Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/United Kingdom-related articles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Agree/Disagree

I strongly, strongly disagree with this in every possible way. I think it's solving a problem that doesn't exist. -81.178.104.145 02:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I entirely disagree. The problem is very much in existence and has caused numerous edit war and wasted a lot of time that editors could be devoting to real subjects. --Breadandcheese 06:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am in support of the measure generally, however I'd make one exception: considering the right of persons born in NI to citizenship of Ireland, I think we should note those who obviously do not self-identify as British (eg, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuiness), yet not denounced their British citizenship or residency/activty in that part of the UK, as both British and Irish on equal terms. --Breadandcheese 06:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's probably a worthwhile addition. Readro 09:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a cheap political jab. --MacRusgail 15:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What is? --Breadandcheese 16:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I too strongly disagree. Even if we forget Northern Ireland for a moment, the brush is far too broad. But crucially, if there were to be a UK MOS, I don't think NI should be excluded. Yes, there may be conflicts with the Ireland MOS, but surely the current constitutional arrangement should be respected. As for the general discussion on nationality and citizenship, they are different things and it is a generally complex issue. I think, however, that in most cases the current arragements suffice. NotMuchToSay 18:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with this guideline

I think this guideline is completely unnecessary, goes against current practice in many areas and as stated above solves (and creates) a problem that does not exist.

As stated above nationalists in Northern Ireland create a particular problem as they do not identify as being British. If you try and change the Gerry Adams article to read Irish and British as suggested above this would create a permament edit war and magnet for users to delete the British as he himself (and his party etc.) would never describe themselves as British.

Equally Scottish and Welsh Nationalist politicians identify themselves with Scotland and Wales and it surely makes more sense to say 'so and so is a Scottish politician' as this is how they are described in other sources and as is current practice - for instance in all the articles I checked in Category:Scottish National Party (SNP) politicians.

Also sports players where there are different national sides such as Scotland national football team it makes far more sense to identify them as Scottish (or English or Welsh as appropriate) again as is current practice as per the articles in Category:Scottish footballers for instance.

As the Scotland article says 'Scotland is a nation in northwest Europe and one of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom.' Therefore to describe everyone from Scotland as British when talking about their nationality is bound to just create problems and edit wars especially with articles about people who do not regard themselves as primarily British but primarily Scottish, Welsh or English.

There are many times when describing someone as British is the sensible decision (e.g. Tony Blair) but a broad rule that syas this must always be the case seems wrong.

It is better not to have a guideline on this at all but instead let it be decided on a case by case basis depending on how the individual person the article is about describes themselves, how other sources regard them and just whatever the authors of the article agree on. Having this guideline will create far more disputes than it would solve. Davewild 21:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, there is already a real problem. There is extensive edit warring going on regarding the nationality of predominantly Scottish individuals. This will stop edit warring as anyone who tries to revert will be going against consensus and will be warned. At the moment there is reverting, counter-reverting, and no one is in the wrong. Without a guideline then this will continue. There should at least be consistency throughout Wikipedia, and as people from the United Kingdom are legally British and nothing else, then that is what Wikipedia should adopt. You say "whatever the authors of the article agree on." Well, they can't agree, and that is why this guideline has been proposed. Readro 21:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Do we know Gerry Adams' nationality, in terms of what passport(s) he holds? If he holds a British passport, I find it incredible that we should list him purely as 'Irish'. If he does indeed only hold an Irish passport - as he would be entitled to - then it is correct to list him as Irish, and this proposal shouldn't - in its finished form - change that. Bear in mind that this proposal is far from finished.

As for Scottish and Welsh nationality: many people may want there to be such a sovereign state as 'Scotland', but I don't think they'd deny that currently there isn't. The whole point of this proposal is to remove the element of editor's opinion that currently exists, by stating that nationality should be given in terms of the sovereign state - the passport the person holds - rather than editors having to decide whether to present someone as British, or to pick one of the constituent nations to identify them with.

Sports teams are a separate issue; many are entitled to play in a national team who would not normally be considered to hold that nationality (Tony Cascarino, for example), and in addition many sports teams exist that correspond to no recognised country (Curtly Ambrose's nationality is not "West Indies"). It's fine to use flags corresponding to their national teams, where it is clear that that is what is being represented, but this shouldn't be confused with the person's nationality. TSP 21:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

But there are many instances where authors have agreed - Category:Scottish footballers as per the articles in this category, I could not see any articles that start 'is a British footballer' while many start 'is a Scottish footballer'. Changing this will not benefit the reader and would completly overturn what looks to me like a current consensus.

As to Scottish and Welsh nationality the point is how they are described and describe themselves, we should not do original research and start describing people primarily as British if that is not how they are described elsewhere. My fundamental point is that we should go by how people are primarily described, perhaps a default to British, but if there is a case for using Scottish or Welsh etc. then we should not advise against it. Davewild 21:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No way. People from Scotland, for example, 80% of the time describe themselves as "Scottish", not "British". The way it works now is that it is done on a case by case basis depending on the editors who edit the page. Now and then I suppose there are disputes about whether to describe someone as "Scottish" or "British", but something like this isn't going to change any of that. This looks like an excuse for people on the one side to quote wiki guidelines during one of those revert wars in order to help their own cause. This guideline page appears as a bad faith attempt at an ideological coup on this matter. It simply won't be accepted, whether Readro wants it to be or not. At the very least, those proposed guidelines are so far from the reality of the way wikipedia actually works on this matter that I don't believe it can be described as anything but POV-pushing. Yes, proposed guideline needs serious revision, though the idea of a guideline is not terrible in principle. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This is something a wee bit different. There is no British football league as such, and nationality aside, this could refer to people who played in the SFA leagues. --MacRusgail 14:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I primarily describe myself as a human being. One does not operate to the exclusion of the other - they are all equal parts of my identity. The point I am making here is that identity is one thing - one which we can at best speculate on. Nationality and citizenship is fact, and is what is used by default in almost every non-UK article. Peddling bad faith is not a valid form of objection to the proposal. --Breadandcheese 13:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This guideline is totally necessary! Modern romanticism has led to people claiming they are Scottish or English or Welsh but this is outrageous, people often say, "but they identify with being English" that shouldnt matter. If a person identifies themselves as being a Martian they would never get the right to have their article declare them so. Mazzini might have declared himself an Italian but before the unification he was Piedmontese, whether he liked it or not. It is the same in this case, Alex Salmond can call himself Scottish, but legally as his passport clearly states he is a British citizen.Gavin Scott 22:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Outrageous"? Strong language. In fact, this is wrong, most people in the UK have always identified themselves as either "Scottish", "Irish", "Welsh" or "English", and use of all four of these "nationalities", identities which have existed since the 10th century (and in fact earlier, since at least the 7th with tiny tweaks). Nothing to do with Romanticism. It just happens to be the case that United Kingdom identity has never managed to supplant (or even compete with) these identities, and while you are entitled to your belief that the "sooner it dies out the better."[1], you can't say things like that and then expect people to regard you as neutral. In fact, such wording implies that your goal on this page is to increase the chances of eliminating English, Scottish and Welsh identity, not help wikipedia.

Anyways, Looking on the village pump and the JK Rowling articles, the argument for the British only proposal is something along the lines of

1) "Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland are not sovereign states, the sovereign state is the United Kingdom, people is the United Kingdom are called British, therefore all people from Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland should be described as British"

along with

2) "British is their only official nationality".

The problem with 1) is that the missing premise, i.e. "people should be described by sovereign state only" is prescriptive, it's POV, and not something the majority of relevant users believe. People in much of the world do identity themselves with the arbitrary or ancient sovereign state in which they live, but people in say, Scotland, do not. That is simply fact. It is not in wiki's business to change the world, and to change the way British people see themselves for the sake the principle that "thy sovereign states shall monopolize thy national identity". Now, 2), is just as problematic because a) nationality is not simply defined by officialdom, it is a word in common use that predates the creation of official British nationality in 1949, and was and is used for Scottish, English, Welsh and Irish, because these peoples see themselves as nations; b) there is no reason I can see why officially defined nationality is to be a defining characteristic of people; wikipedia articles should just identify people the way the are best to be described. I doubt many people want to go into let alone prioritize the exact wording on someone's passport. All these arguments aside, some wiki users can try to set this set of guidelines up, but the reality is that it simply will not be followed. The guidelines need seriously toned down if they are to have any hope of mirroring reality. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, this proposal is not about suggesting anyone has a British identity, but rather where standardisation is required, that it should fall on the side of consistent fact. If I was to self-identify with my own proclaimed community of Giraffistan, I very much doubt many Wikipedians would put it as my nationality in an infobox alone with a little flag I made up. A person's identity should be clearly explained if it is relevant, of course. The present situation creates huge double-standards (for example, what about the treatment of Cornish people, or those from Yorkshire, with very strong identities - do they get their Yorkshire as their nationality in an infobox?) --Breadandcheese 13:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yorkshire identity in infobox? Well, this doesn't really seem to be an issue. As far as I know no-one has claimed that they desire Yorkshire, or Moray, Carmarthenshire, or County Derry flags to be put in the infobox. Maybe you should wait until they do, since otherwise this just looks like an attempted Straw man. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I should perhaps declare my interest in this. I don't really care which way UK-related articles get standardised, what matters to me is that they are treated uniformly across the whole of Wikipedia. What concerns me most is the high level of nationalism I have experienced when editing non-English UK articles, particularly when contrasted with the exact opposite behaviour on English articles. The example I've previously given is that it seems to be a crime to list a Scottish settlement as being in the UK and yet if you attempt to assert that J.K. Rowling is English you get flamed into next week. In addition there seems to be a trend amongst some editors to claim patently English notable persons as being not English, again the perfect example is J.K. Rowling with many editors wishing to assert that she's somehow Scottish because she not lives in Edinburgh despit being born in England to English parents. I'm quite persuaded by the arguments previously presented at the Village Pump for standardising to UK and British as the UK is the only sovereign, nation-state and therefore the most encyclopaedic way of presenting the information. But given my previous concerns it also seems to be the only way to defuse the many heated edit-wars which start of something which is actually quite lame. Aula^TPN 23:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

