Talk:Constituent country/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Split

Rather than rename the article should be split and turned into a dab page with the bulk of this page being merged into Subdivisions of the United Kingdom --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

what is a DAB page? Gozitancrabz (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

disambiguation page. This whole "constituent country" malarky is a bit unecessary (its a made up word) so I'd agree to a move/split to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipéire (talk • contribs) 17:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But then what happens to the content here that is not about the UK? And i would certainly agree something needs to be changed. Gozitancrabz (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to see the majority of this moved to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom, but that does not change the verifiable point that constituent countries do exist in the UK, and tht is perfectly proper and accurate terminology. It's certainly not a "made-up word". This page, regardless of what happens, must reflect that. --Breadandcheese (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But whether or not N.Ireland and Wales are countries is disputed. And you are forgetting this article contains information about countries other than the UK too. Gozitancrabz (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see any source showing Wales and Northern Ireland being disputed as constituent countries any more than some dispute Scotland and England are countries.--Breadandcheese (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh my god... -.- look, i am sick and tired of this. Let alone saying that Wales is a country (which is at least backed by some), you have now just said that Northern Ireland is a country, yet if you simply scroll up the page, you will see countless debates by sarah777 on this. To be honest, i just can't even be bothered to have to drag myself thru pages of google again; please go check it out for yourself that Northern Ireland is certainly disputed not to be a country. Gozitancrabz (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness, I no longer take part in these discussions/disputes. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hear my name mentioned so I thought I'd take a look in. Frankly. Wales as "country" or other is debatable; NI as "country" is nonsense (as I have previously explained in the files buried in the crypt). So the notion that the country called the UK is made up of several countries is manifest nonsense. Constituent PARTS is the only usage suitable on Wiki consistent with WP:NPOV and not breaching WP:OR. I think we may conclude that any further attempt to describe bits of the country as "countries" is vandalism. And edit accordingly. Sarah777 (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I am starting to get this (especially given previous Wikipiere history). This is really a debate about Ireland/Northern Ireland/The Six Counties and Wales (possibly Scotland) are getting caught up in the backwash. --Snowded (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, certainly if this were about Great Britain rather than the UK of GB & NI, while I wouldn't forsake my logical objections I would be utterly unopposed if the English, Welsh and Scots wished to call their constituent parts "countries". In fact, I even think of all three as exactly that myself. Sarah777 (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I do think this is a difficult issue. If you look at the history England conquers Wales and Ireland and Scotland chooses to join. So there is no argument that historically there are four countries (three of who are represented in the flag). The we get Irish Independence, an the split of six counties of Ulster which is officially (although personally I find it difficult) called Northern Ireland. Trying to get around the Irish question by removing "country" from Wales and Scotland is creating a nonsense. Maybe we should say that the UK Government web sites "states" (factual statement) then explain the history (factual statements)? --Snowded (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the page on the Holy Roman Empire, you will see Voltaire's famous comment that it was not holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. No doubt he was right. The reason that page is not renamed Secular Mostly-German Agglomeration is that it is about the entity, or concept, known to the world, however wrongly, under the name Holy Roman Empire. It is not about holiness, or Romanitas, or empire; it makes no statement as to the true ambit of those concepts subsumed in the words which make up the title. The same might be said of this page. It is not about what is meant by the separate words which make up the title, considered in isolation; for that we must go to a dictionary, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This page is about the concept or things known as 'constituent countries' considered as a phrase; a phrase which can be found in about 113,000 Google searches in the singular alone. Furthermore, the phrase is used by numerous public authorities, particularly in the United Kingdom; and when it is so used it is almost invariably used in the sense of this article. Now maybe they're 'aa oo' o' step bu' oor Jock' but that's the subject matter. The user who wishes to know what is meant by 'constituent countries' has come here for an answer, not to be told they asked a silly question.

This is getting to be one of these sterile little arguments about what a page should be titled, rather than about its content; another Liancourt Rocks.

