names, or any sort of expansion on a concept where there is a link - but it does not work like that, and that turns Wikipedia into more a web of links than an encyclopaedia in the common sense of the term.

Almost any application of common sense in relation to this matter will end up reverted by others who have no common sense, so it's absolutely pointless. As for accepting that Wikipedia is wrong, biased and a bit a joke, yes, I am quickly coming towards that realisation, however I do still have an ounce of belief in humanity left within me, so I am continuing to participate. --Breadandcheese 17:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you for real? The correlation is exact. Beaver (Banff) is a borough (burgh) in Beaver County (Banffshire), Pennsylvania (Scotland). Period. US (UK) is superfluous; not required. This is my last on this, feel free to have the last word. --Bill Reid | Talk 19:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't reference Beaver or any other settlement (as clearly stated), the example I used was Aberdeenshire, for which the correct correlation would be Beaver County. Going out on an inaccuracy is never good. --Breadandcheese 21:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Once and for all, Breadandcheese, please stop defining common sense as what you in your wisdom tell us is so. 90% or more of what was written on this page was common sense, even if I disagreed with much of it. Your arrogant dismissal of everybody with a point of view different from your own has bogged down this discussion more than any other single factor. Scolaire 19:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't bring common sense into this, in fact I was pointing out the fallacy of the 'common sense' point there. Nor am I 'arrogantly dismissing' anything that amounts to decent, consistant debate. As for bogging down discussion, I think turning it into a message board, openly using Wikipedia as a political soapbox for cranks and a refusal to actually engage in the process by many (aside from posting 'it's all a conspiracy' style messages did a lot more harm than me labeling the occasional bit of nonsense as nonsense.--Breadandcheese 21:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bill Reid: feel free to have the last word. Scolaire 22:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I can and do receive mail from overseas, simply with "Scotland" on it regularly (hardly ever with "Britain"/"UK" etc - although I did have one person write to me in "Inglatierra"). There is only one place of much consequence called "Scotland", and only one place of much consequence called "Wales" - same goes for "England". There are other places around the world with these names, but the context should be obviously. --MacRusgail 00:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If anyone else is still interested in this issue, I suggest they have a look at the lengthy discussion from 12 months ago and see how difficult this is to agree on. –MDCollins (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A conclusion: there is no conclusion

This has been an interesting and heated debate, and it emcompasses and highlights why we get edit conflicts and differences of opinion on articles related to people born or swearing allegience to the United Kingdom - a legal union of four countries, with three different legal systems. Identity is both individual choice as well as factual - and as an encyclopedia we focus on fact and verification; where as the facts of birth, education and residency can quite clearly mean someone has factual and verifiable ties to each country within the nominal union. If we take a simplified version of this debate - born in town X, but brought up in town Y: what should they be tagged as, as both are clearly verifiable? Taking another level, extend this debate to the European Union, then how will we identify those born in one country, but resident in another - the large number of Poles in the UK who came over to earn a deposit for a house and now won't through choice be returning, are they Poles through birth, or as will happen Brit's because they spend more than half of their life here? Unfortunatly, we also have to accept there are editors with agenda's - some of the Irish debates always amaze and disapoint me, and specifically the liberally applied tag of People of Irish descent in the United Kingdom: very little verification now seems to occur around grand parentage history, with more emphasis around tagging more people as Irish. The proposer spotted what they saw as a problem which could be solved - but this debate show's why its best left at present to editors to debate the issues on an article by article basis, which we already have a procedure for. I propose much as though this has been a good debate and all wish there were fewer edit conflicts, on this issue the current article level debate and dispute procedures are the best current process conclusion, and resultantly this debate should be closed. Best Regards, - Trident13 09:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"some of the Irish debates always amaze and disapoint me"

I agree with your conclusions, Trident, but I think it's a pity you had to illustrate your point with a display of your own chauvinism. Scolaire 10:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Having an Irish name, and an interest in Irish affairs through my family, I can understand them and the history but they do personally disappointed me that, in some cases, such heated and often personal vitriol is used by some in debating issues. I don't believe that's chauvinism, just being a human being. Rgds, - Trident13 10:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with conclusion. It was obvious to me a while back this discussion would go no-where, which is why I ceased wasting my time in it. Just a bunch of guys who like Britishness finding arguments against Scottishness, and so on and so forth. Don't know where that leaves the settlement thing ... rejected, or guideline? Perhaps that should be clarified, then there may be consensus on something at least. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone with any such beliefs, just a lot of people looking for agendas (perhaps even artificially) in order to justify an unsatisfactory status quo that was favourable to them. As such, I couldn't help but cringe at the above commendation of this as a "good debate". --Breadandcheese 22:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Breadandcheese, don't kid yourself. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on! You surely cannot seriously suggest this proposal wasn't shot down by many editors on extremely POV grounds and on the basis of little more than 'I don't like the word British' and 'I think this is something political'? --Breadandcheese 01:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

True enough. But, then again, there have also been some POV arguments in favor of this proposal -- the Three Cheers for the Union! speech above (with which a few other people agreed) and the 'romanticism' argument above. I understand the appeal of a consistent policy, but--POV aside--there are reasonable arguments against having an all-out, all-UK, consistent policy. Northern Ireland is probably the most obvious complication, but the idea that one can put the word "British" next to a person's occupation and that this isn't interpretable as defining identity isn't something I can wholly agree with. One could also agrue that identity is more noteworthy than citizenship and, therefore, should be what features first or more prominently on a Wiki page. One could argue the other way around. Both are POV. A desire for consistency is itself a form of POV. I imagine there would still be some unclear cases even if citizenship is what is used; U.K. citizenship isn't based on birthplace (nor are other citizenships which UK-resident people may also possess.), so it still wouldn't be straightforward in all cases. Personally, I'm all for avoiding nationality/identity adjectives in genuinely ambiguous cases (as opposed to the silly JK Rowling ones). Saying that such-and-such was born here, lived there, worked here and did this is ultimately more important and more informative than tagging them with an identiy adjective. Nuclare 14:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinion from someone on the other side of the Channel

I'm Portuguese and I find this argument patentedly silly and inappropriate for this forum. Since my country has been a nation-state throughout most of its history, I may not fully understand what it feels like to be of a nation/country that is sublimated by a larger political entity, nor the necessities of those same nations/countries for self-determination. However, nobody here is discussing cultural identity or independentist political movements, but rather what flags should go on the infobox's nationality field. This should actually be fairly simple, so please, there's no need to have kittens.

