| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL |
| Frequently asked questions (FAQ) | |
|---|---|
A1: Reliable sources support the view that the United Kingdom is a single country. This view is shared with other major reputable encyclopedias. There has been a long-standing consensus to describe the UK in this way.
A2: See the article entitled "Terminology of the British Isles". Great Britain is the name of the largest island that the UK encompasses, and is not generally used in source material as the name of the country. Indeed, Britain 2001, the "official reference book" of the United Kingdom produced by the Office for National Statistics for "British diplomatic posts" says in its foreword:
This view is reiterated by the Prime Minister's Office, which states:
A report submitted to the United Nations Economic and Social Council by the Permanent Committe on Geographical Names and the Ordnance Survey states:
There has been a long-standing consensus not to include Great Britain in the lead as an interchangable name of the state.
A2b: Whether Britain should be listed as an alternative name in the lead has been discussed often, most extensively in August 2007 and April 2011; and whether the alternate name Britain should be qualified with "incorrect" in June 2006, with "informally" in September 2006, or with "mistakenly" in January 2011.
A3: This is one of the most common questions raised on this talk page, but consistently, consensus goes against taking that approach. No major reputable source describes the UK in this way. However the history of the formation of the United Kingdom, supported by source material, highlights that England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are "countries within a country". Please also refer to Q4.
A4: This is the most frequent question raised by visitors to this talk page, and the issue which generates the most debate. However, as a result of a lack of a formal British constitution, and owing to a convoluted history of the formation of the United Kingdom, a variety of terms exist which are used to refer to England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Reliable and official sources support use of the word "countries":
On Wikipedia, the term has broadly won preference amongst the editing community (note, however, that a country is not the same as a sovereign state). Also commonplace is the phrase "constituent country, or countries", when referring to the countries as elements of the UK. This phrase, however, is not an actual term; ie Scotland is not a 'constituent country' in itself, but is one of the constituent countries of the UK. The community endeavours to achieve an atmosphere of neutrality and (for the sake of stability) compromise on the various UK naming issues. See also Countries of the United Kingdom for more details about the terms that have been used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
A5: Widespread confusion surrounds the use of the word "nation". In standard British English, and in academic language, a nation is a social group of two or more people, and not a division of land. This is also the approach taken in the nation article, and across Wikipedia (for example, the English people and the Québécois are described as "nations", reflecting real world practice). The term Home Nations is generally used only in sporting contexts. It is not used in any major reputable sources outside of sport, and is not the approach taken by any other encyclopedia.
A6: This view is supported by some sources, but the current consensus amongst the editing community is aligned to a greater body of work which describes both Northern Ireland and Wales as countries. However, the terms are not all mutually exclusive: a country can also be a principality or a province, and these terms are mentioned throughout Wikipedia as alternative names in afternotes.
A7: Northern Ireland has not had its own unique, government sanctioned flag since its government was prorogued in 1972, and abolished in 1973 under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. During official events, the British government uses the Union Flag — the flag of the United Kingdom — and this is the only flag used by the government in Northern Ireland. The consensus is to reflect this in the article with a note.
A8: Again, Wikipedia editors often disagree on the acceptability and suitability of various terms and phrases. This term is not favoured by a number of Wikipedia editors, and is currently not used in the introduction both to simplify the status quo, and also to discourage edit warring. | |
| United Kingdom was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| United Kingdom has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class. |
| This subject is featured in the Outline of the United Kingdom, which is incomplete and needs further development. |
| This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
| This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2016, when it received 9,952,820 views. |
| This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence, artefact), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
Daily pageviews of this article |
 Archives |
|---|
|
Threads older than 60 days may be automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. |
Sovereign Country
I'm certain this has been debated here before and I can imagine people rolling their eyes at my wanting to reopen the discussion, but I want to do the right thing and discuss this before making what I believe would be a correct but controversial change. The opening paragraph describes the UK as a "sovereign country," a term that links to the page for sovereign state. I think "sovereign state" would be more correct than "sovereign country" but there is a 2017 note about this being the subject of editing wars in the past and I do understand why it could be controversial. My case for "sovereign state" being the correct term is as follows: the UK is four countries in a political union. Whether that union can be described more generally as a country is debatable but whether it can be described more generally as a state is undeniable. Moreover, "sovereign country" is a description that defines the UK against the EU, the US and other similar international bodies rather than a concept in its own right (which isn't ideal in an introductory paragraph) .(Angry Candy (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC))
My personal view is that the term country is most appropriate as the UK is widely described as a 'country' in most reliable sources and 'country' is the term generally used for modern sovereign states around the world in their wikipedia intros many of which have controversial histories, conflicting identities, secessionist movements and forms of or equivalents to devolved government of their own. The use of the term 'sovereign country' is clearly a compromise position in the long running battle over the matter on this talk page and tweaks to that or the surrounding description of the UK's status have often led to rows on here in the past with a consensus position for any kind of substantial change almost never being reached. Llewee (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, country is the commonterm used. It is also the commonterm used to refer to the UK by its inhabitants. That and nation. No-one here says across the state, not even in the Republic of Ireland. Mabuska (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- “country” often emphasizing geographical expanse, “nation” often emphasizing people, and “state” often emphasizing government.--Moxy 🍁 14:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree it should remain country, even though it seems illogical to have a country made of countries. I've never seen it referred to just as a state or initially in a description. It refers to itself as a country and it is referred by other countries and bodies as a country 1 2. However the BBC does describe the UK as both and this might be a good compromise and more accurate: 3.