However lame edit-warring over Ms Rowling's nationality may be (English, surely), creating a MOS page to enforce a non-existent consensus is lamer by far. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This page hasn't been created 'to enforce a non-existant consensus'. It has been created as a proposal to attempt to form a consensus. Your actions in unilaterally rejecting this proposal before debate has even really started are not helpful at all and it's hard to take them as good faith. Please wait for the debate to mature - the whole point is not to say 'this is how we want to do it so live with it until it's ratified'. The editors involved here are attempting to let the community decide how UK articles should be handled. So please let them do that. Aula^TPN 23:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

JK Rowling is English, and by extension British; you can't have guidelines which eliminate stupidity. Nor in the case of substantive nationality disputes, will guidelines such as this eliminate the disputes. You just have to accept the reality that wordings will be determined by editors on particular pages, or when there is a dispute there, the balance of power between the two groups of editors who have the page on their watchlist; this will be the case whether we have these guidelines or not, and all these guidelines as they stand do is attempt to push the balance of power in favour of one ideological position. How that could "defuse edit wars" is beyond me. If what you say is happening about double standards is true, then I sympathize. I can agree that with people like, say, Tony Blair, British is clearly the best was to describe him since, although he clearly regards himself as primarily English, he is both Scottish and English. People will work out on their own where the term British is clearly more appropriate, but I'd have no problem with a guideline which guided people to use the term "British" where their constituent nationality is in dispute (between England and Scotland, England and Wales, and Scotland and Wales for people born after 1707). That would just be common sense. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "Alex Salmond can call himself Scottish, but legally as his passport clearly states he is a British citizen." But WP is not a legal document - it is an encyclopaedia and its purpose is to inform. To call Charles Stewart Parnell, an Irish nationalist, British, and put a union flag beside his name, is misleading - it informs badly; it misinforms. Since Parnell was chosen as one of the five examples on the project page, you would have to conclude that the whole tendency of the proposed policy is to misinform. Scolaire 08:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Inform, indeed - he was factually British. His identity and his politics can easily be discussed within the context of the article. To call certain people 'Scottish' just because they were born in Scotland however is factually wrong. We wouldn't put a Union Flag beside his name in the standard scheme of things, that much has been worked out in WP:FLAGS. To state it is misleading is effectively an endorsement of dumbing-down Wikipedia rather than stating facts objectively, and discuss views objectively, for the reader to decide upon himself. --Breadandcheese 13:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I added Parnell as an example, but the proposal as written insists upon his Britishness. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not his Britishness - that implies British identity. Rather his British nationality, which is of course very real. --Breadandcheese 13:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So work to build consensus for changing the proposal. Aula^TPN 08:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Have to say, I find the example a clear illumination of a flaw in the proposal. Neither Parnell nor the majority of others from Ireland in that period did or would have described themselves as British - the Irish identity was alive and well. He and many others would have accepted that they were citizens of The UK of Britain and Ireland (whatever they might have wished to be part of) but that entity did not have a unified nationality of "British" - that related / relates to the island of Great Britain. As a member for some months, I have seen some bitter disputes around such matters, but this does seem to be a case of an unnecessary complication, trouble looking for a cause. And the JK Rowling case does not justify anything - that was an absurdity from beginning to end, as the lady is clearly both English and British. SeoR 12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Settlements

I've added a section regarding settlements for your comments. I think we were agreed from the Village Pump discussion that the full settlement name should include the county, if applicable, and the UK but I don't recall any consensus being reached regarding adding the member-country as well. I think it's valid to add it as it is correct from a geographical, political, legislatory (is that a word?) and ceremonial point of view - being in England puts you under a very different jurisdiction from being in Scotland for example. However I'd obviously appreciate all comments.

One thing I'm not particularly sure about is flags. Do we want all locations to display the Union Flag, country flag, county flag, local governmental authority flag etc? My first instinct is that it's more appropriate for the country flag as that's what would be flown in RealLife^TM. It is not permitted for non-governmental buildings to fly the Union Flag so you would see schools, churces, organisations, homes etc flying the St George's Cross in England etc. What concerns me is that it is inconsistent with the approach taken for nationality in biographical articles but as it is only legally possible to be a British citizen then maybe the inconsistency is somehow appropriate? Aula^TPN 22:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That's entirely factually inaccurate. The Union flag is a national flag - it is not simply a flag of the government. It is certainly permitted to fly it from any building you fancy. Most schools would fly the Union flag, even in Scotland (I've attended four Scottish secondary schools - two had a flag pole, one flew the Union flag on special occasions, the other flew the school flag except on public holidays where the Union flag was raised). Churches are a special case for obvious reasons, although plenty of churches do fly the Union flag on holidays. Up until quite recently, seeing a St George's Cross in England was a rarity. --Breadandcheese 15:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think probably both the consistituent country and the national flags should be used. This seems analagous to the usual practice with US settlements, displaying the state and US flags side by side. Certainly I think the Union flag should be included. Mostly this is from consistency; if I were to display this flag: , would the average Briton instantly know where was meant? Probably not; yet that is an English-speaking territory larger and more populous than Scotland or Wales. (As it happens, it's New South Wales in Australia). I don't actually know if the average American or Australian would recognise the flags of our constituent nations; but for consistency, we shouldn't expect them to if we're not going to recognise theirs. I realise that we consider our constituent nations to have a special status that theirs don't; but they may not agree. TSP 10:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent suggestion and will update the proposal to reflect that. I'll place the Union Flag second as that would follow the patter of the address but I'm sure there'll be a debate about which should come first! Aula^TPN 10:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with flag placement here. In universal practice, the state flag goes to the left, and the subdivision to the right. The only reason a Union flag would be flown to the right of a Scottish flag is if it was centred in a display, and even that is technically inaccurate unless the flagpole is raised. --Breadandcheese 15:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There's already a style guideline for UK settlements at WP:UKCITIES. It has been discussed a lot at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. It was agreed that both the country and the nation are not required (i.e. Someplace, Scotland, UK) as it reads too much like an address. After debating whether it should be "Someplace, Scotland" or "Someplace, UK" for some time, the former gained consensus. The proposal here does not reflect the existing guideline, and it should. Waggers 14:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I am stunned that none of the other editors involved in this long discussion has either discovered this page or seen fit to mention it here. I have to question whether this page has the right level of visibility, my gut reaction would be no. I'd propose then that the page be either moved/merged into whatever MOSUK page falls out of this discussion or that the resulting MOSUK page make explicit reference to this guide when dealing with settlements. For reasons of visibility, I'd prefer the former. Aula^TPN 14:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

The flag cruft proposal for settlements hits the buffers when applied to Northern Ireland, which hasn't had an official flag since the 1970s. --Red King 19:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A consensus is emerging at Talk:Northern Ireland that Northern Ireland has a de facto flag.Traditional unionist 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No there isn't a consensus can't be reached that breachs WP:OR and WP:POV.--padraig 22:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Traditional, as a person supporting that "consensus", that is certainly not what I am arguing. NI has no de facto flag. So long as Ikea can only fly the Swedish flag outside their Belfast stores then its quite clear that the Swedish flag has greater de facto status than any flag in Northern Ireland. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Very Very Strongly Disagree

