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

message: Some who edit Scotland insist on calling that region, rather than the Great British Island, a "nation". This is surely an affront to Lady Britannia, and our great and ancient nation. Please don't sit by and watch our Lady's funeral altar be erected.  I have issued a rallying call for Mother England at Talk:Scotland. Please join the call. Please save Lady Britannia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by England's Rose (talk • contribs) 19:46, August 26, 2007 (UTC) 
:This isn't even good trolling. All I've got to say to you, is sort out your identity. --MacRusgail 20:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting that you removed my comments from the Talk page there. You may despise your nation and country of birth, but you shouldn't encourage others to stop loving their great country. Name: England's Rose 20:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bring back BJAODN and we can put this prosaic fluff in there. Adrian M. H. 20:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, a little rough round the edges it may be, but, he has a point. And lets not bite the newbie... I've suggested this many times before, but once again I must assert that a "nation" is a group of people, not a division of land!!!! Scotland is a country (ok, properly a constituent country), which is the division of land that it is under proper grammar and scholarly definition. Nation=people, Country=division of land. Frankly, as it is, it reads stupidly, and is clearly completely compromised by a core of editors trying to place Europe as a lower and more useful tier of geography over the United Kingdom, in what is another example of "hiding" the UK very existence from the world... we really shouldn't be describing Scotland in any other frame in the first sentence as other than "a constituent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".... this is the approach taken by every other majoy encyclopedia going. Jza84 23:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have a point but shouldn't you be taking this to the Scotland talk page? --Bill Reid | Talk 08:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - done! Thanks, Jza84 12:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have made the cause, the voice, the cries of Lady Albion known. I have defended them so far as my strength has allowed me. This knight-errant will not return to the hostile environs of wikipedia. My faith goes into the hands of those admirable spirits,  Jz, Tim, Breadandcheese, Readro and others, who I hope will maintain their lofty resolution, and protect the honour of Mother England. After all, these IRA and SNP bigots are but ants in the grass. History and Lady Britannia will prevail. Name: England's Rose 07:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which Lady Albion did you make the cause, voice and cries known for? Albion, Alba or the place that she of often mistaken to represent, which you so endearingly called "Mother England" (surely in a union, Scotland and England be sisters, no?)? Yours in IRA/UDA/SNP/Plaid bigorty, --sony-youthpléigh 08:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever I have said here, is because I want consistency on Wikipedia, not due to some patriotic desire like you seem to think. I have not ever stated my personal viewpoint, because I don't feel that would be appropriate. Readro 14:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call: Will you answer? 

message: The English, Scottish, Welsh and N.Irish are all British, Is the UK united or not. It's too bad these old nationalisms haven't ended in 1707. Yep, that's right, British should be used. GoodDay 23:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Describing someone as "Scottish" etc. is not any more nationalistic than describing someone as British, as both Britain and its constituent countries can be seen as nations. Also, desribing someone as "Scottish", "English" etc. is not anti-British as the title of this section implies. Please read the guideline assume good faith. Lurker (said · done) 10:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, I didn't mean to suggest 'bad faith'. It's just that for outsiders (non-British editors), the English, Scottish, Welsh, N.Irish thing can potentially be mis-leading. It truly would be easier to use British, thus giving the impression of national unity to outsiders. GoodDay 15:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as the proposal was already rejected, I'll be moving on. GoodDay 20:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is British, a dirty word?