Now, the UK is not a special case. It's not the only country in the world, not even in Europe, with several "constituent nations" or a multitude of cultural identities living within its borders. My neighbours to the east are a perfect example of that. So is Belgium. Of course, I don't see the need for infobox flags to identity people as Catalunian or Flemish. Ultimately, those aren't legal identities outside their country of origin, so there shouldn't be any reason to elevate their status to being equal or superior to their legal sovereign countries. Someone who calls himself a Catalunian is, legally, subordinate to calling himself Spanish as well. And someone who is Flemish is, by law, a Belgian first. Applying that to the United Kingdom, there's no special reason why its "constituent nations" should have this special privilege. You can't be Scottish or English without being British. That's what you legally are. Neither England or Scotland have any international rights without going through the UK first. If there is a problem with the usage of the word "British" to define legal nationality in the UK, please take it up with Westminster, not here.

Now, if we're talking about freedom fighters or someone with political opinions of separatism/self-determination, I expect people to continue reading past the first paragraph to understand that about them instead of hitting the "Edit" button immediately just to change a flag icon. The infobox's nationality is merely a legal tool, not a narrow definition of what the article's subject is. Anything else beyond that is unreasonable, as it requires dumbing Wikipedia down for the benefit of impatient idiots. And I always thought the point of reading was becoming more intelligent. So, in the specific case of the UK, and looking in from the outside, I see no reason to go beyond the word "British" in the infobox. Whatever cultural division of the United Kingdom you feel more affinity for, the main article text is there to explain what it is. --Pc13 15:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Jza84 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

PC13, one simple question. Are you ashamed that your country is no longer being ruled by Madrid? If you agree with Portuguese independence, that makes you the "separatist" (note use of blatantly POV term). I suggest replacing the Portuguese flag with the yellow and red striped one, since the Portuguese act of independence was technically illegal by Spanish standard. Actually you are wrong, there are legal definitions of who Flemings, Catalans, Scots etc are. Partly through domicile --MacRusgail 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In the UK at least, entirely through domicile, so there are in fact no lawful definitions of 'Scottish', 'English' or 'Welsh' as an identity or status. More importantly though, this is not a political discussion board.--Breadandcheese 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes there are legal definitions of who a Scottish person is - I have consulted with a retired lawyer friend of mine on this. I suggest you do your research, and stop spouting mere opinions. --MacRusgail 12:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Mac, your point is moot because of historical events. Spain recognized Portugal's legitimacy as as independent country in 1668, and the 1640 revolution was instigated by a branch that add legal claims to the throne anyway. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about infobox flags. Apparently I wasn't clear enough, so let me blunt. The "nationality" field on infoboxes is for a person's legal nationality. The legal nationality is that of the sovereign country. The sovereign country is the UK. Scotland, Wales and England as entities are all subject to the UK and therefore none of them are sovereign countries. The UK is not the only one with cultural regionalism issues. In order to allow individual regions within the UK to have their own flags whenever referring to natioanlity, we'd also need to extend the courtesy to Spain, Belgium, Germany, parts of France, parts of Italy, the Curdistan, Tibete, Quebec and the Republic of Texas. If you want to eat chocolate in class, you need to bring enough for everyone.

But I need to add you're fighting against windmills here. Nobody's trying to eliminate references to Scotland or any other region. On the contrary, if they're important to a subject, they should be at the forefront of its respective article. But legal nationality is something else entirely. The infobox's "nationality" field should be simple - nationality as written in the passport, which is that of the sovereign nation. Issues with Scottish, Basque and Curdish identities belong in the body of the article. --Pc13 07:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the "nationality" spot in the infobox for "citizenship" (which is in effect what 'passport nationality' means) or nationality in it's real sense (not the lazy kind that's easily defined and verified)? What is common practice? Billy Connelly, for example, may be as ardent a unionist as you can find (Pc13: this means anti-seperatist in UK terminology), but do people call him Scottish or British? It's my feeling that in the UK it is more common to call people by Scottish/English/Welsh terms and that that practice, unlike Flemmish/Walloon, is mirrored and understood throughout the English-speaking world. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Connelly is both, of course - Scottish and British - but what Pc13 is trying to get accross is that you can't legally (officially) hold Scottish citizenship. In terms of sovereignty, we shouldn't use constituent countries as an adjective for people, because it elevates the constituent countries nationality law status beyond what that really have. Afterall, do you call Connelly Caledonian, or Albaian? Celtic? - no, because these aren't proper nationalities. Do we call Daniel Craig an Anglo-Saxon? - of course no, but some minority groups would however. Loosely, Connelly is both Scottish and British.... but it is more complex than that if one wants to "hide" British nationality law...

What nationality is Tony Blair? - born in Scotland, lived in Scotland, but doesn't identify as Scottish? What about David Cameron - born in England to Scottish parents. Sean Connery doesn't have a drop of Scottish blood running through his veins - he's first generation Scottish, so what is he, Scottish or Irish? Is Salman Rushdie British or English? Amir Khan - not British? - is he Pakistani or English? If the Scottish people are an ethnic group, then how is Sean Connery ethnically Scottish, and same for Amir Khan for English? Is it because they were born there? - no, because Tony Blair isn't Scottish, is he? What about Peter O'Toole? - Irish, English or British? Ian Paisley? - Irish, Scottish, Northern Irish, or British? What about Elizabeth II?

My point is, what's the official and universally defining factor in deciding what peoples sub-British nationality is? - is it accent, ancestry, birth-place, dwelling, self-identification? Even if we have consensus, is that the official stance, and why? Does it work for everyone? I have ancestry from accross the British Isles, so what am I? I have a British passport.

Using the constituent countries to describe people and say they hold that nationality in some kind of official capacity is unhelpful, objectionable, unverifiable and extremely POV (yes it is a point of view to say Tony Blair is either Scottish or English, for example, that's what a proper POV means). Now I'm not a raging unionist, and fought hard to keep descriptions of places in the UK at a constituent country level, but one simply cannot hold Welsh nationality for example, or be universally described as English when they have over a millienia of 100% Scottish/Pakistani/African blood in their veins. I dare anyone contest these points! Jza84 13:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Connery describes himself as Scottish, Blair describes himself as English. It's not even an issue. Betty Windsor is whatever the hell she chooses to be - Canadian in Canada, Presbyterian in Scotland and an Australian Anglican etc etc. Charles pretends to be a member of each of the nationalities she represents. Nationality is not based on race, as you seem to think. Lenny Henry is English. So is Zola Budd if she chooses. --MacRusgail 17:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

