Talk:Scotland/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Ongoing SSP Problems

Nimbley Troll Warning

It may be worth on regulars here brushing up on the Kris Nimbley troll and how to spot him. Bad spelling, obsession with subheadings, flags, Scottish female singers, Kilmarnock, Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre and "Scottish" inventions are all very easy tells. This is a chronic sockpuppeteer, who's not going to stop so long as we don't apply WP:RBI. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to (and about) single purpose 'UK country' accounts

Many, if not most, of those previous editors who sporadically pop up and comment on the UK countries 'country' status, have been 1) prone to trolling, 2) proven as sockpuppets (ie as the same as people), 3) resoundingly disproven and quietened. Why would anybody periodically comment "Wales is a country!"? You will only ever get the opposite from time to time, and for all the hoo-ha, it is very infrequent, and if it ever is a genuine question, it is very often gone in a flash. Persistent editors are a tiny minority, who all fail WP:REDFLAG in Wikipedia’s policy.

Having said all that, despite being such a minority, those people can actually cause quite a lot of disruption, and great deal of wasted time. Nobody likes being made to repeatedly prove themselves when they have done it before, and can fully back themselves up - that partly is why people get genuinely offended by this. The is why there is the UKCOUNTRYREFS section within the Countries of the United Kingdom article - it is intended to save a lot of people's time.

In future, if simultaneous new WP:SPA accounts pop up on the UK countries issue (which is everyone's nightmare regarding this, I think), I'll put it to Arbcom that we need an article (whatever it is) that can be out forward to such editors, and ultimately made to be respected via a ruling. It will stop people going around the same number of articles repeating themselves while flatly ignoring or dismissing the comments of others. I'm not suggesting censorship (and everyone is entitled to their opinion), just somewhere to alert people of - and if necessary, somewhere to rule on people - who carry on effectively disrupting after being pre-warned. Per Arbcom's normal policy, it would be judged on a case by case basis, depending on how each editor has behaved and is behaving. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/2008-12/Scotland

Just thought you might want to know that a "new" User, who (ahem) "cannot remember" his old User name, has just started this:

• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/2008-12/Scotland

--Mais oui! (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have already now stated the user name i used to make one edit 2 years ago, and also stated one of the edits i did as unregistered a few months before that. I am sorry but i do not have a perfect memory that allows me to remember the username on every single site i register online. (ive registered on dozens of forums and sites). Again i should not have to prove to people my life story and history, i have said quite clearly i am not the suspected sockpuppets who have been carrying out attacks on these pages in the past. (one of whom has been banned on several other accounts at the same time as i have been here). I also said quite clearly above that i intended to seek mediation to resolve this problem as there is no consensus for the current wording to remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG. There is overwhelming consensus for the opening as it currently exists! Just wade through the archives, as User:Derek Ross and others have told you to do. Most of us are just so sick to the back teeth of the non-stop attacks on this article and its editors, that we ignore the latest barrage; and popping up with a new Username is just bound to incur suspicions, especially when your very first edits are an extensive Talk page campaign - no content edits whatsoever. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Some people seemed desperate to know my previous username which i explained at the time i had only used a couple of times (infact only once) a few years ago on something completly different. I have also listed an occasion before that when i did edit a certain page and another talk page comment (again nothing to do with UK pages). Now i have been here about a month now and i have not just been making posts on this page or others linked with the United Kingdom. I have made comments on talk pages in an attempt to reach consensus rather than just making changes which people would disagree with.

I have read some of the previous debates, there is extensive discussion on the issue of if Scotland is a country, but i fail to see the extensive debate arguing for the current wording to be the exact way it is. Just because some editors have had enough of going over these issues does not justify keeping things the same. There is currently no consensus for the page to stay exactly the same and because of that, i requested informal mediation, to try and get a more balanced view. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the informal mediation case i requested as the situation has now been resolved. Again i am sorry for going to informal mediation too early, at the time i just saw no other option as the debate was getting nowhere at the time. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Improving the Scotland Article

I plan to improve the Scotland article by adding a section about the five cities:Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Inverness soon to meet the target on WikiProject:UK Geography (Scotland getting Featured Article status). Anyone can start this, i don't mind at all. Aberdeen fc (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why just these cities? I recall that Stirling was granted city status in 2002. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Err... couple of points.

1. the Scotland article does not come under the auspices of WikiProject UK Geography. That would be the Geography of Scotland article you are looking for. (This article covers the entire spectrum of Scotland; geography is just a subsection summarising the content of the main geography sub-article, in line with standard practice.)
2. what on earth gives you the impression that a subsection on cities is necessary for Wikipedia:Featured article status? I have just looked at 3 FAs on countries, and none have a Cities subsection, eg. the Australia FA article has:

   * 1 Etymology
   * 2 History
   * 3 Politics
   * 4 States and territories
   * 5 Foreign relations and military
   * 6 Geography
         o 6.1 Ecology
   * 7 Economy
   * 8 Demography
   * 9 Culture
   * 10 Sports
   * 11 International rankings
   * 12 See also
   * 13 Notes
   * 14 References
   * 15 Bibliography
   * 16 External links

The Belgium FA article has:

   * 1 History
   * 2 Government and politics
   * 3 Communities and regions
   * 4 Geography, climate, and environment
   * 5 Economy
   * 6 Demographics
         o 6.1 Urbanisation
         o 6.2 Languages
         o 6.3 Education
         o 6.4 Religion
   * 7 Science and technology
   * 8 Culture
         o 8.1 Fine arts
         o 8.2 Folklore
         o 8.3 Sports
         o 8.4 Cuisine
   * 9 See also
   * 10 References
         o 10.1 Footnotes
         o 10.2 General online sources
         o 10.3 Bibliography
   * 11 External links

The India FA article has:

   * 1 Etymology
   * 2 History
   * 3 Government
   * 4 Politics
   * 5 Foreign relations and military
   * 6 Subdivisions
   * 7 Geography
   * 8 Flora and fauna
   * 9 Economy
   * 10 Demographics
   * 11 Culture
   * 12 Sports
   * 13 See also
   * 14 Notes
   * 15 References

The Scotland article should aspire to being the very best. In order to do that we must benchmark against what the best editors are doing. Let's be a tad more professional about our approach folks. --Mais oui! (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mais, "Geography" is the study of everything. And "benchmark against what the best editors are doing"? - how do you quantify who's best? How many GAs and FAs have you written now??? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Steady on now. Way back when, prior to the endless lead sentence wars, we did occassionally discuss general article improvements and I for one welcome them. I doubt that a well-researched section about the cities would do any harm, but I don't think it is in any way necessary. Ben MacDui 21:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

FAQ

Another archive is due soon. As the Archive summary has grown it does provide some useful pointers but it becomes ever more unlikely that newer editors will wish to wade through the ever-expanding list of circular discussions and an FAQ might well be more useful. If time permits I might try to create the beginnings of one after the next archive is created. I fear it could just turn into something else to argue about, but it may be worth a try. Ben MacDui 21:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the UK version, which seems to have been stable. I think something might be possible here for Scotland. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. If time permits I will attempt a draft and get back to you. I have a whimsical suggestion. When it's in decent shape we could set up a page to discuss it to which all contributors to this page are invited with a single light-hearted wiki-Xmas party caveat. Before joining in, everyone would have to name the MP/MSP (past or present) whose views, with regard to the question of Scotland within the UK, they most dislike - and then comment only from that perspective. For example, I could come as that famous conservative, The 11th Baronet and you as Republican Rose - 'twould be fun, although I fear the bouncers would have their work cut out ejecting those with a sense of humour by-pass. Ben MacDui 13:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Judging by their hilariously ill-informed contributions to this Talk page over recent months, I fear that many commenters at this Talk do not know what the acronym "MSP" stands for, let alone have the depth of knowledge to name one whose views they vehemently oppose. We know who the numpties are, let's just hope that they have enough self-awareness to see it in themselves too. --Mais oui! (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Country status

A discussion is taking place here on the inclusion or exclusion of Scotland as a country. Daicaregos (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference

I noticed that reference 51 has an error message and intended to fix it, but couldn't find the website it was meant to link to. Anyone know? Titch Tucker (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. I have fixed it by removing the inept "cities" section that appeared recently courtesy of he of the low IQ. Ben MacDui 10:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

He must be very popular with the editors on the Scotland article, his name keeps cropping up. I also see that he's got a kind of alternative universe type article on the go. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

FAQ

This now exists at Talk:Scotland/FAQ. As this is itself a discussion page, comments here please. If there is agreement that it is useful it can easily be added here per Talk:United Kingdom, but let's wait and see for a while. It may not be perfect and I doubt that any such document will absolutely please everyone, but please bear in mind that the purpsoe of the page is to prevent rather than create circular and repeating debates. Ben MacDui 20:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Q7: Isn't the present monarch the first Queen Elizabeth of Scotland?

A7: Yes, but there is agreement that "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is the correct title.

It's probably best not to use the wording "Queen Elizabeth of Scotland" as that sounds like a formal title (to which the answer is "no"). How about "the first Queen Elizabeth to reign over Scotland?" Timrollpickering (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - amended as suggested. Ben MacDui 10:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Significant change by Jza84, removing:

Q3: Wouldn't it be better if the lead sections for the United Kingdom, Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales used a standardised format?

A3: Possibly, but please bear in mind that a wiki is a dynamic environment and that changes and attempts to change all these articles are regularly made, making such an approach harder to achieve than would be the case for a traditional encyclopedia. Furthermore, the histories and modern status of these four "constituent countries" are all very different. The constitution of the UK is asymmetrical, and it is misleading to try to present the four parts of the Union as having equivalent identities. Wikipedia must thus attempt to present the real-world complexity of the topic and agreeing a common approach that is satisfactory to the editors of all the main articles is therefore a significant challenge.

I'll leave him to offer a justfication. I oppose the change, firstly on the grounds that significant changes should be discussed first here rather than afterwards, and secondly that as this is clearly one of the most F of the AQs, that it deserves an answer. There may be a better one, but that doesn't require the complete removal of the issue. Ben MacDui 15:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 22

The last archiving of this page Talk:Scotland/Archive 22 still leaves the lengthy discussion above re "Changing the opening paragraph". This is arguably active so I have left it here for now. (Arguably it is simply "ongoing"). If it ceases to be active or morphs into something else I'll move it along to make space. Ben MacDui 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As predicted. I'll archive it later this week unless there are any objections. Ben MacDui 09:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The opening sentence

