Talk:Country/Archive 5

Does this sentence deserve inclusion?

From the section entitled "Sovereignty status": 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.[citation needed]

Does that belong? AutomaticStrikeout 23:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

total rubbish for the heading , while "Any person visiting a country, other than that in which he usually resides, for a period of at least 24 hours" is defined as a 'foreign tourist'. It is not uncommon for general information or statistical publications to adopt the wider definition for purposes such as illustration and comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.153.83 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 30 January 2012

British POV

This article does a poor job of differentiating between country, nation, and sovereign state. It claims that England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland are countries with no justification presented. It also claims the Bavaria and Piedmont are not, if you speak English. The reason the speakers language has a bearing on the classification is not explained (and imho, inexplicable). ISO does not list the four segments of the U.K. as countries. So, on what basis is there justification for the claim? This really needs a good overhaul. If the definition is so vague as to be inexplicable, or if there are more than a handful of (conflicting) defintions, should the term actually be included in Wikipedia?216.96.77.139 (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, in large part. What lies behind this article is that the word's notability as an encyclopedia article comes from it being a touchstone for identity/nationalist politics, mainly in the UK. (If that were not the case WP:DICTIONARY would apply, and there is no reason to have an article on this word.) But what is objectionable is that does not come out in the article. There are several users that are invested in the importance of the word from that perspective. I tried a bold edit a couple of years ago to move the emphasis of the article (here) but to no avail. DeCausa (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Not really. The constituent countries of the UK just are normally called that, whereas Canadian provinces, German Lander etc just aren't. The uses of the word are not entirely logically consistent - deal with it. Johnbod (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The point is there is logicality to the usage: (mainly) UK politics. It's just that the article pretends that it's not so. DeCausa (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

And the use is referenced - the EU for example uses country for England, Wales & Scotland etc. etc. Its messy, thats life. Oh, and for the record the attempt not to use it represents a Unionist anti-nationalist PoV etc. etc. Clarity and common use should inform how we use the term ----Snowded ^TALK 08:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In the UK, we DO have 3 or 4 countries. (Wales is a principality) Some of the signs pointing to this, especially where England and Scotland, (and to a lesser extent Northern Ireland) are concerned, are the fact that there are distinct systems present, governing, Education, Law, (and even the National Health Service), in fact these are enshrined in the articles of Union. Scotland and Northern Ireland also have their own distinct banknotes, albeit valued in Sterling. The current situation is that with devolved parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, many processes are run by the people in those countries. This devolution can be rescinded, but the 1707 Act of Union governing the Scotland and England political union makes clear that this can be dissolved by a mandated unilateral declaration. Technically this means that the BRITISH Government could NOT stop Scotland dissolving the union, even if it wanted to. With Scotland and England, again, we see the example of sovereignty being notable, as in England, it rests with the monarch, via her parliament. In Scotland, sovereignty rests with the PEOPLE, although in general deference is to the monarch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.187.220 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Wales hasn't been a principality since 1542. Wales had its status upgraded a country then. England and Scotland are countries, there is no argument there, however Northern Ireland is a province. Ezza1995 (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC

"... Since ISIL is accurately listed at List of active rebel groups can we have consensus that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is not a sovereign state, country, or sub-national entity and should not be listed as such..."

That's a summary of the nominator's premiss in an RfC running at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant directly accessed: here.

Contribution would be appreciated and am pinging contributors to this talk page: 203.82.183.147, 66.245.75.202, Ariwara, Automatic, Bastin8, BlueSunRed, BozMo, Christopher Parham, DarkMasterBob, DeCausa, Daicaregos, Delirium, Ddye, Dominus, Fholson, French Tourist, E Pluribus Anthony, Foxy Loxy, Gazilion, GoodDay, Huaiwei, Insta, Jfruh, Johnbod, Jørgen, Lee M, Mababa, Macarism, Mais oui!, Montemonte, Niohe, Night w nyenyec, Pfly, Pheasantplucker, Philip Baird Shearer (PBS), Quartier, Readin, Robdurbar, Ruhrjung, Mal, Snowded, Tamfang, Wetman, Yuje, Zisa, Zocky.

