This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There are two issues with the only source provided (link is now dead, moved here):
Therefore, I have removed the Danish Realm from the listing per WP:UNSOURCED.
(courtesy ping Matthew hk and Certes) — LauritzT ( talk) 13:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Greenland has the status of an overseas country. Britannica uses phrases such as
the country’s coastal areasand
the country’s plant life; and the CIA World Factbook refers to
Country Flag,
Country Map, etc. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs mentions
20 % of the countryand
the extreme south of the country. However, I can't find a RS which explicit states that Greenland is or isn't a country.It's even less clear for the Faeroes: CIA has Country Flag etc. but Britannica and the Faroe government don't use the term. Certes ( talk) 13:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Due to the highly structured nature of the Factbook database, some collective generic terms have to be used. For example, the word Country in the Country name entry refers to a wide variety of dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, uninhabited islands, and other entities in addition to the traditional countries or independent states.Regarding denmark.dk, the Contact Us page states
The opinions, quotes and expressions – including possible omissions – do not necessarily reflect the official policies and opinions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark or the Danish government.. — LauritzT ( talk) 14:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC) (edited 14:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC))
Since this seems to be the core of the other edit war in the lead, I have created a section for it.
If the squabble between the US and China over the use of "country" in US English is not covered in the body by an interested editor in the next few days, I propose to cut the entire nationalistic bits, sources and all, from the lead. If it is added to the body (weakly oppose, it is just nationalistic posturing), I propose to remove the source references from the lead and leave the sentence:
"The word country is used both to refer to sovereign states and to other political entities."
Reference to to-be-conquered or rebelling areas of empires throughout history has always led the "owner" to object to anyone referring to their possession as an entity. This would merit mention in the body if the current nationalistic squabble is included.
Shajure (
talk)
12:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I captured the sources from the squabble/duplicatuion of P2 that was P3, in case an interested editor wants to add the content to the body... but I think it doesn't belong.
[chopped as the most excellent Verbcatcher knew how to do it Much Better. Thank you, VC Shajure ( talk) 22:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
(@22:30, 4 December) Your post is extremely opaque. I have reformatted it using {{ Reflist talk}}, which is clearer:
The word Country is used to refer to sovereign states and sometimes to other political entities, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] leading to controversy. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] unreliable source? For example, the CIA World Factbook uses the word in its "Country name" field to refer to "a wide variety of dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, uninhabited islands, and other entities in addition to the traditional countries or independent states". [13] [note 1]
Notes
References
Verbcatcher ( talk) 23:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Where in the Body are you proposing to add this?As I said at 11:16, 8 December 2021, This would be best covered under the section Verbcatcher suggested (01:22, 7 December 2021)..
I don't think you will find support for...That was about unexplained and selective removal of some RSs, and some sentences in between refs.
We absolutely do not need to ADD content with a CN flag anywhere in the article.That wasn't adding content with a CN flag, but reverting the attempt to delete a sentence in between refs. Check diffs before you charge me or anyone for this. 112.120.39.239 ( talk) 09:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
(@12:39, 4 December) As I have said above this isn't about Taiwan, but those countries which aren't sovereign states. Please make sure you understand what that's about first before you go further. 112.120.39.238 ( talk) 09:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
The word country is used to refer to sovereign states and to other political entities..., and the fact that Taiwan isn't quite an "other entity", it's rather apparent from the onset that this paragraph is all about entities like Hong Kong, which would include territories like the Åland Islands, Aruba, Bermuda, the Caymans, the Falklands, the Faroes, Gibraltar, Greenland, Guam, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Puerto Rico, Svalbard, etc. We don't even have to talk about common sense. 1.64.47.144 ( talk) 15:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
(@12:39, 4 December) "Country" in English or in US English? Is there any reason why you are talking about US English? 1.64.47.144 ( talk) 15:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
This was warred back into the lead, duplicating P1. I gave it its own subsection under usage. Someone else can kill it off. Or not.
Shajure (
talk) 13:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
If we keep this, I propose to move the S1 sources out of the lead and into the body... they don't belong in the lead and add clutter.