Now, just to finish letting off steam and in deference to the fact that Sarah777 conducts her argument, with which I disagree, with a humour and intelligence not always shown by every contributor to this debate: the word 'country' itself is a word which has a dictionary definition, or rather many definitions. See, for example, the OED or Chambers, quoted somewhere up this page. It is not a nice crisp word with a technical meaning and a bright-line around it, like a chemical element. It certainly doesn't imply sovereignty, or UN membership. It is not 'manifest nonsense' to say that 'the UK is a country made up of several countries'. I can well see that a a rival formulation might be 'the UK is a country made up of several countries and, in the case of Ireland, part of another country'; and no doubt there are other formulation. The usage of the word 'country' in this article is not vandalism, pace Sarah777, it is an ordinary usage supported by high authority.

But that is not what this article is about. Good night! ariwara (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, as the previous contributer is now soundly asleep I can continue uninterrupted: - who could argue that Scotland is not a country? It would take the same complete suspension of common sense that is required to conclude that Northern Ireland is a country. OK, so the HRE wasn't H, R or even E? But description adheres to some standard. surely? Nobody claimed, or claims, it is a village or a county or even, dare I say, a country? This propaganda bulletin from 10 Downing St was put out in direct response to my pointing out the idiocy of the notion of a "country within a country". They are watching Wiki closely. Obviously. QED etc. All we really need now is one of the gutless morons in the Irish Dept of Foreign Affairs to catch up on the importance of the Internet and publish some spam claiming that NI is NOT a country. But most of those timeserving worms reckon they are working for London anyway. So little chance. Sarah777 (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am very tired of seeing UK gov references. They are not 3rd party or neutral, because say what the British want to think. If we use Wikipedia's definition of country none of the divisions of the UK are countries because they are not independent states or nations, because not everyone there would share the same identity. If you dispute the definition, go dispute it on the country page. To keep Wikipedia consistent, we need to change the country page or change all the pages of UK divisions to reflect the fact that they are not countries. Constituent area is no more OR than any non quote Wikipedia sentence. There is no difference whatsoever between NI and a USA state. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If using references from UK .gov websites is some sort of bizarre attempt at pro-British propaganda, surely it's a simply case of reputable cites to counter it, instead of a flurry of original research on these talk pages? Alastairward (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In any event the above statement on the definition of country is wrong. The Wikipedia page says "There are non-sovereign territories (subnational entities, another form of political division or administrative division within a larger nation-state) which constitute cohesive geographical entities, some of which are former countries, but which are not sovereign states. Some are designated as countries, others are not. ". Within that structure the UK government is surely an authoritative source on what is or is not a constituent country. --Snowded (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Do Denmark and France have constituent countries?

A thought has just occured to me - as Greenland and the Faroe Islands are autonomous regions of Denmark (with seats in the Danish Parliament), would that merit a mention on this page? And what about the French overseas departements, such as French Guiana and Réunion? Bettia ^(talk) 11:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Our analysis on that doesn't matter, it would be original research - if you can find sources for this, then by all means include it; otherwise, it's not a matter to be included. --Breadandcheese (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge of UK information completed (July 2008)

The merge of information relating to the UK to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom has taken place, per consensus on Talk:Subdivisions of the United Kingdom#Merger proposal. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Intro

A constituent country is a country that is part of a larger entity (usually a unified sovereign state). The country is recognised as being such by the collective entity, or state.