I brought this up a long time ago but decided to leave it alone because I was stepping on toes. My concern with the opening sentence is that it has a rather nationalist slant. It's a bit like if the Quebec article began: "Quebec is a state in North America" or if the article on Catalonia began: "Catalonia is an autonomous community in Southern Europe". By not mentioning sovereign national government in the opening sentence, the impression is created that there isn't one. The United Kingdom does indeed choose to call its largest regional divisions countries but "country" also means "sovereign state" and Scotland is not yet one of those. The way the article says "country" without continuing "...of the United Kingdom" is misleading. I know, it's in the next sentence but there's no real context - the thing could be construed like "Scotland is part of NATO." And anyway the problem isn't that people might misunderstand, it's with the way this is written. I really don't want to annoy anyone or promote any political viewpoint and I have no preference for "(constituent) country", "(home) nation", or whatever. I just think a phrasing should be found that satisfies everyone and that could not be accused of giving weight to any particular group. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a rather lengthy (and ongoing?) discussion above - see the section "Changing the opening paragraph". Assuming it is still ongoing, there would be a good place to state your views. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I looked through the discussion but it seemed to have died down and there wasn't really consensus for the existing opening sentence or for any other proposal. I think my concerns are valid and not really addressed by the "evidence" referred to above. Just wanted to make my thoughts known and hoped they might be considered - I'm really not going to argue about this. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

there is a lot of prior discussion (referenced in the notices at the start of this page. Most editors are happy with things as they are and avoid the subject coming up yet again unless they really need to get involved. --Snowded TALK 18:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me as if quite a lot of editors are unhappy about the way things stand but have decided there's no point trying to improve it. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Some certainly are, but overall I think the evidence shows the opposite. However its a mute point. I am sure we have not seen the last this (sigh) --Snowded TALK 18:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This article will also inevitably (if only to a small extent) present a Scottish view rather than a world wide view because it attracts lots of Scottish editors, which is why the opening sentences of practically every other language's article say that Scotland is in the UK. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Practically every? "Schottland ist ein Land im Nordwesten Europas und ein Landesteil des Vereinigten Königreichs Großbritannien und Nordirland." "Skottland er en selvstyrende nasjon i det nordvestlige Europa og en av de fire nasjonene som utgjør Det forente kongerike Storbritannia og Nord-Irland." "Skotland er en selvstyrende nation i det nordvestlige Europa og en af de fire nationer som udgør Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirland." "Skotlân is in naasje yn noardwest Europa en in ûnderdiel fan it Feriene Keninkryk." "Skotland er land í vestur Evrópu og næststærsti hluti Bretlands (hinir hlutarnir eru England, Wales og Norður-Írland)." Nynorsk, Dutch and Swedish I'll give you. Comparisons with less closely related languages are less likely to be helpful due to the difficulties of translation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Königreichs Großbritannien und Nordirland", "kongerike Storbritannia og Nord-Irland", "Feriene Keninkryk", "hluti Bretlands (hinir hlutarnir eru England, Wales og Norður-Írland" - these all mean United Kingdom, don't they? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Simple English doesn't even mention the UK in the first paragraph, which surprised me. On the other hand, Te Reo Māori has it in the first (and admittedly only) sentence. All this really tells me is that different people attach different importance to different things; Māori tend to regard Kīngitanga Kotahi as very important, as the UK is seen as being the guarantor of the Tiriti o Waitangi; as a Pākehā and a history student I tend to regard the UK (and its relationship with where I live) rather differently. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

But simple English is still English and what I said above applies there as well. Leaving the United Kingdom out is a peculiar thing in English Wikipedia, where lots of importance is attached to which country something is in.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion; I'm not sure I attach the same importance to countries. My interest is in history - and Scotland's history (and England's, for that matter) pre-dates the UK by a millenia or so. Other readers will approach the article with different interests - a geologist, say, might regard the position within North West Europe as much more important than I do. This is why I shouldn't be allowed to write encyclopaedia articles un-assisted... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not just my opinion: it may be true that different languages attach different levels of importance to political geography but English attaches quite a lot of importance and the omission of the UK is such a striking pne that it will appear deliberate. I was trying to make that point when I gave the examples of Quebec and Catalonia above. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the part that troubles me - the notion that the UK is somehow omitted: it isn't - Scotland's position in the UK is right there in the second sentence. My view is that the UK is important to Scotland, but not that important, i.e. that it should probably? definitely? be mentioned in the first paragraph, but I'm not going to lose any sleep if it's not in the very first part of the very first sentence. And, to be honest, I'm struggling to see why it's considered so important to have the UK mentioned immediately. Is the UK what defines "Scotland"? Or is the UK "merely" an important part of Scotland's present state? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

They all have exactly the same two ideas as here - country in [north-]west Europe; part of the UK - as here. Whether you join the two ideas together with "and" or put a full stop after the first one is trivial. "Schottland ist ein Land im Nordwesten Europas. Es ist ein Landesteil des Vereinigten Königreichs Großbritannien und Nordirland." I would be happy with one sentence. If you can write one that pleases the critics I'll be happy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

my interest is in history - and Scotland's history (and England's, for that matter) pre-dates the UK by a millenia or so but those are covered in the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England. This page and the England page is neither. History is of course to be mentioned but this is not the main article for that. This is a modern country and as such Modern real world facts need to be represented. If anyone changes the main page of the Kingdom of Scotland to say The Kingdom of Scotland (Gaelic: Rìoghachd na h-Alba, Scots: Kinrick o Scotland) was a state that merged with England and is currently a part of the United Kingdom. let me know because while it is also factually correct it is a bad first sentence. But as of right now this article is the issue and the current state of this modern country is at issue and lets get this back on track. -- Phoenix (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said: This is why I shouldn't be allowed to write encyclopaedia articles un-assisted... ;-) My point is: my interests are different to yours, which in turn are different to... well, you get the idea. And I disagree that history should be exclusively covered by Kingdom of Scotland - my interests predate even that - or that this article should focus on solely or largely the modern country . This should cover the entire gamut - in brief - to steer the interested reader towards the specific area that interests them. I don't believe my interests should be entirely served by this article, but it must point me in the right direction. The discussion here is - what interests should be highlighted? Position in the UK? Geology? Physical geography? History? With my NPOV-hat on I think the current article strikes the right balance - but with my history-POV-hat on I disagree and want less emphasis on location and more on history. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What I've been concerned with for a long time is that we have:

• "Scotland is a country in northwest Europe"<ref>Three references about Scotland being a country in the United Kingdom</ref>

A Google search for "Scotland is a country in northwest Europe", highlights just how weak this phraseology is. It's not even properly sourced; effectively unsourced. It's bad practice. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My views on this matter are clear and i would like to see some change, i requested informal meditation but that has yet to be taken up by anyone. If thats still the case in a weeks time then i am prepared to take the next step needed to resolve this problem. It is simply wrong to say most editors are happy with the current wording, it is clear many editors have had concerns about the opening paragraph for some time, but the issue has not been solved. On the comment about what other wiki articles in different languages say, i would expect part of the reason they say what they do is based on this article. Which is EVEN more reason why this should be as clear as possible in the opening sentence to avoid even more confusion in translation. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Do tell, what is this next step that we are being threatened with? --Snowded TALK 22:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Do tell, what is this next step that we are being threatened with?" lmao. If informal mediation fails to get any takers, then i will request formal mediation. I wasnt planning to start having people taken out and shot :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Formal mediation and threats can be avoided here. Could we focus on finding some reputable example of where Scotland is described as a "country in northwest Europe"? So far, as I've raised, it appears to be an unsourced neologism, possibly used to supplant the much more common approach of "Scotland is a country in the United Kingdom". We should be mirroring real world practice here, surely, not inventing new phrases. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

With the greatest respect what is it about this phrase that you think needs sourced? I think we are agreed that Scotland is a "country". Are you seriously suggesting it is not in "northwest Europe", because I think we can find a source for that easily enough, such as an atlas. Ben MacDui 15:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm seriously suggesting that there are a gazillion references that say "Scotland is a country/thing/place in the United Kingdom", and zero in "northwest Europe". Why? Because it's confusing, mad, weird, bad practice and not to be expected in professional writing. Sure it's in northwest Europe, but we must say UK first inline with the rest of humanity. Do your map say it isn't in the UK? I jest of course.--Jza84 |  Talk  16:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I fear your political point if view is simply blinding you to the sheer foolishness of your position. I am not saying that this sentence is the best possible option for the lead paragraph, I am querying your apparently "serious" suggestion that the statement needs a source. Again, do you believe that the statement is in some way wrong or misleading or that every modern atlas published covering Europe would not verify the truth of it? There may be good reasons to propose a change but the idea that it is lacking a source is surely amongst the least of them. Ben MacDui 19:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I can not find any examples that go into detail about Scotlands location in the world before mentioning it is part of the United Kingdom. Scotland being part of the United Kingdom is usually mentioned in the first sentence and most pages i read dont even just use the term country. Opening with Scotland is a country which is part of the United Kingdom seems like a reasonable request and i have yet to see a single reasonable answer for not changing it to that. From the response to the poll i did, most were simply attacks on me, not wanting to open up previous debates or a claim that mentioning the fact Scotland is part of the United Kingdom is too "political" BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that the two broad "camps" get frustrated with each other, but let's please focus on the source material here. Talk of attacks will exhaserbate arguments further. Of course, it's quite obvious that "Scotland is a country in the UK" is bound to be the more common approach in source material, and thus the approach most common and expected by our readers. That Scotland is a country in northwest Europe is unsourced: it's basic editorial practice to stick to the source material. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's also extraordinary for an article about a place (a subnational entity) not to mention what larger political entity it is part of. Articles about counties, states, regions, provinces, emirates, etc right across the world almost always say what larger country or region they are part of in the first sentence. There really should be a very good reason if Scotland is to be a special case. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe 'Scotland is a country in North West Europe' is not be supported by sources, but 'Scotland is a country in Western Europe' is:[1] Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Come on. Really. The point being made is how odd the phraseology is when compared to the overwhelming majority of published human works. One news article isn't anything like as reputable as the wealth of material at Countries of the United Kingdom (or should that be "of NW Europe, (in the UK)"?) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My ideal position would be similar wording on Wales, Scotland and England (Northern Ireland as well possibly) which would make it easier to defend all articles from the all to frequent attempts to use non-country language. The form for Wales which is stable is: Wales /ˈweɪlz/^ⓘ (Welsh: Cymru; pronounced [ˈkəmrɨ]^ⓘ) is a country which is part of the United Kingdom, bordering England to its east, and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. It is also an elective region of the European Union. Wales has a population estimated at three million and is a bilingual country, with both Welsh and English having equal status.. --Snowded TALK 05:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wales introduction is a good one and clearly explains the relationship with the United Kingdom in the first sentence whilst still calling Wales a country and NI / England seem to of followed wales lead on this. I think such an opening will have far less objections and im sure many people would find it alot easier to defend than the current wording on this page. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to making the change then? Because I see a greater number of advocates here than those opposed. More importantly, I also see an overwhelming amount (if not a monopoly) of reference material which we will be aligned too, at last. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not many people are involved so I would leave it 24 hours to allow others in and then be bold! --Snowded TALK 19:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've no objection - I agree the Wales one is good. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I oppose. Ben MacDui 19:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What source material are you basing this on? Any of these? --Jza84 |  Talk  20:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I answered this above in response to your earlier request. The facts are not in dispute here and nor is there any suggestion that the the existing wording is in any meaningful way misleading. All we are arguing about is the precise wording of a couple of sentences. The current version doesn't suit your politics - so what? The history of this article suggests that no solution will please everyone. Ben MacDui 20:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I maintain a weak oppose; if consensus is for change then I shall, of course, accept that. However, Scotland's position in the UK is mentioned in the second sentence - up front and centre. Scotland is a country that has existed since long before the UK - I do not believe the generic idea of Scotland through millenia is defined by the modern country's involvement in the UK for the last 300 years. I also don't believe that "because some other encyclopaedias do it" is sufficient reason to do it. On the subject of "North West Europe", I'd prefer "Northern part of the island of Great Britain" - but I do want to start with what and where before moving on to the nitty-gritty of geo-politics. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We have this problem in North West England too. Some people don't like "their" abode associated with Greater Manchester, and so we used to have (and to a small extent still have) users writing nonsense like "Rochdale is a town in England, by the Pennines, historically in Lancashire. It is part of Greater Manchester". Total nonsense, totally illogical. Rochdale was a town before Greater Manchester, but we still mention it, as it is logical to do so - it doesn't delete it from history into part of a mono-cultural Manchester.

The same is happening here. Some passionate (and well meaning) users want to downplay the United Kingdom in favour of it being in "northwest Europe", when its just not reflecting the reality of Scotland's sitation. What's next? "Northern Ireland is a province in the European Union", "Wales lies by the Irish Sea", "England is a part of the British Isles"? All "correct", but not mirroring the published domain. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I have no objection to the UK being mentioned in the lede, or, indeed, in the first paragraph. I have no wish to downplay the UK. I just don't feel that having the UK mentioned in the second sentence does downplay the UK.