Looks to me like an attempt to generate a guideline that allows a whitewash to any opposition - a very bad idea - the Policy of consensus must not be overruled by a small group of editors who have a "guideline" that they can use in edit wars. I see no discussions here, just the rationale for this guideline being "This will stop edit warring as anyone who tries to revert will be going against consensus and will be warned. - User:Readro (proposed guideline creator)" yet absolutely no consensus is displayed, nor is it likely to be because attempting to force content decisions on thousands of articles by decree is unacceptable. Very worried by these developments - this is not how guidelines on wikipedia should be created. SFC9394 22:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been well discussed at the Village Pump (policy) page. Aula^TPN 22:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is now here, Aula. It is here that some users are trying to push new guidelines. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Rejected

Based on discussion here, never mind elsewhere, this proposal has no chance of acceptance. Accordingly, I've tagged it with {{rejected}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes and you really shouldn't have done so. You can't unilaterally declare this policy proposal a failure before debate has even matured. Instead of attempting to shoot this proposal down, why not try and work within the system to make it more acceptable to you? Aula^TPN 23:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It was labelled a proposal, the proposal as it stands should be rejected, since it will never get consensus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely the whole point of the proposal is that it's here to attract as wide an informed debate as possible? Surely the point of that debate is to arrive at a consensus whereby the proposal undergoes a series of alterations until it is acceptable? Going through an incremental series of rejected then slightly modified proposals is not helpful as the debate from one iteration will almost certainly not get cleanly copied over to the next. Surely it's more informative to keep debating and refining the proposal here until it is accepted? Aula^TPN 07:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

1603-1707

What about someone between 1603 and 1707, when England and Scotland were distinct entities but monarchies in personal union, and if I understand rightly foreign policy at least tended to go the same way during those years.

Whatever is decided, this manual of style sounds like a good idea to me. Nyttend 00:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

While following the 1603 personal union there was a 'King of Great Britain' and there was some form of governmental unity in certain matters at times, there was very much still a Scottish state in existence. Ergo, they'd be Scottish. --Breadandcheese 13:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not accurate. Although there was a personal union (as there was between England and Hanover, England and Normandy etc etc)- up until 1653 when the union of the crowns was abolished by Cromwell (since there was no crown), and this was picked up again after the commonwealth... the foreign policies often did go different ways - this was part of the reasoning behind the 1707 anschluss, sorry union of parliaments. Look up the Darien scheme for starters - this caused a great deal of friction. --MacRusgail 14:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what I said? Although in some ways, government was shared, divergence was common and the states were separate? Equally, there was no Union of the Crowns under Cromwell, however in the period of the Commonwealth Scotland and England were part of one state - Cromwell brought about his own full Union. --Breadandcheese 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, the union of the crowns was abolished under Cromwell, and in legal terms would not apply afterwards. Contrast this with the Hanoverian situation, in which a state surrounded by powerful German principalities dissolved a union. --MacRusgail 20:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree

My family have lived in Scotland since 1056 - yes, a decade before William the Conqueror arrived in England. Like all those other foreigners, the Bruces, the Stewards etc., who swanned into Scotland, we regard ourselves as Scottish. But we also accept that we are first and foremost British and a constituent part of Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Our monarchies have been intermarried intermittantly and most intelligent Scots realise that when James 1st inherited the English throne and united it in His Person it was the beginning of the end for the endless strife, murders, feuds, famines, and poverty of Scotland. With the Union in 1707 Scotland went from strength to strength and never looked back. Dalrymple declared that Scotland before the Union was "the poorest nation in Europe". Well its not now and that is because of the Union. This is a small island, and we are all British first and foremost. That does not detract from the fact that some of us are Scots or English or Welsh or Ulstermen. The arguments here are crystalised in the present and most recent British Prime Ministers. It should not matter what part of our island one is born in. Trying to reverse history via supporters of the neanderthal SNP or by Wikipedia 'consensus' does not do Wikipedia any credit whatsoever. I support the resolution. David Lauder 08:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with this summary also.--Counter-revolutionary 09:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree also Astrotrain 17:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A fine speech indeed, but this proposal does not deal with the naming of people things on "our island". The ambitions of the framers extend to mandating particular forms of reference to people and place within the various incarnations of the United Kingdom, only one of which, and that the shortest-lived, was restricted to the largest of the various islands in North-West Europe. The other variants included part or all of the second-largest island. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Iceland? --sony-youth^pléigh 14:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a small island, and we are all British first and foremost. That does not detract from the fact that some of us are Scots or English or Welsh or Ulstermen. Are you saying everyone from Northern Ireland is British, and should be classed as such, because they are not.--padraig 15:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Far from "reversing history", it's going with the flow of history. The British empire is unravelling the way it came together. Scotland will be first, then Wales... maybe even the Channel Islands and Isle of Man will go off completely - actually, that's already happening. Guernsey has been discussing full independence and Manx politicians are pushing for it. --MacRusgail 16:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We really are not in need of poor political commentary. This is an encyclopaedia, we deal in facts. [unsigned anonymous comment]

Yes, but I am afraid the facts are against you. The UK is coming apart. Look at polls, election results, devolution, academic studies etc etc. --MacRusgail 18:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote - "it was the beginning of the end for the endless strife, murders, feuds, famines, and poverty of Scotland. With the Union in 1707 Scotland went from strength to strength and never looked back."

Are you living on the same planet as me? The 17th and 18th centuries were amongst the most violent in Scottish history. The only thing that cooled the thing down was when they started transporting folk to Australia for asking for democracy... In fact, the Darien economic disaster was partly because of the united monarchy, not in spite of it. Of course Scotland didn't look back, because if it had, it would see Scottish troops always got sent into British wars first, taken out last, and took ridiculously high casualties.

Besides which it is idiotic to use the "small island" geographic argument, (besides the fact that it is one of the biggest islands in the world) - wouldn't that make the Falklands Argentine, or Gibraltar Spanish? Geographic sense like that was never applied to Berwick upon Tweed, the Channel Islands, Hong Kong, Bermuda etc etc --MacRusgail 15:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC) p.s. I'm sorry to break it to you, David, but the disgusting British empire is dead, and good riddance. We can stop pretending to be what we're not. Scotland becoming increasingly independent is part of the same process that got Australia, India and part of Ireland independence - it's the direction this country's been going in for over a hundred years.

Gerry Adams holds an Irish Passport, an although he may be a Northern Ireland MP and MLA he is not British, I would suggest yous read the Good Friday Agreement would recognises that those born in Northern Ireland can be Irish, British or hold duel Nationality, I was born in Northern Ireland, I have never been or regarded myself as British, I also hold an Irish Passport. Also what is this northern Irish nonsense everyone in Northern Ireland is Irish first there are only British if they choose to be, just as anyone born in England is English first or Scotland is Scottish or Scottish first.--padraig 16:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I can sympathise. I am Scottish, and stopped considering myself "British" as soon as I was old enough to be able to make an informed choice. By the way, this is not merely a "nationalist" argument - Gordon Brown considers himself Scottish, and so would many other unionist politicians. You'd probably be surprised at how many consider themselves "more Scottish than British" despite their political position. People like David Lauder are in a time warp, and I always expect them to talk about the Raj next...--MacRusgail 16:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You are still a British subject whether you like it or not. Astrotrain 17:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think I am? I am applying for Irish citizenship as I speak, because I'd rather be Scottish with an Irish passport, than Scottish with a passport which doesn't recognise our right to self-determination. The UK did sign the UN charter, even if it does not stick to it. Again I am not "British". --MacRusgail 14:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You are still a British citizen until you renounce that status. If you become an Irish passport holder then you are free to do so. As for 'self-determination' - despite it being off topic, I'd suggest you read a basic textbook on international law before putting yourself forwards as an authority on the matter. --Breadandcheese 15:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You can regard yourself British, if you wish I have never been anything other then Irish.--padraig 17:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You say that like there is something wrong with being British? Astrotrain 17:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say there was anything wrong with being British, I said I am not nor ever have been British, I was Born in Ireland and I have a Irish passport.--padraig 15:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Plenty - like being an identity whcih is tied up with empire. Britishness was created to get the Scots into the Empire, which many of them did. It's no more progressive than calling yourself "Austro-Hungarian" or "Soviet" --MacRusgail 14:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That way of thinking would be a bit like a German thinking "German nationality is tied up with Nazism, I'll renounce it." Yes, the empire happened, but it is in the past. Modern Britain does not represent that. If we start looking at disdain those who take nationalities which were responsible for something bad in the past, them we'll end up hating everyone. Readro 15:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually Readro, it's not like calling a German a Nazi, but like calling an Austrian a German. But maybe you don't get the reference... Modern Britishness represents the nostalgia of empire (remember the Falklands?) and clawing it back through the USA, and the Union Jack which reflects the suppression of Scotland and Ireland, and the invisibility of Wales. Hence we get geographic arguments like "we're on the same island" from people who simulataneously recognise the right of Gibraltar and the Falklands to self-determination. --MacRusgail 18:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I could smell the ideology on this page before I even visited it. The whole page smells of it, but here, in this section, it positively stinks. We all have our political and ideological beliefs, but can we all try to remember we are editors of an encyclopedia which at least nominally aspires to neutrality?! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think that the UK, England, Scotland... original debate that led to this page was primarily ideological. It's a shame that it's become so. TSP 17:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The main point of contention in most bio articles is the nationality field people seem to be equating nationality with citizenship even thought they are different for example I am a British citizen but I would never describle myself as such as my nationality is Scottish. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 21:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And having read the debate you pointed to, I don't think the arguments were fundementally different to the arguments here. And why should we not deal with ideology, anyway? Scolaire 21:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Padraig's comments are insulting and ill informed. As it happens I do regard myself as irish, but I am British first. Padraig's opinions on that have no relevance to my identity. Also, Gerry Adams is a British MP and Martin McGuinness is a British Minister, thats what the Belfast Agreement, which Padraig references, states. I agree with the proposal.Traditional unionist 22:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

