Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Eurovision Song Contest

"The United Kingdom also competes in the Eurovision Song Contest."

"takes part" or "participates" is more appropriate than "competes". -- PBS (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"endures" is more accurate ----Snowded ^TALK 18:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

... is ritually humiliated in ...? Daicaregos (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be the the last if anyone in the UK took it seriously, but thanks to Sir TW and GN "entertained" is more accurate (and politically incorrect) -- particularly when watching the votes come in.[1] -- PBS (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence

"The United Kingdom (UK) comprises four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales."

This is like saying:

"The United Kingdom (UK) comprises four counties within itself: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales."

"The United Kingdom (UK) comprises" already implies that the countries we are about to refer to are within the UK. Why are we stating that the countries are within the UK twice? So that we can link to constituent country is not a safifactory reason. We shouldn't repeat something for solely linking purposes. Furthurmore, constituent country is simply a list of things referred to as "countries" that are with a state. It isn't important. Country is more useful to the reader if anything.
Rob984 (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose because the word "country" is ambiguous. From our own article: "A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, ... or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics."

Saying the UK comprises four "constituent countries" gives a hint as to what kind of "country" we are talking about here. And it avoids the first sentence being unnecessarily confusing by saying "The UK comprises four countries...", especially when only three are actually defined as being "countries". --Tóraí (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It disagree that it is redundant. "constituent country" is a noun phrase, "constituent" being the attributive adjective describing the type of country being discussed. I could likewise argue that "The United Kingdom (UK) comprises four countries" is like saying "The Kingdom is a union which comprises four countries" and hence the "comprises" is also redundant. But in this sentence the "United" (and "constituent") modify the noun, while "comprises" describes how they are related.

As for country, as per Tóraí it is ambiguous. The countries that are discussed here are not sovereign states/federated state/dependent territory/associated states or any of the other things often referred to as "countries". Given the ambiguity of the term, readers are better served by linking to the more precise article. TDL (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Tóraí, I tend to agree with you. I don't like any of it because the language is so loose. Wales isn't a country in law as it was long before annexed to England; NI is some other thing etc. I think its better to link in "constituent" because it suggests to me "quasi" in its own way...I think readers can gather as much. These aren't real countries. They quasi ones at most. The UK is a country. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

In the same way, I thought it important to bring in "Southern Ireland" into the article. By the standards of this article that was a "country" or "constituent country" too. But those with a sense of things will know not many people there ever considered themselves "Southern Irish". However, identities change, and maybe they would have if SI had lasted longer. We shall never know. SI highlights just how "quasi" some of these "countries" are. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The definition of a country does not necessitate that it is a state Frenchmalawi as you know well from other discussions. The EU now ackowledge Wales as a country for example which is sourced rather than your somewhat offensive use of 'quasi'. When we looked at this on the country articles under admin supervision there was very little citation support for 'constituent' lots for 'country'. So maybe it needs changing ----Snowded ^TALK 10:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Per the definition of Constituent country itself, the term should be in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Glad you are back on Wikipedia User:GoodDay; I am not the "throw away the key" type. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"offensive use of 'quasi'." no less; some people take offense rather easily. I suppose the EU recognise Southern Ireland as having been a "country" too. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

GoodDay - having supported you during your various bans etc. please don't fall back into your old habit of simply dropping comments without argument or reference on the BI related pages. Frenchmalawi, no they don't designate Southern Ireland and there is no reason for them to do so. Your argument (if it is one) appears to be a synthesis or original research based on how you think they should be described rather than reflecting current sources. The EU and others recognise modern usage in which Wales and Scotland (and more controversially Northern Ireland) are designated as countries, Adding 'constituent' doesn't reflect the sources and is in this case a wikipedia affectation. As I say we have been through this at length under admin supervision before and there is little citation support for the use of 'constituent' as a qualifier. And that was before the EU made the changes. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's a UK government study on ageing in the United Kingdom report, using constituent countries. GoodDay (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of the term is agreed GoodDay and it legitimises an article with that name. Now please address the issue which is that we have been through this before and checked the balance of all the citations people could find and came down in favour of using country on all the individual articles. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I won't be adding constituent countries to the lead without a consensus. I acknowledge that the current consensus (and majority of sources) back the usage of countries. However, consensus can change & so I'll be an observer from here on out. GoodDay (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

