Revision as of 19:06, 26 September 2008 editGoodDay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers496,749 editsm →"United" Kingdom: Thank you← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:08, 26 September 2008 edit undoJza84 (talk | contribs)32,775 edits →"United" Kingdom: cmNext edit → | ||
Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
::::::You reckon that we are different '''races''' do you?! And there was me thinking nationality in these islands was largely down to location and a state of mind! You reckon there isn't such a thing as an "Irish article"? I'd call an article about, say, the ] an Irish article. As in "an article about Ireland". I'd not seek to say anything about "the British" if they'd stop trying to insert British perspective (POV) into Irish articles. As I said. ] (]) 23:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC) | ::::::You reckon that we are different '''races''' do you?! And there was me thinking nationality in these islands was largely down to location and a state of mind! You reckon there isn't such a thing as an "Irish article"? I'd call an article about, say, the ] an Irish article. As in "an article about Ireland". I'd not seek to say anything about "the British" if they'd stop trying to insert British perspective (POV) into Irish articles. As I said. ] (]) 23:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::::::Race is a taxonomic social construct, so no I don't believe that, and I didn't say that. What I did say is that I think your comment was racist... as in it was a discriminatary remark against a distinct nationality or ethnic group based on geographic locale. Certainly Sarah777, if you'd had made that remark in a place of work, you'd be looking at disciplinary action, even criminal charges if the recipient felt strongly enough. You've been blocked in the past before for anti-British remarks - I have no hesitation to reinstate a block for it again, so let's work in the spirit of what Misplaced Pages is about please. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 20:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
::This is one cat, who's not going near the article ]. I don't wanna get skinned. ] (]) 21:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC) | ::This is one cat, who's not going near the article ]. I don't wanna get skinned. ] (]) 21:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:08, 26 September 2008
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. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
view · edit Frequently asked questions
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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages editors often disagree on the acceptability and suitability of various terms and phrases. This term is not favoured by a number of Misplaced Pages editors, and is currently not used in the introduction both to simplify the status quo, and also to discourage edit warring. |
United Kingdom has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Archives |
|
This page has archives. |
Superpower, Great Power
We've had this debate many a time before, though I missed the fact that it got changed at some point recently. Describing the British Empire as a "superpower" is contentious and debatable. Yes, some historians do so, but this has only been a recent phenomenon, applied retrospectively, and is far from universal. The term was actually coined to refer to the USA and the Soviet Union. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- It was in its day, not anymore. Ijanderson (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The article states it's not still a superpower. The UK was a superpower just as the superpower article itself states it was. The UK today is a great power just as the great power article states it is so I don't see the point? Usergreatpower (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is not universally accepted. I have therefore changed the link to Power in international relations thereby avoiding any problems. Just because the superpower article says it's so doesn't make it so (WP is not a source for itself). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 03:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok I see your point on the superpower bit because the term hadn't really been used before 1945 but why remove the great power link? You dispute the UK is a great power? The term great power has been in use since 1815 and has been applied more to the UK than any other great power country. The term also seperates great powers from middle powers. Middle powers such as the Netherlands are obviously on a different level to great powers such as the UK or France, hence the need for different classes of powers. Usergreatpower (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Your user name betrays a little bias here :-) Why can we not just link to Power in international relations at the first mention of "power" and let the reader decide between great power/superpower? I do not dispute its application to the UK, but it's merely an introduction to the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 04:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- It strikes me there is a bit of Peacock language here. The Great Powers article relies on an Encarta article as a source, and there would be many people in, say, Asia, who would be surprised to see the UK described as such. Better to mention those things that enhance Britain's prestige, such as G8, Security council, etc, rather than try to lever in a term which, IMHO, more easily applies to the pre WW2 era. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok I agree but seemed strange to be the only great power country not linking to it in their intro. Usergreatpower (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- If it makes you feel better, France does not seem to be described as a Great Power either. The term there is "one of the foremost powers", which seems adequate. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
British oversea territories
I added this notable information to the article (see here), however it was instantly reverted. Correct me if im wrong, but these are claimed by the UK and I was trying to do a similar thing to the "France" article. It shows the UK's full territory and I thought that we should add this small section to the article. I am aware there is a separate article for BOT, but this image should still be included I believe. Your thoughts? Ijanderson (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- The British Overseas Territories are under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, but do not form part of the United Kingdom itself. --Jza84 | Talk 13:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I know, but that is no reason not to include the image in the article. We should include the image showing the UK's full sovereignty. Ijanderson (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- But this article is about the United Kingdom, not the sovereignty of the UK which is a subtopic. I think its a confusing thing to add, and isn't something that Encarta or Britannica does. Indeed, search Google images for the United Kingdom and its