Related, but addressed more generally, I'm also concerned at the idea that my views are governed by residency in Scotland or membership of the SNP; I've previously said that I live in New Zealand, though I am currently in the - wait for it! - UK (Bristol, for the curious), and that I have never voted nationalist. My views are not governed by "loyalty" to Scotland, but through a belief that countries with long histories are not defined by their current unions, treaties, or whatever. Again, I believe that Scotland's role in the UK should be discussed early in the lede - but let's tell the reader what and where Scotland is before getting into "...and is part of the UK".

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes I agree with you. I understand. I was having a semi-rant about the situation in general. The Greater Manchester issue is highly comparable though, and I think I have more than a point about the (potential) phraseology of other countries. Indeed, as has been pointed out, we would never have "East Virginia is an area of the Americas. It lies by the Atlantic Ocean, and is a U.S. state." It's hardly punchy and well tiered/written.

I take issue with all this as this just isn't good for Wikipedia. Sure we can have nationalists who seek independance, but if we let some users have their way, we wouldn't know what they wanted independance from! I remember not too long ago, there were users who wanted settlement articles not to include the UK in the lead, then others who didn't want the UK mentioned in Template:Infobox UK place (oh, but a large Saltire was OK), and so one could read about a village in Scotland, look at its infobox that tells you it's in a country called Scotland, which has got a Scotland stub and Scotland category; they click on Scotland itself and then find it's a "nation in northwest Europe" (unsourced). Same goes for people's nationality in articles! Well, jeez, it all speaks for itself.

"Scotland is a country which is part of the United Kingdom" is a) verifiable, b) satisfies most users (it seems), c) would stop these endless debates, d) doesn't intrude upon the "dignity" of Scotland's nationhood, d) is what most readers would expect, e) is much more like the gazillion books and websites that exist elsewhere, f) is more like other encyclopedias, g) is punchy, well written and properly tiered, h) would not downplay Scotland into a mono-cultural British state.... IMHO. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Red i could live with the article if it talked about its location before mentioning it was a country(which would be unlike almost all country articles). My problem is that "Scotland is a country" is too far away from "which is part of the United Kingdom". So if it said Geography THEN onto Scotlands status as a country which is part of the UK i could live with it (even though it would be fairly odd) At the moment its content is - Country(Scotland is a country) Geography (in north Europe) Country(which is part of the UK). Would it not be clearer if the two bits about Scotlands political status were next to each other? Before or after Geography. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree, absolutely. I'd prefer after geography, for various reasons discussed previously, but definitely early on. Cheers, BritishWatcher.

Jza84, I think we're both on the same page. I don't entirely agree with your conclusions, but we're close enough for me to be embarrassed that we had harsh words ;-)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooops! Sorry if I came across harsh! I didn't mean to! Just ranting in general, rather than at you or anyone in particular! --Jza84 |  Talk  21:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it kind of was. I'm just glad I wasn't at the receiving end of that one :-D -- Phoenix (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The opening sentence - Arbitrary section break 1.0

It appears to me that most country articles start by describing the geographical location of the country in the first sentence. For example, Portugal /ˈpɔrtʃəɡəl/^ⓘ, officially the Portuguese Republic (Portuguese: República Portuguesa), is a country on the Iberian Peninsula; The Kingdom of Denmark /ˈdɛnmɑrk/^ⓘ (Danish: Kongeriget Danmark^ⓘ, IPA: [ˈd̥ænmɑɡ̊], (archaic:) IPA: [ˈd̥anmɑːɡ̊]), commonly known as Denmark, is a country in the Scandinavian region of northern Europe; Italy /ˈɪtəli/^ⓘ (Italian: Italia), officially the Italian Republic, (Italian: Repubblica Italiana), is located on the Italian Peninsula in Southern Europe, and on the two largest islands in the Mediterranean Sea, Sicily and Sardinia; Brazil (Portuguese: Brasil), officially the Federative Republic of Brazil (Portuguese: República Federativa do Brasil) listen^ⓘ, is a country in South America, etc. Even the UK article starts "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain, is a sovereign state located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe." So why should Scotland not similarly begin with its geographical location being pinned down before its political relationship is described? I don't think it is good style to start country articles by describing their political relationships. For example, I haven't seen too many editors suggesting that the UK article should begin "The United Kingdom is a country that is part of the European Union". It makes sense to describe where a country is in the world before anything else. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Acutally, they are sovereign states which are not part of another state, so they are not as comparable as first meets the eye. Have you also wondered why no other sites do you what propose? (the 13 are mirrors of WP). --Jza84 |  Talk  22:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes unless you are claiming that Scotland is a sovereign state please try your comparison with other sub-national entities. Actually now I think of it... you just proved the point we've been trying to make all along... Thanks :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

FishieHelper the problem is the examples you mention all say the place is a country before talking about geography. On this article currently we get Scotland is a country followed by alot of geography, and then the fact its part of the United Kingdom. The bit about the UK should be next to the statement that Scotland is a country. None of those other countries have to explain they are part of another sovereign state. A good example as i mentioned before would be Greenland which now reads " is a member country of the Kingdom of Denmark" (That use to say province awhile ago, so they have been upgraded to a country recently). The term country means different things to different people, alot of people consider country to mean sovereign state and do not click links to read through the definition.

The United KIngdoms relationship with the European Union or NATO is nothing like the relationship of Scotland to the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record I wouldn't be that confident of the rather bold statements in your last paragraph, there are limitations and options in both cases and differences may be one of degree not of kind. --Snowded TALK 12:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a sovereign state with one national parliament which has supreme sovereignty over all of its territory. The United Kingdom parliament can suspend the Scottish parliament, Welsh / Northern Irish assembly by passing a single act just as it can withdraw from the European Union or NATO if it chose to. The European Union has no such power over the United Kingdom, there for the relationship between Scotland and the UK is very different to that of the UK and the European Union. The statement may of been bold, but it was simply stating fact no matter how we all feel about such issues. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There are calls about mentioning Scotland's geography first. It's probably worth noting that geography is the study of everying, including human and political geography. Of course, look at articles about cities or towns - all open with a sentence about their municipal/political locale. Scotland itself is a political division of land (i.e. it didn't appear through natural phenomena). Again, I bring people back to how the rest of humanity is describing Scotland, just compare 1/2. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just had a look at some of the British cities articles. Glasgow mentions their place in the United Kingdom within the first sentence, whilst Manchester only mentions it in the third. Other British Cities vary quite a lot, some not even mentioning the UK in the first paragraph. Would anyone say this results in Glasgow being a better article for it, or Manchester being worse off? Will we now have to look at all these articles and discuss whether or not they should follow the Glasgow example as it makes it clear in the first sentence the full political geography, whilst others do not? My question is, where will it all end if we must strictly adhere to the same first sentence, or at least its content. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is that both of these articles about places, and pretty much every other article about a place, begins by stating where the place is within a larger national or subnational division, be it Greater Manchester, the United Kingdom or whatever. Only articles about sovereign states say what continent the place is in first. All I'm suggesting is that the first sentence of the Manchester article should not begin, "Manchester is a city in northwest Europe", because that would be absurd. I'm sure you agree. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Manchester is a city in Northwest Europe" would of course be absurd, but are you really saying "Scotland is a country in Northwest Europe" with the very next sentence being "is part of the UK" absurd? My post above was to point out how absurd it would be if we strictly followed the so called rules of every other encyclopedia and wiki article. If I say on the Manchester talk page that they should mention the UK in the first sentence because many people throughout the world don't know that England is part of the UK, do you think I would have a point? If you don't, then the same would apply here, because the argument is that the position of the country within the UK should be mentioned immediately. In my opinion there is no difference, both countries and cities should immediately relate their place within the UK or not. Alternatively, we could have articles with different writing styles, making it a far more interesting place. Titch Tucker (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed 100% with Lo2u. My point isn't that the UK is or isn't mentioned in articles about settlements. My point was that they mention their political locale (i.e. their district, or county, or region, or city or state, or otherwise), not their topographic locale (hill range, river, plain, geographic continent, forest, whatever). So stating that we should take this approach for Scotland is really quite void, if not clutching at straws. Textbooks and gazetteers near-always use political demarcation when describing a place. Notice however that the convention in the UK is that it is not required to include the UK for settlements, meaning that some readers may navigate to Scotland and find it is a "country in northwest Europe". Advocates of downplaying the UK can't have it this way all time; the UK would effectively be erased from prose, infoboxes and even the main Scotland page. If we are agreed that Scotland is a country, then we need to be fair that it is part of a country, and immediately so; it's incredibly notable, and incredibly important to what Scotland is. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

All I'm really saying is that we have a de facto set of rules that are quite strictly adhered to: articles generally don't begin "[subnational unit x] is a [town/ city/ country] in [continent y]". There'd be no need to change the articles on Manchester or Glasgow or anywhere else. Anyway, as has already been pointed out, "a country in northwest Europe" just isn't the normal way of describing Scotland. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't advocate downplaying the UK, nor do I believe this article is downplaying it. Within seconds the reader will know that Scotland is part of the UK. If the opening sentence is changed its changed, I wont lose sleep over it, but I do think its a mistake to have every country of the UK articles almost identical in their openings Titch Tucker (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the last point: I wouldn't want to advocate the creation of a mandatory first sentence for hundreds of articles. At the same time, it'd be a shame to reject an improved opening simply because it's similar to those of England and Wales. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

For me this is less about consistency with other articles (although I think that's a plus having now been pointed out - the manual of style states "consistency promotes professionalism and cohesion"), and not about politics, its about keeping Scotland inline with the rest of humanity's published works. That "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom" (or words to that effect) is how other books, journals, websites, textbooks, gazetteers, papers, leaflets, whatever, describe Scotland. Wikipedia is not reflecting the published domain, and doing so for reasons that are weak, absent or unclear IMO. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Should we follow every journal, website, textbook, etc, and copy their manual of styles, not just on the opening sentence, but the whole article? Should we then take the best of them and copy it verbatim? As I said, if its changed its changed, but if we start going down the road of copying others manual of style then we are going down the wrong road. Just my opinion. Titch Tucker (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

My thinking isn't really "this is how other place name articles are done on Wikipedia so we should do it that way". I'm really trying to point out that it isn't natural to start an article about a place by saying what continent it's in, unless it's an article about a sovereign state (whose location could hardly be described in any other way). The best evidence for this, apart from common sense, is what every relevant article I have looked at does. I'm sure nobody is trying to misrepresent Scotland's political situation, but it does give the impression that some well-meaning editors don't feel entirely comfortable about mentioning the UK too prominently. When I say it "isn't natural" to start an article in this way, I mean it shouldn't be possible when reading a Wikipedia article to assess the politics of the author. I have no idea what the nationality or political views of the person who wrote the opening sentence of the article on the State of Palestine are. I don't know if the person who wrote the opening of the article on Northern Ireland is a nationalist or a unionist or neither. I have no idea, for that matter, whether the authors of the various articles on Scotland in other encyclopedias are Scottish nationalists or not. But without looking through the history I am almost certain that the author of this opening sentence is Scottish and has nationalists leanings. And that will make others who read the article suspicious about its neutrality. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 02:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Out of this entire conversation I think that one comment got overlooked and was a wow moment for me Scotland itself is a political division of land (i.e. it didn't appear through natural phenomena) that was said by --Jza84 |  Talk  and I think that (s)he hit the nail on the head on that one. Scotland (just like England) is purely man made. It is not geological (can you say that Hadrian's wall is geological and not man made?) and being a political entity like all other subdivisions around the world it is to be described in that way. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say Scotland, the land, is a natural phenomenon. That's like saying the Kazakh Steppe is not natural, everything has to be named, that's what we humans do. How would we describe the geology of Australia for example if we did not use the name, Australia. Titch Tucker (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