Thanks and sorry for so many pings. I didn't expect so many but believe it best to try to follow through with initial plans and not change tack mid way which might otherwise be done due to bias. GregKaye ✍♪ 10:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Origin

This article needs a history/origin section. It is incomplete without answers to the following questions: When and where did the first countries appear? Under what circumstances? Who formed them, and how? How did the idea of "country" spread so that the world went from having no countries to today's situation in which almost the entire globe is cut up into separate political units called "countries"? Athana (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense

Here are two quotes from this article's introduction, that should be improved:

• "A country is a region [...]"

• "A country may be an independent sovereign state [...]"

Here is a quote from the article "Sovereign state":

• "In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity [...]"

Unless "region" refers to something nonphysical, which the page "Region (disambiguation)" does not seem to indicate it should, what I have quoted above adds up to plain nonsense. If a country "is" an "area of land or water that is part of a larger whole" (quote from "Region (disambiguation)"), then it "may" not, contrary to what this article says, also be a sovereign state. Because a sovereign state is, then, a nonphysical entity.

A country may, however, be a part of what a nonphysical juridical entity of the sovereign state kind owns. To try to illustrate, some business company may own, for example, a car. But that doesn't mean that we can therefore now say that a car "may be" a business company. A car is a physical object made of metal and glass and plastic and so on. It is not a nonphysical entity, and is certainly not a business company, even though it is something a nonphysical entity such as a business company may own.

Regards,
--62.16.186.44 (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish. All countries are regions, some are states, some are not. The definition of "Sovereign state" "In international law" by no means tells all the story. Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod, thank you for the quick reply. I appreciate that. However, what I stated is immediately obvious.

"[...] by no means tells all the story."

I would like to hear more about what should be added to countries being defined as land, and states being defined as entities. --62.16.186.44 (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A country is the physical territory of a state (sovereign or otherwise). However, our current lead does not really explain that well. Kaldari (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Poor definition

The current definition is fairly useless, IMO. If a country is any "region that is identified as a distinct entity in political geography", that would include things like the Antarctic Treaty Area, the Pacific Ocean, California, etc. none of which are considered countries. The definition needs to mention something about a country being the territory of a nation or state (as most dictionaries do). Kaldari (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the definition it was changed to A country is the territory controlled by or associated with a national government. would seem to exclude England, which has no national government. I have changed the Lead to say A country is a region that is identified as a distinct national entity in political geography. Daicaregos (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems like a good solution. Kaldari (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725183008/http://www.mercer.com:80/costofliving to http://www.mercer.com/costofliving

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080124041217/http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/topten.cfm to http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/topten.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324062517/http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/139598/geography/ to http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/139598/geography/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407075644/http://thuytiencrampton.com/2010/07/07/made-in-the-british-crown-colony/ to http://thuytiencrampton.com/2010/07/07/made-in-the-british-crown-colony/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080819200343/http://umich.edu/news/happy_08/HappyChart.pdf to http://umich.edu/news/happy_08/HappyChart.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100205110409/http://europa.eu/youth/travelling_europe/index_uk_en.html to http://europa.eu/youth/travelling_europe/index_uk_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081114104006/http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/pdf/index2007_RegionA_Asia-Pacific.pdf to http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/pdf/index2007_RegionA_Asia-Pacific.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Spain

Hello, I think a small part of the text should be changed to be factual correct and less biased.

We can read on the text:

"In the Kingdom of Spain, the regions of Galicia, the Catalan speaking parts (referred as Catalan Countries) and the Basque Country are non-sovereign states or group of states (namely, autonomous communities under the Spanish law) which are generally referred as countries".

In my opinion there are misconceptions here.

1 - Catalan Countries is a definition only used by the catalan nationalist movement that it is not widely accepted. It is also very ambiguous, so it cannot be used as a definition or as a fact. The correct sentence would be "the Catalan speaking parts (Catalonia, Valencia and Balearic Islands)".

2 - non-sovereign states or group of states: who defines them as so? It needs a source.

3 - "generally referred as countries", it also needs a source, they are not generally referred as countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.47.16.217 (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit summary regarding Greenland, etc.

Please refer to his user talk page. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Please just stop POV pushing and synthesis of source. The link your provided, only prove Greenland are not part of EU and Denmark proper as an autonomous territories. But does not prove media usually refers Greenland as a country. So did all the British Overseas Territories (and I am glad the cn tag was not removed this time).