fairly clear what kind of map we should reserve for the infobox. --Jza84 | Talk 13:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I won't re-add it just yet, but I would like to hear the opinions from other users from Misplaced Pages first. Ijanderson (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, that seems reasonable. I'm not opposed to its inclusion elsewhere in the article (although we're pushed for space), but don't think it's good for the infobox. The BOT are different to arrangements elsewhere in the world, eg. the Kingdom of the Netherlands. --Jza84 | Talk 13:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I just saw it on the France article and thought it was a good idea to include on this article. Ijanderson (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, that seems reasonable. I'm not opposed to its inclusion elsewhere in the article (although we're pushed for space), but don't think it's good for the infobox. The BOT are different to arrangements elsewhere in the world, eg. the Kingdom of the Netherlands. --Jza84 | Talk 13:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I won't re-add it just yet, but I would like to hear the opinions from other users from Misplaced Pages first. Ijanderson (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Deletion discussion
Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Afghan British. Badagnani (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- No consensus was reached so further discussion about what to do next is continuing at the UK Wikipedians' notice board. Contributions are welcome... Cordless Larry (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
United Kingdom borders
Hello English friends! Just take a look on fr:Royaume-Uni: France is considered to have a land border with UK in the Channel Tunnel. See the french talk page for details, or the statement on the CPS website. Bye 83.199.145.253 (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good point! -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is indeed, and it's sourced. But how to work into the intro? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 03:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Mention it later, perhaps. It's hardly what most English people would consider a "land border" whatever the French think! Dbfirs 19:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Recognised languages
I'd like to point out that the dialects/langages of "Scots" and "Ulster-Scots" are one and the same, they are simply known by different names in the different areas. "Scots" is what I believe it's creators in 1990/1991 called it. It's questionable whether the same language should be listed twice with different names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.45.222.60 (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- They are both dialects of English, and are spoken in different areas, so why not list them separately? I very much doubt whether they are completely identical, just very similar. Several other Northern English dialects are also similar to "Scots". Dialects merge into each other. Dbfirs 19:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Ireland disambiguation task force
An Ireland disambiguation task force (WP:IDTF) has been created. It will: free up various Talk pages for their respective articles, avoid inner and cross article repetition, avoid debate-postponing moratoriums from needing to be placed, and can accommodate all aspects of the issue of disambiguating the word "Ireland". --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Football
I think the section on football in the UK is disproportionately large. Before I prune heavily, is there any resistance out there? JMcC (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agree that some detail could be removed, but it depends what and how you prune! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Motto of UK Dieu et mon droit
Wow, this is my first read of this page and I find out that the motto of the UK is in French and is godly. I am astounded! Britain is not a particularly religious place... I think it would be nice if someone added a motto paragraph to the Symbols section describing some of the history behind that one! Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.44.73 (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know much about the specifics of its history, so I'm not really qualified to add that section, but the fact that the motto's in French and mentions God really shouldn't surprise anyone. After the Norman Conquest, the language of power in England was French; this was also true to a large extent in Scotland and, perhaps to a lesser extent, in Wales. The prestige value of French lingered for a long time, and this is reflected in the language of the UK motto (even though French was of far less importance in Britain when the UK came into existence). As for the mention of God: well, Britain may be less religious than the US now, but almost everywhere in Europe was pretty religious when the motto came into use. garik (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
UKCOUNTRYREFS - the shortcut of choice for those who accept UK countries
These Reliable Sources tables (and the Countries of the United Kingdom article they are home to) were designed to save valuable time repeating the facts within them, to those who raise again the question of whether the UK's constituent countries can in fact be called 'countries'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone can call them countries Matt; lots of folk do. It doesn't mean they meet any useful definition of a "country". NI being the most laughable example! Sarah777 (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Trust me folks. I've no intentions of bringing up constituent country (again) at England, Wales, Northern Ireland & particularly Scotland; no way, Jose. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- I might though. Sarah777 (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- You are actually starting to sound like a troll Sarah - but you are better than that, aren't you? Honestly - look for an article to edit. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- I might though. Sarah777 (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Is that shortcut allowed? --Jza84 | Talk 22:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Waggers saw it and he told me to lose the "WP" which I did (archive talk here). I could get the 'WP' back and put into MOS if it's an issue (it will mean moving or duplicating the table so please tell me). It's been ok so far for about a month.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
"United" Kingdom
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is NOT a country but a union of countries. History tells us of similar situations similar to that of the USSR. People did not come from the USSR but from Russia, or Yugoslavia. The same principal applies to Britain. People do not come from Britain, but from Scotland or Wales etc. People are not British, but Irish, Scottish, Welsh or English. Britain, in a theoretical sense does not exist. Britain is slang. A term used by those who can't concur to England not having a common stereotype.