I've reduced a lot of unecessary wording. What has a federation got to do with this article? It was given an example in the intro, but I don't get it. The federation article doesn't ref this one. I'm worried that a lot of POV (or the effects of POV, more typically) has bent this article's intro into an odd thing, so I've kept the intro sweet and simple. It's not a complicated term. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Due to lots of misunderstanding in the past, I would like to propose a slight rewording of the opening paragraph. the reason I think this may be necessary is that I myself changed the wording of the wales article to label wales as a constituent country. I did so because upon reading this article, I believed wales to fit the definition fully. What I believe is unclear is that constituent country is a non-exclusive term and that is not made clear in this article. therefore I believe that to avoid any future misunderstandings, we could reword the intro to "constituent country is a term that has been used for a country that is part of a larger entity (such as a sovereign state)." it's not a big change, but it does certainly make it clear that this is simply a term that has been used and is not an exclusive definition. Drag-5 (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

the current wording is A constituent country is a country that is part of a larger entity (such as a sovereign state). I can't see any improvement in the wording you suggest. You might also like to review prior extensive discussions and also the summary of material of Countries of the United Kingdom before making changes to the lede on Wales. --Snowded TALK 23:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

the improvement would be that currently, the wording suggests that this is a common usage. whereas the wording i suggested states that it HAS BEEN used, but not necessarily in common usage. because from what i have garnered, the term constituent country is a term that has been used very sparingly. it's a matter of emphasis and I do believe it would help to reduce future incidents.Drag-5 (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well if you think its an old term why did you say that Wales fitted it perfectly? Sorry I see no need to change and I don't see how it would help reduce future incidents as by agreement its not used on any of the country pages. --Snowded TALK 12:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

that's true if people look at the discussion page. people who are new to the page will not have agreed not to use it and will perhaps change it. I am using the evidence of the change history as an example. I think that speaks for itself. it's not kept that way by agreement rather by more people come along and change it and other people change it back without referencing why. it'll keep happening because not all editors will research as far as i did. and i never suggested it was an 'old term'. I said it had been used. from the discussions on here, it is clear that it has been used but is not in common usage. it seems you are a frequent visitor to this page. this is my suggestion from a neutral point of view, unbiased from outside perspective. due to your long term involvement, I would like to suggest that you may be somehow biased and your attitude seems a little stubborn. I apologise if I have read this wrong but in saying so, I would like to get the views of somebody else on this slight change. after all, this change is not likely to damage anything and from my logical point of view I believe it will help save a lot of future trouble. once I am satisied with this, I will not be following this page again so the consequences are of no importance to me.Drag-5 (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Since we got this and other text in place the page has been stable (this and related ones). I don;t see any confusion for any newby to the page and I rather object to your throwing out accusations that people who disagree with you are stubborn. You might notice that no one else has joined in on this conversation. --Snowded TALK 19:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

well i did offer my apology, it is still there if you wish to take it. I do not see any real objections to what i suggested and there does not seem to be any reasons for me not to change it so I will change it now and we can all look at it and see how it looks. it is my view that it will help. you yourself said you don't see how it can help, but I believe that we are agreed that it certainly can't hurt. so on a scale of people involved, we have a yes, and an abstained. ? if anybody feels that it actually harms the topic, we can always change it back. Drag-5 (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The change is unnecessary verbiage that adds nothing so you have an oppose I am afraid --Snowded TALK 04:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

fine, whatever. I'm finished here then. I was just trying to help out in the long run. I'm not going to waste my time in conflict with stubborn conservatives. I'll remove this page from my watchlist now. have fun with your future edit wars.Drag-5 (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC) I've struck this message as being disruptive and warned the editor concerned about the choice of language used.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Learn to cope with disagreement without name calling and you might get somewhere. That sort of language could earn you a cooling off ban in some environments. --Snowded TALK 13:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

95% of this article is about the constituent parts of the UK. The content here is already in better detail on the Countries of the United Kingdom page and I think it would be best if the content here was merged with that and this become a redirect.MITH 15:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And what of the other 5% of material? --Breadandcheese (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think it's notable that defunct states used to have parts called constituent countries. They're both gone now and are hardly worth their own article.MITH 21:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If no-one raises an issue by the 11th of May, I'm going to proceed with the merger.MITH 10:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I came to the article expecting to find listed all the states with constituent countries. The page was pretty much exclusively about the UK. I added two more. The other I considered adding was the Realm of New Zealand--the Queen of New Zealand is the head of state of New Zealand, Niue and the Cook Islands, all of which are separate countries with their own legislative governments (the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands is not subordinate to the Prime Minister of New Zealand). But I know that the later two are associated states, so I don't know if one can call them constituent countries as well. Night w (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It'll more than do. With the extra info the merger proposal is closed.MITH 13:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

subdivisions?