It is simple, just find a secondary sources or from reliable encyclopedic websites, find out the sentence "X is a country" to prove X usually refers as a country in external sources. Also note that wikipedia already has Dependent territory wiki article. Matthew hk (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

What point of view are you talking about? For the Faroe Islands and Greenland, Ctrl+F for "two countries" in the source you've added. As for the UK and the British overseas territories: since you didn't specify when you added the Cn tag it was not known whether you were referring to the four home nations or the overseas territories. Read carefully before you made bold, false claims. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

For certain states, the long form and the short form are identical:

Iceland is not a good example, because in UNGEGN Geographical Names both the short name Iceland and the formal name the Republic of Iceland are mentioned. 62.168.13.101 (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

And by the way, I have now made sure that wikipedia users are functionally illiterate, do not understand the written word and just delete.62.168.13.101 (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, I encourage you to focus on the edits, not the editors. I lightly oppose this edit, and unless you gain further support I am dubious of your change remaining in the encyclopedia. This discussion is similar to one at Talk:State (polity)Shajure (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

"Turkey" and transcontinental states in the lead

See wp:lead. Neither the transcontinental type nor the nationalism belong in the lead. If transcontinental type is so important that it needs mention here (it doesn't), it will need be in the body, sourcing, and reasonable wp:weight. If Turkey needs a mention, we will need other examples (Which We Do Not Need) - we already have so many lists of nations that we have lists of lists of nations.Shajure (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Country of origin

On Certe's remarks "each importer can decide how to label", please familiarize yourself with rules of origin before you comment. Every editor has to be responsible for the accuracy and validity of what he or she does. 124.217.188.165 (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring in the lead and the underlying squabbles

I encourage adding useful content to the body if there is adequate sourcing.

Then, ideally, the lead will have 0 sources... they'll all be in the body, and the lead will simply provide a short summary (MUCH SHORTER SUMMARY) of the key points of the body. Which IMO will not include the squabble by non-US-English-language users about how the word is used in English.

I propose removing the microstates from the lead entirely, and if an editor is interested and has a source for micro-country list, they might add that somewhere in the body. It seems to me to be trivia not belonging in the lead, and it is going to tweak up nationalist squabbles.Shajure (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Some of the disputes appear to relate to the political status of Taiwan, and the opposition of the Government of China to descriptions of Taiwan and Tibet as 'countries'. This is relevant to this article, and we should cover it explicitly in a separate section. We currently have a series of citations in the lead section to support the phrase 'leading to controversy', which does not improve the clarity of the article. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as the scope of this article is concerned, that's more to do with whether some countries (i.e. dependent territories) fall within the meaning of the English word country (and its equivalence in some other languages), which in turn affects how these countries may be presented as countries alongside other countries. Taiwan's case isn't quite immediately relevant here, since outside the most formal form of diplomacy their actual status in general isn't often disputed. But then in any case reliable sources and helpful wikilinks shouldn't be removed with no reason given. 112.120.39.238 (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

That paragraph has been reorganised to make it easier to read. 112.120.39.238 (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

No, but more nationalism has been added to it. I propose removing both the US and China nationalistic bits. The China and US government positions do not "lead to" dispute, they ARE normal nationalistic dispute. It does not belong in the lead, and may need a mention in the body.Shajure (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Nationalistic dispute? What to do with nationalism here? Isn't that hegemony or irredentism? 112.120.39.238 (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

We cannot allow ungrammatical and unexplained statements like "One government have disputed against this usage..." to remain in the article, let alone additions such as "At other times it can refer only to states....". Whatever the intention behind them, these are poor and unacceptable edits. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

