Talk:Country/Archive 6

Listing of the Danish Realm as "a union of smaller polities which are considered countries"
There are two issues with the only source provided (link is now dead, moved here):


 * It used the term 'countries' to refer to Greenland and the Faroe Islands only once and only in passing, and did not specifically state that they are considered countries. A better source would be needed, especially since equivalent terms are not used in the legislation.
 * After inquiry, the author (the EU Information Centre of the Danish Parliament) called the use of the term a mistake, and stated that the term would be corrected.

Therefore, I have removed the Danish Realm from the listing per WP:UNSOURCED.

(courtesy ping and ) — LauritzT (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. We should certainly remove anything that's unverifiable.The Danish Parliament now says that Greenland has the status of an overseas country. Britannica uses phrases such as the country’s coastal areas and the country’s plant life; and the CIA World Factbook refers to Country Flag, Country Map, etc.  The Ministry of Foreign Affairs mentions 20 % of the country and the extreme south of the country.  However, I can't find a RS which explicit states that Greenland is or isn't a country.It's even less clear for the Faeroes: CIA has Country Flag etc. but Britannica and the Faroe government don't use the term. Certes (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Danish Parliament, the page mentions that Greenland has the status of an overseas country and territory, a generic term for a special status in the EU (though I made the same mistake of only seeing "overseas country" when I initially read the page).Regarding the CIA World Factbook, the entry for Terminology on the Definitions and Notes page states: Due to the highly structured nature of the Factbook database, some collective generic terms have to be used. For example, the word Country in the Country name entry refers to a wide variety of dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, uninhabited islands, and other entities in addition to the traditional countries or independent states.Regarding denmark.dk, the Contact Us page states The opinions, quotes and expressions – including possible omissions – do not necessarily reflect the official policies and opinions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark or the Danish government.. — LauritzT (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC) (edited 14:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC))


 * England is a country. country is a slang usually used by Australian aboriginal people (I am new in Australia, i am not sure they are actually mean countryside or refer their tribe land as "country"). This is the problem of this article that refer to sovereign country or not. Matthew hk (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * (Also why i am pinged except i was sort of involved in the last issue that raised in WP:ANI? I was only sort of involved in Talk:List of countries without armed forces) Matthew hk (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. You were pinged you added the source in question with . If you would like to reinstate the claim that the Danish Realm is "a union of smaller polities which are considered countries", please support this with a reliable source per WP:BURDEN and WP:NOR. Thank you. — LauritzT (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Dude.... I already mentioned in the edit summary that is not my link. It was first added by this ip on my talk page after some sort of edit dispute. Matthew hk (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Feel free to remove it entirely if there is no source, as it is those ip keep on adding non-sovereign country likes Greenland . Matthew hk (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have read, reference to Greenland has existed in the article for at least a decade and has been kind of stable. 1.64.47.144 (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * May I know more about the enquiry? 1.64.48.231 (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. From my side, it was essentially just asking whether the use of the term "country" was intentional (and asking them to point me in the direction of sources in support of the use of the term if it was). I don't think I'm allowed to post the correspondence on-wiki (per WP:POSTEMAIL), but it is substantiated by the removal of the term from the page in question. — LauritzT (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * LauritzT you may want to take a look at:       . 1.64.47.144 (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * If there is no opposition in the next couple of days I shall restore them to the article. 1.64.47.144 (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * 1.64.47.144, wikipedia does not work that way. Please seek to close this thread : Closure requests. Also, no consensus = no adding back. Matthew hk (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it kind-of does... just not well. In this case I think it would not work as the article is temporarily protected?  Also, since the consensus was to take the content out, and the consensus has not changed, more than one editor would probably have taken it back out after it was edit-warred back in.Shajure (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem is that LauritzT appears to be the only participants here who argued so, but the points he raised seem to be invalid. 1.64.47.144 (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please explain how requesting a reliable secondary source about the topic is an invalid point. None of the sources you provided above discuss or give any consideration to the use of the term 'country'. Number 6 has already been mentioned above, and number 8 has the same problem as the CIA World Factbook. Regarding number 3, the use of "Overseas Country" may be a mistake – as far as I can tell, the EU does not have the status "Overseas Country", though there is the status of a overseas country and territory (see also above). — LauritzT (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For no. 3, please refer to 3.1 under page 22, and 3.4 under page 71, for example. For nos. 6 and 8, please elaborate further. 1.64.48.28 (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @LauritzT on 28 October 2021: Yes Greenland and the Faroe Islands aren't independent sovereign states but it's absurd to argue they aren't countries. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether reliable, published sources support the statement that the Danish Realm is considered "a union of smaller polities which are considered countries" (or support a similar statement, if one is proposed). Such a source should either give consideration to the use of the term, rather than simply using it, or otherwise consist of broader analysis than simply 'a couple of sources use the term'. — LauritzT (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * LauritzT, don't try to argue with the HK ip(s). I has raised the issue in WP:ANI in January and again recently. They just problematic by POV pushing and refuse to discuss with other by providing WP:RS (or explain them instead of just throwing url to the thread), but so far admin refuse to look at the issue. Matthew hk (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't get what you mean. Can you put it more clearly? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's apparent enough to me. The sources provided above are reliable. So many different reliable sources are already more than sufficient to explain this is accepted in general usage. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Dispute between the US and China over the use of "country" in US English to refer to Taiwan
Since this seems to be the core of the other edit war in the lead, I have created a section for it.