MacRusgail, I've just spotted your retroactive post here. I'm thinking I should not reply, but I can't resist having read what you've put... - Presbyterian an officially recognised nationality? And Anglican atoo? (does that make Anglicans in Africa English?) What is this based on? Does that even help? Do you have an official source on Henry's nationality? What criteria are you using to assert he's English? I guess I must let Osama Bin Laden know he can be English at any time he likes - I'll tell him that MacRusgail is actually the official authority on identity nationality and can make you ethnically, legally, and otherwise fully accepted, nationalised and integrated as an Englishman. He doesn't need a source, any critical thinking or legal bestowments, just a POV lets you be English. I suppose Steven Gerrard is a Londoner or even a Mancunian next if "he" (not even us) so chooses!..... And MacRusgail, a race is a taxonomic social construct that attempts to categorise humans according to morphological traits; an ethnic group is a group of people who identify with each other - I have a masters degree in Race and Ethnic studies, so I am somewhat aware of the subtle differences in nationality and race. Where you're failing is considering alternative (sometimes brutally ugly) points of view, and mixing identity with nationality, race, ethnic coding, ethnic grouping, ancestry, accent, birthplace, homeplace and homeland, and using a inwardly looking self-made criteria to describe people to conform to deep rooted "Anglophobic" Scottish psyche of archetypal pro-nationalist Scottish identity which has no official, consistent or scholarly criteria or definition of inclusion. Jza84 19:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I had expected that something that would raise so many questions to have a complex answer. I guess all of these books are for nought - "It's your passport, dummy!" (What a waste of trees.)

"Caledonian, or Albaian? Celtic? - no, because these aren't proper nationalities. Do we call Daniel Craig an Anglo-Saxon?" No, we don't - and quite rightly so. These terms, and what they refer to, are much out of date, common practice today is to call a person Scottish, Welsh, English or Irish. I'm sorry, you don't like that fact, but it is, none-the-less, and verifiably, a fact. How about British, then? Outside of the world of passports, is it really a "nationality"? I really never hear anyone ever call themselves so, and even when reported - in news or magazines for example - when a persons true nationality is known - Scottish, English, Welsh, etc. - then that's what's given priority. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) - That's not an incredibly civil or helpful response. Please don't forget I am entitled to raise points for discussion for means of working out issues like any other - there really was no need to call me a "dummy" in front of all these people like that, no matter how strongly you feel about that issue, and I'm quite upset that you feel the need to do that to make a response.

However, that aside, frankly that's not addressed any of my issues, and you've not engaged with any of the persons I've listed as to what nationality they hold, or answered any questions. As for English being a "real" nationality, why is it? England was unified like the UK, so why aren't the individual nations of the heptarchy used for nationality? Is it because of age? - because the etymology ans use of "Britain" is older than "England". Is it because of "news or magazines"? Because Google returns around four times as many results for "Ewan McGregor British" than "Ewan McGregor Scottish". Why is the "world of passports" redundant in an official, encyclopedic capacity? Are the people of Northern Ireland, Irish or British and why? Civil responses welcome. Jza84 14:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the obsession with passports? They're little books that let you go through borders, they have nothing to do with citizenship or nationality law and so are fairly irrelevant to this discussion. Is British a nationality - yes, it is, and it is one in which most people from all constituent countries of the UK share. Even then, I still think that's faintly irrelevant as I was pro-limitation to legal nationality rather than considerations of identity. --Breadandcheese 14:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A passport is a public manifestation of a persons choice of nationality. Thats what it has to do with this argument. If a person chooses to carry a specific passport, then it can be pretty accurately said that they are of that nationality. Simple really when you think about it. Verifiability MurphiaMan 14:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that rather convieniently rules out anything other than British from the point of view of the UK. How nice.

However, an example: My eldest sister was born in London. Shortly thereafter my parents moved back to Ireland. He husband was born in New York. While he was stil an enfant, his parents also moved back to Ireland. My sister and her husband had a child while they were living in London. Shortly after her birth, they moved home. She, my niece, to much derision, carries a British passport - niether of her parents were born in Ireland, and neither was she. She can, if she chooses, claim a US passport through her father. She is now 15, when she is 18 she may begin the rather lenghty process of being naturalised Irish if she so chooses. Now, I don't foresee a WP article on my niece just yet, but if there was one, would you put her down as British today? If she chooses to be naturalised - of which there is no guarantee, as it is a rather lengty and bureaucratic process for something that what benefit it may bring is purely superficial - would you write that she was British, later naturalisied Irish? If she chooses to never change her passport, which is quite likely, would you believe that it would be "a public manifestation of a persons choice of nationality"? While my niece is undeniably Irish, regardless of what her passport says, if she chooses never to become naturalised, I don't think that that would consitute any great public expression of her supposed British nationality - simply that she couldn't be bothered with it. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the Republic of Ireland in reference to Ireland - then that's an issue of sovereignty, and doesn't cross the constituent country boundaries anyway. Jza84 15:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The point posed above (and repetitiously thoughout this talk page) is that a person's passport is the only verifiable nationality a person has. Is my niece British? --sony-youth^pléigh 15:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I did mean the Republic of Ireland (which is commonly and formally called Ireland), although in the context it would make no difference whether I was talking about the island or the state. Rememeber that that an area which this proposed manual of style would govern also, having formed the United Kingdom in 1801 and secceed from it in 1922. That said I presume my niece would be exempt from it - or would she, being British and all?) --sony-youth^pléigh 15:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So now we're getting there - so if you believe your sister to be Irish on the basis that although she was born in England (in the United Kingdom), she has Irish parents and thus is a special case - and probably best described as Irish....... then........ why isn't that true for Sean Connery? A man who's forefathers did nothing for Scotland, fought in no wars, voted in no elections, paid no tax, pledged no allegance to the land at all, but thinks himself as a true Scot! Surely someone should tell him there's more to being Scottish than wearing a kilt?... My point (before you ask), consituent country nationalities are a matter of extreme POV, whether consensually or individually - you're either British, or you're not, but English/Scottish/Welsh/Ulster-Scots/Cornish/Irish AND Northern Irish are matters that are open to interpretation, and are thus relegated as unencyclopedic as an official frame of reference! Jza84 15:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your argument about Connery is racist at the worst, and stupid at best. You make your own choices, not your ancestors'. He's done more for Scotland than Blair has ever done. --MacRusgail 17:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My personal take is that if your niece was notable, and she had an article, and it was public knowledge that she carried a British passport, and she did not make any other public pronouncements as to her nationality, that there would be sufficient verifiability to specify her nationality as British in an an infobox. MurphiaMan 17:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Well, I came here and encourged this discussion from a start because I knew that there were some out there who held your opinion. I knew that it bothered them that their perspective was not represented in this encyclopedia and so I sought to seek out ways to reconcile the current consensus with their views. I can see that you are unmovable and unwilling to compromise. I'm sorry that that means that your views will not be represented in this encyclopedia. I'm sorry, but I treid, and it really makes little difference to me as things currently are the way that I would have them.

