Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe/Defining a country

In order to reach a consensus and a conclusion, the following  background may  be of help. Please do not  criticise the typos or the format -  it's not  a Wiki  page or a Wiki  essay  for wider publication.

Key questions
Below is a selection of dictionary  definitions for the word country. Perhaps another editor would like to  do  the same exercise for the word nation? After all, on of the major references is a list f countries recognined by  the UN - United Nations
 * Does the country issue its own internationally  recognised passports?
 * What nationality is shown on  the passport?
 * What citizenship is shown on  the passport?
 * Is the area inhabited?
 * Does, or can, the state operate its own diplomatic missioins? (embassies, consulates)
 * What does this article say: criteria for inclusion to which  List  of Countries redirects ? Note that  this article has been de-featured.
 * What does Montevideo Convention say?
 * What is the focus of this list article? is it a list  of countries, pieces of rock  with  a name, or a list sovereign nations?

Some dictionary definitions
'Wiktionary' has the following definitions for country:
 * A nation state, a political entity asserting ultimate authority over a geographical area.
 * A former independent nation state (e.g., England or Scotland).

Ultralingua Dictionary
 * country n. ['kəntriː] countries
 * 1) An area outside of cities and towns: “his poetry celebrated the slower pace of life in the country”; Synonyms: rural area.
 * 2) The territory occupied by a nation;

Oxford American Dictionary
 * country |ˈkəntrē| - noun ( pl. -tries)
 * 1) a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory : the country's increasingly precarious economic position.
 * ( the country) the people of a nation : the whole country took to the streets.
 * the land of a person's birth or citizenship : both my native and adopted countries are at war with yours.

Dictionary.com
 * coun·try   [kuhn-tree] Show IPA noun, plural -tries, adjective –noun
 * 1) a state or nation: What European countries have you visited?
 * 2) the territory of a nation.
 * 3) the people of a district, state, or nation: The whole country backed the president in his decision.
 * 4) the land of one's birth or citizenship.

World English Dictionary
 * country (ˈkʌntrɪ)  — n , pl -tries
 * 1) .	a territory distinguished by its people, culture, language, geography, etc
 * 2) .	an area of land distinguished by its political autonomy; state
 * 3) .	the people of a territory or state: the whole country rebelled
 * 4) .	one's native land or nation of citizenship
 * 5) .	chiefly ( Brit ) go to the country, appeal to the country  to dissolve Parliament and hold an election

Merriam Webster
 * 1coun·try Pronunciation: \ˈkən-trē\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural countries
 * an indefinite usually extended expanse of land : region
 * : the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship b : a political state or nation or its territory
 * : the people of a state or district : populace b : jury c : electorate 2

Cambridge Online Dictionary
 * country noun ( POLITICAL UNIT ) /ˈkʌn.tri/
 * 1) an area of land that has its own government, army, etc.
 * Which is the largest country in Europe?
 * Sri Lanka is my native country, but I've been living in Belgium for the past five years.

Cambridge American Dictionary
 * country (POLITICAL UNIT) noun [C]
 * 1) an area of land that forms an independent political unit with its own government; a nation considered esp. as a place

Encarta
 * coun·try [ kúntree ] noun (plural coun·tries):
 * 1) separate nation: a nation or state that is politically independent, or a land that was formerly independent and remains separate in some respects
 * 2) homeland: the nation or state where somebody was born or is a citizen
 * 3) geographically distinct area: a large area of land regarded as distinct from other areas, e.g. because of its natural boundaries or because it is inhabited by a specific group of people
 * 4) nation's people: the people of a nation or state, especially when affected as a group by political or other events

Microsoft Word built in
 * Country
 * 1) a country  or nation  with  its own sovereign independent  nation

Microsoft Word online
 * Country
 * 1) Separate nation
 * 2) a nation  or state that  is politically independent, or a land that  was formerly  independent and remains separate in  some respects.

Other sources
The BBC does not list EWSNI as separate countries. The BBC carefully omits the word country  when refereing  to  Engand,, Wales, Scotland Northern Ireland. The BBC does not list Gibraltar  and autonomous zones of other countries as countries. It lists Gib, IOM, Ch Islands, Corsica (simply  an island département  of France), etc as territories, and does not  mention  Sicily, but  includes Ceuta and Melilla, which  are in  geographical  Africa. The CIA Factbook lists Gibraltar, Ch Isles, IOM as  as  countries, but  not  EWSNI. It does not  list  Sicily or the autonomous regions of Spain  or the German Länder as separate countries.