Cheers, AussieWikiDan (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- I prefer sovereign state because it is a term with a precise meaning in international law, whereas sovereign country is less commonly used. In fact, state originally implied sovereignty, while country did not. TFD (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- I feel it should be changed to incorporate this but country should remain (to avoid misinforming). E.g 'The UK is a country and sovereign state to its constituent countries'. Another option is to change it to just 'country' which is inline with other sovereign states' pages. AussieWikiDan (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- @AussieWikiDan: I think your first option would be more confusing for readers, I'd prefer the second option for reasons I've explained above. Llewee (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- You would be hard put to find another “country” article that prefers “state” over “country” in its lead sentence, including such highly federated states as Switzerland, Malaysia, the US, Russia, India and even Yugoslavia (and “half” countries such as North Korea). Some of these have at least, and arguably greater, national/ethnic/historical diversity in its components than the UK. The only one using “state” I found was UAE. Without wishing to be too WP:OTHERSTUFF, I fail to see why the UK is so exceptionalist it can’t be described as a country too. It’s the normal and common usage. No one calls the UK a “state” where “country” would normally be used for pretty much every other country on the planet. DeCausa (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- We had a long talk years ago about "country" or "state" and we landed on "country" in the first sentence as it is about a geo area...also so we can link island country, Transcontinental country, Nordic country etc... We do say "state" in the paragraph in the lead about government type in many articles..thus we can link Islamic state, Satellite state, Nation state. Most common is like at Estonia (first sentence in the lead....Estonia (Estonian: Eesti [ˈeːsʲti] (About this soundlisten)), officially the Republic of Estonia (Estonian: Eesti Vabariik), is a country on the eastern coast... ) - (Third paragraph in the lead.... The sovereign state of Estonia is a democratic unitary parliamentary republic divided into fifteen counties.). "Country" generally refers to a territory with certain geographic borders, while "state" refers to a form of political organization. The word "state" is similar in meaning to the word "government".--Moxy 🍁 22:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- You would be hard put to find another “country” article that prefers “state” over “country” in its lead sentence, including such highly federated states as Switzerland, Malaysia, the US, Russia, India and even Yugoslavia (and “half” countries such as North Korea). Some of these have at least, and arguably greater, national/ethnic/historical diversity in its components than the UK. The only one using “state” I found was UAE. Without wishing to be too WP:OTHERSTUFF, I fail to see why the UK is so exceptionalist it can’t be described as a country too. It’s the normal and common usage. No one calls the UK a “state” where “country” would normally be used for pretty much every other country on the planet. DeCausa (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
To need to declare "sovereign" on a page about a country shows a lack of self-confidence. All European Uniin countries are, in fact, "sovereign countries" - but they've agreed to do some things together. None of their pages make the declaration "sovereign!" It's not necessary. The 2nd thing here, is the recent naming of the 4 constituent parts "countries". Yes, Scotland joined with England to make a United Kingdom, ie one country. However, these constituent provinces are traditionally known as countries. Wales was only ever a principality and vassal of England and thus the United Kingdom. How the remaining part of Ireland, the Province of Northern Ireland could ever be regarded as a country is hard to imagine. One passport:one country:one ultimate government (Westminster can override devolved legislation). No need to declare "sovereign" and there's only one country. Francis Hannaway (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- You might want to read the previous discussions and research one on this which settled on the use of 'country' based on a mediated assessment of the various reliable sources. Your opionions are just that, opinions -----Snowded TALK 11:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sovereign state is the usual term. I am surprised this is even being debated. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Me too, and I agree that is the correct term to use -----Snowded TALK 11:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Me too, generally either "country" or "sovereign state" would be the usual terms. "Sovereign country" sounds like a poor compromise, but if the term is linked to an article about the concept, maybe it's clear enough to the reader what is intended. Pelagic ( messages ) – (00:05 Thu 31, AEDT) 13:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Me too, and I agree that is the correct term to use -----Snowded TALK 11:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Francish7, The point about "sovereign" is a good one - it seems to be there to make some kind of point, it isn't necessary, and isn't generally used in other articles about countries/states/nations. Including it in the lead of this article when it isn't used in similar articles seems a clear case of undue weight, particularly in the context of Brexit. As for those who find it difficult to comprehend a country that is made up of countries - well, the US is, as the name suggests, a state that is comprised of states. The USSR was a republic that was, by definition, a union of republics. This is before we get into Yugoslavia, Chechoslovakia, etc... states within states (Bavaria is another example), republics within republics, united kingdoms and generally countries within countries are neither unusual nor illogical, as some have suggested. WaggersTALK 12:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with this point about "sovereign" and undue weight too. I'd be in favour of simply going for "country" over "sovereign country." Ironically, this does not solve the original problem of wondering whether the UK (a political union between four countries) is a country! I can tell you all that, in Scotland, when people talk about "the country" or that something is "nationwide," the country or nation being referred to is Scotland and not the UK. I have a feeling that referring to the UK as a country might be politically incorrect even if Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland) remain(s) forever in the Union.(Angry Candy (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC))
- I agree on removing “sovereign”. Nearly every other “country” article uses the word “country” without qualification. No reason for the UK to be different. A country whic comprises countries isn’t a difficult concept. DeCausa (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Is there an example of another country comprised of countries? It just seems to me that there would be a word for that. (Angry Candy (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC))
- It is an extremely rare situation. The closest comparison would be Netherlands and Kingdom of the Netherlands but clearly the circumstances are very different, and those articles start off by saying country and use the term "constituent country". The accepted compromise for many years in regards to England, Wales, and Scotland has to just say country, rather than "constituent country" But this is a delicate balance. It reflects country means different things to different people, which is absolutely why the UK article needs to say sovereign country and not just country. RWB2020 (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Is there an example of another country comprised of countries? It just seems to me that there would be a word for that. (Angry Candy (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC))
- I agree on removing “sovereign”. Nearly every other “country” article uses the word “country” without qualification. No reason for the UK to be different. A country whic comprises countries isn’t a difficult concept. DeCausa (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with this point about "sovereign" and undue weight too. I'd be in favour of simply going for "country" over "sovereign country." Ironically, this does not solve the original problem of wondering whether the UK (a political union between four countries) is a country! I can tell you all that, in Scotland, when people talk about "the country" or that something is "nationwide," the country or nation being referred to is Scotland and not the UK. I have a feeling that referring to the UK as a country might be politically incorrect even if Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland) remain(s) forever in the Union.(Angry Candy (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC))
- Having the qualifier "sovereign" implies it's a new aspect to the nation's political situation. Sounds as if we just gained our independence from someone not long ago.--104.249.227.243 (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Some 'states' are sovereign such as Angola (which is described in wikipedia as a "sovereign state") and some states are not, such as New South Wales which is described in wikipedia as "a state on the east coast of Australia". Birtig (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Having the qualifier "sovereign" implies it's a new aspect to the nation's political situation. Sounds as if we just gained our independence from someone not long ago.--104.249.227.243 (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- This topic does come up, repeatedly. Anyways, I support using "country". GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
It seems that the term 'sovereign country' is here to fix issues with other articles. The most common usage of country without any qualification is to mean the UK and its peers. In fact this its exclusive meaning outside of UK articles. So Eng/Scot/Wal/NI articles get use the unadorned term "country" and thus imply that their subjects are peers of USA, France, ROI etc. It then follows that the UK article has to apply a prefix to differentiate it from its constituent parts. Most readers will have an understanding of the meaning of country that is correct when applied to the UK and wrong if applied to England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Instead of clarifying this ambiguity in the lead sentence of the articles that defy the expectations of the reader we arrogantly decide that it is the fault of the reader for not understanding the British usage of the term and then double down in this article by claiming the ambiguity is caused by everyone else's understanding of county being that of a "sovereign country". -- Eckerslike (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- How can Wikipedia be held at fault for making clear at the outset of the article that UK is an 'an independent sovereign state' (per Country) with constituent parts, given that two of those parts were separate kingdoms of the island of Britain, with a land border between them, that became united as one kingdom of Great Britain by a treaty ratified by the separate parliaments of each kingdom? This is not an exercise of exceptionalism but of clear writing suited to an online encyclopedia with inline links for ready cross-referencing. The article on The United States of America (USA) covers the point by saying '... is a country primarily located in North America, consisting of 50 states...', while Canada says '...Its ten provinces and three territories extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific ...', and Australia. six of whose constituent parts are constitutionally called 'states' begins 'Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is a sovereign country comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania, and numerous smaller islands.' Qexigator (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Conclusions so far on 'sovereign country'