However, you do have the choice to take out Irish citizenship if you want to. --MacRusgail 14:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Unionist how is my comment insulting, if you wish be regard yourself as British/Irish or Duel nationality that is up to you. But yourself and I along with everyone else from Northern Ireland have the same rights, and that means we can choose our own nationality, a right that the GFA re-affirms, As for Gerry Adams he is an Irish MP to a British Parliament, McGuinness is a Irish MLA and Minster to a Northern Ireland Assembly set up by Westminster, that dosen't make them British.--padraig 15:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree

Wikipedia is not a political platform. If someone identifies themselves as primarily being Scottish/English/Welsh/Irish etc. they should be referred to as such. If someone identifies as British, they should be referred to as such. Most people in the UK tend to identify themselves as belonging to the constituent nation first and Britain second. Doing differently would seem like going against standard practice for political reasons (because of WP:FAITH I'll remain silent on the motivation for introducing this policy in the first place). Lurker (said · done) 09:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That last comment only serves to indicate a lack of good faith. I can assure you that the supporters of this style guideline have genuine reasons for wanting this. See the archive at WT:MOTOR. As I undterstand it, the essence of this proposal is that we should follow the example of articles such as Jackie Stewart, which correctly reports his nationality in the infobox and describes him as a Scottish racing driver. This example is not in isolation and it has a lot of prior support. Adrian M. H. 10:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not anti-Scottish, anti-Welsh or anything, I just feel that there should be consistency throughout Wikipedia and this seemed to be the consensus that came up when it was discussed at the Village Pump. I don't appreciate you inferring bad faith with your last comment. Readro 10:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that this debate is suffering from missing the majority of the previous debate. This page has been built upon two debates on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy): UK, England, Scotland... and Nationality. Would it be worth copying those here?

One point made repeatedly is that it's absolutely find to mention someone's Scottish birth, Scottish residence, that they self-define as Scottish; and, guardedly, if all these apply, to describe them as 'Scottish'; but in infoboxes, or when a flag is used, for consistency it should be the Union flag. TSP 10:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is simply about our legal nationality, then it is British. Some of the tribalists might not like it but thats what is on our passports. David Lauder 10:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This debate is becoming exceptionally POV and political and the motivations behind the proposal were neither. It is simply unencyclopaedic to describe someone's nationality in an infobox as Scottish or English or Welsh as no such thing currently exists - you can only currently be a citizen of the United Kingdom. Now I think it's perfectly correct in the article itself to describe someone as a 'Scottish racing driver' as cited above and I think we could continue to do that. If we arrived at that consensus then someone could simply add that criterion to the proposal. Obviously when we're talking about people who lived before the various forms of union then their infoboxes would detail whatever nationality was legally apropriate for that era and the proposal already draws this distinction. Aula^TPN 10:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely all debates must by their very nature consist of personal opinions?David Lauder 12:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is sweeping, and runs far beyond Blair, Rowling, or Conolly. Parnell's "legal nationality" was British, as indeed was that of Michael Collins, who was killed before the nationality provisions of the Free State constitution took effect. All Irish people living between 1801 and 1922 will at some time have had British nationality, and those who died before December 1922 generally had no other. I'm too lazy to check the details, but I'm fairly sure that Canadian, Australian, etc, nationalities are, legally, post-WWII creations. Was Ned Kelly a British outlaw? Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ned Kelly was a British outlaw. His crimes were committed in a colony which did not get independence untl 1901. This should not be about personal opinions and 'consensus' but writing up the facts. Otherwise Wiki will become a collection of agreed personal opinions which do not accord with the truth. David Lauder 12:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Angus. By definition, this proposal would apply to all Irish nationalists from 1801-1922. Parnell, Michael Collins, Daniel O'Connell, et al - describing them as British will simply result in endless edit wars every time a new editor comes across a page describing them as British. Furthermore, there are many individuals that just scream 'Scottish' or 'Welsh' when you think of them - Billy Connolly, Sean Connery, Tom Jones... describing them first and foremost as 'British' just seems... odd. Lastly, what's with all the flags? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is verifiability. "Just screams 'Scottish' when you think of them" is not a verifiable standard; which leaves it as a matter of the editor's opinion which designation to use, something which we tend to try to avoid in Wikipedia.

Personally I was only really thinking of this policy in terms of infoboxes, flags and so on. In prose it's possible to express more nuanced differences - "Scottish-born", "identifies himself as Scottish", and so on. Some of the same issues exist there, though. TSP 11:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

David Ben-Gurion was a Palestinian politician? Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a Soviet writer? Michael Collins was a British military commander? Where is the common sense? Scolaire 11:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Ben-Gurion was a Jewish politician in a new state called Israel. Solzhenitsyn was a Russian writer - he lived in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which was an artifical creation and name and forced upon the populance, like it or not. How can that be a reasonable comparison? Michael Collins is a slightly more ambiguous individual who was legally British first, Irish second (like it or not). We are not talking about people of his ilk, but people today, particularly those in the public eye and representing Great Britain in their various fields. There is nothing wrong with saying where they were born or that they are (or largely are) of Scottish extraction. But to try and exclude Britain and British is following a highly political devolutionist route. David Lauder 12:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben-Gurion was a politician in Palestine before the state of Israel existed. Solzhenitsyn was a writer in the USSR, a state that was repesented on the UN Security council. Of course the comparison is reasonable!

"...an artifical creation and name and forced upon the populance, like it or not" - you sound like an Irish republican. Scolaire 15:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the use of a nation's name in a collocation often doesn't imply nationality - as we have seen above, you can be an 'Irish footballer' - one who plays on the Irish national team - without actually being Irish by any normal measure. Similarly, 'British military commander' implies a commander in the British military. Often by nationality won't be the best way to identify someone; all that this is trying to establish is that, if a nationality is given, it should be that of the sovereign state. As it happens that would be Israel for Ben-Gurion and Russia for Solzhenitsyn, as I think it's usual to take the last nationality; but yes, Collins' nationality was of the United Kingdom; if Irish nationality had existed within his lifetime, he wouldn't have had to fight. TSP 12:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ignoring everything else, "nationality" in this legal state state sense should not be back-dated. Few people before the 19th, or even before the 20th, defined their "nationality" by the style of the monarch they lived under, and it is simply wrong to look at the world then in this way. Mozart was from the Archbishopric of Salzburg, part of the Holy Roman Empire, and like all German-speakers in central Europe, regarded his "nationality" as German, but in 21st century terms his land happens to fall in the state of Austria, which is now mutually exclusive with the state of Germany, and since most sovereign states aspire or try to pretend they are nation-states (which 90% of them certainly aren't), and legal speaking, claim to be nation-states, "nationality" has become distorted and ambiguous in meaning. Hence it should be no surprise to learn that the Mozart article was the scene of some realist versus anachronist revert wars and fighting. In Scotland, if you ask someone their nationality, most (though not all) will tell you they are "Scottish" (but this is not a polarized issue: according to polls, only about 25% of people reject British nationality entirely [2]). The idea that Britain is a "nation-state" is one that is under debate, it is not accepted. They aren't responding with their knowledge of statutory law, and many if not most of these people are content with the existence of the United Kingdom, this is just how "nationality" gets defined in practice in Scotland. And 99% of the time, it doesn't get up anyone's goat. Robert Louis Stevenson would be defined by almost every published work as a "Scottish writer"; that he is British is true by extension, and likewise I've never come across anyone being pissed off by describing him as "Scottish". Such issues, the vast majority of articles, are not going to be subject to edit wars unless self-righteous ideologues start going in changing nationalities. Now many here insist that "thy sovereign states shall monopolize thy national identity", but this is intellectually immature and does not correspond with reality. It is a state, but not in everyone's or even most people's eyes necessarily a nation. Some of course want it to be or to portray it as a nation-state, some want it gone. These are private issues for the wikipedians and people concerned. Wikipedia has to, and in fact will, reflect reality, not the prescriptions of a few ideologues. I doubt many people want to go into let alone prioritize the exact wording on someone's passport. All these arguments aside, some wiki users can try to set this set of guidelines up, but the reality is that it simply will not be followed. The guidelines need seriously toned down if they are to have any hope of mirroring reality. You just have to accept the reality that wordings will be determined by editors on particular pages, or when there is a dispute there, the balance of power between the two groups of editors who have the page on their watchlist; this will be the case whether we have these guidelines or not, and all these guidelines as they stand do is attempt to push the balance of power in favour of one ideological position.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this objection is that is impossible in many cases to surmise someone's identity. In this case, we should not be inaccurate and make suppositions, but rather demonstrate what is well documented. --Breadandcheese 13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - not only a political gesture, but one at a time when Britishness is in sharp decline. There is nothing any more wrong in identifying someone as Scottish, Welsh, Cornish (put that last one down in your notebook [3]! Not all Cornish consider themselves English See Constitutional status of Cornwall and Cornish people), or English, than describing the Canadian province, or US state they come from. As for Breadandcheese's assertion, where someone is difficult to "surmise", then British may be the answer - in other cases, e.g. Tony Blair (born in Scotland, considers himself English), and Wendy Wood & Stuart Adamson (both born in England, but quite definitely considering themselves Scottish), the answer is to have the flag of the country they were born in in the infobox (St George or St Andrew) and their nationality down as they have chosen it.--MacRusgail 15:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC

Britishness in the context we are discussing is not in any decline at all - in fact, the number of people who are British is growing year on year. As for your point about when it is difficult to surmise, should the presence of new information suggest we should remove factually accurate information because...? Most people certainly never choose their nationality - if someone outright rejects his British identity, then fair enough, discuss that - but it's certainly not a problem with the policy generally --Breadandcheese 16:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Britishness IS in decline. You're not naive enough to think that the increasing votes of Plaid and the SNP are merely tactical are you? Why do you think that Gordon Brown has ordered the Union Jack to be run up? Answer: he's running scared. The Union Jack used to be everywhere in Scotland, now it's mostly football bigots who fly it - and it's heading that way in Wales - "Welsh identity growing" (Times Education Supplement: 04 May 2007) "New recruits demonstrate shift towards `Welshness' and bilingualism, says teaching council Most new teachers regard themselves as Welsh rather than British, new figures reveal." ("Britain wants UK break up, poll shows" Sunday Telegraph27/11/2006) "A clear majority of people in both England and Scotland are in favour of full independence for Scotland, an ICM opinion poll for The Sunday Telegraph has found. Independence is backed by 52 per cent of Scots while an astonishing 59 per cent of English voters want Scotland to go it alone."--MacRusgail 16:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Desire for independence is not the same as independence. Wikipedia is not the UK. You cannot form Wikipedia consensus based on a poll by one newspaper amongst a minority of English people. Readro 16:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is however, an example of how "Britishness" is in decline. I am afraid Readro, that the three examples I provided are not isolated. Many English people have never been able to disentangle Britain from England anyway, although I am sure they will be able to soon. --MacRusgail 14:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

They might not be isolated, but again I'll state, you cannot form Wikipedia consensus based on a poll by one newspaper amongst a minority of English people. Readro 15:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say it's "one newspaper" like you imagine, but it's not. Thirty years ago, England football fans waved the Union Jack, now what do most of them fly? It's part of an historical process - the UK is not going to fetishise WWII forever, and pretend to be a world power. --MacRusgail 18:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

One secure in his position does not tend to go around pontificating it to everyone despite the fact that they simply don't care. This is not relevant to anything, can you please refrain from cluttering up the page with your rather extremist political opinions.--Breadandcheese 18:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Back at you, Breadandcheese. You've summed it up beautifully! Scolaire 19:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather tiring of the 'reverse back' argument-for-argument's-sake process here. As observed below, I've not once put forward my political beliefs, I believe doing so would be incompatible with participating objectively on Wikipedia, which is also why I've only reluctantly discussed my national identity when I thought it would be particularly good at illustrating a point. I think you're being deliberately obtuse and it's not getting anybody anywhere. With that in mind, I shall be withdrawing myself from this discussion for a few hours with the hope something more constructive develops in time. --Breadandcheese 19:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You've put forward your political beliefs all over this page. At least I'm honest enough to recognise when I do it. You certainly are every time you discuss the British issue. --MacRusgail 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, "one doesn't". Five million might though, and it is their right to choose. They've already chosen devolution. I consider your opinions offensive and reactionary. I don't seek to impose my identity on you, so who are you to tell us what to be? That's a reasonable request not an "extreme one". Oh, and by the way, can you and your friends stop deleting all the bits and pieces in this discussion which don't agree with your position please? --MacRusgail 19:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have never given any of my political views here, something you just can't seem to keep to yourself. As for identity imposition - that's exactly what this proposal seeks to avoid. I am not imposing a British or Home Nations identity on anybody who does it, however it is an objective fact that if you are born in Scotland then you are a British citizen until you renounce that citizenship. That's why, if someone is to be labelled, the objective fact should be included rather than the wild conjecture.

As for not deleting, I don't know who 'my friends' are - but I've not removed anything that wasn't entirely irrelevant to the discussion and completely objectionable (and I don't think I've removed anything of yours to the best of my memory). However this is a talk page for the matter at hand, not a discussion forum, and anything off topic, insulting, rude, abusive and so forth should be removed. --Breadandcheese 19:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

MacRusgail may have been thinking about the time when you said "I could easily find myself labelled Scottish (I was born in, educated un, grew up un, live in, Scotland etc) however I am deeply uncomfortable with that label as representative of my identity and while I do have a certain Scottish identity, if asked my nationality I would reply British." It may be just a coincidence that you are pushing a bunch of wild and misguided arguments which just happen to lead to the suggestions that British be used everywhere, but maybe MacRusgail has made a connection, and presumes that your own politically-related desire to be described as British is related to your desire that everyone else should be. I mean, I'm just guessing here. I'm sure you'll tell me my guess is wrong. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is "a discussion forum". I am challenging your assumption that we should all be labelled British, by trying to delete any reference to "submerged nationalities" (for want of a better term). I stand by it, and will resist any attempts to stymie this debate. As I have said repeatedly, plenty of unionists consider themselves more Scottish/Welsh/Irish/English than British anyway. --MacRusgail 19:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely political about having an identity - in fact, I have not even stated that I have any identity short of a slight Scottish one. The presumption that I somehow see myself as particularly British is based on a lot of presumption; presumption I do not welcome. I don't particularly want to be 'described' as British, however I acknowledge that I am a British citizen and it would be the most objective way of classifying me. Wild? I hardly thing the suggestion that Nationality should = citizenship rather than airy-fairy supposition is remotely wild, in fact it's accepted practice throughout most of Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Breadandcheese (talk • contribs)

As stated in many places, this proposal does not attempt to delete mention of national identities, simply put them in their proper place and enable a clearer discussion of something which is by no means concrete. As for what people consider themselves, I don't really mind what people think; how you classify them in an encyclopaedia is what is relevant. --Breadandcheese 19:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course "identity is political". Ever spoken to a feminist? --MacRusgail 19:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC) p.s. people rarely appreciate being "put in their proper place" as you put it.

Your "wild" arguments consists of arguing that citizenship should equal nationality and that government defined nationality is "more objective" than actual more objective (i.e. more popular) definitions of nationality, and using such bogus arguments to insist that the less common "British" replace more common "Scottish" designation in spite of the fact that it is not what is typically done either on wiki or elsewhere, it is not desired by most people, and that in your own definition Scottish, English etc mean British by extension. This is ignoring the fact that the bulk of people covered by the proposed guidelines (people living before 1949) weren't even legally British nationality. You may insist that citizenship ought to monopolize the definition of nationality, but in the English language, it simply does not. I'm afraid if you want to retain any grip on reality, you will have to acknowledge that first off. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