So the land on one side of Hadrian's wall is noticeably different than the land on the other side? -- Phoenix (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Much of Scotland is indeed geologicaly different from England, which is one of the reasons the Romans did not fully conquer Caledonia. Put simply, it was just one of the factors that enabled Scotland to become a country. We also happen to have an article called Geology of Scotland. Titch Tucker (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

So should we not include Edinburgh because its the lowlands and was once a part of England? You are drawing straws on this one... So does that mean that the marshes known as the Wash in East Anglia make East Anglia a country? What about the Lake District that then surely must make it another country? No because that is not what us humans have dictated. It is political. After all I know your not saying that Scotland has the exact the same geology everywhere... are you? -- Phoenix (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course its political, but we can also describe Scotland in geological terms, can't we? Well, we have, as I pointed out the article to you. PS,Edinburgh was never part of England, it was under English control. Titch Tucker (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you conceded on that part at least. But you should read up on Kingdom of Northumbria, Treaty of Falaise, & the Treaty of York. Edinburgh much like Haggas was not always Scottish. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

None of these made Edinburgh part of England. The Kingdom of Northumbria was not England, England did not exist. A treaty between two Kings when one is hostage to another is null and void as far as I'm concerned, and as far as he was concerned. The treaty of York follows the same border as today. Edinburgh was never part of England. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but not according to history by 1018 Northumbria was actually a part of England and the Kings of Northumbria were now earls under subjugation from the King of England. As our own Kingdom of England article says Athelstan [by 927] was the first to reign over a united England. He was not the first de jure King of England, but certainly the first de facto one. Over the following years Northumbria repeatedly changed hands between the English kings and Norwegian invaders, but was definitively brought under English control by King Edred in 954, completing the unification of England. In 1018 Canute the Great after a long war took the throne and was consolidating his power in England and Scandinavia. England's division amongst the four great Earldoms was a decree of Canute's kingship. These were Wessex, his personal fief, Mercia, for Eadric, East Anglia, for Thorkel, and Northumbria, for Erik. This was the basis for the system of feudal baronies, which underlay sovereignty of English rulers for centuries During the same time the King of Scotland Malcolm II of Scotland invaded the Lothians, a fertile stretch of land that runs from the river Forth south to the Tweed, defeated a Northumbrian army at the Battle of Carham, and thus claimed the territory of the southern Lothians for Scotland. The river Tweed would become the border between Scotland and England in the east. As time went on the borders changed again In 1092 William Rufus, king of England and son of the Conqueror, invaded Cumbria and drove the Scots north. The rivers of Esk and Liddel became the Border Line in the west. But it wasn't until the Treaty of York in 1237 that the conquest of English land was conceded to the Kingdom of Scotland. Personally I think this is fascinating history. But really this is becoming a forum conversation and if you want to take this up on my talk page I'd love the conversation :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, scientists believe much of Scotland was formed by a chunk of land, which was originally by Nova Scotia I believe, crashing into the rest of Great Britain. -Rrius (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow now thats going back over 600 million years ago when the North American plate separated from the Eurasian Plate... Now is that why we call it Scotland or would only the north western half of Scotland get that honour? :-P -- Phoenix (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It is only to point out there is actually a difference despite what had been said above. -Rrius (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

reset

Too much OR in the geography discussion. Lets get real on this. I have spent much of my two year life in WIkipedia fighting off attempts to downplay national identity in Wales and elsewhere from (i) unionists who want to emphasise the UK and (ii) extreme nationalists who want to do the same for different reasons. All of this takes energy away from doing real work on the articles. My own view on this is that if we had consistent language that the various countries that make up the UK are (i) countries and (ii) part of the UK then all the articles would be easier to defend. Considerable effort went into Countries of the United Kingdom to get the citations right and create a watertight case for the wording that exists on Wales and England. My recommendation would be to change Scotland to the same form. Now a part of me finds this difficult as the request for change came from yet another new and avowedly unionist editor who ran to mediation the minute s/he did not appear to be getting their way. However I think the way to stop this is through consistency supported by citation. Accordingly I would support Jza's proposed change, its the nearest we have to NPOV. --Snowded TALK 07:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No objections here. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and i apologise for seeking informal mediation instead of having faith that a resolution would be reached, i will withdraw that request as soon as an agreement is reached and will have no problem defending the wording of this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed also (of course!). Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  11:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 13:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree, in the interests of consensus. My "take home" quote from this entire discussion is best summarised by Snowded's "through consistency supported by citation." It's difficult to argue against the (a) citations and (b) the need for citations. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have preferred a little geography first, even if only something like "Scotland is a country on the island of Great Britain which is part of the United Kingdom". That said, if the proposal is "Scotland is a country which is part of the United Kingdom", I will also agree...reluctantly! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Does this work?

Scotland /ˈskɒtlənd/^ⓘ (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. Bordered by England to the south and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the [...]

I think that I could have worded the second paragraph better but I don't want to change it until some people see that a change has occurred. -- Phoenix (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As the consensus was to change the lede I may as well give an opinion on the new one. I think Fishiehelpers first line version a little more readable and a little less stilted than the one currently used. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad English

Incidentally, for those who care more about language than politics, the phrase "Scotland is a country which is part of the United Kingdom", whilst technically correct, is actually quite poor usage. It would read far better if it was changed to either "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom" or, as a second choice "Scotland is a country, which is part of the United Kingdom." ðarkuncoll 22:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, on reflection. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The point has been made before. However, the lead paragraph has been stable on all the UK country pages for months, which is far more important than minor errors of grammar, or indeed whether being part of the UK is in the first or the second sentence of the opening paragraph. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely "errors" should be corrected though, in all our interests? If it's minor, perhaps someone ought to pop it in the three consistent home nation articles? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Now the debate has been over on those other 3 articles about the opening for some time, just fixing the grammar shouldnt be a problem. Adding the , might be more acceptable to everyone than changing the words to "that" although i think "that" sounds better but if adding , fixes the grammar problem then it will be all fine. If someone did make the change, we can wait and see if anybody reverts it and if they do just leave it, rather than getting into another debate on that page. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fair comment. But I felt the risk was not worth taking. After all, who else noticed (or cared)? BTW, I prefer "that" too. Daicaregos (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Tharky is right - we should make the change. I did it on Wales and England and also changed the pipelink on England to Countries of the United Kingdom as per Wales. I marked them as minor edits hopefully that will be accepted. --Snowded TALK 07:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Currently part of the UK"

Responding to recent edits: I sympathise with the sentiment, but disagree with the wording. It makes it sound like Scotland is imminently going to leave the UK, which violates WP:Crystal. I'd prefer something like "since 1707 has been part of the UK". Another option is, of course, for the status quo - "part of the UK". Thoughts? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep the status quo,, 1707 should be up there somewhere in the ledge but not the first sentence. --Snowded TALK 13:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Status quo for sure... unless we want "Currently, the northern part of Britain is called Scotland"... sorry couldn't help myself, but it highlights the kind of WP:UNDUE wording thats being slipped in. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotland /ˈskɒtlənd/ (help·info) (Gaelic: Alba) is a currently a country that is part of the United Kingdom.[6][7][8] Currently occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, it currently shares a border with England to the south and is currently bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. In addition to the mainland, Scotland currently consists of over 790 islands[9] including the Northern Isles and the Hebrides.

Edinburgh, currently the country's capital and second largest city, is currently one of Europe's largest financial centres.[10][11][12] It was the hub of the Scottish Enlightenment of the 18th century, which saw Scotland become one of the commercial, intellectual and industrial powerhouses of Europe. Scotland's largest city is currently Glasgow, which was once one of the world's leading industrial metropolises, and now lies at the centre of the Greater Glasgow conurbation which dominates the Scottish Lowlands. Scottish waters currently consist of a large sector[13] of the North Atlantic and the North Sea, currently containing the largest oil reserves in the European Union. ðarkuncoll 14:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Quite. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that 'currently' is inappropriate, but something like this would work: "Scotland /ˈskɒtlənd/ (help·info) (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that was independent for most of its history but since 1707 has been part of the United Kingdom."[6][7][8] It certainly reads better than the bland first sentence we have at present! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

--It wasn't "independant", it had fiscal and political dependancies on other parts of the world, like every other state. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

and then watch the edit wars start elsewhere. --Snowded TALK 16:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Scotland is a country on the island of Great Britain and through unification became part of the United Kingdom in 1707." would be my preference. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither are appropriate, and again I bring us round to how the rest of humanity describes Scotland. Anyone got a source/example for "Scotland is a country on the island of Great Britain and through unification became part of the United Kingdom in 1707"? The history of the formation of the United Kingdom and Scotland's relationship to it is adequately covered in the main text, as necessary. In 1707 it became part of Great Britain, technically not the UK. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jza84. We have finally got citable, accurate and consistent language on all four country articles. Attempting to bring 1707 into the lede sentence will end up with a paragraph and its more than adequately covered elsewhere. --Snowded TALK 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that Scotland has a much longer history as an independent country than as part of the United Kingdom, and that such information could well be helpful to readers. There is no reason why the other country articles couldn't have similar detail added, without extending into a paragraph as you fear. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The lede was changed to allow the United Kingdom to be part of the first sentence, why not quickly and with as few words as possible explain in this first sentence the year Scotland became part of the UK. The original argument was that readers will not know Scotland was part of the UK if it was not mentioned immediately. The same can be said they might not know that Scotland was independent till unification if it is not mentioned in the first sentence. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Then go for a second sentence. Something like "It was an independent nation until 1707 until (pipelink to Act of Union) it combined with England and Wales to form Great Britain" It could be worded better, but that would make a lot of sense - and maintain the first sentence. --Snowded TALK 17:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Something along the lines of this perhaps. "Scotland is a country that was independent until the Act of Union of 1707 between England and Wales which formed the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and in 1922 along with Northern Ireland, became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Maybe not perfectly worded, but along those lines. Titch Tucker (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm reluctantly veering towards the status quo, partly because of the history - "currently" doesn't cut it for me, and a more explicit explanation of the history quickly gets dragged into "Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". "Since" wouldn't work, as there's are two many changes in status since the Act of Union (and I'm ashamed I made that mistake in my initial post: oops). "Currently" suggests imminent change, which we can't foresee. Apologies for raising this topic, but in my defense the article had gone past the bold, revert stages without moving to the discuss stage. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Would this be simpler? "Scotland is a country that was independent until the act of union of 1707 between England and Wales that formed Great Britain, which has now evolved to become the United Kingdom". We don't need all the different Kingdom names in the first sentence. Titch Tucker (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Slightly better, but it's still somewhat unwieldy and seems to imply that Scotland has evolved into the UK. I'll have a think about alternative wording but I'm not yet sure how to word this briefly, without simply repeating what's said later. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd still have to disagree with this. It wasn't an independant nation as such. It was a state, with political and fiscal dependancies on other states, including France, and strong cultural ties with England, Wales and Ireland, which persists today. Of course, these calls back up why exactly people were in favour of the former wording - to downplay the UK. The Kingdom of Scotland and the UK is covered in depth in the final paragraph of the lead. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"It wasn't an independant nation as such." That is the strangest claim I think I have read for a long time! If you don't believe Scotland was an independent nation, I'd be interested to know which articles you are reading for information! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

--Well the strangeness is on your part. Firstly a nation is a social group, not a territory of land. Was/is Scotland a social group? - No, flatly. It's a territory. Secondly you're mixing up notions of "independence" with "sovereignty". "Independence" is the scare word used by nationalists to imply incarceration. Was Scotland militarily or fiscally independant? - No. It needed troops and treaties with other states, like France. It had, has and will continue to have dependancies on other states and regions, as that's the dynamics of politics. It's not self-supporting and was not an isolationist state.