Thanks for discussing this, everyone. It looks like people are content with "country" -- which I might debate further one day ;) -- but most seem to agree that "sovereign" should go and most cite the same reasons. I am going to remove "sovereign" and the link to sovereign state, leaving just "country". (Angry Candy (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC))
I have reverted the change, to restore the previously long standing wording in the article. I strongly oppose the removal of the word sovereign from the introduction. This has been the settled wording for the article for years, it was a compromise that was reached, and has been stable up until a few days ago when this debate started and was now already been changed without enough debate. One of the reasons why we need to say sovereign country there is to help distinguish between England, Scotland and Wales which articles openly start by saying country too. Having sovereign country there was an intentional balancing act. reflecting difference between the different parts of the UK. Such a change should not be snuck through in the space of a few days when people are distracted with christmas after years of stability. To inform the reader, and to provide more information, especially as later in the introduction it makes clear the UK is made up of four countries, it is vital that there is a distinction made. RWB2020 (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
And lets be clear this has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit. The reason and need for the long standing compromise is to reflect complex makeup of the United Kingdom itself. Its not in any way implying other EU countries are not sovereign, and it actually links to the page listing sovereign states of which every EU country is listed. This is about the fundamental importance of making clear in the article the UK is both a country, and sovereign. Whilst England, Scotland and Wales, are countries but not sovereign states. If this compromise is undone, it will have wider ramifications for other articles and result in needing to make distinctions on those other pages. People settled on just saying country for England, Scotland, and Wales rather than other things used such as "Constituent country" in the past. But for this current balance to be maintained the UK article must clearly state the UK is a sovereign country. RWB2020 (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Amazing, it actually lasted 4-days. Well, back to giving the UK special treatment, again. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- To be fair, the UK is different from other countries as it is a union of other countries. Birtig (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- No it isn't. The 'other' countries-in-question are not independent (no matter what you call them), but rather make up an 'independent' country called the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is why it should be like every other country..... people have convoluted ideas as stated above. We have a source saying it's special and should be different from evey other country page? Bad revert has left us with a big talk from nothing because of one editor? Give it a few days see if someone else has a good reason over the guess work above.--Moxy 🍁 18:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I restored wording that has existed for over 3 years on this article, wording that had been agreed to after very long discussions and a reasonable compromise reached that took into account all factors. There has been no new argument to justify the change that was made to that long standing wording. Some of the comments seemed to believe the word sovereign was there in relation to Brexit, when it has absolutely nothing to do with that. And the original reason this conversation started this time round was because the person disputes the idea the UK is even a country, when all sources clearly show it is one. This is exactly why we should just keep the long standing wording. Otherwise it opens up a whole can of worms with regards to use of country both for the UK, and indeed for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The reason why the UK article is different to other country articles is because there is no other country on wikipedia that that has its internal parts described as countries in the way the United Kingdom's are. There is also special treatment for British citizens too, who on almost every article are merely described as English or Scottish etc, rather than the legal nationality British as is the case for citizens of other country. The article wording reflects the complex nature of the United Kingdom, and removing sovereign leads to even more confusion for readers. it is totally unnecessary to remove it. RWB2020 (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Save the E/W/S/NI & anything related to it - conversation for another day. We're concentrating on the United Kingdom, which is a country. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- The United Kingdom is a country, and its a sovereign state. Which is why the compromise of using sovereign country was agreed and has been relatively stable for over 3 years. And this issue does relate to E/W/S/NI because in the very same introduction it points out the UK is made up of four countries. This is confusing to many people as its so rare. which is why a clear distinction is needed between the different status of the United Kingdom, compared to that of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Sovereign country is clear. RWB2020 (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Save the E/W/S/NI & anything related to it - conversation for another day. We're concentrating on the United Kingdom, which is a country. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I restored wording that has existed for over 3 years on this article, wording that had been agreed to after very long discussions and a reasonable compromise reached that took into account all factors. There has been no new argument to justify the change that was made to that long standing wording. Some of the comments seemed to believe the word sovereign was there in relation to Brexit, when it has absolutely nothing to do with that. And the original reason this conversation started this time round was because the person disputes the idea the UK is even a country, when all sources clearly show it is one. This is exactly why we should just keep the long standing wording. Otherwise it opens up a whole can of worms with regards to use of country both for the UK, and indeed for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The reason why the UK article is different to other country articles is because there is no other country on wikipedia that that has its internal parts described as countries in the way the United Kingdom's are. There is also special treatment for British citizens too, who on almost every article are merely described as English or Scottish etc, rather than the legal nationality British as is the case for citizens of other country. The article wording reflects the complex nature of the United Kingdom, and removing sovereign leads to even more confusion for readers. it is totally unnecessary to remove it. RWB2020 (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is why it should be like every other country..... people have convoluted ideas as stated above. We have a source saying it's special and should be different from evey other country page? Bad revert has left us with a big talk from nothing because of one editor? Give it a few days see if someone else has a good reason over the guess work above.--Moxy 🍁 18:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- No it isn't. The 'other' countries-in-question are not independent (no matter what you call them), but rather make up an 'independent' country called the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- To be fair, the UK is different from other countries as it is a union of other countries. Birtig (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Ive Restoring stable version that has been stable for over 3 years until last week again. This article needs to clearly state that the United Kingdom is a country and that it is sovereign, unlike England/Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland which are countries but not sovereign. A distinction is needed. I restored wording that has existed for over 3 years that had been stable until an editor showed up even implying the UK is not even a country. Yet apparently restoring the stable version is deemed "hostile" by him. The reason for concern about the recent change has not been addressed, so i have restored the stable wording again until that is dealt with. To change this wording that has existed for over 3 years and has implications for other parts of the article, and other articles, should not happen in the space of just a few days, especially over the Christmas period when less people will be about. If this wording was fine for over 3 years, why must it suddenly change now? and after just several days debate over a Christmas period? RWB2020 (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Why did you start a new discussion, when this is connected to the previous discussion? GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ok ill move it up to the end of the last section. I started new section just to make clear that id restored the previous wording again, and he didnt respond on the talk page at all, just claimed in edit summary i was being hostile for restoring stable wording that has existed over 3 years. RWB2020 (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@RWB2020: A large group of editors debated the issue in a discussion promoted on talk pages of relevant wikiprojects and agreed a new consensus you have decided to walk all over that and change it based on you're own opinions. Therefore I am going to revert your change to the consensus position if you wish to change it please discuss it on the talk page before hand. Llewee (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't believe the above discussion came to a consensus decision. And certainly not one to over turn something that has been an agreed compromise in the article for over 3 years in the space of several days. There was defence of keeping country which was initially being questioned by the editor too. That does not mean that sovereign should have been removed. Also a couple of the responses seemed to imply this was related to Brexit and about vs the EU. When it has nothing to do with that. None of the comments in the above discussion address the problem that a distinction needs to be made between the UK as a country, and England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as countries. One is sovereign, the others are not. RWB2020 (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- You don't believe it because there was no consensus. If you disagreed as did I to the original proposal, and we didn't agree to a compromise then there is no consensus for any changes especially with a very short discussion with limited input. Editors should respect the process and stop trying to enforce their preferred version with dubious claims of consensus especially when there is none. If GoodDay and Llewee believe otherwise then request outside input from a neutral party or a RfC to see if there is a consensus. If not then stop edit-warring over it. Mabuska (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also i note you say "A large group of editors debated the issue in a discussion promoted on talk pages of relevant wikiprojects and agreed a new consensus". I did not know that this had been advertised on other wikiprojects, though its worth noting that you advertised on those pages on the 20th, and he changed the article