An out of date proposal by an English man

The idea behind this proposal is primarily to stop edit wars - well, we have an administrative procedure to sort out edit wars on this and lots of other far more contentious issues. What I think the proposer misses (because he's sat where he only has two votes - councils and Westminster) is that those of sat in the "regions" have been encouraged to become locally national - we have another level of voting, and are happily engaged with our "nationalism." We could even extend this to "nationalism" in London - I assume that other edit wars must exist on articles where people and even towns were parts of Kent, Middlesex and Surrey, and what is now London. I can't imagine if we accept this proposal, that the proposer would accept he was British over Yorkshire, seeing as he refers to himself being born in "God's own country" with a white rose emblem! This is a quite ridiculous proposal, and must have other agenda issues associated for anyone who is connected or aware of modern society in all the regions to have considered suggesting. (NB: comments written by an English born, Irish surnamed, Scots heritaged Welsh resident) Rgds, - Trident13 12:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposer is nothing of the sort. This is complete rubbish. First and foremost I am from Essex, not Yorkshire. I have never said I was born in "God's own country", for I am not religious. I am from what is known as England, but consider myself British. This proposal is to do with Wikipedia-wide consistency, not for any other reason. I have no other agenda besides a desire to improve Wikipedia. I strongly suggest that in the future you do not make up any more lies like these in order to try and discredit a proposal. Finally, this page is for discussion of the proposal, not the proposer. Readro 13:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with Trident's comment at all and I am not English. People across Britain have always voted in all their local and nation elections. If he told anyone where I lived that they were "happily engaged in their nationalism" they'd ask if he were part of the community care programme. The proposal to hand recognises the legal truth - that until the cave-men finally destroy the United Kingdom we are all British. David Lauder 13:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I feel like I should break out the NPA tags all over Trident's comment. Firstly I believe Trident is referring to me, as he is apparently mocking my user page, which is absurd as I didn't even propose this policy, merely the section on settlements. Secondly, not that it should matter one iota of a damn, but where have I ever said I was English? This is exactly typical of the nonsense nationalism that I have been seeing crop up all over Wikipedia. People born in the UK are granted British citizenship, nothing more and nothing less. The fact that I now feel I have to defend my choice of userboxes is utterly insane but if you must know then yes I was born in Yorkshire and no I don't particularly feel myself to be from "God's own country" - that's simply the userbox I found for that particular category. Further, if you had even bothered to read my user page you'd see that I've spent at least a third of my life living all over the world and when asked I have *always* identified myself first and formost as British. If it actually matters a flying fig, and it certainly shouldn't, I am of mixed English and Scottish descent and very proud of both ancestries. It's high time people stopped pushing these ridiculous POVs and started striving for content which was factually correct and encyclopaedic. <very annoyed> Aula^TPN 13:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We have policy to prevent edit wars, yes, but edit wars are usually indicative of a failing in our policies in relation to the matter in dispute. This is not to prevent edit wars directly, but to correct the flaw which is causing so many of them. I am Scottish and fully support this policy - which I find very disturbing in having to affirm. The one thing this policy does is remove the need to wonder as to someone's identity - whether it is Welsh, Yorkshirish or whatever else - unless it's relevant to an encyclopaedia. --Breadandcheese 13:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ask yourself a question, and look at some of these answers - birth and nationalsim is a definition of fact and personal perspective/choice. Do we assume that this is a "UK only" problem? What about the former Russian federation, or the Basque issue in France/Spain: or a more live issue, that of the seperate regions of Iraq? If we accept this proposal, do we also remove the county levels categories for identifying birth, or why not everything - "its just all part of Great Britain." If fully extended to other areas, trying telling the Texans the Alamo is in the United States and not primarily Texan! This proposal doesn't accept the idea that proud regionalism and nationalism exists, or will grow in light of Westminster policy. Some see their birth as one thing (ie - regional level) and some as another (ie - country level): I even know some who call themselves Europeans, why don't we implement that as a proposal? What happens if we have someone who proudly states his birth as Welsh, and that's the only references we can find? What about someone who defines themselves as a Welsh Yorkshireman (I know a few of those!). This whole proposal is ill thought out and argued, and is an administrative tool which will create far larger edit wars than those currently being experienced - the harsh differential debate here is just a micro-cosum of the larger war that will inevitably occur, because people have such strong feeelings about themselves, and where they originate. This is best kept as is and debated on a per article basis, than trying to find an administrative solution to a "problem" which will continue to exist. NB: I also don't think the proposer has though through the media or political exposure such a proposal if adopted would create. If this daft administrative proposal goes any further, the Wiki board should be fully briefed and fully agree - it will, for instance, cost them a fortune explaining why Owain Glyndwr is a British born hero - and we better mortgage the dBase to explain why some Scot's hero's would be categorised in the same way!!! Rgds, - Trident13 17:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this proposal was ever, in its current state, meant to go this far. It's a first draft based on a debate; it was never meant to be leapt on as something to debate in its current form. TSP 17:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In answer to Trident13's comments, outer London (note the small "o") is a bit more of a mess when it comes to identity (the Post Office is to blame!) - many in Romford think of themselves as Essex men, in Bexley as Men of Kent/Kentish Men (whichever it is for the west of Kent), I've had many an argument with a Sutton resident over whether or not he comes from Surrey (as I do by every single definition of the county) or London and so forth.

But more generally I do think the wood is being missed for the trees. There is a lot of inconsistency on UK articles. For example with some Scottish universities there have recently been ongoing wars about whether or not "United Kingdom" or "Scotland" goes in the country field in the infobox (not helped by the infobox only having the location fields "city", "state", "province" and "country") with a lot of people citing different consensuses for changing it one way or another. Or when the individual regional university templates were replaced with Template:Universities in the United Kingdom (not least because a number of the universities straddle regions awkwardly) it was only the Scottish university articles that kept having it reverted (and the Scottish only template is still surviving in some places). And it does get worse when it comes to individuals - for national team games a consensus to use the team a person plays for works (although given the way some national teams go talent scouting through ancestral charts I do have to wonder if some of these people shold be identified just by the nation they played for, particularly if they're also notable in other fields - athlete Menzies Campbell captained the Scottish team in a Commonwealth Games, but otherwise generally ran for Britain and is now the UK wide leader of a UK political party) but when players generally play as individuals it gets messy - look for instance at Andy Murray and Tim Henman. (And I don't even want to think about Greg Rusedski. Apparently in an unofficial England-Scotland tennis tournament he was on the English side, adding yet another possible nationality to Canadian, British, Polish, Ukranian...)

Frankly individual edit wars cannot be easily resolved without some overall guidelines. Especially when existing parts of the MoS that get cited assume rather less ambiguity over such basic terms as "nationality" and "country" than we're dealing with here. Leaving it to local solutions will prove messy, especially on articles which fall within the domain of multiple overlaps. Timrollpickering 00:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wider Attention

I've removed the 'Wider Attention' label. At the moment this page is largely attracting people saying "Agree!" and "Disagree!", which is totally unhelpful, as the proposal is, in my view, far from completed. Yes, the issues are more complex than this; but we haven't had time to expand on them all. If you're coming here, please read these two debates on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy): UK, England, Scotland... and Nationality; these outline what this proposal is intended, when completed, to say. I don't think that more input here is helpful, though, until those involved in the original debate have hammered out what we intended this proposal to say. At the moment those involved in the original debate are spending all our time answering questions from people who didn't read that debate, rather than actually completing the proposal so there's something here worth reading. TSP 12:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not people read the debates on the village pump is surely irrelevant. This is the talk page for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles), not anything else. We should debate the policy presented to us. And I think restricting the amount of participants in a debate in a community like Wikipedia is very rarely a good idea Lurker (said · done) 12:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

But I don't think this was intended to be a policy presented to anyone. "I have created the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles) so that the proposal can be developed and discussed. Readro 19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)" At the moment it isn't receiving much development or discussion; it's receiving a lot of "Disagree!" Disagreeing with something that isn't finished doesn't get anyone anywhere. I'm not attempting to restrict debate; I'm attempting to say that the best time to debate will be when there is something to debate. Encouraging everyone to leap in on a first draft, which hasn't even been edited by most of the people who originally proposed it should exist, just kills the idea before anyone has a chance to see what the idea was meant to be.

I'm not saying that this page should be marked with "no-one else should come and read this"; I'm just saying that I don't think it's ready to be specially marked with "here is something that is ready for the wider community to consider"; because I don't think it is yet. TSP 12:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of this idea of stopping inviting people to take part in a Wikipedia discussion because it's "not ready" for wider discussion. To the best of my knowledge, this is against all Wikipedia precedents. Lurker (said · done) 12:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's even being suggested. I believe what is meant is that it would be more beneficial if people discussed ways in which to amend or improve the content of the proposal before immediately announcing their disapproval of it. Also, note that in the template at the top of the page it states "The proposal may still be in development". Readro 12:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Whereas I'm not sure that I've ever been in a debate in which people have been "invited" in this fashion. I note that the template and category in question are both up for deletion. As I say, of course no-one should be banned from coming here; I just don't think it's ready for being specially marked as needing wider attention. All that is doing is bringing in people unaware of the context, who read an unfinished proposal as if it's a finished one and oppose it. Possibly this should be moved to a sandbox if that is necessary to make people realise the context it should be read in. TSP 12:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Scope