As a parting remark, I'd suggest that in future you should aim to compromise on your view a little more. If you do so, some of them may find their way into consensus. I'd also hold back on comments such as "consituent country nationalities are a matter of extreme POV." They don't earn you any friends.

I am very dismayed at mess that this propsal for a UKMOS went. If an all-Ireland MOS can exist, then really, why on earth can GB not manage the same? --sony-youth^pléigh 16:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree with Jza84 and Pc13. I too fought hard to include the constituent country in lead sections of locations in particular, Truro, Cornwall, England etc... rather than Truro, United Kingdom (but that is a separate issue) but still recognise that nationality is most definitely British. Obviously "British" (sorry) editors of this wp are more likely to want more specific information, but as PC13 was referring to, would we want that specific information for the Belgians etc... Use the body of the text to explain that Tony Blair was born in Scotland, but affiliates with England if needs be, but his nationality (for infobox purposes) is still (and less ambiguously), British.–MDCollins (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you not think that the test is whether it is common practice to refer to someone as Flemish or Walloon rather than Belgian in the English language? (It is not, incidentally, common practice to do so in French or Dutch.) What is common practice with regard to Scottish/English/Welsh vis-a-vis British in the English language? --sony-youth^pléigh 14:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

British - 1. vs. 2., Jza84 15:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL "sean connery scottish" (490) vs "sean connery british" (76). Not even double of "Sean Connery American" does it have. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.215.149.99 (talk) 15:09, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

And 96 vs. 3, for Ricky Hatton (6 for American! - double it does have]). I gave you a head start with Sean Connery!! Google is unscientific of course, but a good insight for discussion. The issue of English vs British has never been quantified, but still, what nationality is Tony Blair, Amir Khan, Salman Rushdie, David Cameron, Peter O'Toole and Ian Paisley? You've not addressed a single one. Jza84 15:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

continuing with a better comparison "Sean Connery is a Scottish" (1950) compared with ... wait for it ... "Sean Connery is a British". Makes one role on the floor ... an amazing 4!!!! Just as many as "Sean Connery is an American". seems you may have a problem bringing usage into the argument. you may have to go back to the passports

Wow, so we know that Connery refashioned "British masculinity" joined the "British Navy" and played a "British agent" in a "British picture." Point being? --sony-youth^pléigh 15:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so let's get this right - now it's not common practice? It's not use in news and magazines? It's not even ancestry (but is for your sister), and "British" isn't just passports, its multiple institutions and cultural factors.... esencially it is merely a POV if you're Scottish.... then we agree! And that's why it should be avoided on Wikipedia. Jza84 15:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I do weep for all of the POV'd people. Yet it cheers me to see that Connery is voted "Best British Actor" (even "Best British Actor of All Time"!) Do you see the difference? Institution = British. Peolple != British. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point! Those institutions wouldn't last a second running "Best English Actor" or "Best Welsh Actor of All Time" - because it's unquantifiable as to who would be eligable! British is quanitifable, and official! You're making this a little too easy now! Jza84 15:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

British is quantifiable. My niece is certainly quantifiably British. No shadow of a doubt. But we are talking about nationality, that is not quantifiable. Unless, my niece is British? --sony-youth^pléigh 16:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

She has British nationality - which you admit exists finally - so that's what would go in the infobox yes. We're clearly opposed on this issue, but my point is (and always has been) that constituent country nationalities are open to POV, and are not (as) simple to codify as British is. Going forwards, we need to work out how to put this into articles... I'd suggest...

Sonia Youth is the sister of Wikipedian Sony-Youth. Born in England, to Irish parents, her British nationality was subject to a debate on August 22, 2007. - We're not descibing her as Irish, which is open to interpretations on ancestry, accent, birthright and ethnicity, but saying where she was born and that she has British nationality. Am I being POV?? Do please say if so... Jza84 16:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Sonia Youth" - laughed out loud! - The question was what to put in her info box, no? The intro looks good, but honestly, anything but Irish in the infobox would be ridiculous. Anyway, see my note above. Good luck. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why on the 'granny clause' doesn't work in your niece's case, Sony. I got the impression from your description that her grandparents were born in Ireland. Can't she obtain Irish citizenship/passport 'through descent' in that way? I know you have to get on a registry (as opposed to having automatic citizenship), but that's got to be simpler than naturalization. Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not understanding why naturalization is her only option for Irish citizenship. Nuclare 22:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Jza84, how the heck is being Scottish a Point Of View. Nationality can never be a point of view, it is a fact but not by your strictly legal citizenship/passport-holding definition. If I define nationality in a UK sense then I choose not a legalistic defintion, but one that reflects the origins of the constituent countries. Individual peoples who have strong sense of belonging to the same cultural group, who have a conjoint heritage, who share their history and language. I suspect that some people from England (not all by a long way) have lost this sense of identity with their own country and i think these are the ones that who try to push this silly UK-ishness on an educated editorship within these islands. I think its time for them to wake up and smell the coffee, this is never, ever going to succeed - editors will carry on as now. --Bill Reid | Talk 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do so many on this talk page feel the need to resort to attacks on one another's nationality? The UK is far from unique in being made up of what were once separate countries and different countries (and even parts of countries) have had different success rates at forging the nation. Germany, for instance, proved much more successful at this even though loyalties at both levels still exist. (Indeed "Deutschland über alles" is a call for Germans to be "German" first, not "Prussian", "Bavarian", etc...) But other parts of the world are not at this stage with many, many people claiming loyalty to a historic nation, a supranation, a neighbouring state and so forth, rather than regarding their nationality as the same as their legal citizenship.

And where exactly is it set down a) that nationality (in the "loyalty" sense) is not a personal choice when there are multiple options and b) who objectively defines an individual's nationality when it's not coterminous with the citizenship of a state? And what happens when people accept a nationality but reject a state claiming to be for all of that nationality? (e.g. Northern Irish Unionists who accept they are "Irishmen" but reject a state claiming to be for all the Irish. Or for that matter members of the Irish disapora?) Or what about people with ties to more than one of the four home nations for whom the over arching single state/nation/country is their answer to nationality?