on the 21st. 1 day in the run up to christmas is hardly giving people plenty of time to respond to a debate to change a consensus that has existed for over 3 years. And without all views being clearly expressed and clear reasons why the compromise position was reached in the first place years ago. If consensus really has changed then im prepared to accept it, but i really think the originally wording should stand until its clear that is the case. This needs more discussion. RWB2020 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Too short a time given for input from other people. Why always the rush? Sometimes days or even weeks should be given to ensure you get good enough input. Making a change after a day is just underhand and undermines the whole argument for a change and the process of how to go about it. Mabuska (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I have changed my mind on this topic and believe it should not be reverted from RWB2020's edit. However, I would like to see maybe a clickable note added which would explain more details on this particular usage of sovereign country. So to avoid people confusing the usage with Brexit etc. AussieWikiDan (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- A clickable note is a good suggestion. Also is the tendency on articles not to use the national dialect of English? I.e. American articles use American English whilst articles on the UK use British English and Irish articles use Irish English. The term country to refer to a state is British English and the same for Irish English. The use of the term sovereign does help to differentiate it from its component countries. Yes, the whole nomenclature is a stupid mess, the result of decades and centuries, but it is what it is and until there is an actual consensus here to ignore that and follow international standard, then it should remain the way it is. Mabuska (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Another suggestion is why not just state that the UK "is a country and sovereign state". Would that not sort the whole thing out? Mabuska (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I too would support a clickable note after sovereign country clearly explaining the term and why its used. Providing people with that additional information is always a good thing as the UK has such a complex history and current makeup confuses some people, especially if it can help make clear its nothing to do with Brexit. I think "Sovereign country" works better than just saying both country and sovereign state separately and when this was discussed previously some were against saying both things. sovereign country always seemed a good combination and compromise that covers both issues clearly and links to appropriate sovereign states page. RWB2020 (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would also be concerned about changing the wording of the introduction after 3 years of stability. If there is a sudden change now then theres a bigger risk of attempts to remove country, or remove sovereign state in the months ahead. Just clarifying everything in a cicknote instead of changing the wording would keep the long standing consensus for the wording and build on it, rather than fundamentally alter it, and risk further alterations to it in the near future and less stability. RWB2020 (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose the click-note idea or anything that may appear to give the UK special treatment, in this matter. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Another suggestion is why not just state that the UK "is a country and sovereign state". Would that not sort the whole thing out? Mabuska (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The word sovereign has become synonymous with dictatorship because of its usage by totalitarian regimes..."Sovereignty in the sense of supreme authority" Sovereignty has thus become a “contested academic concept. --Moxy 🍁 15:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would disregard that notion as it fails WP:WEIGHT and is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. One article does not make the term synonymous with one thing or another. You'd need a majority of reliable academic sources to prove such. Mabuska (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is the problem we have here....zero research just POV and dismal of sources [1], [2], [3],--Moxy 🍁 15:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Unless you are saying that the UK is not a sovereign country/state/nation/politcal unit then sources aren't needed for things that are as clear as the sky is blue. The same for the UK being a country as that is what it is commonly referred to as in British and Irish English. Indeed the Wikipedia article on Country makes it clear in its lede "A country may be an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state,". The UK is a country that is an independant sovereign state. Though due to ambiguity (the "or part of alarger state" bit) it makes sense to quantity the usage in this article by stating sovereign before it. You might also need to change that article to reflect the fringe view your giving undue weight to here that sovereign refers to totalitarian regimes.
:::I agree on removing “sovereign”. Nearly every other “country” article uses the word “country” without qualification. No reason for the UK to be different. A country whic comprises countries isn’t a difficult concept.
@DeCausa: - "Nearly every other"? Do you have exact figuires to prove which is more common? As the above point I made shows, country can mean more than one thing and stating sovereign helps quantify it. All articles stand on their own merit and have their own unique circumstances and whilst standardisation across the board is good, Wikipedia is flexible enough to allow for variations based on discussions at those articles talk pages. SO the UK article can be different if it is agreed to be such, whether outright or via compromise.Is there an example of another country comprised of countries? It just seems to me that there would be a word for that.
@Angry candy: It all depends on what terms are used in the corresponding language of those states. In all technicality Spain is a country made up of other countries such as the Basque, Galicia, Catalonia, the once Muslim kingdom of Grenada etc. France is also a country made up of other countries, some formerly sovereign, others not. The same with Russia, China, India and many other countries.- And speaking of Grenada, the island of same name in the Carribean is described as a "sovereign country". It doesn't seem to have suffered the same problem as this article? Why is this one so different for if its alright for other countries? Mabuska (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Just to point out, I have no strong view on the matter. If a consensus arrives for removing "sovereign" or keeping it or whatever I'm easy and couldn't care less. I will however be the Devil's Advocate to point out the holes in arguments given that dont really hold up to scrutiny. Mabuska (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- 99 percent of country articles just use country in the first sentrance with political wording later in the lead. This was a decision made ten years ago. As qualifiers in the first sentence leads to confusion as you can see here.......look at the archive..... is why we get questioned about when the country because sovereign and who did it become sovereign from. I have always wondered if this was attempt to diminish the country's position to our readers..... has Israel once had this problem..Moxy 🍁 16:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Mabuska, you pinged me with a question in relation to an old post of mine. Answer: no. DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Just to point out, I have no strong view on the matter. If a consensus arrives for removing "sovereign" or keeping it or whatever I'm easy and couldn't care less. I will however be the Devil's Advocate to point out the holes in arguments given that dont really hold up to scrutiny. Mabuska (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is the problem we have here....zero research just POV and dismal of sources [1], [2], [3],--Moxy 🍁 15:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
RFC, perhaps?
@Angry candy:, it appears as though you may have to open an RFC on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I know you love to earnestly flog dead horses GoodDay on matters such as these, but why is there a need for a RfC? They raised the issue to see if there would be agreement for their edit before they made it. That was the right thing and commendable thing to do. There is no agreement however and no evidence has been provided to overtturn the long holding and long discussed agreement currently in place. If they want to proceed further then I'm sure they could decide themselves if they want to start a RfC on the matter rather than being pushed into it. Mabuska (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the decision is his. Not mine & certainly not yours. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Considering this has already been advertised on numerous wikiprojects of relevance over a week ago now, im not sure how a RFC is going to take this matter much further, and if there was to be one then effort would have to go into making sure it is neutrally worded, because this entire discussion this time round has been framed from an extremely one sided viewpoint and also which is most unhelpful been set into the context of Brexit when it had absolutely nothing to do with Brexit at all. There is no need for an RFC, certainly not at this time when some will try to frame it in that way.
- Just to make clear my views on these matters. I strongly oppose any change to the status quo which has been stable for over 3 years and should not be changed. There has been absolutely nothing in recent weeks months or even years, that means suddenly the wording used before should now be changed. If it was appropriate 3 years ago, why wouldnt it be now?
- Im prepared to support a compromise of a wikinote being added after sovereign country if that helps to address concerns about the purpose and meaning of the wording used, because of a concern its related to Brexit some seemed to have. But there is no reason at all to change the wording of the opening sentence, and to do so will lead to this introduction being unstable for months because once a change is made, others will want the change to go even further, with people seeking to remove country, or seeking to remove sovereign state if that was put. And it won't just be about the first sentence of this article. It will be about if its appropriate to just refer to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland just as countries without qualification, if the UK is only being described as a country too this creates a problem. The status quo should just be maintained on all these matters, they were stable for years until a few weeks ago! Until one editor who seems to dispute the idea the UK is even a country wanted to change it. RWB2020 (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Good point made here....was stable for a decade before the change 3 years ago.... since then the article has been changed and reverted back many times and has had multiple discussions. Really have to ask the question if it this really is a stable version compared to other countries and compared to before the change. Why does it keep coming up now....perhaps because it's the odd ball. Getting odd comments here....stuff about Brexit or that people claim it's not a country.....no one mention any of this here.--Moxy 🍁 17:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Point 1: The whole argument about "other articles don't do this" is a red herring. As already stated each article on Wikipedia is unique and is beset with its own set of unique circumstances that may make it tackle a certain manual of style differently than the majority of other articles. Wikipedia allows that flexibility.