From some of the discussion here and elsewhere, it seems that the purpose of the proposed guideline is to standardise terminology in summaries, such as infoboxes and the like. However, the wording elsewhere seems much more general. I think it would be worth clarifying how far this guideline is expected to reach. Prescribing that someone's nationality be given as [[United Kingdom|British]] in an infobox is one thing, but proscribing describing someone as "Angus McSurname is a Scottish…" or "Taffy Jones is a Welsh…" is something quite different and quite undesirable. Even in infoboxes, one would need to be careful. For international sportspeople competing in certain sports (notably football and rugby), Welshness, Scottishness and Englishness are of greater importance than Britishness (British Lions and the Baa-baas notwithstanding). I would also suggest that defaulting to passport "nationality" (which is actually citizenship, not nationality) should only occur where it cannot otherwise be agreed how best to describe someone's nationality. --Stemonitis 13:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My passport quite clearly states Nationality: British, not citizenship. If you want I can take a picture of the appropriate section. Readro 13:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point, and the intentions of the guideline remain unclear. Is it to standardise summary information, or to insist on widespread re-description of Welsh, English and Scottish topics as "British"? The former might be feasible after an extended period of careful polite discussion; the other is doomed to failure, as the number of people already determined to reject the guideline will demonstrate. --Stemonitis 13:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Primarily the former, I think. However, it is also the case that descriptions of someone as 'English', 'Scottish' or 'Welsh' will often be controversial or matters of opinion, and perhaps this guideline (when finished) should consider those as well. Personally I think that it is best to stick to verifiable facts - "Scottish-born", "resident in Scotland", "identifies as Scottish", "of Scottish ancestry"; though where all of those are true it is probably uncontroversial to identify someone as "Scottish". TSP 13:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, it is the former, hence why I stated in the proposal that it was OK to describe someone as Scottish because that is factual and important for cultural identity, but when nationality is explicitly referred to then it should be British. What amendments to the wording would you suggest? Readro 13:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely the whole point of the proposal is that, with informed consensus, it can be expanded to set guidelines for all eventualities? What would be the problem in having one section for summaries, where you would probably want to list someone's nationality as British, and another section governing how to correctly describe a Briton in the main text of an article, where you probably would want something more granular such as Scottish? Aula^TPN 13:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

For each type of article covered by the proposal (Biographies, Settlements, etc) I'd recommend splitting into two subsections - one for summaries and infoboxes and one for main article content. Aula^TPN 13:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In the latter instance (or subsection), "nationality" will depend very much on how the subject identifies himself or herself, and how he or she will is perceived by the public. Some people are clearly Scottish or Welsh or English, while others have vaguer associations. In a complicated field like this, I think it would be better to leave it up to the usual policies of verifiability and forbidding original research. Where a person is consistently referred to as Scottish, we should too; where a person is more generally referred to as British, we should follow suit. That is more or less what the existing guidelines say, so I don't think anything needs to be added. I look forward, however, to seeing a revised text which would apply exclusively to summary information in international contexts (or however it is thought best to word it). --Stemonitis 13:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a big distinction between a [normally verifiable] fact in an infobox and a descriptive explanation of a person's situation and background. We are not trying to over-prescribe an editor's latitude with regard to what they write; we are simply trying to develop a style guideline that recommends the best approach to this information and how it is presented. A quick scan of the Billy Connolly article did not reveal whether he still resides in Scotland, but either way, he could hardly be any more Scottish. However, since he is officially a British citizen with U.K. nationality, that infobox is incorrect. If it said "Decent: Scottish" or something similar, that would be correct. Listing his official nationality, as recognised not just by the United Kingdom but also by the rest of the world (as far as I am aware), does not in any way undermine his Scottishness or the article's coverage of it. It merely states a fact, which is what this whole project is about, is it not? Adrian M. H. 13:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that the text itself will not fall into this guideline's scope, and it will also benefit the proponents to restrict themselves to infoboxes and the like. As to Billy Connolly being "decent" [sic], that is probably beyond Wikipedia's remit :-), but yes, he's Scottish and thus British. Both are true; both are facts. To insist that they are incompatible is foolish at best. It seems that the key distinction here may be what information the infobox is trying to convey. We can argue about whether it's more important to state which of the Home Nations someone is from (more informative for a British readership but less informative for many others) or which of the world's sovereign states (less informative to the British, but more informative to many others), and in which contexts, but to insist that one's nationality cannot be Scottish or Welsh or English under any circumstances is not feasible. To some people the distinction is more or less irrelevant, but other people feel very strongly that they are one or the other. We should not attempt to whitewash over this possibility. --Stemonitis 14:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from nitpicking at typing errors. That is not the right way to approach a discussion. Adrian M. H. 14:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It was an attempt at levity rather than nitpicking; I'm sure much of what I've typed has been accidentally mis-spelt, and I would not judge someone's arguments by their spelling. --Stemonitis 14:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "nationality" is of broader meaning than which state is committed to protecting you. This is a basic intellectual problem I think, but if you don't get that kind of thing through your head, there will be a serious breakdown in communication. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Readro 14:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but I'm not engaging in personal attack my friend. Please do not try to antagonize those people you regard as your opponents, and please also Assume good faith. :P. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, regardless of how you meant it, it strongly suggested an "I'm smarter than you" attitude, which is not conducive to civil and reasoned discussion. Adrian M. H. 14:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm restating a fact about the world, that the term "nationality" is ambiguous; I've stated this previously and it is being ignored or not grasped. It is far less conducive to reasoned discussion to ignore or fail to understand facts than to point out that facts are being ignored or not being grasped. And it is far far more detrimental to reasoned discussion to attempt to antagonize and accuse of personal attacks the people who try point out such flaws in reasoning. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nationality is not ambigously applied on wikipedia. In any non-UK page, with the exception perhaps of disputed territories, war zones and such like, it applies to the country you live in, not its constituent parts that you choose to identify with. I remind you in Britain, people tend to have very strong affinities for their county, in the United States someone may well put the welfare of their state or a wider region (say 'the South') before that of the US generally. If we apply nationality to any culture nation we presume people belong to, then we'd be supposing far too much and probably getting it wrong on many occasions - which is likely why Wikipedians have traditionally sided with citizenship. --Breadandcheese 15:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We (or I, at least) have neither ignored nor failed to appreciate your point about the concept of nationality. A lack of direct responses to it should not suggest that a point has not been read, understood, and appreciated. Any reasoned points that are made here will be given due consideration. Adrian M. H. 16:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Breadandcheese, nationality is ambiguously applied in wikipedia, as it is in the real world, which is why people with one view of it want these guidelines. And you are correct, people tend to have very strong affinities for their county, but in many (in Scotland most) cases that country is not the United Kingdom, but their "constituent country" (another term more popular on wiki than the real world). We really just have to face reality; you may want British to be the unambiguous national identifier of all United Kingdom people, but it simply is not. Coming up with terminological fictions such as the unambiguity of nationality (surely this is based more on the idea that legal definitions are more correct than popular ones) helps no-one, since it is a fiction. You just have to accept the reality that wordings will be determined by editors on particular pages, or when there is a dispute there, the balance of power between the two groups of editors who have the page on their watchlist; this will be the case whether we have these guidelines or not, and all these guidelines as they stand do is attempt to push the balance of power in favour of one ideological position. As a result, whether or not the proposal page ever has a {{guideline}} tag, it will never actually be consensus, and this means that they are intrinsically against the spirit of wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read my point, particularly the quoted section. I said 'county' not 'country'. "the balance of power between the two groups of editors who have the page on their watchlist" - by that I assume you mean the present situation of the loudest idiot (most often with the most extreme views) winning what is little more dignified than a street fight? Forgive me, but I find that intensely unsatisfactory. Of course people undermine consensus - but at least we can see that as vandalism and treat it accordingly; anything less and we might as well abandon the Wikipedia project altogether as it will merely amount to a statement of subjective prejudices. --Breadandcheese 16:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the loudest idiot winning is all that common. Generally the end product is common sense. That said, you can't have guidelines which prevent idiocy. The reality of wikipedia is as I described it; life won't get any better by trying to objectivize subjective POVs and coming up with guidelines with no consensus in order to steamroller one's opponents. Such guidelines will just discredit guidelines. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To use Scottish as a nationality is just as POV as the alternative. When it comes to verifiability, at least British nationality is specified in a passport - Scottish has no such verifiability, which makes British a better alternative in my opinion. Readro 16:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is something sensible. Choosing one over the other is of course POV, so trying to come up with guidelines prescribing one over the other is POV. No-one will deny you have every right to believe British is more important than Scottish, but it is surely against wikipedia spirit to impose partisan guidelines which have no consensus. Regarding verifiability, passports do no more than verify that the issuing government has decided that the person is of the government's "nationality" as the government itself has defined it for its own administrative purposes. That is not a verification of nationality. It may be brought into discussions of nationality of course, but it's very far from the only guide. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Inevitably … Ireland

A backgrounder for those not thinking clearly: The United Kingdom was formed in 1801 with the union of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1922 the majority of Ireland seceded from that union. In the portion of Ireland that seceded, there is great animosity towards the period. In the part of Ireland that did not secede, there is continued and often-times violent conflict on the question of secession. This will create problems if this MOS is to cover areas such as the use of flags and emblems or question of national identity.