Even national football team elibility rules (to pick a topical example this evening - currently, and wisely, the convention for sport is to use the country the player plays for internationally) is not clear cut on this one and there are many players who have not yet played internationally and so are eligible for more than one team (at one stage Owen Hargreaves was eligible for all four UK teams and Canada and would have become eligible for Germany if he hadn't signed for England when he did), whilst a lot of players who qualified for the national team they play for on the "granny rule" have been accused of having shallow roots in the nation and just signing for the highest ranking team that will actually take them. (There's also the issue of footballers who advocate all-UK or all-Ireland teams, which can mean anything from an indication of their views on borders to a talented player just wanting the chance to play in international tournaments that their current Home Nations teams hardly ever qualifies for.)

Is it not equal POV to be pushing the constituent national identities onto people? Timrollpickering 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, where did I attack someone else's nationality? But at least you accept the concept of different nationalities within the UK. Yes, the Germans have merged smaller states into one but there was a lot of bloodshed and wars along the way, (and I can tell you, Bavarians are proud to be Bavarians) but the overarching feature that allowed this was language. The German language was a major catalyst for the union. In Britain, there were English, Scots, Gaelic and Welsh speaking peoples and that was enough to preserve an individual sense of nationality. The rules of UEFA have nothing whatsoever to do with how someone perceives his or her nationality and it is quite frankly a bit ridiculous to suggest it. You raise a number of issues that may affect a relatively small number of individuals but I would suggest that the vast majority of the people in Britain have a very exact take on their nationality. Finally, no-one is pushing national identities onto people because whether you like it or not, nobody needs to, it is the status quo. It is a little band of UK-ists that are doing all the pushing of their POV as far as I can see. --Bill Reid | Talk 09:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"I suspect that some people from England (not all by a long way) have lost this sense of identity with their own country and i think these are the ones that who try to push this silly UK-ishness on an educated editorship within these islands." That, although milder, is similar to many of the comments that have attacked proposals as "outdated concepts by the English" on this page.

FIFA (and other international sports tournament) rules are a relevant example of one of the few existing formal objective criteria for determining nationalities amongst the Home Nations that doesn't boil down to the individual's choice and they still aren't always precise. Individual choice is messy for Wikipedia because for a huge number of people the answers are not exclusive and very few people are ever asked to pick one nationality over the other in surveys. (As for experience, I've just spent most of the last week on a university phoneline, taking a number of callers' details and when I asked for "nationality" for the pro forma, every home applicant said "British", not "English" or "Scottish" or "Welsh" or "Northern Irish/Irish/Ulsterman" or "Cornish" or anything else.

The reasons for many countries coming together are quite varied (though the UK was not exempt from bloodshed in its long formation) though language is not an exclusive one - many people who don't speak Welsh, Scots, Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Ulster Scots or other languages have no problem with identifying with those nations. But not everyone thinks in terms of having to choose one over the other and frankly it's as much a POV of separatists as a POV of "UK-ists" to seek to impose one over the other that isn't rooted in any objective criteria like legal nationality.

(And yes Bavarians are proud to be Bavarians but is that an exclusive choice? Though to be really confusing, Bavaria is one of the "Länder" of Germany - and that's German for "countries"!)

(Oh and is everyone in the political boundaries of Scotland "Scottish"? What about Shetland? http://www.newstatesman.com/200704020064 ) Timrollpickering 10:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If legal nationality is the criteria, than can we assume that you (and others proposing this policy) would exempt many Northern Ireland people from this policy? Nuclare 11:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If the Shetlanders want self-determination, let them have it (it's more than the UK's ever given us for centuries). But of course, Berwick-upon-Tweed would have to be given a choice as well. ;) --MacRusgail 12:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill, if you read through the discussion, I explain several times why "sometimes" describing people (with an adjective) using constituent countries is open to huge personal interpretation (a POV), i.e. at what point does one become Scottish? - it's a rhetorical question of course (unless you have the official and universally accepted answer - which I very much doubt), because what you'll reply with is just a Point Of View, and that is why I find it objectionable to include on Wikipedia. Example; the Scottish people are an ethnic group indigenous to Scotland - so why is Irish Sean Connery, with his Irish name and Irish parents and Irish blood considered a through-and-through Scot on Wikipedia? By what process did he obtain his Scottish nationality? Is it because he was born and lived there? - because that's true for Tony Blair, who, if not a Brit, is often passed to the "English". Do you see the paradox and inconsistency? Jza84 11:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Sean Connery self-describes as a Scot. Just as Blair self-describes as an Englishman. Why do English folk seem to think that being Scottish is some kind of racial attribute? It's not, and the sooner people realise that, the better. As far as I am concerned my local Pakistani-born grocer, is a proud Scotsman, and I have no problem with that. --MacRusgail 12:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where did I say I was English? Do you have a source that all English folk seem to think that the Scottish are a race? And being Scottish officially is decided upon by self-identification now?? - since when, and by whom? Again, POV, POV, POV. My Bangladeshi born friends consider themselves British but not English, because the English are an ethnic group in their eyes. Romans and Scilians only consider themselves true Romans or Scilians if they can trace seven generations of their blood to that place. Orthodox Jews (from memory - please forgive me) only consider people ethnically Jewish if they are paterally/materally Jewish.... you're just not addressing the issues at hand here, Scottishness is open to POV, and is not universally codified; British nationality is. Jza84 12:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think someone (in fact everyone) need to have a read through WP:NPOV before mandying the P. word another time. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear! You make me proud JZ. Well said indeed. From the days of Brutus and King Arthur there has been but one people, one nationality on this, our Island ... that of the Great British Island Race. These Neanderthal SNP and IRA people threaten the unity of this, our Ancient Island Nation. People of England, this is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never — in nothing, great or small, large or petty — never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, on wikipedia, or wherever the darkness descends. British-only in infoboxes and article descriptions is the only way! For it is better for us to perish in battle than to look upon the outrage of our nation and our altar. Remember, England expects that every man will do his duty. Lady Britannia tells it true and objectively on those maroon booklets we can all gaze upon and gladly press to our breasts with our ancestral Teutonic spirit and our pride as Ancient Islanders. Truth emanates from Lady Britannia's noble voice and Her's alone... let us follow her words and not be wearied by these savages who dare to speak against Her. Only in her noble voice can codifiable objective truth be found. The rest is heinous devilry and must be cast aside. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties as good English men and women, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their Finest Hour'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by England's Rose (talk • contribs) 14:46, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

LOL! Nice attempt at a wind up! Timrollpickering 15:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Many a true word said in jest. If the Ein Reich Ein Volk people could see what they sound like. The British Empire is the past, not the future. You sound like slightly more subtle versions of Rose above. --MacRusgail 16:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll pick up on what Tim has said. My statement regarding what I perceive as a loss of identity among some English people is not and never was intended as an attack on the English. The rules of the different governing bodies in sport, i feel, is simply not relevant here. A Scotsman not all that long ago captained the England cricket team. There is no British football team at the Olympic Games because the home nations FAs wouldn't allow it; FIFA and UEFA allow the four home countries to compete as separate nations; there is no NI rugby team because NI players play for the Ireland side. So sport throws up so many anomalies that it is really not worth talking about it.