Recent edits that England, Greenland, Denmank, Wales, etc. are not countries but 'subdivisions'. Of course, they are subdivisions, but then so are lots of other things. I think we need some sort of consensus before deleting the term 'country' across WP. kwami (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The cited ref - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html - does not appear to give any support to the claim that England, Scotland, Wales, NI are "sub-divisions" of the UK. That's because they are not "sub-divisions" - they are separate countries (albeit not sovereign states) which are each part of a legal union. The UK is built up from four countries, not sub-divided into them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gmyrtle. A subdivision implies that a larger unit has been broken into smaller units for administrative purposes.

Actually there was a long protracted argument on "England disussion" and after what seemed like a lifetime a consensus was reached that England is a country. Brixtonboy (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There's also the problem that the CIA Factbook is little more than an almanac, and has been demonstrated numerous times to be an unreliable source. kwami (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please reference the citation table at countries of the united kingdom. We all put work into that some time ago, editors should be pointed there. --Snowded ^TALK 10:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

using this page as a proxy

OK there is a debate going on at Northern Ireland, and now this page is being edited to support the argument there. There is some nonsense, yes it is one page of the UK Government web site (to take the latest) in other references it is one page of a book. Missing the point on references there.

I think it is reasonable to say that the use of country (including constituent country) is controversial in Northern Ireland. There is no need for this article to take a position on what is right or wrong, many terms are used by different sources. --Snowded ^TALK 11:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to assume good faith. This page is related to the discussion taking place at Northern Ireland (that's how it came to my attention) but there is no need to turn every edit into a battle. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You are making identical points here, thus requiring editors to deal with things on two pages. I attempted to improve on your edits to make them more neutral, but that was not accepted, so I reverted to stable and brought it to the talk page. Not accepting that is WP:BATTLE, please follow normal process. --Snowded ^TALK 11:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, follow WP:CON - you change, I change, you change, I change, and eventually we find something we can both agree on. Decrying WP:BRD every time there is an edit you don't like and locking the page down in "discussion" is not in the interest of the encyclopedia.

Now do you have specific issue with what was added or do you just want it to stop while you dig your heel in for a never-ending "discussion". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The changes were moving into a series of reversions, at that point it makes more sense to discuss things. You added a whole series of references and amended the language to give the overall impression that support your position on Northern Ireland. I amended that (and accepted a modified amendment of that amendment) in the spirit of WP:CON. However at that point we get the "one page of web site nonsense" and it starts to be an edit war. I'm happy to go back to that point by way of compromise. Oh and tone down the language, I am not digging on my heels, I have enough experience on these pages to try and avoid edit wars.--Snowded ^TALK 11:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool, so it it the "one page of web site nonsense" that the beef is with? I can understand. My issue with your change here, where you wrote that the "Northern Ireland is described as one of the four countries of the United Kingdom by the Government of the United Kingdom". A editor afterward changed this to read "in one particular example". You revered saying, "Its the main government web site! ". I added parenthesis pointing out that to the reader that on the same website the UK government also refer to NI as a "province" and "region". My reason for this, and the second editors too I would guess, is that your edit placed too much weight on one source and was an example of weasel words. It made it sound as if the UK government calls NI a country and nothing else. In fact, the UK government on the website you cited refer to NI more often as a "province" than anything else.