In what way is this ungrammatical? And even if that is how is that going to justify unexplained deletion of reliable sources and wikilinks? It's simply wrong to lump sources for the illustration of different things together by deleting sentences in between them. 112.120.39.238 (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You can't say "One government have...". It's "has". And there is no reason not to state which government you mean - there is no need to expect the reader to guess. Simple one-word terms do not need wikilinks. You are adding text immediately before citations, so I assume that they are not justified by the citations that follow. And it is bizarre to add statements which you are then questioning by tagging - you need to add clear statements with clear citations - not add unjustified statements that are simply what you believe to be correct. Etc., etc. It's simply bad, and unacceptable, editing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You can't say "One government have...". It's "has". In that case I'd suppose you are from the States or have been exposed to US English all along. But this article doesn't appear to be written in US English. You are adding text immediately before citations, so I assume that they are not justified by the citations that follow. Did I? And in any case did that actually happen? Even if that did happen, which is quite unlikely, is it logical or reasonable to assume so without actually examining the citations? And it is bizarre to add statements which you are then questioning by tagging Did this actually happen? How would that justify putting references for illustration of different things together by deleting sentences between them? 112.120.39.238 (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC) (revised 09:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC))

While UK English does treat "government" as a grammatically plural noun in some contexts, the phrase "one government" is explicitly singular. Also, "[you] have been exposing to US English" is not correct grammar for what you seem to be trying to express in any dialect of English. I don't know if it's due to autocorrect errors, rage, intoxication, or not being a fluent and articulate Anglophone, but your prose is riddled with problems of grammar and inscrutability (e.g. "putting references for illustration different things together"). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a reference to all those people connected with the government collectively. Here's an example of "each government have..." (emphasis added).[1] 112.120.39.238 (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you found someone else (in government, no less) who doesn't quite understand the problem with doing that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. It's poor prose. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The link to a British Parliament website is a transcript of a speech, and spoken English is more likely to be non-standard than written English. 112.120.39.238's points about US English may reflect American and British English grammatical differences#Subject-verb agreement, which says that British English accepts the treatment of collective nouns as plurals in circumstances where US English does not. However, "One government have..." is not standard British English; if this is standard in another English dialect then please indicate which. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Here are a few more examples: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. It may be less common to some people but saying it's non-standard may have crossed the line. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I cannot find any examples of "one government have" at any of these links. They have similar phrases, including "the Welsh Government have" and "we as a government have". I have no problem with those phrases, but they are not equivalent to "one government have". As Jason A. Quest has pointed out, "one government" is explicitly singular. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

As Jason A. Quest has pointed out, "one government" is explicitly singular. Then I'd rather say the word government is by itself a collective noun, except in cases that the word is singular by context. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

let alone additions such as "At other times it can refer only to states....". Whatever the intention behind them, these are poor and unacceptable edits. Apparently you hadn't gone through the edit history before you said this. That line has been there for many years and the unreliable source tag was added eleven months ago. The line along with the examples needed tag was recently deleted with no reason given, making the unreliable source join the sources before that line. Was it acceptable to delete that line in the first place? What I did was to reinstate that line to separate the unrelated sources. Before charging me for doing something unacceptable please make sure that's actually something which had really happened. 112.120.39.238 (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shajure: US English? 112.120.39.238 (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes.Shajure (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

What to do with US English? 112.120.39.238 (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

There is good cause to complain about China, but the lead section of this article is not the place to do it. It is improper to use the opening of this article, which should be a fairly dry definition of what a country is, to push a political agenda. - MrOllie (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Then the right thing to do is to move it somewhere else. It isn't the right thing to do to delete some of the sources, delete some of the sentences for no reason, or delete the whole paragraph. 219.76.63.115 (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The 'somewhere else' would be some other article on US-China relations, not anywhere on this article. MrOllie (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me for chipping in. This isn't about US–China relations, but how the definition of the same word "country" is different according to the governments of the two largest economies, two of the five permanent member states in the UNSC, when it comes to the largest dependent territory by population or by GDP (larger than all other dependent territories combined in both cases). 1.64.47.144 (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This isn't about US-China relations or Taiwan, but the two countries in question are the US and China, and the sources being edit warred over are about Taiwan. Interesting take. MrOllie (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't get it. Its inclusion here, as I read it, wasn't because of US-China relations, but their different definitions of the same word. 219.76.63.99 (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