People are lazy; of course they drop "constituent" (a bit of a mouthful). We are an encyclopedia. We ought to have high standards. constituent countries is clearly more accurate here. It suggests all the sorts of things I mentioned. The EU considers a tomato a fruit doesn't it?

Separately, "Frenchmalawi, no they don't designate Southern Ireland and there is no reason for them to do so." Why isn't there? I don't quite follow on this. Do you think SI was a country? If yes, do you think it was a regular sort of country? Or a "funny" or "quasi" sort of one. Are you opposed to constituent being used to describe it too? This discussion is relevant to principles. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Government organisations are generally not lazy when it comes to naming things. If you have a source which says that fine, otherwise its just your opinion. We have high standards based on sources. The SI issue illustrates the problem you seem to have with sourcing. You are arguing how you think it should be based on a particular view you possess as to consistency. OK if you are writing an essay but not an encyclopedia ----Snowded ^TALK 06:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but the repetition can still be avoided:

"There are four constituent countries of the United Kingdom: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales."

Rob984 (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Though it should be shown as "...constituent countries..." for the sake of our readers, the compromise change to keeping it linked, but showing it as "...countries...", is a step in the right direction & so is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Opinion GoodDay and assertion. It is rarely used by government who (like the EU) use Country. The compromise is a step in the wrong direct to avoid conflict. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a compromise we can both live with. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I've restored the compromise edit, which was apparently altered over the course of 10 months. GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it nearly lasted 2 hours. GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The term is not inaccurate. If we call all four entities countries, and seeing as they are all constituent parts of the UK, constituent country shouldn't be a problem. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Even if it stated "constituent countries", I think the link to the country article would be preferred (i.e. "constituent countries") . The article—constituent country—is simply a list of countries within states. It doesn't actually explain what a country is. The country article does: "A country is a region that is identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division...". Rob984 (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We all went through a lengthly process years ago to see what were the most common terms. Constituent Country is very rare and country is more meaningful. Every year or so it seems GoodDay (who has a particular liking for the phrase and went out of his way to reduce the use of the country word before his 'holiday' from wikipedia) attempts to re-introduce it. Its called time wasting. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus can change and the only way to test it is to dip your toe into the water ;-) Mabuska ^(talk) 22:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't consensus it was a mediated process looking at all the available citations. GoodDay knows that full well . Not only that he subsequently was given a long term blog for petty edits such as this so he needs to be careful----Snowded ^TALK 10:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Flags

The section entitled "Key facts" is a misnomer. The table, which is presented as facts, suggests that there are four flags that represent each region. There are, in fact, five. The table suggests that the Northern Ireland has no flag. This is, in fact, incorrect: the region does have a flag. That flag may be contentious (only with those who think that Northern Ireland, and its existence, itself is contentious), but it hasn't ceased to exist. The flag of Northern Ireland is a civic flag that has exactly the same status as the flag of England. Nationally, it also has the same status as the flag of Scotland and the flag of Wales (Wales recorded the flag in its legislation in the 1950s and Scotland into its devolved parliament legislation in the 2000s).