The whole section has since been removed. I don't think that is in the best interest of the article. The situation with regard to calling NI a "country" does require clarification as it is not as simple as the cases of England and Scotland (in particular). Wales too needs expanding (is it just me or is it quite a recent feature to call Wales a "country" more often rather than a "principality"? does anyone call Wales a principality any more.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, are you OK with restoring the text rm'ed by yourself and x.x.x.24? I don't believe that it is "unnecessary comment". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I am happy for a modified version of that text to be a footnote (for those who really want to go deeper) and for the historical difference (NI does not have a history of being a country, Wales, Scotland, England do) to go in the main body. --Snowded ^TALK 12:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Which text in specific? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to resotore it to the point before your revert. Edit it as you mean above. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 02:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Its early morning here in India and I have a key note to prepare for. I will make a specific proposal here later in the day In the meantime I suggest not editing the main page. --Snowded ^TALK 02:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, best of luck with the presentation. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sub-National Members of the United Kingdom

The proper term is Sub-National Members of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

There are 4 Sub-National Members,

(i). the Kingdom of England (est. 1066),

(ii). the Principality of Wales (est. 1284),

(iii). the Kingdom of Scotland (no defined starting point),

(iv). the Province of Northern Ireland (est. Dec. 6, 1921)

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Note in Added Proof

The United Kingdom, prior to the Partition of the Island of Ireland (Dec. 6, 1921), was a Unitary Kingdom. A Unitary Government has only two-levels: National, and Local. A Federal Government has three-levels: National, Regional, and Local.

Read link on Federation

In effect, the United Kingdom today operates as a de-facto (in practise), but not a de-jure (in Law), Federal Kingdom. However, the Parliament of England should be established (it is totally unfair that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their devolved Parliaments, and ole England does not!).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I make no comment on the view that it is unfair England has no devolved parliament. Our views are of no interest or relevance to readers. My comment on this post is that one of the articles referenced - the Principality of Wales - was not "(est. 1284)". The Principality of Wales was established in 1216. The Principality of Wales has not existed since 1542. You only need to spend 10 seconds looking at the article to confirm your facts. Daicaregos (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't feed trolls Dai, look back at the edit history of ArmChair --Snowded ^TALK 08:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Daicaregos.

The Statute of Rhuddlan was enacted on March 3, 1284. The Principality of Wales from that point forward was a "consistent" entity. The Kingdom of England was a "consistent" entity after 1066 (the Norman Conquest). The Kingdom of Scotland in 1707 willingly joined "the-Spoils" of the Normans.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Kingdom of England ended in 1707. The Kingdoms of England & Scotland merged to become the Kingdom of Great Britain. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay.

First of all, with regard to the correct Name of the (1707-1800) country, I have always known it to be correctly refered as the United Kingdom of Great Britain (as per the 1707 Treaty of Union). I never heard of the Kingdom of Britain Name until I came here to Wikipedia. I still do not believe the Name of the Kingdom of Britain is correct. But that is just me.

Secondly, the Union of England and Wales (1536-1707) had the Kingdom of England, and the Principality of Wales as its Sub-National Members.

Thirdly, the United Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800) had the Kingdom of England, the Principality of Wales, and the Kingdom of Scotland as its Sub-National Members.

Fourthly, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1921) had the Kingdom of England, the Principality of Wales, the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Kingdom of Ireland as its Sub-National Members (until Dec. 6, 1921).

Fifthly, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (since Dec. 6, 1921) has the Kingdom of England, the Principality of Wales, the Kingdom of Scotland and the Province of Northern Ireland as its Sub-National Members.

Sixthly, the Status of the Kingdom of England, the Principality of Wales, the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Kingdom of Ireland [until Dec. 6, 1921, when it was partitioned into the Saorstát Éireann (a British Dominion), and the Province of Northern Ireland (a Sub-National Member) of the UK] changed from Independent Country to Sub-National Member, but their Name(s) and their existance never changed.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Some significant inaccuracies above. The Kingdom of England does not exist, and has not existed since 1707. The same applies to the Kingdom of Scotland. From 1707 there was a single Kingdom of Great Britain, which was subsumed into a single United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801. There is no such designation in the UK as "sub-national member". Mooretwin (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The European Union is a Supra-National Unit which is composed of National Members (i.e., Independent Countries). Each of these National Members may again be composed of Sub-National Members.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Don, glad to see you are still propounding your own personal view of Commonwealth naming practice.