Wikipedia A country is a geographical region considered to be the physical territory of a sovereign state, or of a smaller, or former, political division within a geographical region. Usually, but not always, a country coincides with a sovereign territory and is associated with a state, nation or government. In common usage, the term is used in the sense of both nations and states, with definitions varying. In some cases it is used to refer both to states and to other political entities,while in some occasions it refers only to states. It is not uncommon for general information or statistical publications to adopt the wider definition for purposes such as illustration and comparison. Some cohesive geographical entities, which were formerly sovereign states, are commonly regarded and referred to still as countries; such as England, Scotland and Wales – in the United Kingdom. Historically, the countries of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were others. Former states such as Bavaria (now part of Germany) and Piedmont (now part of Italy) would not normally be referred to as "countries" in contemporary English. The degree of autonomy of non-state countries varies widely. Some are possessions of states, as several states have overseas dependencies (such as the British Virgin Islands (GBR) and Saint Pierre and Miquelon (FRA)), with territory and citizenry distinct from their own. Such dependent territories are sometimes listed together with independent states on lists of countries, and may be treated as a "country of origin" in international trade, as Hong Kong is.

'The ISO' In Europe ISO 3166-1 defines: as countries; it does not  include EWSNI as individual  countries.
 * Gibraltar
 * Guernsey
 * Isle of Man
 * Jersey

The Wikipedia defines:
 * The United Kingdom as "constitutionally, a de jure unitary state with one sovereign parliament and government in Westminster.
 * Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom...
 * Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom....
 * Northern Ireland as 'one of the four countries of the United Kingdom.'

The List of sovereign  states has the UK as its most  complex entry. and includes but does not list as separate countries  Akrotiri and Dhekelia The British Monarch has direct sovereignty over three self-governing Crown dependencies:
 * Anguilla
 * Bermuda
 * British Indian Ocean Territory (disputed by Mauritius and Seychelles)[7]
 * British Virgin Islands
 * Cayman Islands
 * Falkland Islands (disputed by Argentina)[7]
 * Gibraltar (disputed by Spain)
 * Montserrat
 * Pitcairn Islands
 * Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha* South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (disputed by Argentina)[7]
 * Turks and Caicos Islands
 * British Antarctic Territory [8] (disputed by Argentina and Chile)


 * Guernsey, with three dependencies of its own:
 * Alderney
 * Herm
 * Sark
 * Isle of Man
 * Jersey

On a worldwide basis, it includes however, among  the French DOM`TOM as countries whereas in  France these are  regarded as standard overseas départements (DOM° of France  and even thus members of the EU.   New Caledonia (TOM) near Australia provides a fascinating  example of one of the very  rare countries to  be both  a country and a normal local  political  division  of another country (France), thus if you  have never been  to  Europe but  you  have been to  New Caledonia, you  can  say  you  have been to  France, and if you  are French  and you have only  ever travelled overseas to  New Caledonia, one could argue that  you  have never been abroad!.

Again involving France is the interesting situation  of Réunion, an overseas département (relative equivalence of English county)  which  makes it  politically  part of Europe, and having  no  national  status of its own whatsoever, but  geographically in  the Indian Ocean in  the southern hemisphere.

I would assume that Scotland and NI approach  the degee of autonomy  somewhere between that  of a French  départment  and a German  Land - but  do not  let  us run  away with  the idea that  where in  German the word  Land translates to  country in  English, the word never conveys the meaning  of country when referring to  one of the  sixteen constituent  federal  states. The UK remains vastly more centralised than the Federal  Republic of Germany. The constituent countries of the UK do  not  have anyrthing  like the autonomy  of the Spanish autonomous regions.

According to  Wikipedia, The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of three countries which each enjoy a great amount of autonomy: The designation Netherlands thus legally only refers to one of the Kingdom's constituent countries that we sometimes refer to  as Holland.. The Kingdom of the Netherlands as a whole is a member of the EU,[9] but Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are not part of the EU. Wikipedia does not list  these micronations as countries
 * Netherlands
 * Aruba
 * Netherlands Antilles

Wikipedia does not recognise Gibraltar, for example, as a country in  its List  of Sovereign  States Italy has autonomous regions  Aosta Valley, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Sardinia, Sicily and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol.[4]

Conclusions:

 * 1) As long as the introduction is clear about what is and is not included, and as long as the page name is not misrepresentaive of its content,  then you  can include any  list  or any  number of lists. You  can also  draw on  the referenfed sources that  a re used in  oter Wikipedia lists.
 * 2) The List of sovereign  states goes al ong  way  to  explaining  the problems of compiling  such  lists, and I  think, does it  very  well
 * 3) Autonomous regions of sovereign states are generally  not  considered to  be countries
 * 4) Although in 1982 all Gibraltarians benefit from  full  Brirish  citizenship, Both the British  and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, the United Nations keep Gibraltar on its list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
 * 5) Spain is not  a federal  republic, but  it  is a country  of highly  devolved autonomous regions of which  some have declared themselves as nations (note: nations, not  countries, such  as Catalonia.
 * 6) Bouvet Island fails most of the criteria because it is uninhabited. It  is a pure geographical  entity. It  is not  a nation. This should be a criterion  for any  other unihabited rock.
 * 7) It is unlikely  that  a discussion  here will  ever achieve any  board-wide changes unless all  the other Wikipedia lists of countries are run  mainly  by  the same core contributors.