Rather than having this article opine opinion ("Northern Ireland has no flag"), as opposed to fact ("Northern Ireland has a flag"), my advice would be to remove all the flags from the table. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Northern Ireland doesn't have an official flag, haven't since the 1970's. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Northern Ireland's flag issue

Lately, there's been a growing number of editors here, insisting that Northern Ireland has its own flag. I do wish they'd bring their concerns here, instead of trying to force into this article. PS: Note that on this article & across Wikipeida, multiple discussions on this topic, have always ended with no flag for Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Three editors with a track record of pro-Unionist edits tag teaming and refusing to use the talk page. We have been here before ----Snowded ^TALK 14:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps those three editors should be considered for a topic-ban from British and/or Irish articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I have protected the article and restored it to the agreed-upon status quo consensus for one month. I am tempted, as is at least one other administrator, to block those engaged in an edit war to repeatedly include the supposed flag of Northern Ireland to the article. I will block them if they do not discuss the issue and work hard to reach a consensus, yet still continue to re-add this flag after the protection time has elapsed.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Ulster Banner is the flag commonly used to represent Northern Ireland and should do so in the article. The above threat to block by an involved admin is inappropriate and should be struck through. Miles Creagh (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Northern Ireland hasn't had a flag of its own, since 1972/73. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes it has. The government on the arms which it was based ended in 1973, but the flag remained as since 1953 it also became the de facto civil flag, still used widely, including by Commonwealth Games and football teams to this day (including being featured on royal mint coins), as well being flown by local government. If you are going to censor it then you should also censor the England flag as it is largely flown in a similar manner. Cauleyflower (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

How am I involved? You seem to be engaged in a tag-team edit war with other editors. The advice which attempts to guide you away from being blocked stands.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You are involved in that you are threatening to use tools to enforce a "consensus" that doesn't seem to exist, as the discussion here -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flag_of_Northern_Ireland#RfC:_Should_the_Flag_of_Northern_Ireland_article_say_at_the_start_there_is_currently_no_national_flag_for_Northern_Ireland

- should make abundantly clear. You have also described edits against this non-existent consensus as "vandalism" on User:Cauleyflower's talkpage. This looks to me like you are taking sides in a content dispute, which is of course fine, as long as you don't threaten to use administrative tools to advance your position. But this page is for discussing edits to the article. If you wish to continue to discuss your conduct, we should do so at your talkpage. Miles Creagh (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

That is on a different, though related matter, on a different page. It isn't to do with what is on this page. Furthermore, even if it were supposed to directly impact on this page, no notice of that discussion has been posted on this page until your message above (and that doesn't really count as an apprpriate notice, either). You also seem to be under a complete misunderstanding as to what "involved" means here. My comments stand, given that you and two others were incolved in tag-team editing without doing what one is supposed to do - discussing the issue on this talk page. That is all. And stop posting messages on my talk page about my conduct when your own is definitely the issue here, including your wriggling around, as shown above.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This is pathetic from DDStretch -- who the hell do you think you are? Looks to me like abuse of administrative priviliges. Undoing the censorship of the Northern Ireland flag on Wikipedia is not "vandalism". If anything, the Irish Nationalists who started a nonsense censorship of it are the "vandals".

If the Northern Ireland flag is to be censored from this page, then so should the English flag because the way it is flown is similar Cauleyflower (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not an Irish nationalist. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Cauleyflower you need to stop making rather silly accusations and start looking for evidence to support your opinions. That is what the talk page is for. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I have yet to see any reliable sources that support what was being repeatedly being added. All I see is bluster and veiled accusations about Irish Nationalists together with outrage when very un-wikipedia-like actions (of not discussing controversial content here, rather than tag-team edit warring) are discovered here. I earnestly advise you that, if you think you have a good case, please find the reliable sources to support your case, and give them here. I, for one, wishes to deal with reliable facts, not political opinions. Come on! Let's see the sources you have that support your position. We can then have a sensible discussion. Please do not waste any more time in making more accusations. The same goes for all articles in which undiscussed additions of what you think of as the Northern Ireland flag is repeatedly being added. Give us reliable sources and facts to work with! That's what we are supposed to be doing on wikipedia.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest that one way around this difficulty would be to remove all flags from the table? YBG (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I could go along with that solution. Miles Creagh (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Not really a solution - the use by the other three is properly established by citation while that of Northern Ireland is not post 2000 ----Snowded ^TALK 04:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the citations for the other three flags in the table. Could you point me to them? Miles Creagh (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)