For the rest of us, the question "are the subnational parts of the UK countries?" has been asked so often, and always answered in the affirmative, that there is an FAQ on it at Talk:United Kingdom. References can be found there. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha @ the first line ;) Hilarity. Night w (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Denmark

Mark Renier is repeatedly deleting the word "country" from the Denmark section. If they are not countries, then Denmark should not be listed in this article at all; if they are, then there is no reason not to say so. Deleting the word "country" is not just fudging the issue, but is fundamentally dishonest. So, do they count as countries or not?

The govt of Greenland has called it a "country" since before the recent devolution.[1] The same is true of Danish govt sites.[2] I don't know specifically about the Faroes, but their status is quite similar to that of Greenland in 2008. (Commonwealth negotiations are deadlocked.) kwami (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Greenland has always been a mystery to me. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The term "country" is certainly used quite commonly to refer to these entities: the Nordic Social Insurance Portal, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Climate and Energy, NORA, the West Nordic Council; and Compendium uses "autonomous nation" — these are just some that appeared on the first page of a Google search.

The strictest definitions of terms have been blurred over time due to common usage:

• A state is a unified political entity. It can maintain its individual sovereignty, or it can share sovereignty with other states as part of a federation or a federacy.
• A nation is a community or body of people, which can exist divided between states or wholly within one, and often existing beside other nations within the same state.
• A country is a defined geographical region; it too can exist divided between states (like Kurdistan or Korea) or entirely within one (England).

As was argued in this previous discussion, the wording used in the Acts of Self-Government can be varyingly translated (and is, as seen in the above government sources). Drawing analogies, the relationship between the entities is very similar to the Dutch situation, so why have one definition for one relationship, and call another identical relationship something else?

Hemmingsen noted here that the home-rule act uses the term folkesamfund, which he translated as "communities of people". Certainly, Greenlanders and the Faroese constitute distinct nationalities from Danish. But when we're talking about their territory (separately), country seems the appropriate term to use in English, and therefore, in the context of the Kingdom of Denmark united, constituent country is appropriate. Terms that should be avoided are autonomous area or autonomous region, which most commonly implies the status of administrative division--like in India, Italy, Portugal, Nicaragua or the PRC. Greenland and Faroe Islands are certainly not the equivalent of Danish Regions... Night w (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That supports what I was thinking. I'll expect a clear argument before deletion, then.

On a side note, a country is st more than a geographic region: the South Atlantic is a geographic region. Ethnogeographic, maybe? kwami (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's more correct. I think we should at least look for some quality sources to add as citations; that will assure it won't be deleted in the future. Do you have anything kwami? Night w (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I've mostly seen almost accidental use of the word, as if it were too obvious to make a point about it. kwami (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please add your valid references to the article. Other "countries" have references. If you don't have a valid reference then it is just hearsay. // Mark Renier (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you think all the links above are? And that's what we have the tag for. Also, fudging the issue by deleting the word "country" is just silly: if they aren't countries, they don't belong in this article at all. kwami (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kwami. If you dispute their statuses as countries, then you should be lobbying for their removal from this article, because that's what this article is about. The above weblinks show common usage of the term country to refer to each of these entities. I'm working on getting a constitutional reference, but the problem remains in translation. Night w (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that point is next. I am allowing time for someone to bring forth some valid reference that these are actually countries. The article's purpose to ESTABLISH their use as a country. It is you who are disputing that they are NOT countries. For the seventh time, add some reference that these are in fact countries! You THINK they are countries, that's hearsay. Prove it by linking in some reference. I'm happy with a reference. Any reference that calls them a country. So far you guys are just blowing hot air. The burden of proof lies with the person who asserts a position; I am asking for that proof that these are countries. // Mark Renier (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finally adding citations, Night w. I again note that such contributions were not from "rapid rollbacking non-reffer" Kwamikagami. // Mark Renier (talk) 06:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

