There exists in the UK a small - politically insignificant at present - movement known as the traditional counties movement.

The two largest groups are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_British_Counties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Watch

There is zero news coverage of ABC that I can find.

Looking at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_counties_of_the_British_Isles

and its linked articles, you could be forgiven for thinking that: * the term traditional county is usually ascribed to these (it is not AFAICT actually generally used much at all other than by the traditional counties movement) * that they are the sole and indisputable historic counties (they aren't, boundaries have shifted a number of times and there have been a lot of legislative changes too) * that there is widespread recognition of these as the "true" counties (in fact most Brits don't actually care, and it's only really significant in some areas like parts of Yorkshire and former Rutland)

I have a serious problem with the assertion that these are "traditional" counties, since there are other arrangements both before and after them; the ones the traditional movement claim existed from the 16th to the 19th Centuries, with some boundary changes - the only thing on which all sources appear to agree over time is the approximate locations, county towns and the names.

There have been edit wars over the Scottish infoboxes re the wording: "traditional", "historic" or "former" county - deeply contentious here, as Fife for example was historically the Kingdom of Fife, as my friend Eric will tell you at every opportunity.

Now, I don't really know much about this apart from what I've seen in the edit wars, but it does look to me as if some peer-review is necessary. Barrows are being pushed.

So the question is: where is the best place to take this? Article RfC? Peer review? NPOV tags and the Cleanup Squad? What's likely to get the best and most informed result, I do not want to get into forum shopping.

Thanks, Guy (JzG)