You say "many people who don't speak Welsh, Scots, Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Ulster Scots or other languages have no problem with identifying with those nations". That is absolutely correct but what i was suggesting it was because of the differnces in language, culture, law, etc that has fostered the way people in Britain look upon nationality. Its not just me that's saying it, the UK govermental body, National Statistics says it, see here[1], to quote a bit of it "Fifty per cent of people described themselves as either English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish. Thirty-one per cent described themselves as British only, with 13 per cent choosing British and either English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish. Four per cent gave an 'other' identity; one per cent gave other combinations." So in no way can you say that we on this side of the debate can be accused of POV. As I said before its the UK-ists who are POV pushing.

Jza84, as you can see from the above, 69% of the people have no difficulty at all of identifying their nationality. You take the beloved Sean as an example. He did not have Irish parents, his Great Grandfather was the last to remain in Ireland. Of course he has Irish blood coursing through his veins and I would guess he would be well proud of it too but lets just get that fact sorted out. Tony Blair even despite being born in Scotland, identifies himself as being English and I suppose he is justified. Blair's father was born in England to English parents and was adopted by a Glasgow couple, hence his arrival in Scotland. So I don't see a paradox at all. The Scottish People article is defining how the Scottish people came to inhabit this corner of the British Isle. You could write a similar article describing Britons, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Danes. What is remotely objectionable about that? --Bill Reid | Talk 15:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because a viewpoint is held by a majority, does not make it any less POV. Both sides of the argument are POV. Readro 15:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure sport is totally irrelevant to discussions of nationality given that in the UK it is one of the most prominent times when the home nation nationalities are on display - remember Jim Sillars's comment that the Scots were "90 minute patriots"? (And some surveys have found Northern Irish Protestants feel most Irish around the times of rugby matches.) But in terms of definition, FIFA rules are one of the few attempts to define home nation level nationality that is neither just what the individual says they are nor someone else deciding what their nationality is.

It is not the case that "NPOV" = "majoritarianism is fact", especially on a contentious matter - no less than 46% in that survey chose "British" in some combination - not an insignificant minority in itself - and the link you've given throws up the interesting point that what looks like a slight majority (I think - the details aren't there but it's very rare for a survey to get a clear 48:52 exact split with nothing else and between 2 & 5% chose "other", with the largest concentration in London, so that makes it exceptionally close) in England consider themselves "British", so if you're trying to play the "a majority think this way so that makes it a neutral fact" card then perhaps you should stop using "English" and use "British" instead for the English to be consistent. ;)

You say "69% of the people have no difficulty at all of identifying their nationality" - frankly that is a POV, because you are denying the other 31% who say they're "British" their right to a loyalty nationality as you do not recognise it. Where is this set in stone?

Most of the original drive behind this proposal was the endless revert wars on many articles were POVists of both viewpoints constantly changed things, endlessly citing policies that are not as precise about the definition of "country" and "nationality" (remember even Wikipedia's own article on nationality is more about legal citizenship than cultural loyalties) as any set of rules trying to delineate for the UK would need to be, or citing "consensus" across articles but not agreeing on what set to use. Now the UK is not unique in this regard, as the numerous examples cited above show, and the reason the UK comes up more than other countries is because of both the larger number of articles and the use of the same language by advocates (whereas Canada/Quebec seems to be handled differently on the different language Wikipedias), and an encyclopedia written for a global audience needs to handle such matters consistently. Legal nationality was proposed as something that is far easier to determine than self-identification (although it is more than just "what passport do you hold" - it's "which countries are you a citizen of by their laws and international law" - IIRC a country declaring the inhabitants of territory not within its legal borders to be its citizens - a different thing from extending citizenship to second & third generation emigrants - is barred under international law) and generally not disputed. Timrollpickering 15:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim, Jim Sillars made that statement years ago. We have moved twenty years ahead in the past ten. Not that you hear of that much in the BBC/ITV news. Sillars' statement applied back then. Not now really. --MacRusgail 16:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC) p.s. Judging by the sheer volume of stuff you've put on this page, you and breadandcheese have far too much time on your hands.

Tim and Breadandcheese are only standing up for what's right, for what's true, for what's objective, for the cause of our ancient nation, for the noblest cause of all, for the cause of Arthur, of Alfred the Great, of Cromwell, of Admiral Nelson, of Churchill, and for the cause of those noble progenitors of our sturdy Island Race, Horsa and Hengist, who freed our island from slavery. These men fought and gave their lives so that there might be an England, a Britain, an Island Nation whose greatness and majesty has heretofore remained unsurpassed. Some wish to blight Noble Lady Britannia's image. Those who would stop them are heroes and a credit to their ancient people. No time is too much, too burdensome for Albion. England's Rose 17:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments like that don't really help! (Oh and as for time, that just comes from having been at the terminal a lot lately.) Timrollpickering 20:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim, this discussion is beginning to get a bit daft and quite frankly I am getting bored with it so after this I'm not coming back in reply. Of course we know all about "statistics and damn lies" but you seem to be in some sort of denial here. We have 50% of the population who think of themselves as solely E, S, W or I. We have a further 13% who give themselves some sort of "dual" nationality, i.e. British but also E, S, W, or I. Finally we have the 31% who describe themselves as only British. So take the guys in the middle, the 13%. Make them choose British and that gives a total of 44%. So those guys in the middle also said we are E, S, W, or I; add these to the 50% and we arrive at 63%. So a tad short of two-thirds of the population actually see themselves as being E, S, W or I. The fact is after 300 years of Union 63% of us still believe in the existence of the constituent countries. I'm talking about realities here so it is easy to see that instead of sorting out a few edit wars, I believe things will get infinitely worse. --Bill Reid | Talk 17:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So that's two editors from the constituent country side backing off (for want of a better term). The crux of the matter here is one of nationality vs. identity. Of course it's going to be bitter, and I can't deny that some people "prefer" Welsh over British - but that's a matter of identity and not official British nationality law. You just simply cannot hold contemporary Scottish nationality - it's an anachronism, an identity, an inconsistently applied fancification. Some say "Scottishness" is self-determined - so can Osama Bin Laden come to Scotland (or the UK) on his Scottish (or even British) passport if he so chooses? Can he trace his ancestry to the Clan Cameron? What about a reincarnated Longshanks? - can he deny he is English by claiming he's Scottish? Can an "average white British John Smith" suddenly claim he is an African by every and all criteria? Of course no, it's more complex an issue, and that's why I find it objectionable. Constituent countryishness is an identity, and not a universally accepted and offficial nationality. It really is as simple as that. I'm not denying Scotland doesn't have a history, or England doesn't exist, or there is a Welsh nation (a nation is a group of people - not a division of land), but they really do have a "federal" British nationality. What I ask now is, can anybody be "British" in ANY sense at all, or are they (and we) lying? Jza84 17:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to Bill Reid, where have I denied the existance of a Scottish "loyalty nationality" (using the ambiguous "nationality" alone is not helpful in this discussion)? I have never denied the existance of the constituent countries, though you seem to be denying the existance of "British" as a genuine nationality on a par with German, Canadian, Spanish and so forth. Nobody is trying to stamp out these identities, with the possible exception of those who say things like "69% of the people have no difficulty at all of identifying their nationality" as though those who chose just "British" do have a problem. That's the "Ein Reich Ein Volk" attitude, not the one that MacRusgail referred to. I haven't seen any of the people arguing for legal nationality arguing that constituent countries' identities should in anyway be "supressed". Scottish, English, Welsh, Northern Irish, Irish, Ulster, Cornish and so forth are all existing "loyalty nationalities" - there's no denying that. So is "British". So too are both "Canadian" and "Quebec" (what is the correct adjective?). And so forth for many other countries.