His references don't establish that Denmark is a country, only Greenland, the Faroes, and an unidentified third country. Maybe you should remove Denmark from the list. kwami (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could find some references? Like I have been asking for? Repeatedly? In any case, my concern over your edits is over and I am satisfied with the references provided: They link to extensive documentation, they are verifiable, and they are from authoritative sources. :) Your edits, however, have again been proven to be just blatant rollbacks and were not helpful to making this article any more useful to the reader. :( // Mark Renier (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The reader benefits so much more from fudging the issue. kwami (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Constituent Country" makes no sense, this article is invented!

The term "Constituent Country" makes no sense, this whole article smacks of original research.

A National Unit is a Sovereign State. They can be composed of Sub-National Units. The Sub prefix means below in Rank.

Until the recent advent of the European Union, no one was foolish enough to, attempt to found and run, a Supra-National Unit. The European Union is a Supra-National Unit. The Supra prefix means above in Rank.

A Supra-National Unit is composed of National Units (i.e., Independent countries), but each of these National Units has conceeded some of it "National-Authority" to a "Supra-National Government" so as to be able to act as a Supra-Countrylike Unit (Very Bad idea!).

Anyways, back to the topic-at-hand ... England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are Sub-National Members (i.e., non-Sovereign States) of the National Unit (i.e., Sovereign State) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Remember it is only the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that is an Independent Country (not England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The UK does not use terms such as "sub-national members", and no-one is arguing that England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland are independent. Mooretwin (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A Constitutent Country of a Country ... that makes no sense. None. Zero.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter if it makes sense to you or not. You could argue that for the US, a constituent "state" of a "state" makes no sense, so therefore California is not a "state". Besides, where's your example of a constituent country of a country? I don't see one in the article. kwami (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kwamikagami.

The United States of America is the National Unit (i.e., the Sovereign State). The 50 States of the US are the Sub-National Members (i.e., the non-Sovereign States). As per your query, the State of California is a State of the US, and is subordinate to the greater whole, in other words the single united independent country of the United States of America. The American Civil War (1860-1865) settled that question, eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the sources rather than asserting your opinion ArmChair --Snowded ^TALK 17:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please also indent your replies for the convenience of readers. Mooretwin (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

S/he never does Mooretwin, refuses to. It was one of the reasons for his/her last block --Snowded ^TALK 19:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange. Mooretwin (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Anyways, back to the topic-at-hand ... England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are Sub-National Members (i.e., non-Sovereign States) of the National Unit (i.e., Sovereign State) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." - logical fallacy, to say something is 'a' does not preclude it from also being 'b'
• "Remember it is only the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that is an Independent Country (not England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland)." - which is why the article points out that countries need not be independent. Fine? Good. --Breadandcheese (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Breadandcheese.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the National Unit (i.e., the Sovereign State). The single united independent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is composed of 4 Sub-National Members (i.e.,the non-Sovereign States) of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Using the term "country" really means "independent country".

Until the devolved Parliaments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, nobody really cared about what to call the Sub-National Members (i.e.,the non-Sovereign States) of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Sub-national mmember" is not a term used in relation to the UK. "Country" doesn't "really mean" "independent country". Mooretwin (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't feed the(m) Mooretwin, this one is waiting for the Billy Goats --Snowded ^TALK 15:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to regret this, but I'll ask ... Snowded why am I "waiting for the Billy-Goats" ... what does that mean?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

See Three Billy Goats Gruff. kwami (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mooretwin.

You wrote,

"Country" doesn't "really mean" "independent country"?

So the United Countries of America, or the United Country of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or the French Country, or the Federal Republic of Germancountry?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No idea to what you're referring, sorry. There are no entities in existence using those names. Mooretwin (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Constituent country" on UK map

Fishiehelper2, you're quite correct in you summary; only, since this article is about "constituent" countries, it does no harm to point out some constituent countries on a map. It shows use of the term in context. It's quite odd to have an article about "constituent countries" that would seem to avoid using the term.