Shajure (
talk)
13:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
This was warred back in yet again, with a number of scattered comments added to the talk page... both sets of edits were removed again. I wonder if the EW has a point... Do we need all this? If so, should we add something like "and their supporters and opponents" to the dispute? As part of the rivalry between the US and Chinese empires, I really don't see it belonging in the article on "country", but perhaps (mmmmmaaaaaybe) in articles about the rivals or their rivalry. Throughout history empires, invaders, rebels, separatists and many others have squabbled (often using force of arms) about whether a specific given area was part of 1 country or another, or whether a given country existed as a country. This belongs, if anywhere in the encyclopedia, in the articles about those specific squabbles, I should think. Prussia, Persia, Carthage, Rome... many countries once existed, but no longer do, yet are still certainly "countries".
Shajure (
talk)
06:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The discussion about "One government have..." (in the Edit warring in the lead and the underlying squabbles section above) reminded me of an unresolved disputed edit about a similar grammatical issue. My edit was reverted by an IP editor, as follows: [10]
The edit summary for the revert was: Country names are often collective nouns. I am a native speaker of British English and I am also familiar with US English, and these uses of 'include' look wrong. Country names are sometimes used as collective nouns, for example for sports teams, e.g. "England have beaten Australia", but these look wrong.
Is there a consensus for changing these to "France includes...", etc? Verbcatcher ( talk) 21:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The Kingdom of the Netherlands include the islands of Curacao, Aruba, Sint Maarten, Sint Eustatius and Saba which are in the Caribbean Sea. ...[11] 112.120.39.238 ( talk) 09:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
look wrong. 112.120.39.239 ( talk) 09:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
MrOllie and I are strongly in favour of 'includes' and 112.120.39.238 says 'either way is fine'. Based on this I have changed the text to 'France includes' and 'The Kingdom of the Netherlands includes'. Another editor had already made the change to 'The United Kingdom includes'. Verbcatcher ( talk) 22:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There are two issues with the only source provided (link is now dead, moved here):
Therefore, I have removed the Danish Realm from the listing per WP:UNSOURCED.
(courtesy ping Matthew hk and Certes) — LauritzT ( talk) 13:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Greenland has the status of an overseas country. Britannica uses phrases such as
the country’s coastal areasand
the country’s plant life; and the CIA World Factbook refers to
Country Flag,
Country Map, etc. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs mentions
20 % of the countryand
the extreme south of the country. However, I can't find a RS which explicit states that Greenland is or isn't a country.It's even less clear for the Faeroes: CIA has Country Flag etc. but Britannica and the Faroe government don't use the term. Certes ( talk) 13:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Due to the highly structured nature of the Factbook database, some collective generic terms have to be used. For example, the word Country in the Country name entry refers to a wide variety of dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, uninhabited islands, and other entities in addition to the traditional countries or independent states.Regarding denmark.dk, the Contact Us page states
The opinions, quotes and expressions – including possible omissions – do not necessarily reflect the official policies and opinions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark or the Danish government.. — LauritzT ( talk) 14:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC) (edited 14:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC))
Since this seems to be the core of the other edit war in the lead, I have created a section for it.
If the squabble between the US and China over the use of "country" in US English is not covered in the body by an interested editor in the next few days, I propose to cut the entire nationalistic bits, sources and all, from the lead. If it is added to the body (weakly oppose, it is just nationalistic posturing), I propose to remove the source references from the lead and leave the sentence:
"The word country is used both to refer to sovereign states and to other political entities."
Reference to to-be-conquered or rebelling areas of empires throughout history has always led the "owner" to object to anyone referring to their possession as an entity. This would merit mention in the body if the current nationalistic squabble is included.
Shajure (
talk)
12:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I captured the sources from the squabble/duplicatuion of P2 that was P3, in case an interested editor wants to add the content to the body... but I think it doesn't belong.