- Point 2: Having explained that I must ask to those that are aghast at the current wording/compromise or whatever in place... how is what is there wrong? Is the UK not sovereign? Is the UK not a country? If it is neither then certainly "sovereign country" needs removed from the article. If it is indeed sovereign and a country then it is not incorrect or lies. It is only a matter of wording that reflects Point 1.
- Yeah country on its own sounds better and I wasn't part of the discussion/compromise three years ago as far as I can remember, however if it is what was agreed then so be it, there have been no convincing arguments provided by anyone since to convince editors to overturn it. Until there is, this is simply endless dead horse flogging. Mabuska (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Good point made here....was stable for a decade before the change 3 years ago.... since then the article has been changed and reverted back many times and has had multiple discussions. Really have to ask the question if it this really is a stable version compared to other countries and compared to before the change. Why does it keep coming up now....perhaps because it's the odd ball. Getting odd comments here....stuff about Brexit or that people claim it's not a country.....no one mention any of this here.--Moxy 🍁 17:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Having said that, seeing as "sovereign country" is wikilinked to "Sovereign state", I don't understand how a compromise of simply stating country and wikilinking it to that article has never been agreed? Seems a simple solution. Mabuska (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- We may or may not like it, but this topic will always come up, until the intro is changed so that the UK is no longer given what appears to be special treatment. Aside from my personal solution, the only other way out is to adopt new descriptions across Wikipedia. UK, Canada, Sweden etc, could use "constitutional monarchy", where's USA, Brazil, Russia etc, could use "republic", for examples. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- What your suggesting already happens in the 3rd paragraph of country articles as per the normal layout described at the project page (here it's the second paragraph}. Many countries have been around much longer then their current political situation..... and maybe referred to as a country long before it's legal independence. As seen in 99 percent of articles and our FA's the first sentence emphasizing geographical expanse (Country). Second paragraph usually deals with nation of people (Nation) and the third talks about forms of government and political systems..be it sovereign state, tolerance state or Islamic state etc... All that said Australia has the same wording as here but does not have the same problem with many talks and edits that are reverted.... perhaps cuz its sovereignty is new? I would argue that it was a country long before its sovereignty as with Canada and adding the word sovereignty gives the impression that they dont have a long history as a country or nation of people. In the opinion of H. V. Evatt of the High Court of Australia, "sovereignty is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question that does not arise at all.".--Moxy 🍁 00:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- My first choice is still "country". The monarchy/republic was a secondary suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Australia has been sovereign since at least 1931 with the passing of a Statute of Westminster, which gave all autonomous British Dominions legislative independence so it is not that new compared to many countries in the world today. Mabuska (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- They only just grew out of saying they were young in their anthem this year! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Australia has been sovereign since at least 1931 with the passing of a Statute of Westminster, which gave all autonomous British Dominions legislative independence so it is not that new compared to many countries in the world today. Mabuska (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- My first choice is still "country". The monarchy/republic was a secondary suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- What your suggesting already happens in the 3rd paragraph of country articles as per the normal layout described at the project page (here it's the second paragraph}. Many countries have been around much longer then their current political situation..... and maybe referred to as a country long before it's legal independence. As seen in 99 percent of articles and our FA's the first sentence emphasizing geographical expanse (Country). Second paragraph usually deals with nation of people (Nation) and the third talks about forms of government and political systems..be it sovereign state, tolerance state or Islamic state etc... All that said Australia has the same wording as here but does not have the same problem with many talks and edits that are reverted.... perhaps cuz its sovereignty is new? I would argue that it was a country long before its sovereignty as with Canada and adding the word sovereignty gives the impression that they dont have a long history as a country or nation of people. In the opinion of H. V. Evatt of the High Court of Australia, "sovereignty is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question that does not arise at all.".--Moxy 🍁 00:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- We may or may not like it, but this topic will always come up, until the intro is changed so that the UK is no longer given what appears to be special treatment. Aside from my personal solution, the only other way out is to adopt new descriptions across Wikipedia. UK, Canada, Sweden etc, could use "constitutional monarchy", where's USA, Brazil, Russia etc, could use "republic", for examples. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Having said that, seeing as "sovereign country" is wikilinked to "Sovereign state", I don't understand how a compromise of simply stating country and wikilinking it to that article has never been agreed? Seems a simple solution. Mabuska (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose RfC Not sure whether we are now in mountain or molehill territory, fairway or long grass, gazing at a navel or a pinhead, a pinpoint or talking point. Over more than ten years editing some of these articles, I have become satisfied that, of the two (country or state), in this sort of context 'country' works better. Such is the English language that, while there is some overlap and often the two are interchangeable as near-synonyms, each has a distinct set of linguistic assoications, including etymologies and current usage in specialist contexts and in more everyday forms of expression.
- In my view, the reasoning in the opening paragraph at the top of the section (15:17, 18 December 2020) is shown to go off the mark from the false premise declared axiomatically thus:
- My case for "sovereign state" being the correct term is as follows: the UK is four countries in a political union.
- While we may agree that the UK is four countries in a political union it does not follow that there is a correct term for it. Compare, for example, the wording of the current version of United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020: "The Act seeks to ensure the functioning of the UK internal market with provisions to prevent internal trade barriers among the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom,,,". In support of that wording it was mentioned that "the UK is a unitary sovereign state (country), comprising four constituent parts, of which one part was/is the kingdom of England, that includes another part, the principality of Wales, another part was/is the kingdom of Scotland that on the union with England (and Wales) formed Great Britain, and the fourth part is Northern Ireland that is 'variously described as a country, province, or region, which is part of the United Kingdom' (per Northern Ireland). Qexigator (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Opposed to a process that may fix the longstanding edit wars because your afraid of the out come?--Moxy 🍁 19:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Things have been stable for over 3 years, its only been in the last few weeks when the introduction was fundamentally changed without consensus that this problem occurred again. RWB2020 (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- ? It's one of the most reverted edits here and has come up many times.--Moxy 🍁 22:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- The situation has been far more stable these past 3 years than the problems caused by the previous wording. Several discussions that have led to no change, and a few random edits that have had to be reverted over the last few years is pretty stable considering the fact we are talking about the very first sentence of a major article. And this is part of a wider issue with regards how England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are described too, which has been relatively stable in recent years as well. As stated before, if the UK is suddenly not referred to as sovereign then there would have to be another clear distinction made with England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which others object to. And if the UK is no longer referred to as country in the first sentence then that creates even more problems on this article, and other articles too. All of which is why it is best to maintain the status quo, and nothing has changed or been said in those past 3 years to justify or need a change to be made. RWB2020 (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- ? It's one of the most reverted edits here and has come up many times.--Moxy 🍁 22:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Things have been stable for over 3 years, its only been in the last few weeks when the introduction was fundamentally changed without consensus that this problem occurred again. RWB2020 (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Opposed to a process that may fix the longstanding edit wars because your afraid of the out come?--Moxy 🍁 19:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
A plea for compromise
Hi everyone (especially @Mabuska:, @RWB2020: and @GoodDay:). I have read the comments here and would like to put forward an additional thought accompanied by a motion for peaceful compromise. I acknowledge and respect that previous discussions arrived at "sovereign country" as a way to distinguish the country of the UK against the countries of Scotland/England/Wales/NI. It is, however, unencyclopedic to make this distinction in the opening sentence: the purpose of the opening sentence is to define the item being discussed (in this case the UK) not against its own components but against other items in the world (in this case other international entities). It needs to be big-endian (starting with the world or universe), not little-endian (starting with itself). Trust me, I'm a librarian.