Suggestions

 * Include all the relevant  list  table you  like in  the article, and rename the article as appropriate.
 * Do not try  to  redefine country or sovereign  state, this has already  been done in List  of sovereign  states. Readers will  oly  be confused when moving  from  one page to  another they   re expected to  read a new definition or a paraphrasing  orf an existing  one.
 * Editors remember the maxim: If in doubt, leave it  out.
 * Editors swallow their national pride and stop  bickering. Soebody  outside this discussion  might  hoik  them  up  before Aunty ANI or ARBCOM.

Comments
Firstly, I would like to thank Kudpung for the time and effort taken to come to a solution. It was an interesting exercise. I must admit to being less than optimistic from the start that a neutral outcome would be reached. This arose from the first statement made by Kudpung to the request for editor assistance here. That statement was “I think the article is correct as it stands.” Kudpung went on to say that “England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are no more eligible to be considered separate entities within the EU as are, for example, the German länder of Bavaria, Lower Saxony, and North Rhine Westphalia, or the French départements of Vaucluse, Gard, and Saône-et-Loire.” It has come as no surprise that the conclusion reached was exactly the same as Kudpung's original opinion and may be worthy of a research paper for Confirmation bias. Specific points are:


 * England, Scotland and Wales are within almost all the dictionary definitions provided, which seems to have been completely ignored.


 * The BBC seems to be the only choice for reliable references – an institution that exists because of its state identity. Nevertheless, it is not correct that the BBC does not call them countries: England: (see Identity) “As a result, markers of specific English identity, such as the flag of St George, tend to be unofficial, while similar signs of Scottish and Welsh nationhood are sanctioned by the separate institutions of those countries.”, Scotland: (see Media) “The UK's national radio and TV networks broadcast across the country alongside Scotland-based services from the BBC and commercial operators.“, and Wales: (see Wales re-emerges) “The country remained a relative backwater in Britain until the 19th century ...”.


 * Wikipedia cannot be a reference for itself. Noting List of sovereign states is not relevant.


 * ISO 3166-1 is not a definitive list of countries (the inclusion of Bouvet Island should be enough to confirm that). Its criteria for inclusion is that a country must be at least one of the following: a member state of the United Nations, a member of one of its specialized agencies and/or a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice.


 * This article is about countries, not states There seems to be some confusion between the two, particularly in the 'Key questions' section.:


 * The Montevideo Convention concerns the Rights and Duties of States, not countries.


 * Passports are issued by States, not countries.


 * Most importantly, no consideration has been given to Wikipedia's core principal of NPOV. To achieve that we need to use reliable sources to verify that an entry should be part of the list. There are numerous reliable sources proving that Scotland, Wales and England are countries. And that is sufficient for their inclusion here. Daicaregos (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also like to thank Kudpung to putting the effort to bring new thoughts to a debate that had grown stale and repetitive. Neutral or not, I thank him for putting in the effort to create his opinion, and express it so lucidly.
 * Now to try and concisely reply to Daicaregos
 * The BBC has been used because other editors though (or well at least I thought) that if any institution was likely to list ESWNI in a list of countries the BBC would be it. Here are more lists of countries from the internet:, , (Which even includes places like Bouvet island), , none of which include England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland.
 * What has clearly failed to be appreciated is the countries can be used synonymously with state (sovereign), and is often used that way, proved by the lists of countries provided above. The list created uses countries in that sense, something that if not clear already could be added to the lede.
 * That, concisely, is the response.
 * On another topic, Kudpung, do you think the Faroe Islands should be included or not?
 * Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lists 1 & 3 include Bouvet Island. As no-one seriously considers Bouvet Island to be a country, they must have derived their list from ISO 3166-1, which as noted above, is not a list of countries. List 2 is the US State department's list of independent states and special areas with whom the US have diplomatic relations. List 4 is a list of countries (only 144, a gross underestimate!) with university chemistry departments. And still the most important consideration has been ignored: NPOV . There is no need to choose what is or isn't a country (which is inherently POV) if we use reliable sources to determine which entry should be included on the list. I do not understand the reluctance to adhere to Wikipedia's core policy of verify. Please explain this to me. Daicaregos (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Kudpung for the detailed response to this matter, and going through the main points. I am sure if the opposite conclusions/suggestions were reached certain editors including myself would have been disappointed although i do not think we would have mentioned things like Confirmation bias and attacked your opinions in such a way. The fact is despite all of the debate that has taken place, including extensive input from Richardeast and Dai, a strong case for inclusion of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland with the price of all the potential problems it would create has clearly not been made.


 * I believe the best way forward is to move ahead with renaming the article, which will at least resolve some of the concerns by editors who have a problem with the title being country, although it should not be seen as meaning all other country lists should be named. Simply the batch of articles related to this european one. We should create a group move on the main article (List of countries and territories by continent) and link it to all relevant pages with the proposal to move them to these locations.