--What you mean is the Kingdom of Scotland was a state. Not "Scotland was independant nation". How many times does one have to raise this??? --Jza84 |  Talk  21:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It was just as much an independent nation as was England Jza. I don't understand that intervention --Snowded TALK 18:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It quite often had to recognise the King of England as its feudal overlord. ðarkuncoll 18:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes on a few occasions it did, but not exactly for 700 years! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I decline to edit war on this but I believe that including "currently" in the lede is justified, as it was not part of the UK for the majority of its history, is currently devolved from the UK, and is in the process of debating what form of independence to take in the future. Spurious edit summaries making irrelevant comparisons and disingenuous arguments about what independence means do not sway me on this point. All independence has always been contingent and relative, for all countries, through all of history. --John (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting thought Tharky but I would never say that Scotland wasn't independent before the Union... Both kingdoms did have one king for a hundred years before the union, but Scotland was an internationally recognized kingdom with ambassadors representing its interests world wide. Today that is not the case. It is in full union with the United Kingdom. But as to the question at hand, in the comments to my original revert I said this Would one say Edinburgh is currently part of the UK since it was part of Northumbria or that Jerusalem is "currently" part of Israel? Why setup unneeded and WP:UNDUE contention in the WP:LEAD? (it could have been much longer) I find no logical reason for the term since anything is currently where it is at this moment, it is very poor prose. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

'Currently' would be apropriate to describe something that had a realistic possibility of changing in the near future. It may be appropriate to state that all of Jerusalem is currently part of Israel since there is a possibility that peace negotiations with Palestinians will lead to part of the city becoming part of an independent Palestinian state. On the basis that a holding a referendum on negotiating an independence settlement is the policy of the 'current' Scottish Government, perhaps 'currently' is an appropriate term to use. That said, my preference would be to explain better the context of Scotland being part of the UK rather than point out that the relationship could change. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

But that would violate WP:Crystal! We should also not post opinions about what may happen in the future, because one can never know what tomorrow brings: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball : Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. [..] "Future history" is welcome at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent and fact-based speculations are welcome. -- Phoenix (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

⬅ Guys, there is a history section that has the room to explain it properly. The lede needs a simple statement about the present. --Snowded TALK 20:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and there are three competing views here - those of who prefer to marginalise the notion of an independent Scotland, those of us who prefer to marginalise the role of British hegemony, and those whose main aims seems to be standardising UK-related opening sentences. I may be wrong, but I see little evidence in the above that success with the third issue is having much effect in resolving the other two. Indeed, this may be impossible.

Furthermore, I have to agree that however accurate and whatever the politics, that the current opening sentence is lacking in stylistic merit. The simplest and (to my British friends) least offensive sentence might be "Scotland is a country that has been part of the United Kingdom since 1800." I quite like it actually - it is eye-catching in that it looks like a mistake. It would also need a little elaboration in the history section, although that is QED.

An alternative, essentially a simpler version of TT's suggestion above would be: "Scotland is a country that was independent until the Act of Union of 1707 and is now part of the United Kingdom." No crystal ball, factual, mentions both 'independent' and 'UK' in opening sentence. Might require some tweaking later on, but that's easy too and we could be "home by Christmas". Ben MacDui 21:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Since "British" is a designation popularised, if not invented, by the Scottish Stuarts, it seems a bit disingenuous to lumber the English with it as if the Scots are not British too. As for marginalising the notion of an independent Scotland - what's that supposed to mean? Scotland isn't independent, and hasn't been for centuries. Perhaps you're sayiing that Wikipedia should try and promote the notion? Well that's not on I'm afraid. In any case, the word "is" in English includes within itself the notion of "currently", so to say "currently" is very much a political statement, because it implies that it will soon change. ðarkuncoll 00:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't oppose any stronger to this 1707/1808 malarkey. Again, I ask, what examples are we mirroring here? It's a massive case of WP:WEASEL. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not think there is any justification for any change from the current wording, the whole 3rd paragraph deals with Scotlands constitutional history / status in the United Kingdom as well as a statement at the end saying "the constitutional future of Scotland continues to give rise to debate". That deals with everything, Scotland before 1707, what happened in 1707, what happened after 1707 and even the future. I actually think all 3 paragraphs are all very good now, and i see no need for change until 2010 when the final statement can be removed =)

Please can those suggesting a change provide some examples of other articles on wikipedia that follow a similar line of opening as suggested? United States does not mention when it was formed until the 3rd paragraph as well. France doesnt mention its founding in the intro paragraphs at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There was that time we had "Hawaii was an independant nation in the Pacific Ocean, currently a U.S. state following ratification in 1959." Afterall, it was "independant" for most of its history, so makes sense. ;) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Even for wikipedia im amazed something this daft has sparked off a lengthy debate. Of course we bloody well shouldnt have "currently a part of" in the article. siarach (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree - Bill Reid | ^Talk 12:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Currently part of is completely redundant. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that Scotland has a parliament, I think it important to address the status of Scotland in the way Scotland refers to itself, regardless of whether the terminology may seem odd, redundant or even ridiculous. What I am saying is: if the Scottish parliament calls Scotland a country, then country it is; If it refers to Scotland as Currently part of the UK, then Currently part of the UK it is. It has been known for states to call themselves daft things, eg see Central African Empire or People's Republic of China (with Republic#Concepts of democracy giving should be clear that many of these "Eastern" type of republics fall outside a definition of a republic), and regardless of how ridiculous, untrue or vain these appellations are, it is correct form to respect them. In conclusion, if good references to the Scottish parliament referring to Scotland as Currently part of the UK can be found, I think we should refer to it as such. I think we are in danger of adding our personal opinion on what we think Scotland is or how it should be termed, regardless of how Scotland defines itself. I do not think a wiki article is the proper place for the individual (or majority) opinion(s) of editors. Merry Christmas, yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because the term is used by some does not justify its inclusion or use in the introduction. The British Prime Minister will always say Britain has the best armed forces in the world, but the British army article cant lead with that. If the people of Scotland vote in favour of the SNP proposal (in a referendum we can not even be sure will happen) then the term currently should be added along with an explanation that it wont be in the future. Until then there is just no justification for using the term currently, as mentioned above there are dozens of places "currently" could be used in this article like "Edinburgh is currently the capital".

Think about all the articles on wikipedia that could use the term "currently" dozens of times but dont, almost every article would need to be changed if such terms had to be used. Currently should only be used when dealing with things that change often or are definetly going to change in the near future. For example "The UK currently has the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world" using currently is useful there, but i notice the article on the Sun says "The sun is the star at the center of the Solar System." - It doesnt use the word currently despite the fact one day the sun and indeed our solar system will be gone.

Scotlands position is fully laid out in the third paragraph of the introduction, no change is needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to disagree. If the The British Prime Minister states that Britain has the best armed forces in the world (which I am not awar he does), then the British army article must include this information in its article. As I see it, Wiki is about references, not about its editors definition of the truth. The "truth" is always subject to opinion, and the opinion of the editors has no place in articles. A statement from the British Prime Minister that Britain has the best armed forces in the world is a good reference. Put another way, his opinion is better than yours. If good government references can be found that state: "Edinburgh is the current capital", then we have a duty to say it as "the current capital".

I believe "currently" is not used "dozens of times" for the simple reason that the references hardly ever refer to their subject(s) as "current". "The UK currently has the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world" is the way the references describe it, so is correct to describe it that way. I believe that if Astrophysicists referred to the sun as the "current star at the center of the Solar System." then such a statement would be most appropriate. As it happens, they don't. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is turning silly again.

The issue can be resolved firstly by finding a reliable source that uses "currently". It can be assessed on its merits inline with other sources using consensus. Then the wording can be selected that satisfies the manual of style - which states we are to avoid grammatical redundancy. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A few quick replies. First of all, I am not in favour of "currently" either. I do however remain convinced that the opening sentence is unnecessarily blunt, its style is by no means the norm for an encyclopedia article and in my view it has a Bromley-esque feel to it. Perhaps that is the intention.

In reply to User:TharkunColl: no of course we should not be promoting or ignoring either British or Scottish nationalism. You are right, the confusing Terminology of the British Isles makes it hard to come up with suitable collective nouns (that are also polite), but there are clearly two fairly entrenched sides to the debate. By all means provide an alternative description if you have one.

To Jza84. You are a good editor but in all candour some of your remarks above suggest a degree of stress. I wish you (and indeed all) a peaceful festive season. Ben MacDui 16:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I like to think of it as frustration, but well observed nontheless! Thanks for the seasons greetings. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is part of the European Union

• The United Kingdom is a state that is part of the European Union.

Errr.... well... yeah.... but!

Nuff said. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

But Yes! are you trying to just stir up a hornets nest for fun and personal amusement, or do you really think that was a good contribution to this talk page? Something to raise this article from its current GA status to its rightful FA position? -- Phoenix (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Not even the French article goes as far as saying they are part of the European Union in their opening sentence. Membership of the European Union is just the same as membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, NATO, the United Nations Security Council and other international organizations. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The france article on English wikipedia that is* I notice on the French wikipedia they do say they are part of the EU in the first sentence but thats certainly not the case on any country article on English wikipedia and im sure there would be strong opposition to any such change BritishWatcher (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

⬅ While it is obviously proposed to make a point (and the UK is not comparable to Scotland so its a bad metaphor) its not a bad idea. It would upset the English nationalists who like to see the continent vut off by fog, but its an accurate statement, --Snowded TALK 10:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I support Britains membership of the European Union, which might get me attacked in some parts of England :), but it belongs with the other international organsations like being a member of NATO, the G8 and Security Council. It certainly should not be given prime position over the commonwealth of nations, considering we still have a Foreign and Commonwealth Office and not a European one. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You had better tell Caroline Flint, Minister for Europe that. She is in the FCO which does not have a minister for the Commonwealth. Constitutionally the UK has given powers to Europe but not to the commonwealth. I think you just made my point for me BV :-) --Snowded TALK 11:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The minister for Europe is a low rank minister of state. The top job is the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Flint doesnt even regularly attend the cabinet. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Then take this to the appropriate article. This is about Scotland not the UK after all. -- Phoenix (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Spoilsport - its new years day and both responses were amusing and assisting recovery. But as you say it doesn't belong here. --Snowded TALK 11:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

:-p (p.s. Happy New Year 2009)-- Phoenix (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries that could affect whether or not Scotland is included in various lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Daicaregos (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

This article has been nominated for community reassessment. Please comment there. Geometry guy 20:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

National Anthem

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries#List of National Anthems that could affect whether or not the Scottish national anthem is included on List of National Anthems. Editors are invited to participate. Daicaregos (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Copied to WT:SCO. Ben MacDui 14:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Treasure trove of free Scotland photos from the National Galleries of Scotland

See http://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalgalleries/. Badagnani (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