I'd like to offer a compromise based on the page for the USA. The USA is described as "a country primarily located in North America, consisting of 50 states." So could we settle on "a country located off the northwestern coast of the European mainland, consisting of four component nations" (let's call this compromise 1 going forward) OR go with a slightly bolder "a political union of four countries located off the northwestern coast of the European mainland." (let's call this compromise 2 going forward). I respectfully welcome your thoughts. (Angry Candy (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC))
- I strongly oppose those changes proposed, both suggestions are problematic, the second being totally unacceptable and demonstrates exactly why we have to be extremely careful about any change to this introduction because that is the final destination some may seek to push. That second proposal blatantly would result in the article undermining the fact the UK is a country if it is not clearly stated in the first sentence. There is absolutely no need to change the first sentence of this article from the wording that has existed for over 3 years.
- The American example simply does not help us in this case as those 50 states are not described as countries. Also nobody disputes the USA is a country, and yet you yourself have seemed to question if the UK is a country. This is why the article must clearly state it to avoid such unacceptable fringe views.
- The fact that England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are described as countries is why we must distinguish the UK from those four component parts, and saying sovereign country does just that. It offers a clear factual distinction between the meaning of the UK as a country, and the meaning of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
- It is worth noting there is not a single standard sentence for every country on wikipedia. Many country articles include a word before country. Be that New Zealand as an Island country, Russia as a transcontinental country, Afghanistan as a landlocked country, and Australia as a sovereign country. So the claim made by some in the discussion before about the UK being treated as a special case, is also inaccurate.
- For all the of the reasons i have stated before and will continue to state, i strongly oppose changing the status quo which has been stable for over 3 years. The only reasonable compromise would be the wikinote explaining the meaning after. But apart from that, there is just no need for any change at all. RWB2020 (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @RWB2020:. Thank you for commenting here; you argued against my "Compromise 2" sufficiently as far as I'm concerned and I agree with you that it is not the right direction to take. But you didn't really tackle what I'm saying with Compromise 1. Ultimately, my problem with "sovereign country" is that it caught my eye as uniquely odd: the history of how it was arrived at does not justify how strange it is. After a little more thought and, later, reading the comments generated by my question on this talk page, I am convinced that it is unencylopedic (in the way I describe above), displays undue weight on Britain's sovereignty, and is potentially NPOV (in that it could be seen to suggest triumphalism in the context of Brexit - and I don't believe that is your intention). I restate (because you didn't address it) the point that the opening line of a Wikipedia page should define a thing not against its component parts but against everything else in the world. It should essentially answer the question "what is the UK?" The consensus answer seems to be that it is a country. Its sovereign nature is strange to mention at this point. It would be like describing James Stewart on Wikipedia as "a human actor" in that it goes without saying and is not relevant at this point in the description: we do not need to distinguish the UK here against England or Scotland or Wales, but rather against things that aren't the UK: "things" like Germany, the Rings of Saturn and pineapples. (Angry Candy (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC))
- @Angry candy: your visits are so infrequent. Given the emotionalism around this topic, perhaps that is the better practice for all of us. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- As i explained, there are many wikipedia articles that have a word before saying country, so this is not unique, including the fact the Australia article says sovereign country and has done for years too. The fact the Australia article has said it for years, along with the debates that took place at the time years ago on this page leading to the stable compromise, all show this is nothing at all to do with Brexit. As i said, im prepared to support a wikinote explaining this is nothing to do with Brexit, though i dont think its necessary. You accept that the UK Is a sovereign state, so i fail to see how use of the word sovereign is in any way not neutral, especially as we link to the sovereign state page anyway.
- You say we have to define a thing not against its component parts but about everything else in the world. The problem is without the clear distinction being made by saying sovereign country, it puts England, Wales, Scotland and to a lesser degree Northern Ireland, as equal in status in terms of being a country as the UK, and indeed Germany and others. When that is clearly not the case. The introduction of this article must make clear the UK is sovereign (unlike England/Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland), and must clearly say the UK is country. The current wording that was stable for over 3 years does just that and there is no justification for changing it. RWB2020 (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- @RWB2020: (and CC: @GoodDay:). You just keep restating the status-quo rather than defending it meaningfully or engaging with my motion. You have said again that we need to define the UK against its component nations, which is precisely what I have suggested is wrong with the current description: this is not how an encyclopedia entry should begin. I think this might have to go to an RFC after all. I am trying to avoid an edit war with you through reasonable discussion but you're not arguing for the status-quo beyond restating it and saying that it's been that way for three years; and I just know you'll revert my edit if I go ahead and make what I see as the correct change. It being that way for three years doesn't mean its correct now (or indeed that it ever was). And saying again that "without the clear distinction being made by saying sovereign country, it puts England, Wales, Scotland and to a lesser degree Northern Ireland, as equal in status in terms of being a country as the UK" is irrelevant: that is precisely the status-quo position I am challenging. Moreover, my compromise 1 DOES make that distinction, does it not? Yes, it uses the word "country" and ditches "sovereign" (in service to removing the problems of its being unencyclopedic, lending undue weight to sovereignty, and being potentially NPOV) but it also explains the country's relationship to its component nations with elegant, apolitical, encyclopedic brevity. Please accept my compromise 1 or suggest a meaningful halfway measure between it and the current iteration else there will be an edit war between us or an RFC. (Angry Candy (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC))
- But your compromise 1 does not make the distinction, thats the point. It simply says country, which is exactly what England, Wales and Scotland are described as as well. That is why it is helpful to say sovereign country, which distinguishes it from England, Wales and Scotland which are countries, but not sovereign. Again a RFC is not necessary considering this was advertised on quite a few wikiprojects by another editor weeks ago, leading to the additional input into the debate already. And if a RFC is used, it must be neutrally worded setting out clearly the reasons for the current compromise, and without misleading others on the entire reason for the article wording in the first place. This has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, and it is wrong for anyone to peddle that myth. RWB2020 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- It really, really does make that distinction despite not even needing to. That one word or variations of it is not the only way the sentence can make the distinction. (Angry Candy (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC))
- You have absolutely no consensus for the wording you just tried to insert into the article. Please do not fundamentally change the introduction until there is consensus. Your proposed wording does not solve the problem at all, it makes the situation even worse for reasons explained before. It is in no way a reasonable compromise. RWB2020 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- For the last time, the main thrust of my motion is that this distinction is not important in the opening sentence. I don't know how many times I have to say that. To try and satisfy you though (not because I think you're right but because I want to avoid an edit war), why don't we use "constituent countries" in my compromise 1 instead of "component nations"? That does make the distinction but in a less troublesome way than the sovereign nation. (Angry Candy (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC))