 * List of countries and territories by continent to List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent
 * List of African countries and territories to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Africa
 * List of Asian countries and territories to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia
 * List of European countries and territories to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe
 * List of North American countries and territories to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in North America
 * List of South American countries and territories to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in South America
 * List of Oceanian countries and territories to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania


 * This will then make the title more clearer (even though countries is fine), it will also address the potential confusion about the territories. For example the Falklands are a European territory, they are just not in Europe. I hope those who wanted EWSNI to be included on this page continue to support the compromise of a page move and of course, under no circumstances should Content forks be created simply so there are lists with EWSNI on them too. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The debate on this over the last few days has been nothing but peoples opinions on what should or what should not be included in the list. I'll say it again, opinions don't matter one iota when it goes against a core policy, Verifiability. I gave a link to Talk: Countries of the United Kingdom/refs which was completely ignored. Have a look at the numerous sources which confirms the status of Wales, England etc as countries. If people still don't believe they are countries and therefore don't belong on a list of countries then that is their POV and it doesn't belong here. The article as it's titled is not complete without them. Now, if the intention of the article was to include only sovereign states then change the name to list of sovereign states. It's not rocket science. Jack 1314 (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh...Numerous sources arguing against the inclusion have been included too, and your insistence to get to the semantics of the matter and refusal to acknowledge the other sources really is quite tiring. I will support BW's move request just to get rid of the headache this has become, and also because some of them were moved middebate by another user. Those aren't the only ones that need moving though, but I suppose they can be moved as they're found. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean there Chipmunkdavis. I don't recall seeing any reliable sources saying Wales, Scotland and England are not countries. Could you link to them now please? Daicaregos (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, where are all these references that specifically state that they are not countries. Jack 1314 (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We have shown reliable sources with lists of countries that do not include EWSNI (including by sources who do define EWSNI as countries). We have definitions of a country that do not apply to entities like NWSNI. This is not a debate about if EWSNI are countries or not, it is a debate about if they belong in a list of countries which compromise of sovereign states. They are not included on most lists on wikipedia and rightly so. They do not belong there unless independent countries or a territory sorry. If Wales and Scotland became autonomous and self governing like the Isle of Man then they would belong on the list, but Scotland and Wales have devolution, it is not total self government. Westminster rightly controls many day to day matters for people in Wales and Scotland in a way it doesnt control the Isle of Man.  BritishWatcher (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There were never sources saying they were not called countries, and I have never said that. No-one has ever said that, in this entire argument. Ever. What was instead provided was a rationale about why they didn't belong in this list, backed up by numerous similar ones . Do not misquote people, do not quotemine people, and do not claim they said things which they didn't. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please calm down. So the upshot of that is that you don't have any reliable sources saying Wales, Scotland and England are not countries. And I believe you. Daicaregos (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm calm. Just please don't claim I say things I didn't. Generally a bad thing to do to anybody. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Are you suggesting I claimed you said things you didn't? If so please provide the diff. Daicaregos (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speak of chance, I've finally found an article I've been looking for this whole time., which links to Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That "source" is a blog. It is not reliable. Daicaregos (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's written by a university professor. Correction, formerly worked at a university, no longer Anyway, that still leaves the other links I provided. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think it's valid, we could ask at WP:RS/N. Daicaregos (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind doing that anyway. If I could use that website in the future, it would be really useful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just do it. You don't need to wait for permission or anything. Should give them a laugh at least: I say, could you tell me if I can use this blog as a reliable source :) Daicaregos (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's a blog, and even then the page it links to has the heading Why Scotland Does Not Meet The Definition Of An Independent State. This is something we already know. Jack 1314 (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dai, Richardeast said that Wales does not need to be added to List of countries by GDP (nominal) do you agree with him or think it should be included? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't this discussion for another page? Daicaregos (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is relevant, Richardeast says we must include EWSNI because of the title including country. Yet does not think it needs to be in another list which includes the title country. Do you agree or disagree with him? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry Jack but the article is perfectly acceptable with the title country whilst not including nations of the UK. As long as the introduction clearly defines its contents and by doing so the definitions of country we are using, there is no problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * BW, have you not agreed to a change of article name? Jack 1314 (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because he agreed to a name change doesn't mean he doesn't think the current one is fine. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes i support a name change to make things more stable and clearly defined. However i do not accept that we "must" change it, its perfectly acceptable to say country and in line with the overwhelming majority of lists which say country but do not include EWSNI as long as the introduction is clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Over the couple of years I've interacted with BW he's never been slow to reply to a question. I'm sure he will answer himself. Jack 1314 (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Told you. ;) Jack 1314 (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Would have replied sooner if it wasnt for these edit wars, they do slow me down! :( BritishWatcher (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if we're distracting you from your normal activities : ) So, looks like we've all agreed to rename the page, then. Daicaregos (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Either rename the articles to sovereign states (thus deleting E/S/W/NI for example) or leave'em as they are & make certain the sovereigns & non-sovereigns are easily spotted as sovereigns & non-sovereigns (example: the bolding method or seperate sections method, etc etc). GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Final comment from Kudpung
The message immediately above says it  all. However, stimulated by your responses, I've spent a couple of hours reading  all  your messages and following  up  all  the links you  have all  provided.