- Absolute nonsense. Germany is made up of various "countries" (eg Bavaria and Prussia) in a union as is Italy and Spain) and you don't see people from Bavaria having the same problem as you implied. British is the legal nationality for someone from Britain. If you come from the legally recognised entity of the UK (also known as Great Britain) then you are a Briton and are British. There is a British national identity and there is also a Welsh, Scottish, English and (Northern) Irish identity. People of the UK come from both Britain and Scotland/England/Wales/Northern Ireland - if not, then why not? Your arguement is completely nonsensical. Britain is NOT slang.Darkieboy236 (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Im sorry but Yugoslavia was not in the USSR but was a totally seperate union of republics which were for a large period of time under Communist rule but not under Soviet influence. And contary to your opinion the UK is a country recognised under international law which is divided into four constiuent parts or countries, 3 of which now have a degree of automony within the "Union" Penrithguy (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but lets keep in mind thatI am nonsensical. You have no point, no deprivation, no meaning, or otherwise passion. Britain IS slang, and should household waste by those of "Urban Dictionary". The Queen had her choice about who's right and what, if everything, is wrong. Everything is wrong...so is the system. The system doesn't work. That's why they have moulded your mind to believe that this "union" is a POWER and a right. But we have no right...everything we right becomes a wrong, so go back to Devonshire and praise the Lord that Margaret Thatcher isn't watching! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.63.90 (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
But Scotland is not a "country", it IS a country. Not a state, or a region of so called Britain, but a country. UNITED Kingdom...Union of countries. No problem for England, their media owns the place, so for the rest of us, we're a bit shadowed. Until something happens about this, Scotland will always be known as "that place in England."
I rest my briefcase!
- Let's keep in mind WP:TALK and WP:TROLL here guys, please. --Jza84 | Talk 23:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The passport used in the UK is the same for people living in Wales, England, Scotland or Northern Ireland.....if a person is naturalized that is, wasn't born in any of those countries nor were that person's parents, how can he consider himself anything other than "British" ? I mean, is there such a thing as a naturalized British being able to call himself English/Welsh/whatever , would that be right ? 189.106.50.153 (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Bring some citations not opinion otherwise sorry, WP:TROLL applies --Snowded TALK 01:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure why this debate is going on. The country is called the UK, United Kingdom of Great Britain. Its citizens are universally referred to as "British"; being Scottish is the same as being from Cork is in Ireland in legal terms. I think the example of a naturalised foreigner is a good one; clearly such a person is British, but not English or Scottish or Welsh. Sarah777 (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it's called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Unless Irish re-unification has occured within the last few hours (PS- I haven't watched BBC news or CNN, the last 6 hrs). GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure why this debate is going on. The country is called the UK, United Kingdom of Great Britain. Its citizens are universally referred to as "British"; being Scottish is the same as being from Cork is in Ireland in legal terms. I think the example of a naturalised foreigner is a good one; clearly such a person is British, but not English or Scottish or Welsh. Sarah777 (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever G'Day. NI is irrelevant. Sarah777 (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry Sarah. I couldn't resist. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- If the Scots want to be a separate country then all they have to do is vote for it. A rare luxury; not available to Ireland at the time of Independence; not available to many "countries" today eg the Basque Country or Catalonia. So until they vote to disassociate themselves from the British Entity they are not a proper country and are clearly part of the successor state to the genocidal British Empire. Sarah777 (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Would you have the courage to go to Scotland Talk and say they are "not a proper country"? "are clearly part of the successor state to the genocidal British Empire"? "and" being the other negative factor here of course. You just can't stop can you. Can't you keep your simmering dislike of Britain out of Misplaced Pages? I'm here to add UKCOUNTRYREFS - the shortcut of choice for those who accept UK countries. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- You know me by now Matt. Would I have the courage? Absolutely. Would I go to pointlessly provoke a bunch of folk I've no issues with? No. But if one of them were to claim Scotland isn't merely an area in Britain I'd have to put them right. And would. Just as I'd completely ignore anything whatever to do with Britain on Wiki were it not for thae fact that from the "British Isles" to "Republic of Ireland" various Britons hereon are inserting British POV into Irish articles. Sarah777 (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- There's no such thing as "Irish articles" - the "Irish" don't own Ireland-related pages. Misplaced Pages is an international project. I also find it offensive that you seek to polarise the "British" as inserting British POV. I think that is racist. --Jza84 | Talk 22:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- You reckon that we are different races do you?! And there was me thinking nationality in these islands was largely down to location and a state of mind! You reckon there isn't such a thing as an "Irish article"? I'd call an article about, say, the Wicklow Mountains an Irish article. As in "an article about Ireland". I'd not seek to say anything about "the British" if they'd stop trying to insert British perspective (POV) into Irish articles. As I said. Sarah777 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Race is a taxonomic social construct, so no I don't believe that, and I didn't say that. What I did say is that I think your comment was racist... as in it was a discriminatary remark against a distinct nationality or ethnic group based on geographic locale. Certainly Sarah777, if you'd had made that remark in a place of work, you'd be looking at disciplinary action, even criminal charges if the recipient felt strongly enough. You've been blocked in the past before for anti-British remarks - I have no hesitation to reinstate a block for it again, so let's work in the spirit of what Misplaced Pages is about please. --Jza84 | Talk 20:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is one cat, who's not going near the article Scotland. I don't wanna get skinned. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Congrats to Sarah for some sense on this subject. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Can we please just calm down and agree that country is an underdefined term, and that Scotland, Wales, England, Northern Ireland, Ireland and the UK all qualify as countries according to different interpretations of what the term means (or even under the same interpretation for some usages of the word)? The fact is that there just isn't an official definition anywhere of what a country is in this context. In fact, most words aren't defined officially. So any debate about whether or not Wales or the UK is a country is more or less pointless and bound to get nowhere. There are far more important issues to spend our time discussing here, surely. garik (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, that has pretty much hit the nail on the head, well done. You can call anything a country if you want but it will only really function as our generally accepted definition of a country if it has complete political independence from its neighbours and that is something that Scotland has yet to achieve. That said, do numerous countries of Europe have complete political independence from the EU? No... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- But I don't think there even is a generally accepted definition of "country" that excludes non-independent countries like Scotland. I think the term is just underdefined in that regard. It may be that I'm wrong and most people's understanding of the term is explicit one way or the other in this regard, but in the absence of an official body or referendum on the subject, we just have to accept that the term "country" is not well enough defined to make clear whether or not Scotland can be considered one. We might as well argue about which end you should start a boiled egg from. garik (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- The Penguin Dictionary of Human Geography - "country (1) any political unit on a national scale, regardless of whether it is dependent or independent".Pondle (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- But I don't think there even is a generally accepted definition of "country" that excludes non-independent countries like Scotland. I think the term is just underdefined in that regard. It may be that I'm wrong and most people's understanding of the term is explicit one way or the other in this regard, but in the absence of an official body or referendum on the subject, we just have to accept that the term "country" is not well enough defined to make clear whether or not Scotland can be considered one. We might as well argue about which end you should start a boiled egg from. garik (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, that has pretty much hit the nail on the head, well done. You can call anything a country if you want but it will only really function as our generally accepted definition of a country if it has complete political independence from its neighbours and that is something that Scotland has yet to achieve. That said, do numerous countries of Europe have complete political independence from the EU? No... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Can we please just calm down and agree that country is an underdefined term, and that Scotland, Wales, England, Northern Ireland, Ireland and the UK all qualify as countries according to different interpretations of what the term means (or even under the same interpretation for some usages of the word)? The fact is that there just isn't an official definition anywhere of what a country is in this context. In fact, most words aren't defined officially. So any debate about whether or not Wales or the UK is a country is more or less pointless and bound to get nowhere. There are far more important issues to spend our time discussing here, surely. garik (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)