If the squabble between the US and China over the use of "country" in US English is not covered in the body by an interested editor in the next few days, I propose to cut the entire nationalistic bits, sources and all, from the lead. If it is added to the body (weakly oppose, it is just nationalistic posturing), I propose to remove the source references from the lead and leave the sentence: "The word country is used both to refer to sovereign states and to other political entities." Reference to to-be-conquered or rebelling areas of empires throughout history has always led the "owner" to object to anyone referring to their possession as an entity. This would merit mention in the body if the current nationalistic squabble is included.Shajure (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I would support this proposed edit even if material ends up being added to the article body. The lead is supposed to summarize, but it doesn't need to duplicate every dispute or exception. MrOllie (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rereading my note, it is not clear that I agree with that, and I do. My intent was to make it clear that I propose the change, soon.  Even if the sources aren't moved into the body and out of the lead, I propose to make the change... discarding the sources.  I rarely do so... but that spam of sources does not belong in the lead.Shajure (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Spam? 112.120.39.238 (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I captured the sources from the squabble/duplicatuion of P2 that was P3, in case an interested editor wants to add the content to the body... but I think it doesn't belong.

[chopped as the most excellent Verbcatcher knew how to do it Much Better. Thank you, VC Shajure (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * updated (yeah yeah I cut stuff out of talk, survive somehow please) - Shajure (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

(@22:30, 4 December) Your post is extremely opaque. I have reformatted it using Reflist talk, which is clearer:

Verbcatcher (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Never knew how to do that.  Thank You!3Shajure (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (@23:17, 4 December) It has been said many times that deletion of reliable sources with no reason given and whole sentences in between unrelated sources are disruptive edits. Please make sure the right thing is captured in the snapshot above. 112.120.39.238 (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See below. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's what the paragraph should be like, should the reorganisation of the paragraph to improve readability be disregarded:
 * Precisely, [5] and [9] were ommited, as well as a sentence before [5] and another one before [14] (the ref to Matt Rosenberg's essay). For a comparison, . I don't think it would be logical to join [1]-[4] and [5]-[9] together, or [10]-[13] and [14]. There was also no reason given for the removal of [5] and [9]. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (this is such a mess that the indent is not clear) Where in the Body are you proposing to add this? I don't think you will find support for the placing a current-event squabble between the US and China about the use of the word in the lead.  I am also dubious about adding this news item to an encyclopedia article at all.  We absolutely do not need to ADD content with a CN flag anywhere in the article.Shajure (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said at 11:16, 8 December 2021,.
 * That was about unexplained and selective removal of some RSs, and some sentences in between refs.
 * That wasn't adding content with a CN flag, but reverting the attempt to delete a sentence in between refs. Check diffs before you charge me or anyone for this. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for working this out. 124.217.189.47 (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for working this out. 124.217.189.47 (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

(@12:39, 4 December) As I have said above this isn't about Taiwan, but those countries which aren't sovereign states. Please make sure you understand what that's about first before you go further. 112.120.39.238 (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that Shajure hasn't been able to grasp from the cited materials the core issue and associate them with the paragraph he or she's removed from the article. He or she hasn't even proposed where that paragraph should be relocated to. 1.64.47.144 (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Common sense is not common. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No... there's nothing to do with common sense. Tjhe Kwet Koe, Chan Chuen v Esperdy, John Cheung and Kin Wan Tso were specifically about Hong Kong. The omitted letter carried by the Washington Post and the op-ed article there were about Hong Kong (along with Taiwan). The HKFP story about Swiss Air Lines highlighted Hong Kong in the heading. The other materials all touched upon Hong Kong although a few of them highlighted Taiwan in their headings. Given that the paragraph kicked off with The word country is used to refer to sovereign states and to other political entities..., and the fact that Taiwan isn't quite an "other entity", it's rather apparent from the onset that this paragraph is all about entities like Hong Kong, which would include territories like the Åland Islands, Aruba, Bermuda, the Caymans, the Falklands, the Faroes, Gibraltar, Greenland, Guam, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Puerto Rico, Svalbard, etc. We don't even have to talk about common sense. 1.64.47.144 (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * See below. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

(@12:39, 4 December) "Country" in English or in US English? Is there any reason why you are talking about US English? 1.64.47.144 (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