Of course my  comments were largely mildly POV and/or OR and they  were deliberately  intended as such  to  encourage you  all  to  do  some more background  rsearch for RS - which  some of you  have now done, and provided info upon  which  I  have now done further research. Ironically, much of what  is contained everywhere in the Wikipedia is indeed the sum of opinion  and POV expressed through  so called consensus by  a handful  of collaborating  editors instead of relying  on  hard, reliable, verifiable facts. I commend editors who have taken the inititive to  bring  to  light  the posible discrepancies about  the status of the Channel  islands. The CI clearly seem to  insist  that  they  are not  members of the EU, yet  they  use EU passport format. There may be some later ruling, but  in  any  case, it still  does not  make sovereign countries out of them. Many thanks to  those woh took  the trouble to  locate the  PRADO site and show us images of the passports. This is the kind of research that  moves a contentious article forward, rather than edit warring and being  rude. Just for those who  missed the links, on  their country  profile pages the BBC refers to  England as a constituent part of the United Kingdom,  Scotland as a part of the United Kingdom, Wales, a part of the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. Also:
 * Scotland is not a country. Already the so called 'official' Scotland  website is technically  incorrect  in  stating  that  its government is a constitutional  monarchy - it  is not. That  privilege is for the United Kingdom. Probably  more accurate would be something  like: 'Semi autonomous, largely  self-governing  region of the parliamentary  monarchy of the UK. Having  taken a look  at  it, depending  on  how many  MPs it  sends to  Westminster, it  might  well  compare to  the level  of autonomy  of a German  Land, and its 27 unitary authorities to  a German  Landkreis.
 * facts About Scotland - not a site I  would risk  using  as an RS -  also  takes care to  refer to  Scotland as a nation rather than as a country.
 * Gateway to  Scotland made by  the University  of Edinburgh (quite obviously  a freshy  project and not  an RS),  does not  mention  the word country: "Scotland is one of four constituent nations which form the United Kingdom".
 * Defining country state and nation - eight points: Examples of entities that are not countries include: Hong Kong, Bermuda, Greenland, Puerto Rico, ...and most notably the constituent parts of the United Kingdom: (Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England are not countries.) This was not far  off my  original  Key  Questions.
 * Matt Rosenberg books: The Handy Geography Answer Book and The Geography Bee Complete Preparation Handbook. In October 2006, Matt was awarded the Excellence in Media Award from the National Council for Geographic Education for his contributions over the years to the discipline of geography. get  those books, find the page numbers, and you  have your indisputable RS.
 * The Welsh Assembly website is possibly not entirely  correct  in its definition of Wales: it  carefully  omits to  provide any  further definition of the word country  for accuracy - IHHO a nationalisitc ploy. The claims made in  the link on  the talk  page are not  recognisable (unles they  are buried in  a sub page somewhere). The Welsh Assembly  web site probably does not  qualify for a .gov top level  domain, if it  did it  would almost  certainly have one. The truly  official  site for Wales is Llywordraeth Cynulliad Cymru in  which  there are no  references to  Wales as a country. If a tterm  is required, the word nation  is used.
 * I've not found a single source or resource that  refers to  Northern Ireland either as a country, a state, or a nation. everything  seems to  refer simply  to  Northern ireland.

Ironically, for those from EWSNI who are fiercly patriotic, SWNI all have their own parliaments or national assemblies to some degree or another, and the UK govt maintains a Scottish Office, a Welsh Office, aand a Northern Ireland Office, but England has neither. In contrast to SWNI England has no separate elected national body responsible for its central administration -  but  I  don't  see a bunch  of patriotic English  separatists demonstrating  in  the streets for English  independence or insisting  that England be featured as a sovereign  country  in  Wikipedia lists.
 * Instead, a number of government departments govern England’s day-to-day affairs.] Again, I advise against about wrongly  interpreting  the word country in  order to  sway  consensus. The same is valid when reading  the word country in the Commonwealth Secretariat  site