Some questions:

1. Is it being proposed that this MOS will cover the whole of Ireland during that period? (Somehow, I don’t imagine the 1916 rebels sitting happily in their graves knowing that they are being described on Wikipedia as being “British.” Is Oscar Wilde British? How about James Joyce?)
2. Has anyone thought about the relationship between the proposed UKMOS and the current IMOS where a conflict occurs? (Is Derry now to be described as being in the United Kingdom? If that’s the case then I presume we will soon be saying good-bye to hither-to-forth amicable agreement to use Derry for the city and Londonderry for the county.)
3. How do you propose to handle identity in Northern Ireland? (Can we expect to soon see Gerry Adams being described as a British politician, complete with Union Flag cruft? I can’t wait to read the talk page debate over whether Bobby Sands is a “British Prisoner of War” or a “British Terrorist.”)

I am surprised, but not shocked, that, even as a curtsey, no mention of this was made on the WP:IMOS or the WP:IWNB. I would suggest a rethink. How about a Great Britain MOS and a joint British-Irish MOS (that joins the GBMOS with the current IMOS)? --sony-youth^pléigh 13:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Simply as regards the matter of courtesy, this page was intended to be a place to develop some ideas coming out of a Village Pump (policy) thread; possibly this was the wrong place to do so, as so far, the original framers haven't had a chance to discuss their ideas, as it was immediately leapt upon by people who disagreed with it in its first draft form (which it has barely moved on from, so low is the ratio of productive debate to unproductive argument).

Yes, there are certainly complex issues surrounding the interactions between the various British and Irish states and various times in history, which need debating; and of course this proposed Manual of Style segment should take shape in a fashion compatible with the established IMOS. TSP 14:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

---

There is an obvious problem where the state has changed its shape, yes. I think this issue also arises for people born before 1707 in Scotland or England, but who lived thereafter. I'd say then it should be simply a matter of common sense - if someone was born in Dublin in 1900 as a British citizen but died in 1970 as an Irishman without ever having taken up a British passport following 1922, it would be safe to say he was of Irish nationality.

As for the other matters, Gerry Adams is not a British politician - he is a politician who acts solely in Northern Ireland and refuses to take up his seat in the UK Parliament. He is a Northern Irish politician. But he is still an Irish and British person. I'd expect in his page it would read 'GA is a Northern Irish politician' at the beginning and have both Irish and British in the infobox. --Breadandcheese 14:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Neglected to comment on the flags issue - it is already well dealt with in WP:FLAGS - there'd be no call for a Union Flag on Bobby Sand's page, just as there is no NI flag at present. --Breadandcheese 14:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So Daniel O'Connell is British? From his own mouth: "The people of Ireland are ready to become a portion of the Empire, provided they be made so in reality and not in name alone; they are ready to become a kind of West Briton if made so in benefits and justice; but if not, we are Irishmen again." Rather pertinent, no?

WP:FLAGS is an essay, it has done nothing to relieve that debate. Please the NI page: whether NI has or has not a flag is the only matter that is discussed. From what you have described, I don't think you are entering this with your two eyes open. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Whereas I can't speak for the original proposer of this guideline, I had always envisaged this applying to the UK as it is currently extant, that is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so Eire wouldn't be covered IMHO. Aula^TPN 14:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The current WP:IMOS cover the entire island, which puts us in an awkard position. I'll reiterate: I see huge problems ahead (they two current proposals cover touchy areas: identity and geographic descriptions), I'd propose scaling this one back to cover GB and then form a common MOS to navigate between them. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably sensible, as currently both would cover Northern Ireland, and historically the entire island. The issues we had considered in the Village Pump debate that lead to this proposal were almost entirely those relating to England, Scotland and Wales (and Cornwall!) - Ireland has its own issues which are already partially covered elsewhere and would probably be better dealt with separately in collaboration between the interested parties of this document and those of the Ireland MOS (although currently that document deals with rather different issues to this one). TSP 14:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"rather different issues" - mainly, I suspect, because the one's mentioned here, we wouldn't go near with a barge pole! --sony-youth^pléigh 14:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting the barge poles down for a minute, perhaps you could summarise the kind of guidance that you would expect to see at this location in relation to the Irish MoS guideline, where the two coincide or clash. We need to draw this up in such a way that the Irish MoS page takes precedence, I think, because of its existence prior to this proposal and because of the importance of sensitivity towards the issues involved. Adrian M. H. 14:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I discussed this a while back on the England page. What I proposed then, and never-minding what I wrote before, was that I thought that the best way out would be for a British-Irish MOS. The problem is one of Venn diagrams:

• An IMOS and a UKMOS would conflict over NI.
• An IMOS and a GBMOS would leave NI outside of the rest of the UK.
• AN ROIMOS and a UKMOS would leave NI outside of the rest of Ireland, and conflict with ROI 1801-1922.

All of these cases would lead to edit warring.

I suspect also that there is a case of WP:TRUTH happening here: what I see is "nationalist POV" being combatted with an equally nationalist POV. You cannot simply demand that Billy Connolly be called British because WP:IDON'TLIKEIT when he's called Scottish. The fact is that he is Scottish and he is British. The divisive point is whether to call him Scottish or British becuase both lay claim on him being like something ("-ish") ("He's like me!" "No he's like us both!" "But I'm not like you, so he's can't be like us both!").

What I suggested before was a compromise, something along the following, but on reconsidering it I'd leave out nationalities (any word ending in "sh") all together:

• Billy Connolly United Kingdom (Scotland)

For Ireland-related people I suspect that this is doable also:

• Charles Stewart Parnell United Kingdom (Ireland)
• Eamon De Valera Ireland

I would suspect that even Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley could live with that:

• Gerry Adams United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)
• Ian Paisley United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)

Personally, for them, all I would lose the flag cruft.

For the section: "... when nationality is explicitly referred to ... the individual shall be referred to as British." I'd dump this in its entirity, or start working it out better - it doesn't present much avenue for compromise as it stands. In relation to NI and identifing people as Northern Irish/Irish/Ulster, I would leave that entirely on a case-by-case basis.

The set-up for the listing places looks fine (i.e. Swindon, Wiltshire, England).

The apart from that the potential for conflict between the two MOS's is hypothetical - but I would be a firm supporter of a merger, for fear that things would go wrong. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(Oh! Additional things that would need to be covered in an BIMOS: use of term "British Isles", use of term "Republic of Ireland" vs. "Ireland", use of Ulster Banner ...). --sony-youth^pléigh 16:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Gerry Adams holds an Irish Passport, an although he may be a Northern Ireland MP and MLA he is not British, I would suggest yous read the Good Friday Agreement would recognises that those born in Northern Ireland can be Irish, British or hold duel Nationality, I was born in Northern Ireland, I have never been or regarded myself as British, I also hold an Irish Passport. Also what is this northern Irish nonsense everyone in Northern Ireland is Irish first there are only British if they choose to be, just as anyone born in England is English first or Scotland is Scottish or Scottish first.--padraig 16:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the above point, I must say. Where someone has not officially recognised their British nationality, I think we should certainly consider allowing a person who has lived following the Good Friday Agreement to effectively have one or the other (ie, to exclude British). Ireland certainly throws up problems here, but they're not insurmountable. --Breadandcheese 16:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"a person who has lived following the Good Friday Agreement"? So Bobby Sands must be British, although his colleague Gerry Adams need not be? I ask again, where is the common sense? Scolaire 16:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We should just exempt Northern Ireland altogether and say that anyone born in Northern Ireland can be recognised as Irish if there is verifiable information that that was their self-identity. Readro 16:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My situation dosen't just arrive since the GFA I have held my Passport for over 25yrs, and in any cencus carried out in Northern Ireland we have always put Irish as our Nationality, the GFA just re-confirmed our right to do so.--padraig 16:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Belfast Agreement also cemented NI as British. That means that this proposal as it stands is valid.Traditional unionist 22:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cemented I don't think so, it recognised the Nationalist desire for a United Ireland, and it comes down to a referendum, if and when that will come about, the Unionists don't have a veto on that anymore.--padraig 22:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

All polling data says that the pro-Union vote in a referendum would be overwhelming. So actually we do.Traditional unionist 08:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with sony-youth...I think a Great Britain MOS is the way to go here. I think there are too many opportunities for conflict with a UKMOS and the IMOS. Giving the IMOS precedence is all well and good, but what if there's a disagreement between editors of the two regarding Northern Ireland? I just don't see any reason for a MOS covering the whole of the UK, when part of it is already covered by the IMOS. A GBMOS would neatly circumvent this. Martin 23:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)