As I've said before, "nationality" is not a very well defined term that overlaps heavily with variously "citizenship", "identity/loyalty", "ethnicity" and several other terms (some of which are no more clear-cut). It's the "it's one thing not the other "attitude that is the most POV in all this. Timrollpickering 20:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I wholly agree with Tim - of course - but, going forwards now, can we, as a bright community of editors, workout a proper approach to use in infoboxes and articles? Firstly I think all flags should be dropped, British or English/Scottish etc. Secondly, I think British should always be used in infoboxes (not necessarily leads - but that's one for the community I guess). I think it's unacceptable for articles and their editors to hide mentions of the United Kingdom and the adjective "British" - this trend hailing mostly from a core of North British (joke!) editors for too long. Jza84 20:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"IIRC a country declaring the inhabitants of territory not within its legal borders to be its citizens - a different thing from extending citizenship to second & third generation emigrants - is barred under international law" - that is exactly the situation in N.I., see Good Friday Agreement.

For Jza84's comments above - I wholly agree that flag's should be removed, but have always preferred the suggestion, which oh so nearly got a consensus way above, to use both British and Scottish/etc. in the info box in some form or another e.g. British (Scottish) or Scottish (United Kingdom) etc. Though I don't know how this would work in NI-related articles and still can I remind people that there is still a question relating to Ireland, the entirety of it, during the period 1801-1922. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Irish & British relations in law have always been rather complicated, as though they're not "foreign" countries in at least one direction if not both. And Irish nationality law says:

The only limitations to which were that anyone born in Northern Ireland was not automatically an Irish citizen but entitled to be an Irish citizen and, that a child of someone entitled to diplomatic immunity in the state would not become an Irish citizen.

What I was thinking of when I wrote my original comments above is the notion that unilaterally conferring citizenship upon those in a neighbouring territory without the consent of the internationally recognised government covering that state is an act of claiming the territory and enacting that claim (I would write "annexation" but it seems that's when the unilateral takeover is recognised internationally). Citizenship laws seem 10 times more complicated when covering areas that once had a single citizenship applying across them.

A key difference in the Good Friday Agreement is that the UK government explicitly consents to people in Northern Ireland being entitled to citizenship - i.e. joint consent, rather than unilateral application. Also am I right that this is an entitlement to take up citizenship rather than an automatic conferrment? (And that people in the north are not automatically bound by the laws of the Republic relating to citizens outside the state?) Timrollpickering 21:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And there's a further question about Northern Irish people being British as they can quite freely (as I understand) obtain Irish passports under the terms of some clause or treaty - though of course, passports don't count for nationality ;)!... What about [[England|British]]? or "British (English)"? Have these been considered? Looking mainly at the History of British nationality law, but also considering that the Republic of Ireland split for a reason from the UK, I should imagine that the use of "Irish" is permissable for persons born from 1801 to 1922 - but I think that should be a community decision. Jza84 21:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[[England|British]] will confuse more than it helps - the adjective isn't directly applicable. "British" should only be piped to link to either United Kingdom or Great Britain or Britain or a specific relevant topic at a "British" level.

As for the Irish situation, all I can say is thank the heavens for an existing MOS. Thinking about it there could be some real fun - just how many nationalities could be applied to Éamon de Valera? Variously American (place of birth and he also held one of those darn passports), Spanish-Cuban (his father's nationality I think - or does this one separate out further?), all-Ireland Irish (where his mother was from), British (the state his mother was from), perhaps a "26 county Irish" (okay this one would be a very POV but isn't someone who a) stopped abstaining in the Free State and b) who declined an opportunity for unification with the north regarded as accepting partion - and thus could be called a "26 county nationalist" - by some elements of Irish Republicanism?), "Northern Irish" (again POV but he was an abstaining member of the Northern Irish House of Commons for a total of thirteen years) - any more? The last two are admittedly both very POV labels that DeV would have rejected and his politics were aiming for a 32 county Ireland (and I only include them as examples of labels that some others might want to stick on to a person against their own identification), but what labels would fit Conor Cruise O'Brien, variously a Cabinet minister in the Republic and later a member of the Northern Ireland Forum for the UK Unionists? Timrollpickering 21:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"entitlement" is how it is expressed for everyone (north and south). Its for the reasons stated above, and more (thinking of the current "hidden war" on many British-Irish related article), that I firmly believe that a British-Irish MOS would be very useful. For the case at hand [[English|British]] would be very confusing and, I think, only compound what many people think are interchangeable terms already. "British (English)" would be closer to something I'd like (but I wouldn't make one smaller than the other). Word order though is going to be a gripe. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But thinking a little more about the use of a consistuent country in a nationality field, even in brackets, it still has the same problems as I've outlined, i.e. at what point is somebody English or Scottish etc (I'm thinking, Salman Rushdie, Rod Stewart, David Cameron, John Prescott and Tony Blair)? As much as I'd like a consistent approach, I still think that nationality should remain as British, but, as most infoboxes include it, birth place should be kept at a constituent country level - no flags for either. Also, we might want to consider for lead sections something like [[Scotland|Scottish born]] rather than decidedly "Scottish" - this is used for Chris Ofili (who is of course one of the Young British Artists). Jza84 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I've never seen why nationality is needed in infobox anyway. It is, and should be, in article lead. But I see no need for it in infobox, or for flags either. And I firmly believe in using English/Scottish/Welsh. I believe they are more accurate than the generic British, which many do not use. The history of the UK must be considered, and the 3 constituent countries have distinct nationalties which must be used if we are to be accurate. I accept that not all people can be called English/Scottish/Welsh, so they would be British. But I believe they are in the miniority. With regards to some of the above, I believe politicians (those at Westminster) should be British as they are British politicians, in the same way MSPs should be Scottish and so on. To call a MP an "English [or Scottish/Welsh] politician" could be confusing and lead to misunderstanding.--UpDown 08:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