EW continues April 2022 - What is a country?
This was warred back into the lead, duplicating P1. I gave it its own subsection under usage. Someone else can kill it off. Or not.Shajure (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC) If we keep this, I propose to move the S1 sources out of the lead and into the body... they don't belong in the lead and add clutter.Shajure (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC) This was warred back in yet again, with a number of scattered comments added to the talk page... both sets of edits were removed again. I wonder if the EW has a point... Do we need all this? If so, should we add something like "and their supporters and opponents" to the dispute? As part of the rivalry between the US and Chinese empires, I really don't see it belonging in the article on "country", but perhaps (mmmmmaaaaaybe) in articles about the rivals or their rivalry. Throughout history empires, invaders, rebels, separatists and many others have squabbled (often using force of arms) about whether a specific given area was part of 1 country or another, or whether a given country existed as a country. This belongs, if anywhere in the encyclopedia, in the articles about those specific squabbles, I should think. Prussia, Persia, Carthage, Rome... many countries once existed, but no longer do, yet are still certainly "countries".Shajure (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Consensus is clearly against inclusion, and an edit warring IP won't force it back in, even if they are willing to evade blocks. MrOllie (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please be careful with the revert button. The Pitcairn edit is a good one.Shajure (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it really? The Pitcairn Islands are a dependent territory, not a country. MrOllie (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes really, see "A country is a distinct territorial body or political entity. It may be an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state," This tiny group of 3 islands with less than 50 people is clearly a distinct body, part of a larger state, has a very specific population (mostly descendents of the Bounty mutineers).  That said, if others share your objection I will obviously go with the wp:consensus... but until then it seems clear that this is the "Pitcairn is the least populous national jurisdiction in the world." and seems appropriate here.Shajure (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think by that definition New Hampshire is a country. MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What? I didn't know. Fancy that, New Hampshire has only 50 people. Who knew?  Velella  Velella Talk 22:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We normally do the census by counting the snowmobile licenses. MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say that the article needs work (*notes the C class rating*). In fact, yes, New Hampshire would as defined be a country.  Once it was a colony that split from its founding nation, and joined as one of the "several states" of the union.  In fact, the USA fought a rather nasty civil war over whether or not the previously independent states could flounce out of the Union if they no longer wanted to follow its rules.  The military decision was that they could, in fact, not do so.Shajure (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Cornell university law site uses "Country means the political entity known as a nation. Colonies, possessions, or protectorates outside the boundaries of the mother country are considered separate countries." - which would mean that Pitcairn would, and NH would not, be countries, Puerto Rico would.Shajure (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Country names as collective nouns
The discussion about "One government have..." (in the Edit warring in the lead and the underlying squabbles section above) reminded me of an unresolved disputed edit about a similar grammatical issue. My edit was reverted by an IP editor, as follows: The edit summary for the revert was: Country names are often collective nouns. I am a native speaker of British English and I am also familiar with US English, and these uses of 'include' look wrong. Country names are sometimes used as collective nouns, for example for sports teams, e.g. "England have beaten Australia", but these look wrong.
 * France includes include French Polynesia
 * The Kingdom of the Netherlands includes include four separate constituent countries
 * The United Kingdom includes include the four countries England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Is there a consensus for changing these to "France includes...", etc? Verbcatcher (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * 'Includes' seems to be the common usage by far, and for instance our article on the United Kingdom says 'The United Kingdom includes...', apparently without any editorial controversy. I support your change. MrOllie (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd rather say either way is fine. The plural form helps emphasise such a country is a collective of different parts (say the UK is a collective of four constituent countries). 112.120.39.238 (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This is quoted from Caricom's website: 112.120.39.238 (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And here Caricom's website writes 'The Kingdom of the Netherlands includes the islands of Curacao, Aruba, Sint Maarten, Sint Eustatius and Saba which are in the Caribbean Sea.' We can cherry pick examples from both sides, even from the same organization. But 'includes' is more common and what we should use on this article. MrOllie (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That may appear to be more common to some of you. But it's gonna be too much to say such usages . 112.120.39.239 (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie and I are strongly in favour of 'includes' and 112.120.39.238 says 'either way is fine'. Based on this I have changed the text to 'France includes' and 'The Kingdom of the Netherlands includes'. Another editor had already made the change to 'The United Kingdom includes'. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think either way is fine too. The reason why I reverted your edit back then was that there's a need to conform with the rest of the article. After all it isn't wrong to consider them collective nouns; it's in fact more natural to do so. I am strongly in favour of keeping them as collective nouns. Who's that another editor? 124.217.189.149 (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Who's that another editor?" - An interested editor will read the change log to find out, though it absolutely does not matter: A good step would be to firmly remove focus from the editors and place it on the content.  wp:deny looks more and more appropriate.Shajure (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think a definite article is necessary before a group of islands like the Maldives. 42.98.100.27 (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)