New Section - Famous Scots

Does it bring anything to article? My personal view is remove it. Perhaps a more extensive list might be worthy of an article of its own, linked to within the Culture section, but I feel it adds nothing as it stands. I vote to get rid. Endrick Shellycoat 21:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Written by someone with a time horizon of 20 years or so, by the looks of things. The article is "Scotland" not Lists of Scots which already exists and has a more balanced list of notables. Deleting. AllyD (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Protection of this article ended a few days ago; it's now the number one target for our favourite troll/sock/vandal again. Revert, block, ignore. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Having had a good look at the beginning of the opening paragraph I'm not sure it is written as well as it could be. Apologies to the writer of this article (it is a good article) but it does read as very stilted in the opening. I am certainly no genius writer but if I could put forward an alternative opening I would be pleased if people could give their opinion, good or bad. My alternative opening would be, "Scotland (Gaelic:Alba) is a country occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain and is part of the United Kingdom." Continuing with "It shares its only land border with England....". I do think it allows it to flow a little more without having the very short first sentence. Tumblin Tom (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose to any change, Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. To avoid confusion no geography should be placed between the word "country" and "that is part of the United Kingdom". This wording took alot of time and effort to reach and is the same on all four articles on each part of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think the short opening sentence is unsuitable and rather poor for a good wikipedia article? I'm also not sure what you mean when you infer that my opening sentence causes confusion. Tumblin Tom (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The term country means different things to different people. Most articles about sovereign states simply say they are a country then go on to talk about their location. Scotland may be a country but it is not a sovereign state, there for to avoid confusion part of the United Kingdom must follow on clearly from "is a country". I dont have a problem with the short opening sentence, i think its clear and to the point so everyone can understand. You might like to read through an extensive debate on this matter that led to the current wording found above at Talk:Scotland#The_opening_sentence BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am capable of constructing an opening sentence without causing confusion. The meaning of the word country has no bearing on my proposed sentence. Please read it again and let me know if it is still confusing. Tumblin Tom (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but i am strongly opposed to the inclusion of any geography between the word country and United Kingdom This is to avoid confusion with all the other country articles which start off in the same way but are about sovereign states and to keep this article in line with the other 3 parts of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I was only concentrating on this article so how others open their articles is for other people. I don't understand why anyone would be confused with sovereign state articles, as no sovereign state article has a first sentence stating that they are part of another sovereign country. Where is the confusion? Tumblin Tom (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Tumblin Tom asked: "Don't you think the short opening sentence is unsuitable and rather poor for a good wikipedia article?" No, I don't. The wording was agreed through consensus of many editors, and your opinion is as important, but no more important, than mine or that of any of those who were involved in that discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think my proposed first sentence is more informative than the present one? Tumblin Tom (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No i dont see how its any more informative than the current wording. The detail on the geography is included in the second paragraph, why do you think geography must come after the word country? "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom" - its clear and easy to understand by all. A few months ago it read "Scotland is a country" followed by alot of geography information and "Part of the United Kingdom" was lost right at the end of the second sentence, so the current wording was agreed to. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the status quo. It's consistent with the other home nations and reflects the consensus that was formed around previous debates. 23:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you don't think its more informative? I disagree with you obviously and I also don't understand why nobody would think it's a better sentence. "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." sounds more like a headline than an opening sentence in an encyclopedia. I'll ask again, where is the confusion in my opening sentence? Tumblin Tom (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. Headlines are clear and to the point so may be it does sound like a headline, its nice to say it outloud as well :). I have told you why i object to your proposed change and i see no reason why geographical information is needed between "country" and "part of the United Kingdom". Why did you not suggest adding the geography to the same sentence but AFTER the United Kingdom? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tumblin Tom, it's not about confusion, it's about professional writing and reflecting real world practice. As has been raised before, no other reputable encyclopedia or source describes Scotland in the way you propose. The current wording reflects a strong editorial consensus; I imagine you're not likely to secure any kind of change to the lead in the way you propose - there is already opposition. Discussion would be better spent discussing other aspects of the article. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I do intend to help in other aspects of the article but when I see the first sentence in said article is not, in my opinion good enough I have to bring it up. In reply to BritishWatcher, my reasoning for including the geography ie: Britain, before the United Kingdom is plain and simply that it reads better. It certainly had nothing to do with politics, as you seem to infer. Tumblin Tom (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)PS, perhaps if people where not so hung up about being in line with other articles there would be no consensus. Articles should follow their own paths without being restricted by others. Tumblin Tom (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand you are just trying to help improve the article Tumblin, however as it took so long to reach consensus which has now remained steady for a couple of months i can not support any change to the opening paragraph. Whilst articles dont have to be identical, all country articles do follow a similar pattern as do other types of article. The most important thing is that the article makes sense, and the current wording does even if it could flow better, but lets see if anyone else has any view on this. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to avoid confusion, there is no consensus whatsoever for the current opening sentence. That is crystal clear for editors who have followed the endless edit wars on this article over the years. That myth must be laid to bed. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no wish to enter into yet another protracted debate, but let me make a few brief points.

• Tumblin Tom - your measured tone and analytical approach is most welcome. We note that to date you are what we call a "single purpose account" i.e so far your edits are confined to a single theme. (This is of course to be expected of a new User). If you have previously edited Wikipedia you will understand the possible concern. If you have not, there is need to be worried and you can safely ignore these remarks.
• Regular readers of this page will be unsurprised to read that I agree with your comments. The opening sentence may well be similar to those for England, Wales etc. but this format is not used for other "nations", it is designed to make a political point and it is poor use of English to boot.
• I also completely agree with Mais oui! (you may be equally unsurprised to read). To describe the current situation as a "strong editorial consensus" seems to be to bend the meaning of the phrase to breaking point. I'd describe the situation as "an unresolved discussion between two groups of editors, one of which proved to be slightly more numerous than the other". Discussions would indeed be as well spent considering other aspects of the article, but that ceased long ago when it became clear that the article discussion had become dominated by a group of editors whose main aim was to emphasis a British POV, few of whom (not you Jza) have made any serious attempt to engage in any other aspect of the article. The current situation is simply a rather unhealthy stalemate. Regards to one and all, Ben MacDui 09:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, to avoid confusion, let's also be crystal clear about another thing. The British POV group of editors (including at least one prominent "single purpose" account) won the latest battle of the War of the Opening Sentence, in December 2008, not because they were "more numerous" than the 'Other' group (ie. the editors, primarily Scots, who actually wrote the rest of the article), but merely because the vast majority of the 'Other' group abstained from rising to the bait (to call it a "debate" would be to give it a respectability it self-evidently lacks).

I could compile a long list of respected, senior Scottish Wikipedians whose notable absence from this Talk page in recent months speaks volumes. They simply do not want to humour the the POV warriors. Make no mistake, in the end an academic, encyclopaedic, well-written NPOV opening sentence will be re-applied to this article. However, we must await the arrival of the 'big guns' of the Scottish Wikipedian community before common sense regains the upper hand. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Lmao please. We went through all this before, you say "This format is not used for other "nations" Well im sorry but the other nation articles you are talking about are sovereign states, something Scotland is not. People from outside the United Kingdom get confused about how the UK is formed, something that sometimes leads to people saying "England" or "English" when talking about the United Kingdom or British people which is why making it clear to everyone on all four articles they are each part of the United Kingdom is a good thing to do.

As for a lack of consensus, im sorry but there was consensus and some who even support separatist policies said they accepted the wording, and that consensus has now lasted a couple of months. In that time a few people have challanged the term "country" being used and everyone has worked together to help people understand the Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are countries.

As for your claim that some how this is pushing a British POV, im sorry but it states a fact. Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. People may not like fact and reality but we cant simply rewrite history. We can not go back to 1603 and stop the Scottish king becoming the King of England and pushing Britishness on us all which 100 years later led to the union between England and Scotland overseen by a monarch of that Scottish Kings blood. This article had a separatist feel to it in the opening paragraph which is why there were constant problems, trying to hide the United Kingdom at the end of the second sentence as far away from Scotland and the word country as possible. Even someone who supports the breakup of the United Kingdom said it was pushing a nationalist POV at the time.

As for your talk about "in the end an academic, encyclopaedic, well-written NPOV opening sentence will be re-applied to this article" Im sorry but part of the long debate went into detail about how other encyclopedias describe Scotland, and their methods match our own, although some of them do not even call Scotland a country. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There are of course many facts we can't deny, such as Scotland occupying the northern third of Great Britain and being part of the United Kingdom. I also didn't realise that wikipedia had an inferiority complex concerning copying other encyclopedias. Do you think encyclopedia Brittanica writers pop on to wikipedia to see how articles are suppose to be written? I thought the aim of this project was to become better than the others, how can we if all we do is copy them. If we do it for the first sentence why not the second or third, etc. Why don't we forget about everyones POV and try to write something that reads well and at the same time informs. We must not forget that although this is an encyclopedia and not a novel we still need to hook the reader as soon as possible. We could fill the article with short sharp sentences that would describe Scotland to a tee, but who would read it? Tumblin Tom (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We shouldnt copy other encyclopedias but when all others follow a certain pattern its not unreasonable for wiki to do the same, the wording on other encyclopedias was not the main argument for the current wording, it was just 1 of many examples used to justify changing a biased opening paragraph at the time. One short sharp sentence which is to the point is not going to turn everyone away from this article. If your main problem is the short sentence, then surely just adding geography to after the United Kingdom would be acceptable? I dont understand why geographical information has to between "Scotland is a country" and "that is part of the United Kingdom" which some people always seem to be pushing for.

The current introduction is clear and to the point it explains everything well, i see no need for change to it till 2010 when either u can have ur wish of including all the geography before the United Kingdom is mentioned or we will begin a debate on removing "Although Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state, the constitutional future of Scotland continues to give rise to debate." from the introduction. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll ask you one more question before I leave you all. Do you think my proposed opening sentence is biased in any way? Because if you do it's news to me that I'm biased. You actually seem to be reading so much POV into everything I post it's a wonder anything get's done here. If wikipedia is all about every word being dissected to find a political motive for suggestions put forward then it's not for me. Good luck with the article. Tumblin Tom (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No i dont think your suggested wording is biased and i dont think you have some kind of political agenda. The problem is the previous wording was biased and pushing a certain POV, even if that wasnt the intention of some editors involved. Since it took so long to reach consensus to get a change which has now remained stable for two months that is clear i dont think it would be a good idea to change it again. There are far bigger problems which need addressing than the opening sentences. Sorry this is nothing against you and i dont mean to be rude to anyone. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm very much in the "I don't like the current opening sentence"-camp, but I'm also in the "last time we discussed this didn't we all agree not to re-open the debate for a certain period because it's incredibly tiring debating the opening sentence every few weeks"-camp. This was last discussed at the end of December; I'd be keen to leave it be for the time being. I don't believe there's a clear consensus either way, but I also believe that constantly changing it is problematic: not least because it seems to bring out the worst in many contributors, and good faith seems to fly out the window - symptoms that seem to be exacerbated by the regularity of the debate. I'd be keen to re-open the debate - but only after a decent interval. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's consider this discussion closed. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you give a reason for closing it instead of making a statement? What is your actual opinion on the discussion?Tumblin Tom (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make an old fashioned rallying call to all those senior Scottish editors and other nationalities who believe the opening sentence is wrong or politicaly motivated. There comes a time when we have to stand against what we believe is wrong, and that time is now. Those of you who believe that ignoring such things and pretending it will go away are only deceiving themselves. Do we want the Scotland article to be debased in the way it is with the opening sentence? If not, then show your courage and come forward to give your opinion. If you don't then all will be lost and you can lay down your arms and genuflect to the victorious POV pushers. History tells us that those who hesitate lose, don't let it be you. Tumblin Tom (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Lmao fine speech, now what? Sounds like someone has been watching Mel Gibson films too much. I find your suggestion that by saying Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom in the opening sentence we have some how "debased" this article deeply offensive. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, this is fact and it is certainly not POV pushing. However i am sorry Tumblin, earlier you asked me if i thought there was something biased about what you were suggesting, i said no and i didnt think you had a political agenda, i now withdraw that comment. You clearly do have a political agenda and your attempt to change the opening paragraph is POV pushing. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a very dramatic post, but then, I am susceptible to dramatic gestures. Now, let's take a look at my post, where is my POV pushing or political agenda? I can't seem to find any. On the other hand, if I had said "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. Headlines are clear and to the point so may be it does sound like a headline, its nice to say it outloud as well :)" it would sound like I had a political agenda. You will recognize those words, you posted them yesterday. Tumblin Tom (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You asked if i think you had a political agenda or were pushing a POV, originally i said no and assumed ur actions were in good faith until your "dramatic post", which changed my opinion on the matter. You have accused me and others of POV pushing, and u claim that by some how saying in the opening sentence Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom we have "debased" the article which i really do find offensive. The reason i said what you quoted me as saying was because until the recent consensus 2 months ago, the lead was pushing a certain point of view (accidentally or intentionaly), as i said before someone at the time who supports the break up of the UK even said it was pushing a nationalist view. Again i do not see how stating simple fact that Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom is biased or POV pushing, it is simply following the method used on the other UK articles, country articles, and other encyclopedias. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to this discussion, and having read what everyone has to say, I honestly don't see a scrap of POV in the opening sentence. How can it be in the least bit "wrong"? Debased...? I'm confused. It's short, yes - but it's undeniably accurate and I just don't see how anyone can have an argument with it. It could possibly be made to flow better if "occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain" was added to the end of the opening sentence rather than beginning the second sentence - but it doesn't change the meaning or the sense of it.