 * Examples of entities that are not countries include: Hong Kong, Bermuda, Greenland, Puerto Rico, and most notably the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. (Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England are not countries.)
 * Number of countries in the world: 192 members of the UN, plus non-members Vatican and Kosovo. The US Dept of State recognises 194 countries, Taiwan meeta all eight criteria but is not recognised by the US.   "Each source you use often yields a diferent answer. Rosenberg  concludes that  195 countries is the best answer ans states again that "Recognize that there are dozens of territories and colonies that are sometimes erroneously called "countries" but don't count at all - they're governed by other countries. Places commonly confused as being countries include Puerto Rico, Bermuda, Greenland, Palestine, Western Sahara, and even the components of the United Kingdom (such as Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England - they're not fully independent countries, states, or nation-states)."
 * According to Rosenberg, EWSNI are "are four somewhat autonomous regions which are part of the country known as the United Kingdom ..."
 * Rosenberg states categorically that England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are not countries but the United Kingdom is.
 * Travel writer Ferne Arfin (USA), almost drops a clanger by beginning to say that the CI are independent: "Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark and Herm, like the Isle of Man, are independent (sort of - as you will see) states with their own governments and laws and an oddly tangled relationship with the UK ... The people of these islands, for example, are British subjects but not necessarily British citizens. Their UK passports do not give them the same rights to live and work in Europe enjoyed by UK citizens."
 * "authoritative listing of the independent countries of the world," EWSNI are not listed, the Faroes are not listed, and Greenland is not listed. The CI and Man are not listed. However, the US  Dept of State provides info which Rosenberg (cheekily?) refers to  as  'a nice little list', of of Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty.
 * According to Rosenberg: England is an internal division of the UK so that would mean so are SWNI.

Putting aside any  possible notions of political or cultural hegemony, I think the American list is exhaustive. It even goes so far as to include places 'for the convenience of the user' that are not dependancies (and says so) such as the French  overseas départments (roughly  the equivalent  of an English administrative county). However, SWNI are not on the list at all, which  presupposes that not only are they not  'countries', but  for all intets and purpose are simply  geographical 'regions' of the UK. This won't make the fiercly patriotic Scotts, Welsh, or NI Protestants among you very  happy, and the Faroe Islands are clearly and unambiguously listed as being a dependency of Denmark. (maybe there's something rotten in  the state of Denmark). Thus I also think the Dept of State list of 194 Independent States in the World is about as authoritative a source as we are going  to  find.

Continents do not  have an authoritative body  of their own or an official voice, except for perhaps organisms such as the African Union -  but  even then, all states might  not  be members -  and the Council of Europe - not  to  be confused with  the EU's European Council - that  has 47 of the 50 European states as its members,  but  three European independent states are not  members.

Reliable sources are therefore the US Department of State, books by  Rosenberg (if page numbers are cited), land lists  issued by  the British govt on  genuiely  official  government  sites.

For more genuinely 'official' {ie sites hosted at .gov) information  on  the status of the CI see;
 * http://www.gov.je/Pages/default.aspx Jersey
 * http://www.gov.gg/ccm/portal/ Guernsey
 * http://www.gov.sark.gg/ Sark
 * http://www.gov.im/ Isle of Man
 * http://www.alderney.gov.gg/ Alderny

Not necessarily 100% relevant, but nonetheless interesting  reading  is Rosenberg's List  of Missing Countries

One editor staes: "This article is about countries, not states There seems to be some confusion between the two, particularly in the 'Key questions' section." Fine, again let's be sure that  the page name reflects it, and thatthe lead adequately  qualifies it  to  remove any  doubt  in  the readers' minds.

NPOV is permissible as much as one ikes in  a discussion, provided it moves the discussion  forward and stimulates more research for better RS. So, there may be numerous sources that  lexically  describe EWSNI as countries, but  there are p^lenty  of official  sources tyhat  clearly  state in  a full  sentence or paragraph, that  they  are not countries. Other sources do this by  omission  of the name of the place at  all  in  their lists. it is interesting to  note, now that  this time round I  have scoured all  the externel  links that  you  have all  provided, plus a few more of my  ow, that  there might  be a case for listing  some dctionary  definitioons of the word official.

Naturally Wikipedia cannot  be usead as a reference to  itself. What I  was suggesting  was that  to  avoid the duplication  of effort, and to  maintain  some cdonsistency across related articles, we shoul attemp to  use reuse some of the RS and terminology from other closely  related articles -  in  the same way  as the BBC does. I discount entirely such  sources as this and  this as they  are clearly nowhere near the Wikpedia policy  definition  of an RS. Their source would have to be the source they  got  their information  from,  and it  might  even have been the Wikipedia for all  we know! There is a huge tendency of late to  place increasing  reliance on  web pages and even blogs as RS but  the trend  competely  dilutes the credence of the Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. If you've ever done a spell on WP:NPP you'll  kow what  I  mean. The trick they  use  is to  go  to  a web site's front  page and not  even bother to  look  further for the page that  holds the source; and I  definitely  do  not  acept  a 2006 list  of countries placed on  a low-layer sub domain  page of Cambs Uni dept  of chemistry by  a lab assistant  who  has acces to  the htdocs files on  the server. Sorry, but that  does not  make it  part of a doctoral thesis or a professoral  research  paper.

BW suggests moving a whole buch  of list pages. Admirable - after carefully checking  that  each  list  reflects its new title, any  adjustments to  the content  are known, and the major (or most  recent) contributors are warned about  the impending  move, I  would support the move. Jack is right  on  the nail  about  it  not  being  rocket science,  but  BW is also perfectly  correct  in  stating:

"This is not a debate about if EWSNI are countries or not, it is a debate about if they belong in a list of countries which compromise of sovereign states. "

- So let's also  avoid the contextomy  that  is endemic in  Wikipedia discussions. Again refering back  to  Matt  Rosenberg here for those who  say  there are no  sources. I think Goodday also supports  suggestions  for moving  and being  sure that  the content conforms to  the new page title.