That's WP:OR, then - drawing a conclusion that does not exist in the cited sources and attempting to put it into the article. MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't find any conclusion drawn in those texts. It only stated how that government disagreed with the usual definition and how another government had responded. 219.76.63.125 (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The conclusion is that the disagreement is due to 'different definitions of the same word' and not an underlying political dispute, which is the position the sources take. At any rate, will you accept that there is significant opposition to this wording, and stop edit warring once the protection on this article expires? MrOllie (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The sources touched on both. But they are cited not for the latter. They are cited for the former. At any rate, will you accept that there is significant opposition to this wording, and stop edit warring once the protection on this article expires? Me? 219.76.63.123 (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, your IP. For a current example you might see the attempted edit war continuation in the section you (or someone at your IP... one of the reasons IP editing is not ideal for many of us) created: "Pays d'outre-mer and overseas territory".Shajure (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC) Bah, too many IPs. Please disregard.Shajure (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

This, however, is you edit warring. - MrOllie (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I did that because I didn't find it right to remove those stuffs (texts, refs) and to leave out the definite article before a group of islands. Yes that was done but that only happened once. The reasons were mentioned in the edit summary. So what's the issue here? What's the point of distracting to this? As Shajure suggested please focus on the actual issues. The sources are cited for the different definitions, or, to put it straight, a tendency of a powerful influencer to define the word differently from what most people do. 219.76.63.100 (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that should be called squabbles unless you don't actually want to discuss. I added a piece of news story from Reuters and the letter from the Chinese government to UA obtained by Josh Rogin and cited in his column in the Washington Post.[9][10] The Reuters story was repeatedly removed as a reference but I don't think any of the editors involved have ever stated why they did so. The hyperlinks to the PDF file of the letter and to Rogin's column article were also removed, the former for being non-English[11] and, in his words, presumably intended to support something that editor has deleted for unclear, probably point-of-view content, whereas the removal of the latter has not been known other than clearly nonneutral and incomprehensible.[12] 124.217.189.47 (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Microstates

Is there any reason why these countries are chosen as examples over others? Few weeks ago all examples were European ones. Then the smallest ones in the Pacific were added. Now that some much bigger ones like Bahrain and the Maldives made their way through, while others got deleted for no reason. 112.120.39.238 (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed some and added others to better reflect a group of examples that were world-wide rather than just focussed in Europe or Oceania. Unless there is a good reason to have fewer or more the selection of examples seems fair and there is a link to the micro-state article for readers to see others. Robynthehode (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I have readded Tuvalu given they are small n terms of geographical area and population. Some of those now included may be too big to be part of the same league. 112.120.39.238 (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

What if we change the microstate sentence in the lead to include the 2 with smallest size and smallest population, 1 of each if they are different?Shajure (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue here is micro-states, according to the micro-states article (which seems to be supported by reliable sources), cover a wide range of size and population. So choosing the smallest in area and/or population is arbitrary. Why not choose the largest? Or the median? My edit and choice is giving examples across the world to show that micro-states are not restricted to island states (Oceania islands) or European ones (many landlocked). After all this is to show using as few examples as possible that micro-states exist across the globe and if a reader is interested they can use the link present to read the Micro-state article to see the full list and range of micro-states. Robynthehode (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Or, more simply, perhaps just make sure there is a See Also for microstates and remove it from the lead entirely.Shajure (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

We already list the largest and the most populous countries, it makes sense to bookend that by also listing the smallest and the least populous. How about something like: 'The largest country in the world by geographical area is Russia, while the most populous is China. The smallest and the least populous is the microstate Vatican City.' If readers want to read more about microstates and get more examples they will click on the link. MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I would strongly support that edit.Shajure (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree. The Vatican City is sui generis. We would need a couple of other examples. 112.120.39.238 (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Sui generis or otherwise, it would be nice to mention the next on list given the very different nature of the Vatican City. 1.64.47.144 (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The reason why Palau,[13] Nauru and Tuvalu[14] were added was because while the only exampls given by then were the Vatican City State, Monaco and San Marino, these three countries in the Pacific are smaller than Monaco and San Marino by population, and for the case of the latter two smaller than San Marino by area. It was meant to provide a balanced view that these least populous/geographically smallest countries aren't only found in Europe. And that's it. I don't understand why Bahrain, Barbados and the Maldives were added in the edit that followed.[15] IMHO there's no clear rationale at all.