I do think that the fact that Scotland is a part of the UK needs to be made very clear, not least for some people in other parts of the world where there is definitely confusion over that point. I have regularly encountered total confusion among non-Brits as to the make-up of the UK and the status of the constituent nations and this article should strive to clear up that confusion. I think the opening sentence does that at the moment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be to no surprise that I, among many others here, feel that the opening sentence currently used is the best and the most accurate version this article has made. Not only that its in keeping with the M.O.S. found in other encyclopedias. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the misconceptions and problems that should be addressed is the political ambitions of the editors in addressing Scotland's opening paragraph. It is, I grant you, amusing that some editors may suspect that there is a secret nationalist agenda in trying to improve the Scottish article. But ultimately whether the editors are nationalist or not is irrelevant. I think am correct in thinking that a Scottish editor, regardless of his or her political persuasions, shares a pride in Scotland, and a desire to have his country properly, correctly, and appropriately addressed. There is nothing sinister about this. The opening Sentence is entirely unsatisfactory and needs to be addressed. An interesting solution, that I would like to suggest, can be seen in the way Wikipedia addresses the "States" of the United States of America:-

• wiki addresses state as "a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population.", and goes on to note "These may be nation states, sub-national states or multinational states."
• Utah has the opening line: The State of Utah (/ˈjuːtɔː/ or /ˈjuːtɑː/^ⓘ) is a western state of the United States.
• California has: California (/kælɪˈfɔrnjə/^ⓘ) is a state on the West Coast of the United States, along the Pacific Ocean.
• see also other states at List of U.S. states by date of statehood
• some of these "states", just to be confusing, do not call themselves "states" but Commonwealths, see Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc.

While Scotland is not a US state, I think the clear bold way these states are addressed is an education. The name (how it addresses itself), its status (what it is), and its geographical location. Another case in note, is that while the US states seem to have overtones of "nationalism" in their entries opening lines, I do not think this has caused state partisans to gain the hills and fight for statehood. Accordingly, would a possible solution not be:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country, occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain.

yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost all (perhaps all) of the US states articles include the fact they are part of the United States in the opening line. US states may call themselves different things in their own state constitution, but the USA has 50 states and the district of Columbia. The trouble with the parts of the UK is the use of the term country. Now country means different things to different people but almost all wikipedia articles on sovereign states start out by saying its a country like "France is a country...." etc. Whilst i fully accept that Scotland is a country, a clear distinction is needed for the reader to explain straight away that it is part of a sovereign state the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to avoid confusion.

The most important thing about an encyclopedia is to be accurate and informative. The opening line does that very clearly and so do the other 3 articles on Wales, Northern Ireland and England. People around the world do get confused about what the UK is and how its formed which is why the fact its part of the United Kingdom must be clearly in the text and in the first sentence. Alot of people do not click the links so many wouldnt click country and go to the countries of the UK page for a detailed explaination.

Right now we have 4 articles with identical leads (except NI says "Which" instead of "that") and its clear on the United Kingdom article that it is made up of four countries. I really do not see the problem with the wording the way it is right now, there is nothing political in stating fact. Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, thats clear and easy for all to understand but if we start putting in terms like Great Britain and the information about Scotlands geographical location before the mention of the United Kingdom then it simply leads to confusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If people are really concerned about the short sentence then i am not strongly against changing the . after United Kingdom to a , and then including some of the geography but i see no reason why we must place geography before the United Kingdom or if people are really desperate for geography how about "Scotland occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain, it is a country that is part of the United Kingdom". I would prefer to see the current wording stay the same as it has been stable until yesterday for two months and all other articles have the same. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I note what you say BritishWatcher , and you have some good points. Accordingly I see nothing wrong with Tumblin Tom suggestion of:

"Scotland (Gaelic:Alba) is a country occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain and is part of the United Kingdom."

This if fully accurate and informative. Most articles of countries (eg France, Italy, Germany, Kazakstan), states (e.g. California, etc as above, or Queensland, South Australia etc), or even your curious reference to Columbia District, inform the reader first and foremost of the geographical location. This informative practice can even be seen with counties, (eg Kent, Sussex, Yorkshire), and towns (eg Brighton, Weston-super-Mare etc). It is not universal, I grant you, but I think is appropriate and desirable in the Scotland article, accurate and informative.

Not sure if I agree with your arguments of standardization (4 articles with identical leads). Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland are anything but standard. The differences between each, even within the the terms of the Union or in a political sense, are legion. So seems odd to me to address them in the same way.

You mention that "People around the world do get confused about what the UK is". Well maybe, but the article is about Scotland, not the UK.

Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Czar the suggested change is accurate and 2 months ago when we were trying to get consensus for a change i said i would be willing to support a similar wording, which is far better than the original where the UK was lost at the end of the second sentence. However that was rejected at the time and the current wording was finally agreed some time later with consensus.

You mentioned Queensland and South Australia, but they both start "Queensland is a state of Australia," then go on to geography. That is how the UK articles are currently worded, Scotland is a country thats part of the United Kingdom. You see this is the problem, you are comparing Scotland to a sovereign state where as we really have to compare it to states of Germany, USA, Australia etc even though we do describe ours as countries.

As for standardizing the articles i disagree. We have consensus to use the term country for all 4 parts of the UK because we have gathered alot of sources that do describe all 4 as countries. Whilst the UK was formed in different ways, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all called countries and its easy to defend the use of "country" as a whole, rather than one part of the UK at a time.

Because of the conflict looking into changing the wording again so soon after consensus was reached i can not support any change. Sorry BritishWatcher (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The opening of this article, should be the same as those of Wales, Northern Ireland & England. Now, let's leave it at that, please? GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The essence of a genuine consensus in these circumstances seems to me to be one in which most of us will defend whether or not it is our first choice and which does not offend significant minorities (of whatever stripe). Any other solution is only likely to be a temporary one before these discussions re-emerge. It seems to me that an opening sentence that does not include "United Kingdom" is unlikely to achieve this (although such did have a very long and stable run in the not-too-distant past), but the current "UK and nothing else" is similarly doomed because they both appear to some of us to take a political POV (whether or not that is the intention). Maybe I am being over-optimistic, but I detect the semblance of agreement in the discussions between Czar Brodie and BritishWatcher above. I can certainly live with some variation on this theme. Ben MacDui 17:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i consider the current wording we have on all 4 articles the genuine consensus, its remained steady for two months and there have been no problems up until this point. I dont think any change should be made. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to think that a consensus could be reached. I remain unsatisfied with the opening as is. I think a change should be made. I felt User:Tumblin Tom interaction was welcome. Not sure about the time line here. Sorry I missed the bus. When is the next time line due for consensus? Will try to make it. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

All efforts to improve the article should be welcomed, and those new to the debate should certainly not be shut out. When i first raised my concerns about the original opening sentence and said i had a problem with it, i was condemned, attacked and made to feel unwelcome because i was not around when the consensus had been made months earlier. I didnt like that and i would never do it to anyone else. Tom made a valid point and suggestion, i said clearly i didnt think he had an agenda or was pushing a POV until his "Dramatic post" where he accused me and others of pushing a POV and said we had "debased" the article by stating Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. That was an offensive claim and one i totally reject and i can not see how consensus is going to be reached in such a hostile enviornment. The safest way forward is to stick with the same sentence which has lasted 2 months on here and on England, Wales and Northern Ireland which is accurate, clear and makes it easy to justify the use of the term "country". BritishWatcher (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to think the door is open, but the word consensus keeps slamming in my face. I'm still trying to get to grips with the logic here; let me see if I understand your arguments correctly:

• Scotland can not define itself as "a country occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain and is part of the United Kingdom." because this is not how Wales defines itself.
• Nobody can question this because the matter was discussed in the past. Amusingly, I'm tempted to make the change just to see if my edit is not deleted with the words "please take to talk two months ago".
• Nobody can "accuse" others of not having a neutral Point Of View as this is an offensive claim. Lets lighten up here. Last I looked WP:NPOV was a good wiki guideline. Since I've been editing wiki I have been called many a colorful thing. If somebody was to "accuse" me of not following WP:NPOV guidelines, I think my first reaction would not be one of offence, but to think "ah....I am dealing with a serious editor who knows his stuff.".
• "to defend the use of "country" as a whole, rather than one part of the UK at a time". I'm a bit lost here. Does this mean that Scotland is only a country if Northern Ireland is a country? My previous understanding of defending a term through references was referring to reliable sources, not, as I think you are suggesting, by synchronizing all other entries as references.

Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to the above points in order

• Editors of this article can agree to word the Scotland article however they like but the more accurate and clear the introduction is the better. It helps when all 4 parts of the United Kingdom have clear explanations in the first sentence saying that they are part of the United Kingdom. The fact all 4 UK articles have remained stable for 2 months shows they are all reasonably worded and have general consensus. Whilst identical styles or introductions are not compulsary there is clear patterns for the intro of different types of articles, be they countries, states etc. In this case the Scotland article follows a pattern with the other UK country pages along with australian states etc.

• I said in my previous post people are welcome to seek change on past agreements, when I first arrived on this article I faced abuse because I wanted the “consensus” changed and I would not do it to others. If it was changed I think it would be undone and referred back to the talk page to “Get consensus”. People are free to change their minds or step in and support the suggested change.

• People can accuse who ever they like of being biased or pushing a POV, however of course it may be considered offensive and it might go close to breaking rules. The point I have made several times is that there is nothing biased or POV pushing about Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. If this is somehow a violation of a wikipedia rule I would like to hear what one.

• Scotland is a country because the sources say it is and most of those sources say the same about the other parts of the United Kingdom. The point I was trying to make here is its easier when someone questions the use of the term “country” on one of the articles (as sometimes happens) to explain to them that all 4 articles say the same thing and are based on official sources which use the term for all of them and that it has remained stable for some time.

Finally lets not forget a year ago the articles on wikipedia did not even start by saying “Scotland was a country” etc. The current wording seems reasonable to me. It makes clear that Scotland is a country whilst not ignoring the fact it is part of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. So to business....Australian states, an excellent choice for comparison. So here is how they are addressed:

• New South Wales (abbreviated as NSW) is Australia's oldest and most populous state, located in the south-east of the country, north of Victoria and south of Queensland.

• Victoria is a state located in the southeastern corner of Australia.

• Queensland is a state of Australia, occupying the north-eastern section of the mainland continent.

• The Northern Territory is a federal territory of Australia, occupying much of the centre of the mainland continent, as well as the central northern regions.

• Western Australia is a state occupying the entire western third of the Australian continent.