Asking at  WP:RS/N won't  probably  help  much  more than it did asking  me at  WP:EAR -  at  least  not  for the time being. The greatest hurdle to  progress on  this article is quite obviously  the issue of civility, and of not  reading  each  others messages properly and following  the links. Just try  being  a little nicer to  each other and you'll  find that  the article will  leap  ahead. That's all I  have to  offer for a while, and as I  don't  intend to  interfere with  your article except  perhaps for copyediting any  typos I  come across, I  hope you've found it  useful, and I  wish  you  the best  of luck. If you need a pure !vote on a formatted debate, or if things get  really  stuck  and you  need to  launch  an RFC, let  me know. --Kudpung (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Response
Kudpung, you have invested a lot more time and effort into this debate, for which you have my thanks. I was surprised though, that your research failed to discover some things. For example, you said “ The truly official site for Wales is Llywordraeth Cynulliad Cymru in which there are no references to Wales as a country.” Would you mind taking another look at the site? The 'Background' page begins with Wales is a country. Entering “Wales country” in the search box provided 4280 results, many of which are relevant.

As far as RS references are concerned, there are hundreds of references describing the countries of Britain and Northern Ireland as countries. Many editors spent a great deal of time compiling this: Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs, which contains many references stating that Northern Ireland is a country, plus dozens of others for the countries of Great Britain.

Too much reliance has been place on a single source (Mark Rosenburg) saying that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are not countries, but there are many (non-blog) reliable sources that do call them countries. This is not just a fringe theory. Why aren't they considered valid?

I was rather surprised to discover that you consider all the .gov sites from the Channel Islands to be “genuinely 'official'”. Yet you warn us not to wrongly interpret .gov references, or the Commonwealth Secretariat stating Wales, Northern Ireland, England and Scotland are countries. Could you explain that please?

I am glad you support the article's renaming. I am quite hopeful it will solve this problem. Daicaregos (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note that the Commonwealth Secretariat website provided by Kudpung also did not list ESWNI in their list of countries. I think that the page is now being moved to avoid all this soon, so I won't go back into the argument. Your assistance in this matter is truly appreciated Kudpung. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Commonwealth Secretariat's entry under United Kingdom begins "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) is a union of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." It couldn't be stated any more explicit than that. Daicaregos (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't get  me wrong guys, I'm  not  trying  to  prove a point here. I have absolutely  no  personal reason  whatsoever to either prove or disporove EWSNI's worth  as countries, nations, states, or rocks in  the sea. As it happens, I'm  English, but  I  left  the country  nearly 40 years ago  and I've lived, studied, and worked just  about  everywhere else in  the world since. It  should be plainly  clear that  I've simply  provided enough  sources that  say  that  these places are not  countries, to strike a balance with  the editors who  might be patriotically  motivated and would  will  split every  hair and clutch at  every  straw to  demonstrate that  they  are,  and to  help  the decision  on  how to either  rename the page,  or to  adapt  the different  tables in  its content.  There are a few more anomalies that  I  stumbled upon  that  I  did not mention; for example, FIFA fields national  teams from England,  Wales, Scotland, Northern ireland, and the famous Faroe Islands, but  it even includes Israel  which  is nowhere near Europe at  all. On  the other hand, the European Athletic Association fields teams from Gibraltar, Great Britain, Turkey,  and ahain  Israel  which  is well into  Asia.


 * The thing about Rosenberg is, that  he is not my  only  source at  all, but at  least  he is a source (published award winning  professional  geographer and author) within the meaning  of Wikipedia policy, while  several  of the web sites being  cited do  not  remotely  approach WP:RS if we are to  interpret the guidelines strictly. Unfortunately, here in  a remote village in  the jungles of northeast  Thailand, I  no longer have the university  libraries in  Bangkok  within  reach, so  I'm rather hampered with  what  I  can  find on  the net  until  my  next  trip  to Europe. If  I  warned against  anything, it was from  my  point  of view as a linguist  and lexicographer, that  one  should preferably  not  game the system by  applying  semantics to  fit  our own agendas, that  were not  intended by  the original  author  of a piece of prose. I'll  leave you  with  this thought; Practically everyone in  the UK has used the phrase   "What  this country  needs is..."  Which  country  is he referring  to?-Kudpung (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Pointing out that something is blatantly wrong is not splitting hairs. You said “there are no references to Wales as a country” on what you called “The truly official site for Wales … Llywordraeth Cynulliad Cymru” It is simply not true. Should it not be mentioned? Does it mean my motives should be assumed to be other than WP:NPOV because I do? If I said the CIA list of countries included England would you just let that pass? I have shown that what you said was not true. Yet you don't retract it, apologise for misleading us, or even mention it. Why not? And it isn't just one explicit point you made that was untrue.