But, we're looking to acheive consistency here, and its still unacceptable to "hide" British nationality on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT now. Whilst there is a slight element of commonsense on this for politicians, nationality is certainly not determined by proffession, so using "British" for just Westminster politicians is also objectionable (also, is Alex Salmond going to be called British? Or Gerry Adams?). What about the huge (British) migrant population of Britian? If the history of the UK "must" be considered (why for nationality I do not know), then why not use historical states, like those of the Heptarchy? What nationality are those from Monmouthshire or Berwick-upon-Tweed (if not British)? Nationality is a requirement of of the various biography wikiprojects, and really is expected of any respectable encyclopedia. Again, place of birth should be at a constituent country level, but nationality at UK level (no flags) please, for so many reasons as outlined already. Jza84 11:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Witt flags I totally agree, as I do with place of birth. With Alex Salmond, Scottish is more important as he's 1st Minister. Gerry Adams, Irish. And this isn't nationality by profession, its simply stopping people getting confused. Calling an Westminster MP a Scottish politician might lead people to think that person is a politician in Scottish Parliament. And my reasoning for English/Scottish/Welsh is no WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but what I see as logic, for my reasons above (and ones I've expressed before). Migrants are a problem I agree, and perhaps British is best for them, but only for them, not for their children (in my eyes Amir Khan should be down as English).I also dispute "huge", as from 2nd generation they are no longer migrants. I do also believe in constitency with categories, having British at top, and English at bottom is not constituent. And you say nationality is required of any "respectable encyclopedia". I agree, but I feel no need in infobox, opening line yes, but why infobox? It merely creates more arguments for one, but I feel in opening line is enough.--UpDown 19:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Folk from Monmouthshire are Welsh - hence the poor vote for the English Democrats who stood there in the last election. Welsh Bicknor might be a better example. --MacRusgail 20:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite right MacRusgail - a much stronger example (though only Welsh people from Monmouthshire are Welsh... ;)... ). Though of course, there is also the Cornish issue too which we haven't considered, where identity is asserted to be one and the same with "nationality". The Cornish editing community traditionally votes/debates very strongly for using the UK or "British" in many ways on Wikipedia, and some more hardline contributors editting that some people in articles have "Cornish" nationality... Jza84 23:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Call: Will you answer?

Some who edit Scotland insist on calling that region, rather than the Great British Island, a "nation". This is surely an affront to Lady Britannia, and our great and ancient nation. Please don't sit by and watch our Lady's funeral altar be erected. I have issued a rallying call for Mother England at Talk:Scotland. Please join the call. Please save Lady Britannia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by England's Rose (talk • contribs) 19:46, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

This isn't even good trolling. All I've got to say to you, is sort out your identity. --MacRusgail 20:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you removed my comments from the Talk page there. You may despise your nation and country of birth, but you shouldn't encourage others to stop loving their great country. Name: England's Rose 20:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Bring back BJAODN and we can put this prosaic fluff in there. Adrian M. H. 20:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, a little rough round the edges it may be, but, he has a point. And lets not bite the newbie... I've suggested this many times before, but once again I must assert that a "nation" is a group of people, not a division of land!!!! Scotland is a country (ok, properly a constituent country), which is the division of land that it is under proper grammar and scholarly definition. Nation=people, Country=division of land. Frankly, as it is, it reads stupidly, and is clearly completely compromised by a core of editors trying to place Europe as a lower and more useful tier of geography over the United Kingdom, in what is another example of "hiding" the UK very existence from the world... we really shouldn't be describing Scotland in any other frame in the first sentence as other than "a constituent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".... this is the approach taken by every other majoy encyclopedia going. Jza84 23:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You may have a point but shouldn't you be taking this to the Scotland talk page? --Bill Reid | Talk 08:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes - done! Thanks, Jza84 12:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made the cause, the voice, the cries of Lady Albion known. I have defended them so far as my strength has allowed me. This knight-errant will not return to the hostile environs of wikipedia. My faith goes into the hands of those admirable spirits, Jz, Tim, Breadandcheese, Readro and others, who I hope will maintain their lofty resolution, and protect the honour of Mother England. After all, these IRA and SNP bigots are but ants in the grass. History and Lady Britannia will prevail. Name: England's Rose 07:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Which Lady Albion did you make the cause, voice and cries known for? Albion, Alba or the place that she of often mistaken to represent, which you so endearingly called "Mother England" (surely in a union, Scotland and England be sisters, no?)? Yours in IRA/UDA/SNP/Plaid bigorty, --sony-youth^pléigh 08:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever I have said here, is because I want consistency on Wikipedia, not due to some patriotic desire like you seem to think. I have not ever stated my personal viewpoint, because I don't feel that would be appropriate. Readro 14:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This rubbish should simply be removed. --Breadandcheese 13:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is British, a dirty word?

The English, Scottish, Welsh and N.Irish are all British, Is the UK united or not. It's too bad these old nationalisms haven't ended in 1707. Yep, that's right, British should be used. GoodDay 23:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Describing someone as "Scottish" etc. is not any more nationalistic than describing someone as British, as both Britain and its constituent countries can be seen as nations. Also, desribing someone as "Scottish", "English" etc. is not anti-British as the title of this section implies. Please read the guideline assume good faith. Lurker (said · done) 10:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't mean to suggest 'bad faith'. It's just that for outsiders (non-British editors), the English, Scottish, Welsh, N.Irish thing can potentially be mis-leading. It truly would be easier to use British, thus giving the impression of national unity to outsiders. GoodDay 15:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the proposal was already rejected, I'll be moving on. GoodDay 20:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)