• Tasmania is an Australian island and state of the same name.

see also Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and Australian Capital Territory

so with these examples in mind, I think a simple principle of: The name (how it addresses itself), its status (what it is), and its geographical location. As for as I can see, this simple process, or pattern if you prefer, is common in many articles (whether they be about, countries, states, counties, towns, villages, roads etc) not because they are trying to standardize (after all there are differences in the layout of Australian states between each other), but because it is a good system, informative and accurate. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason why comparisons with Australian states, US states and similar entities are not relevant here is that there is no confusion anywhere that those states might exist as independent countries. That, plus the fact that we are describing (rightly) Scotland as a country and not a province / state / region, leads us to make a clarification that it is part of the UK, and not to clutter that by talking about geographical location prior to that clarification. I don't see why the geographical location clause couldn't go in the first sentence, after the clause about Scotland being part of the UK. The home nations are collectively unique in their status in that respect, being described as countries but not being independent - which easily causes confusion in people not familiar with the make-up of the UK. That confusion is best avoided, in my opinion, by the kind of opening sentence I've described. Just my 2p worth and not any attempt to close the discussion or belittle anyone's comments. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the comments made above by both Bretonbanquet and Czar. The point i was trying to make when mentioning the Australian states is the process as you say " The name (how it addresses itself), its status (what it is), and its geographical location" is all the same. I agree with that however Scotlands status is "a country that is part of the United Kingdom", not just "a country". The two things have to be together to avoid confusion because we do use the term country which does confuse people. As suggested by Bretonbanquet adding the geography to the first sentence but after the United Kingdom might be a good compromise if people are really concerned about how short the sentence is and i wouldnt object to such a proposed change although i still think its best to keep the current wording as with all other UK country articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that believing people will be confused by the term country is a little presumptuous. Under the same logic one could conclude that people are confused by the term "state"; the UK is after all, a state. I see that many entries to country describe regions: West Country, Black Country, Ohio Country, Border Country, Oregon Country, Gold Country etc... This is not restricted to English, the French refer to the Netherlands as Pays-Bas and to the region of Basque Country as Pays basque. So I conclude that people understand the term country. Since the fall of the Iron curtain and the decline of colonial empires, countries referred to as forming a greater part are somewhat rare. Most of the lands remaining within European crowns, Greenland being an exception that springs to mind, are to small to define themselves as countries and are usually termed Islands, archipelagos, city states. I do not think Scotland, England etc...need be apologetic in their definition of themselves, the term country is quite commonly understood and clear. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but the term country means very different things to different people, this is why there are so many people who over the past year have posted questions saying "Is Scotland a country" or is one of the other parts of the UK a country. Its why at the top of the talk page of England and Wales they say clearly they "are countries" and link to previous agreement on it. Its why the term "Scotland is a country" only was added to the intro in the past year, despite this article being around for years before. Its why the United Kingdom is listed as a special case on the country article which says most countries are sovereign states but not all of them. Its why we have an ENTIRE article for Countries of the United Kingdom trying to explain the setup of the UK. All of these things suggest the term country does have problems or leads to confusion and that is exactly why "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom"is clear and should remain in the opening sentence which is why i strongly oppose any change to it. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there is so much discussion here and elsewhere about what constitutes a country, and whether Scotland / Wales etc are countries or not, is proof enough that there is confusion surrounding the term. "Country", as Czar Brodie points out, covers a lot of different things, and as such is open to confusion. I do quite strongly believe that elsewhere in the world, the make-up of the UK and the status of the constituent nations is far from obvious. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I note your intransigence. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Then also note that this so-called intransigence includes the proposal I made to add the geographical location clause to the opening sentence. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of putting in a request for comment thingy with the light bulb, when I noticed on the page the advice that we should first try and solve any dispute on the talk page first. Well, here goes. I changed the opening sentence early this morning to the version I believe is sensible and informative. It was reverted to the previous version a couple of hours later. I was hoping my version would remain in place for a little while longer to demonstrate to others how much better it actually looks, but I guess it doesn't work that way. There seems to be a misconception among a couple of editors that changing the first sentence would confuse readers and not make clear that Scotland is not a sovereign state which is part of the United Kingdom. Obviously, I beg to differ. Please look at my version and note that the first sentence not only includes the United Kingdom, but also Great Britain. I put it to everyone that Great Britain is in fact the most common term used througout the world for what is in fact the United Kingdom and actually reinforces to readers more familiar with the term Great Britain that Scotland is indeed part of a sovereign state. I would hope you can see the sense in this and agree to the change. Thank you. Tumblin Tom (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read the headers of the talk page you will see that the words in the lede have been controversial and it thus behoves you to propose changes here rather than edit the article. The proper name for the state is the United Kingdom not Great Britain and your suggestion that Great Britain is more common has no supporting evidence. Every country field on web sites offers me UK not GB by the way with the odd exception. Otherwise I see no significant improvement (the reverse if anything) and I see no reason to change the lede. This takes far too much time and effort as it is. --Snowded (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I for one am willing to make the effort. You say the lede has been contoversial. It doesn't surprise me looking at the present version. Whether or not I have evidence of Great Britain being the most common name for the United Kingdom is neither here nor there. The fact that the new sentence is more informative and reads better is far more important. Could you please explain why you think this is not the case and why the present lede is somehow better. Tumblin Tom (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your proposed text is factually incorrect (the UK issue), you think it reads better I don't. If you read all of the above you will see that you do not have agreement to make the change. --Snowded (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Snowded. Tumblin Tom, there is significant opposition to your proposal and for good reason. That the new sentence is "more informative" etc is just your own opinion, not hard science. The present lead is better by way of reflecting real world practice, having a logical sentence structure, consistency with the other home nations and holding a strong consensus. This is a red herring what you're persuing IMHO. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would first of all like to ask Snowded which part of my text is factually incorrect? I would also like to ask Jza84 why he is calling my opinion a "red herring"? It seems to me the only arguments against it is that either, it should be in line with the other home nations (why?), or that the present lede is better (please explain why?). Also, why is my version not logical? Tumblin Tom (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Snowded and Jza84, first of all on the issue of Great Britain, its inclusion in the opening sentence actually complicates matters further, the sovereign state is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as Snowded said this is the internationally recognized title of our country. However if Tumblin if you think the current sentence isnt clear enough we could go down the route of saying. "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" although i dont think that is needed and it would look very odd on the Northern Ireland page.

Secondly you started the current debate on changing the intro, now apart from a couple of posts a week ago and your "dramatic post" you have not engaged in the debate others are happy to have, Czar Brodie for example stated reasons and suggestions but you have remained silent until your attempt to change the article today knowing it would be reverted. The introduction will never be loved by everyone but the majority are prepared to live with it as consensus needed to be reached. Right now we have an introduction that all sides are prepared to defend which clearly states Scotland is a country (something this article only included in the intro a year ago) at the same time as clearly saying Scotlands part of the United Kingdom. Both of these things are fact so the introduction should remain the same and the other 3 UK country introductions. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you mention United Kingdom of Great Britain and N.I.? We are talking about the island of Great Britain, not a political unit. I don't see all sides defending the present lede, so why do you say this? You want to give fact's, then why not defend my proposal? Once again you appear to be saying the lede here should follow the other home nations, why? Tumblin Tom (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, lets see if anyone else is interested in supporting your position first. --Snowded (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You said you wanted Great Britain in the intro because its the most commonly known term (which i doubt you could prove) you never mentioned anything about wanting to include it because it was the island. Most people know the term Great Britain because its part of our country's name, they dont know it or use it becuase they are talking about the island. People from all sides and with different points of view are defending the wording, i said clearly the intro will never be loved by everyone. Im not going to defend your proposal because as others said it made the introduction worse. I have stated very clearly several times why i think the intro should stay the same and yes one of those reasons is its best to have a similar intro, but thats just one of many reasons. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't actually think I had to explain I was talking about the island, as this is the version I proposed. Your opinion that it makes the intro worse is just that, your opinion. As Snowded say's, we shall see if there is anyone willing to defend my position. If not, then so be it. Tumblin Tom (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw what you proposed, but your justification for the change which you made a little while ago on this talk page was Great Britain is the most commonly known term so its important to include it in the intro, you didnt mention it was because it was the island. Agreed it is my opinion on your wording, but it seeems to be shared by some other people here. As you say we should wait and see if others defend your position, theres no point in any of us commenting any further unless others join in and defend it. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone think the island of Great Britain is not the island which gave its name to the country? Anyway, as you say, we shall wait and see. Tumblin Tom (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How about finding a source that describes Scotland in the way you want? :) --Jza84 |  Talk  14:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we need sources for every sentence in the article? Surely the rest of the article is as important as the lede. Perhaps I should go through it and ask for sources for everything that is described. [2] [3][4] [5] I'm sure you will find fault with these, but then I don't think they are even necessary. :) Tumblin Tom (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well i am still waiting for others to jump in and defend your wording but i feel i have to comment on some of those sources you have provided.

• The first source (2) says "location", the introduction on wikipeadia is describing Scotland, it doesnt and most articles dont start out by saying their location. Status comes before Location, and Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom.
• The second source (3) well this doesnt back up what you say at all. "The former Kingdom of Scotland (until 1603) is today one of the four constituent nations which form the United Kingdom," I fail to see Great Britain between United Kingdom and Scotland, infact that one doesnt even use the word country.
• The third source (4) well that fails to even mention the UK till the 6th line, which is totally unacceptable and poorly written.
• Lmao at the fourth source (5). Shall we start off this article by saying "Untamed and beautiful"? Hardly a reliable or neutral source.

I am sorry but these sources prove nothing, i can find dozens of examples where Scotland is not called a country but im sure you would object to us not describing Scotland as a country because of them. Anyway back to waiting for those rallying senior Scottish editors to step in and defend your wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There really was no need for that last sentence, was there? There was me thinking we were having an adult conversation. Shame! Tumblin Tom (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for my poor attempt at humour, I was just using your words. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought my post you are referring to was an attempt at humour. It seems it was a poor attempt, as its came back to bite me. Ah well. Tumblin Tom (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am glad we were both wrong, anyway the sources provided do not justify changing the opening sentence. The first 2 of the 4 in no way back up what you suggest. The first is under a heading location, its not a general description of Scotland. The second doesnt have Great Britain between Scotland and the UK and that one doesnt even call Scotland a country. The 3rd is unreliable and badly written, and the 4th is not a neutral source. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Tumblin Tom. Why are you requesting a change here, while not doing so at England, Wales & Northern Ireland? Above all, the 4 articles should be in sync. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A more interesting question is why you support a solution to the opening sentence that is out of step with almost every other article of a similar nature on Wikipedia except the three you mention. Consistency is a bonus, not the most important outcome. The actual content of the articles differs for good reasons - why then should the opening sentence be the same? Here is some input from the 1968 Britannica just for good measure. "Scotland, the most northerly of the four parts of the United Kingdom - England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland - is generally a cool, hilly, and in the west, wet country that occupies about one-third of the island of Great Britain." Why that order for the Home Nations one might wonder (is it in order of importance?), and perhaps a little loquacious, but at least it's an informative sentence. Ben MacDui 15:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

disruptive trolling by vandalism-only ip address
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Scotland Not a Country This article is incorrect as Scotland it NOT a country but this article lists it as one: It does not meet the criteria to be a country 79.65.104.107 (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC) I'll bite. What criteria? Incidentally, this question/statement/whatever has been raised numerous times before; the consensus is to describe Scotland as a country since that's how both the UK and Scottish governments tend to describe it. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC) The word country means different things to different people as you can see if you read country which explains the different possible meanings. You should read Countries of the United Kingdom which explains clearly why the term is used. This was not made up by wikipedia, official sources use this term and one of the most helpful websites i think you should read is that of the British government. http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823 That makes quite clear they are countries of the United Kingdom. So Scotland is a country. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC) This ip address has only been active recently, and so far, all except this posting have been incidents of vandalism. This posting would fit in with a different type of disruption, and the ip address is now blocked from anonymous posting for one month.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)