(If we are to give some examples on the other end, that would be Singapore (the most populous one to be smaller than 1,000 km²/386 sq miles) and Iceland (the biggest one to have a population below 500,000). On a side note, we may also give some examples of countries with limited recognition and countries which are dependent territories but that's another question.) 1.64.47.144 (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You're presupposing that we should have a list of examples of microstates at all. The lead is supposed to summarize the article it appears on, and this article doesn't really mention microstates in the article body, nor should it. Given that this isn't actually the article on microstates, we should forget the idea of keeping a balanced list of these things - if such a list belongs anywhere it would be on the article specific to microstates. MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with MrOllie's suggestion that the lede is rewritten to state 'The largest country in the world by geographical area is Russia, while the most populous is China. The smallest and the least populous is the microstate Vatican City.'. This keeps thing succinct. There should be a link for largest country by area and most populous along with a link to micro-states. Robynthehode (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

In that case we don't have to mention the term "microstate" at all. It would be nice if we would mention the one among those ordinarily inhabited which is the smallest and the least populous, as well as the second smallest and the second least populous one to match the biggest and most populous ones. But then we'd have to mention cases like the Pitcairn Islands. 1.64.47.144 (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

What about somewhere in the body of the article? The whole paragraph about geographical size and population size need not be included under the lede. 112.120.39.238 (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I am going to make the suggested edit now. Easily reverted if there is some objection.Shajure (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

land of birth, etc.

" It is often referred to as the land of an individual's birth, residence or citizenship." - why does this belong in the lead. Propose to remove.Shajure (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

choppedShajure (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere in the body? A place of birth usually includes a reference to a country. But a lot more relevant would be domicile/residence and citizenship/nationality. These are always so (with the exceptions of specific cases like domicile or a company incorporated in one of the constituents of the UK, or a province/state in some countries, or for countries where there are a second-tier of citizenship/nationality, e.g. Switzerland). 112.120.39.238 (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Those can have their own articles and be listed in the See Also section here, if there is consensus to do so.Shajure (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I found no problem for their inclusion here, for the sake of giving some examples for illustration. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

edits that mangled my text

I tried to fix it, but if it is possible, it was beyond me.Shajure (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

If you know that's "beyond [you]", ask before you do so. It's simply unacceptable to mass delete. 1.64.47.144 (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Then why did you just do it? Please fix the mess you just made. Thanks. I'll revert unless you doShajure (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

"The mess [I] just made"? I fixed the mess you made. 1.64.47.144 (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

again restored my talk page edits that were damaged. Please don't damage them again. Thanks. Shajure (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

What are you trying to restore? You are repeatedly damaging text I added. Stop it.Shajure (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I found nothing damaged. All I see is that you've kept deleting something from somebody elses' comments. Would you spell out clearly what exactly was damaged? 1.64.47.144 (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

You found nothing damaged, great, so don't revert it.15:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's stop here and talk. It's simply wrong to delete someone else's comment. 1.64.47.144 (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

And yet you again reverted, damaging my text. (compare revisions will show you the damage you are making). There are no missing comments. I restored them. They were tangled with the damage to my comments and could not be restored with undo or rollback. STOP IT.Shajure (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Please list any missing comment you can find. (you can't). Shajure (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Check diffs. 1.64.47.144 (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

E.g., my comment at 15:12, 5 December 2021. 1.64.47.144 (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha we got this settled finally. 1.64.47.144 (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we can move in a forward direction.Shajure (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Right. Thanks. 1.64.47.144 (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't me who added that block indent template. Have been trying hard to keep it there while re-adding everything you deleted for no reason. I don't understand why it doesn't work on your browser and you've never been able to tell what exactly are those "damages" as displayed at your end. But anyhow we've found a way out and get everything in place. 1.64.47.144 (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

And we go back to talking about something we think is fixed? Is there a change we need to make to the article?Shajure (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid I would have to agree with 112.120.39.239's opinion below. It's difficult to go on if we aren't even talking about more or less the same thing. (On the other hand you still haven't clarified why you are talking about US English (see my comment above at 15:23 on 5 December 2021).) 1.64.47.144 (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Please remove your overweening and inappropriate focus from the editors and place it on the content.Shajure (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Neither do I. Why not Commonwealth English for instance? Or simply English regardless of dialect? 112.120.39.239 (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)