- It really, really does make that distinction despite not even needing to. That one word or variations of it is not the only way the sentence can make the distinction. (Angry Candy (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC))
- I also dont accept that either of your two suggested compromises were in any way a reasonable compromise at all, infact they are even worse than your original alteration that was problematic too. I believe a reasonable compromise is what some others have suggested, a wikinote explaining the meaning behind the wording to make clear the purpose of it, and what it does and doesnt mean, especially if making it clear this is not about brexit is needed though i am not convinced even that is necessary. The fact that the Australia article for years has also said Sovereign country really does highlight this has nothing to do with Brexit, as does the long debates on this issue over the years here. RWB2020 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- But your compromise 1 does not make the distinction, thats the point. It simply says country, which is exactly what England, Wales and Scotland are described as as well. That is why it is helpful to say sovereign country, which distinguishes it from England, Wales and Scotland which are countries, but not sovereign. Again a RFC is not necessary considering this was advertised on quite a few wikiprojects by another editor weeks ago, leading to the additional input into the debate already. And if a RFC is used, it must be neutrally worded setting out clearly the reasons for the current compromise, and without misleading others on the entire reason for the article wording in the first place. This has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, and it is wrong for anyone to peddle that myth. RWB2020 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- @RWB2020: (and CC: @GoodDay:). You just keep restating the status-quo rather than defending it meaningfully or engaging with my motion. You have said again that we need to define the UK against its component nations, which is precisely what I have suggested is wrong with the current description: this is not how an encyclopedia entry should begin. I think this might have to go to an RFC after all. I am trying to avoid an edit war with you through reasonable discussion but you're not arguing for the status-quo beyond restating it and saying that it's been that way for three years; and I just know you'll revert my edit if I go ahead and make what I see as the correct change. It being that way for three years doesn't mean its correct now (or indeed that it ever was). And saying again that "without the clear distinction being made by saying sovereign country, it puts England, Wales, Scotland and to a lesser degree Northern Ireland, as equal in status in terms of being a country as the UK" is irrelevant: that is precisely the status-quo position I am challenging. Moreover, my compromise 1 DOES make that distinction, does it not? Yes, it uses the word "country" and ditches "sovereign" (in service to removing the problems of its being unencyclopedic, lending undue weight to sovereignty, and being potentially NPOV) but it also explains the country's relationship to its component nations with elegant, apolitical, encyclopedic brevity. Please accept my compromise 1 or suggest a meaningful halfway measure between it and the current iteration else there will be an edit war between us or an RFC. (Angry Candy (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC))
- The comparison/precedent of the Australia example isn't relevant and if you think it's relevant I refer to you the hundreds of other examples of sovereign countries whose sovereignty is not referred to on the first line of their page. (Angry Candy (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC))
- Hi @RWB2020:. Thank you for commenting here; you argued against my "Compromise 2" sufficiently as far as I'm concerned and I agree with you that it is not the right direction to take. But you didn't really tackle what I'm saying with Compromise 1. Ultimately, my problem with "sovereign country" is that it caught my eye as uniquely odd: the history of how it was arrived at does not justify how strange it is. After a little more thought and, later, reading the comments generated by my question on this talk page, I am convinced that it is unencylopedic (in the way I describe above), displays undue weight on Britain's sovereignty, and is potentially NPOV (in that it could be seen to suggest triumphalism in the context of Brexit - and I don't believe that is your intention). I restate (because you didn't address it) the point that the opening line of a Wikipedia page should define a thing not against its component parts but against everything else in the world. It should essentially answer the question "what is the UK?" The consensus answer seems to be that it is a country. Its sovereign nature is strange to mention at this point. It would be like describing James Stewart on Wikipedia as "a human actor" in that it goes without saying and is not relevant at this point in the description: we do not need to distinguish the UK here against England or Scotland or Wales, but rather against things that aren't the UK: "things" like Germany, the Rings of Saturn and pineapples. (Angry Candy (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC))
- I have a compromise. But, I'm not going to mention it here, because I'm always attacked for it. GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't seen anything that is uncivil on here and I think we are having a healthy, sometimes heated, debate. It is a complex area so we all need to expect disagreement. Please make sure you share your views though. Let's move on and think about a wikinote which could be added after 'sovereign country'. Does anyone have suggestions? AussieWikiDan (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is not a 'compromise' for the reasons stated above (10:53, 31 December 2020) and I wholly concur with RWB2020 21:15, 1 January 2021, and point out that Library classification has next to no relevance to arrangement of encyclopedia contents such as Wikipedia. Qexigator (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- In regards to compromise 1: It does not solve anything as you'd still be stuck with the for and against adding sovereign before country. Compromise 2: The wording sounds like four countries—as in sovereign states—in a political union such as the EU or militarily like NATO for example. Mabuska (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Compromise 1 is a proposal to remove the word "sovereign". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry candy (talk • contribs)
- It may still take awhile yet, but eventually my compromise will be adopted. Unless, the UK ceases to exist before then, in their post-EU years. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe if somebody else proposed it it might find more traction...? Mabuska (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that would help. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- That would be your dream come true! Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- You are not 'attacked' for it GoodDay, but a lot of us loose patience with your persistent refusal to accept the result of a previous extensive mediated process where we based the naming on a search of the various references. That was part of settling the British Isles dispute, the Irish naming dispute and built on the Derry naming dispute. When we find such resolutions they should be respected and only challenged if the reference base changes, not just by an editor pushing a private obsession which is disruptive, to to mention random comments to incite others on talk pages - for which you were previously sanctioned and topic banned. There is a whole article on this which can be linked if anyone is confused by it. -----Snowded TALK 07:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- That would be your dream come true! Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that would help. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe if somebody else proposed it it might find more traction...? Mabuska (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- In regards to compromise 1: It does not solve anything as you'd still be stuck with the for and against adding sovereign before country. Compromise 2: The wording sounds like four countries—as in sovereign states—in a political union such as the EU or militarily like NATO for example. Mabuska (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
=== Proposal ===
Please see non-contentious proposal below for adding 7 words to second sentence.