[chopped as the most excellent Verbcatcher knew how to do it Much Better. Thank you, VC Shajure ( talk) 22:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
(@22:30, 4 December) Your post is extremely opaque. I have reformatted it using {{ Reflist talk}}, which is clearer:
The word Country is used to refer to sovereign states and sometimes to other political entities, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] leading to controversy. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] unreliable source? For example, the CIA World Factbook uses the word in its "Country name" field to refer to "a wide variety of dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, uninhabited islands, and other entities in addition to the traditional countries or independent states". [13] [note 1]
Notes
References
Verbcatcher ( talk) 23:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Where in the Body are you proposing to add this?As I said at 11:16, 8 December 2021, This would be best covered under the section Verbcatcher suggested (01:22, 7 December 2021)..
I don't think you will find support for...That was about unexplained and selective removal of some RSs, and some sentences in between refs.
We absolutely do not need to ADD content with a CN flag anywhere in the article.That wasn't adding content with a CN flag, but reverting the attempt to delete a sentence in between refs. Check diffs before you charge me or anyone for this. 112.120.39.239 ( talk) 09:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
(@12:39, 4 December) As I have said above this isn't about Taiwan, but those countries which aren't sovereign states. Please make sure you understand what that's about first before you go further. 112.120.39.238 ( talk) 09:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
The word country is used to refer to sovereign states and to other political entities..., and the fact that Taiwan isn't quite an "other entity", it's rather apparent from the onset that this paragraph is all about entities like Hong Kong, which would include territories like the Åland Islands, Aruba, Bermuda, the Caymans, the Falklands, the Faroes, Gibraltar, Greenland, Guam, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Puerto Rico, Svalbard, etc. We don't even have to talk about common sense. 1.64.47.144 ( talk) 15:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
(@12:39, 4 December) "Country" in English or in US English? Is there any reason why you are talking about US English? 1.64.47.144 ( talk) 15:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
This was warred back into the lead, duplicating P1. I gave it its own subsection under usage. Someone else can kill it off. Or not.
Shajure (
talk) 13:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
If we keep this, I propose to move the S1 sources out of the lead and into the body... they don't belong in the lead and add clutter.
Shajure (
talk)
13:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
This was warred back in yet again, with a number of scattered comments added to the talk page... both sets of edits were removed again. I wonder if the EW has a point... Do we need all this? If so, should we add something like "and their supporters and opponents" to the dispute? As part of the rivalry between the US and Chinese empires, I really don't see it belonging in the article on "country", but perhaps (mmmmmaaaaaybe) in articles about the rivals or their rivalry. Throughout history empires, invaders, rebels, separatists and many others have squabbled (often using force of arms) about whether a specific given area was part of 1 country or another, or whether a given country existed as a country. This belongs, if anywhere in the encyclopedia, in the articles about those specific squabbles, I should think. Prussia, Persia, Carthage, Rome... many countries once existed, but no longer do, yet are still certainly "countries".
Shajure (
talk)
06:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The discussion about "One government have..." (in the Edit warring in the lead and the underlying squabbles section above) reminded me of an unresolved disputed edit about a similar grammatical issue. My edit was reverted by an IP editor, as follows: [10]
The edit summary for the revert was: Country names are often collective nouns. I am a native speaker of British English and I am also familiar with US English, and these uses of 'include' look wrong. Country names are sometimes used as collective nouns, for example for sports teams, e.g. "England have beaten Australia", but these look wrong.
Is there a consensus for changing these to "France includes...", etc? Verbcatcher ( talk) 21:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The Kingdom of the Netherlands include the islands of Curacao, Aruba, Sint Maarten, Sint Eustatius and Saba which are in the Caribbean Sea. ...[11] 112.120.39.238 ( talk) 09:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
look wrong. 112.120.39.239 ( talk) 09:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
MrOllie and I are strongly in favour of 'includes' and 112.120.39.238 says 'either way is fine'. Based on this I have changed the text to 'France includes' and 'The Kingdom of the Netherlands includes'. Another editor had already made the change to 'The United Kingdom includes'. Verbcatcher ( talk) 22:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)