 * No mention of the dozens of reliable sources on Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs. Again why not.


 * You say you've provided enough sources that say that these places are not countries. You have not. You have provided one source, and that's a blog.
 * You seem to make much to try to prove your point that England, Wales and Scotland are not included on lists of countries. It is not relevant. WP:SYN states: “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.” But then,why should I expect Wikipedia principles and policies to be followed? They haven't been so far.
 * Daicaregos (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides missing the point of the arguments against, you're beginning to sound WP:TE. And the policies have been followed. Additionally, I see no way on earth how using a list of countries as a source for a wikipedia article on a list of countries is WP:SYNTH at all. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, my comment was in response to Kudpung's post. Is there any reason you think he is not capable of answering for him/herself? For one thing, you couldn't possibly know why s/he misled us about the claim that there are no references to Wales as a country on Llywordraeth Cynulliad Cymru and why there was no retraction, apology, or even any mention of it once the claim was shown to be false.
 * Secondly, I did not imply that using a list of countries as a source for a Wikipedia article on a list of countries is WP:SYNTH. What I am saying, however, is that using a list (or lists) of countries that do not include Wales, England and Scotland in order to reach or imply a conclusion that they are not countries (unless it is explicitly stated that they are not countries) is synthesis, and they do not. There is no reason not to use a list of countries to verify that those included are countries. Other reliable sources can be used to verify any other countries to include on the article.


 * And last, policies have not been followed: there are reliable sources (see Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs) showing that Scotland, Wales and England are countries, yet those countries are excluded from the article. verify is a core Wikipedia policy and essential for neutrality.


 * btw, accusing someone of WP:TE is not civil. Please don't. Daicaregos (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for coming off harsh, I don't like to think I accused you of it, what I did was say that you were coming close to it. Anyway, if you want his answer (even though he seems to be done here) I'll leave him to it. In the meantime, back to moving the article for me. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. And yes, I would be interested why s/he misled us. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Im sure i even heard the deputy first minister of Scotland (Separatist), saying country once when she was referring to the UK rather than just Scotland so even those intent on the break up of the United Kingdom say it occasionally. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Daicaregos despite the commonwealth source saying the UK is made of up four countries, look on the right hand side of the site where there is a drop down menu of countries. Guess what, the UK is there, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not. Many reliable sources may describe the UK as having 4 countries, it does not change the fact the BBC, CIA and most sites that publish a list of countries, do not include EWSNI in line with other nations, to avoid confusion and to avoid treating them like independent sovereign states. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The move has been pretty much decided on, so lets stop bickering about this among ourselves and put our efforts on the move shall we? Lets not waste our time :) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Daicaregos, the fact is, that  it  does appear that  you  might  not  have fully  read the various postings, which  is possible because they  were long. If Chipmunk has mentioned WP:TE it  is because he did not  imagine it. I  had already  suggested several  times that  it  might  be easier to  reach  a consensus if we can all put  our most  noble patriotic feelings aside, and remain  neutral  for the sake of accuracy  in  our encyclopedia,  and base our content  on  facts. Nobody  has been trying  to  mislead you, we have just  been showing  some other sides to  the discussion. I don't  edit  your article, so  I'm  not  bothered about  the outcome, as I  have already  said several  times.--Kudpung (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)--Kudpung (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your accusation of tendentious editing against Dai should be withdrawn immediately. He has asked you pertinent questions, questions which you appear unable or unwilling to answer. Jack 1314 (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving up quite a bit of your time over the last couple of days on this matter. Is best we all move on and accept the page move to address concerns about the title whilst keeping EWSNI off the list. Seems the fairest way forward. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend we archive this page. More debate on this matter will resolve nothing and is likely simply to get more heated. Lets just accept the compromise, the article names will be changed to address the concerns that it said country but did not include all entities known as country. There is something positive for all sides in that. BritishWatcher (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * BW, the compromise has been accepted and as you say there is something positive for all sides. I did though think there was a need for a response to Kudpung's post, though perhaps I could have left it to Dai if he wanted to respond. The accusation was out of order. Jack 1314 (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So … Tendentious Editor am I? That being the case, I insist that you refer me to WP:AN/I, as tendentious editors should be blocked from editing Wikipedia. As an Admin it is you duty to do so. We will see if your peers agree with you. If, on the other hand, they do not … what to do with you? I will leave you to consider your options overnight. I expect either to have been referred to AN/I, or for you to have withdrawn your accusations, apologised and to have answered my questions, by then. Daicaregos (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above. As long as it's clearly shown that England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales aren't independant, I'll accept their inclusion. Though my personal preference (which doesn't carry any weight here) would be to exclude E/W/S/NI, as we've already got United Kingdom listed. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We have already decided to rename the article. GoodDay, have you been drinking today? ;) Jack 1314 (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to keep up with you folks. PS: I'm a teetotaler. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)