Qexigator (talk) Qexigator (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Request for clarity on exact reasoning for tonight's reversion (in the interests of reaching consensus)
Hi @RWB2020:. The wording I tried to introduce this evening (and which you reverted, citing no consensus) was "[the UK] is a country located off the northwestern coast of the European mainland and consisting of four component countries." I say this makes the distinction you've been concerned about, i.e. the distinction between Sco/Eng/Wal/NI as countries and the UK as a country. The distinction is clearly present in the word "component" and it is also the main thrust of the entire second clause. You said on your reversion, however, that it does not make the distinction. Overlooking my assertion that the first sentence doesn't need to make this distinction at all and also setting aside all the arguments I have made against using the word "sovereign" for a moment, could you explain very simply now how my wording fails to make the distinction? You need to argue this convincingly (or indeed at all) if there is ever to be a consensus. Please don't just restate your position again because we all understand it: please answer the question as to how my wording here does not make the distinction you're concerned about. Thanks. (Angry Candy (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC))
- The reason for the revert is you had absolutely no consensus for this completely new wording. You have introduced a new phrase "four component countries" which has never been agreed to at all on this talk page, clearly goes entirely against consensus, and it is unnecessary to even mention this point in that first sentence because we deal with it in detail in the second paragraph about the UK being made up of four countries in a way that has been agreed and that is clear. I have explained in detail above the reasons why the changes you are proposing are inappropriate and why we should stick with the status quo which has been stable for over 3 years, you simply refuse to accept them and continue to demand changes that have no consensus. There was also a discussion a few sections down under the proposal to add 7 words section, where i set out reasons why im against such changes. RWB2020 (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- I demand nothing. I request reasoned debate concerning my motion (which is itself a compromise intended to address your central concern of "country" differentiation while resolving the problems I have identified and communicated here). I was the one who began this discussion, not presuming to make such a prominent change before coming to this talk page. In coming to this talk page I was given some immediate votes of confidence followed by a lengthy and unproductive conversation with you. It is true that consensus has not yet been arrived at, but the main barrier in reaching it has been your own gate-keeping efforts. Your contributions to the discussion, aside from blocking the change seemingly against all arguments, has been (1) to re-state the status-quo on the "sovereign country" solution, (2) to re-tell the story of how it was arrived at, (3) to cite Australia as an unconvincing and outweighed precedent, and (4) to assure us that Brexit has nothing to do with this (overlooking or not understanding that my claim is not that Brexit played a part in how the solution was arrived at, merely that the current wording could now be read as triumphalist and therefore non-NPOV in the context of Brexit). Your four main contributions are not true arguments (let alone convincing ones) in favour of the current wording, nor do they adequately address the specific problems I have levelled against the current wording. After a break/recess (I will need to educate myself on the process of RFC and other dispute resolution processes as I have never been involved in one) I will invite others to discuss my motion versus (if you persist in it) your defense of the status-quo. (Angry Candy (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)) (cc: @GoodDay:)
- I've already stated my support for using "country" in the intro for the UK. Will continue to watch. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- I demand nothing. I request reasoned debate concerning my motion (which is itself a compromise intended to address your central concern of "country" differentiation while resolving the problems I have identified and communicated here). I was the one who began this discussion, not presuming to make such a prominent change before coming to this talk page. In coming to this talk page I was given some immediate votes of confidence followed by a lengthy and unproductive conversation with you. It is true that consensus has not yet been arrived at, but the main barrier in reaching it has been your own gate-keeping efforts. Your contributions to the discussion, aside from blocking the change seemingly against all arguments, has been (1) to re-state the status-quo on the "sovereign country" solution, (2) to re-tell the story of how it was arrived at, (3) to cite Australia as an unconvincing and outweighed precedent, and (4) to assure us that Brexit has nothing to do with this (overlooking or not understanding that my claim is not that Brexit played a part in how the solution was arrived at, merely that the current wording could now be read as triumphalist and therefore non-NPOV in the context of Brexit). Your four main contributions are not true arguments (let alone convincing ones) in favour of the current wording, nor do they adequately address the specific problems I have levelled against the current wording. After a break/recess (I will need to educate myself on the process of RFC and other dispute resolution processes as I have never been involved in one) I will invite others to discuss my motion versus (if you persist in it) your defense of the status-quo. (Angry Candy (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)) (cc: @GoodDay:)
A small part of the United Kingdom joins the Schengen Area.
At the end of January 2020, the UK (and with it, Gibraltar) left the European Union. On 31 December 2020, the BBC reported that the UK and Spain had reached an agreement in principle that Gibraltar would join the Schengen Area, to avoid a hard border with Spain and fluidity of movement at the border.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4b00:9008:9200:d51b:62e7:3c26:db4c (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Brexit: Gibraltar gets UK-Spain deal to keep open border". BBC News. 31 December 2020. Retrieved 31 December 2020.
- My understanding is that Gibraltar isn't technically part of the UK, though, so I'm not sure this article is the right place to cover this. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Gibraltar isn't a part of the UK, it's a British Overseas Territory. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
You might want to add information on that matter to the pages for Brexit and\or the Effect of Brexit on Gibraltar if it isn't already covered there. Llewee (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Major cities examples were more convincing before
Concocting a changing rationale to list Newcastle as a major city of the UK, then a "significant" one, if that is somehow more convincing, seems arbitrary and, based on edits, possibly due to close ties of the user in question. You have chosen to add a couple of other cities with similarly slighter claim than the original list and you could list umpteen others with no less a claim. The list is always going to be somewhat subjective but it was more appropriate, convincing and of appropriate length before. WP:BRD. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Along with those unnecessary changes he continues to make related to cities despite you reverting him, he also made this edit early this morning that significantly changed the opening sentence of the introduction. [4] I have removed it with this edit [5], as the sentence had already been altered by another editor so was unable to just undo it. RWB2020 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Proposal for adding 7 words
The first paragraph can easily and non-contetntiously be further clarified, as in reverted edit[6], by adding a few words in the second sentence, to read
- The United Kingdom comprises and includes the four constituent countries of the island of Great Britain, the northeastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands within the British Isles.
Qexigator (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- LOL at "non-contentiously" and "clarified"! No - that is a grammatical shambles devoid of significant meaning. Besides the nonsense of "comprises and includes", it irretrievably muddles up the political description (of four countries) with the geographical description (a big island, part of another, and lots of little ones). It's a non-starter, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Whatever the merits you believe the wording to have, if you think that is in any way a non-contentious proposal here you require some considerable familiarisation with the discussions above and in the talk page archives. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The second paragraph of the introduction deals in detail with the fact the UK is made up of four countries along with mentioning their capitals and devolution, so i do not see the need for it to be in the first paragraph too? The first paragraph focuses more on geography issues and it seems better to avoid mixing the two things in to the same sentences and avoids the need for repetition. We don't need the first paragraph and second paragraph both saying the UK is made up of four countries. The wording of both paragraphs have been relatively stable for years and i think its best to just maintain the status quo. Otherwise it will lead to demands for significant other changes undoing years of consensus and stability both in terms of how the UK is described, and how England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are described. For that reason i strongly oppose any change to the introduction on any of these matters. RWB2020 (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not agree with a change. It makes the sentence bulky without providing any pertinent information. AussieWikiDan (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Notng RWB's well reasoned and unemotive remarks, the proposal is withdrawn. Qexigator (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Theocracy
The United Kingdom is a theocracy as the United Kingdom monarchy is the head of state and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, with their powers being appointed to them by “god” after their coronation.[1]
(“The divine right of kings”), is an ancient practice still recognised and used by the U.K during the coronation ceremony.
References
- ^ The absolute right to rule' – The Divine Right of Kings, 'https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/the-absolute-right-to-rule-the-divine-right-of-kings-40465/. Foresi, Tiffany, November 24, 2014, Royal Central, p. 1.
- Er, are you wanting the article to say that the UK is a theocracy? A few problems with that: (1) you’ll need to provide reliable source(s) to support that view. The source you cited does not say that or anything like it. (I’m not sure it qualifies as a reliable source anyway. It looks like a WP:BLOG). (2) Having an established church is not the same thing as a theocracy and even if anyone currently thought that the Queen ‘rules’ by virtue of the ‘divine right of kings’ (which they don’t) that still wouldn’t be the same as a theocracy. (3) It’s nonsense. DeCausa (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- The only person I have seen refer to the UK as a theocracy is Polly Toynbee [7]. But I don't think that one journalist's opinion carries enough weight to include because it would be WP:UNDUE. As said above, having a State Church is not the same as a theocracy. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
No experts have ever claimed that putting the church under the control of the sovereign was theocracy. That was standard in most countries before the First World War and even continued in Communist ruled countries. Even the U.S. had state established churches in the decades following independence. TFD (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The church exists in every part of the U.K.
Legislature (Bishops)
Executive (Head of State is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and is appointed in a Christian ceremony)
Judicial Ecclesiastical court (A christian court) ChefBear01 (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- If you are saying that the fact that the church exists in every part of the UK means that it runs the country, then the same argument could surely be made for the railways or the Post Office, which are equally (if not more) ubiquitous. Britmax (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2021
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
FrozenDairy178 (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Fix grammar
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a Don’t Vandalise!
Please don’t! It’s ruining the wiki article! IslesandIrajamaf (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
GDP ranking
The GDP ranking indicated on this page is overrated. It is mentioned that the UK's ranking is fifth but no source is supporting such information.
Actually, many sources indicate rather a ranking in the 6th positions : https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/united-kingdom http://statisticstimes.com/economy/projected-world-gdp-ranking.php https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphael Azur (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)