Like Denmark etc., "countries" (on it's own) is used on its own elsewhere in the article to refer to constituent parts of the UK. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"The United Kingdom consists of four countries" is quite sufficient. ... consists of consituent ... is redundant. As is the caption stating "A map of ... " - the image already notes it is the UK, that it is a map, rather than the UK itself, doesn't really need pointing out. Daicaregos (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If this article was country then I'd agree. Since it is constituent country, it is anything but redundant in the context of the article. I appreciate that there are some issues around sensibilities here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how "... consists of consituent ..." can be anything but redundant, whatever the name of the article. Perhaps others have a view. Daicaregos (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. That was in error. I meant to edit the the map caption only. (Which you have since removed contrary to the MOS.) Per my post above, on the map it makes. Elsewhere, it would be repetitious. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct: "consists of ... constituent" is redundant. It's like saying, "Blovanesia includes five included countries" or "We've added five additional options". —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. That was in error. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As the guideline referred to (WP:CAP) says, "Use common sense in applying it, it will have occassional exceptions." MOS:CAPTIONS says: "Photographs and other graphics should always have captions, unless they are "self-captioning" (such as reproductions of album or book covers) or when they are unambiguous depictions of the subject of the article." The map in question is self-captioned, and, is an unambiguous depiction of the subject of the article. Its title is repeated in the caption and is, therefore, redundant. Perhaps others will have a view of this too. Daicaregos (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The image is not a book or an album cover. Neither it is an "unambiguous depictions of the subject of the article". The subject of this article is "constituent country". The map is entitled "the United Kingdom". The map requires a caption. You are being irrational. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the caption should be 'Map showing the countries that constitute the UK' 86.155.53.151 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Lede

How is

"Constituent country is a term used for a political body, often known as a country, that is part of a larger entity, such as a sovereign state. The designation of the word "country" in this sense is not synonymous to the common use of "country" as a synonym to sovereign state. Alternatively it is sometimes used more literally, to denote a sovereign state which is part of a supranational body."

less accurate than

"Constituent country is a political term that is sometimes used to describe a country that is part of a larger entity, such as a sovereign state or supranational body."

The first was an expansion on the second. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. In my view, the first expands in a way that is less accurate than the more brief version I inserted instead. (I did try to incorporate some of your ideas by using the phrase 'political term' and starting the sentence with 'Constituent country is..' rather than 'A constituent country is..') The reason I didn't like the expanded version was because it tries to introduce discussion on the definition of 'country' as part of defining 'constituent country' - I think a more concise definition of 'constituent' country is all that is required. Hope that is clear! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Catalonia?

Couldn't Catalonia be listed as a constituent country within Spain, given recent legal changes as to its status? C'valyi d'Jade (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Council of Europe

I removed the sentence "European institutions such as the Council of Europe sometimes use the expression in reference to the sovereign member states of the European Union" from the article but it was reinstated, so I will state my case for removing it here. Firstly, the reference provided does not state that European institutions sometimes use the term, but rather is a single example of the term being employed in a Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly resolution. I'm not sure that finding one example means that we can say that European institutions "sometimes use the expression". Arguably, this approach to referencing also constitutes original research. Another problem is that, because the reference is a text adopted by the CoE's Parliamentary Assembly, it's questionable whether we can attribute it to the institution of the CoE. For example, if a national parliament adopted a resolution, would we attribute it to that country's government? I suggest that either better references are found or that we remove the sentence. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What's different from state/landers...

are US states (German Lands/Canadian provinces/...) also cinstituent contries ??? and if not:

Could someone explain what the difference is between a constituent country and states/provinces/... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.149.150 (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

They are constituent, but not considered 'countries'. — kwami (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen arguments the German states are countries, Barvaria more than others. Apparently the word lander is similar to countries in German (Deutschland) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

They were countries, in the same way the American states were countries, are no longer, yet continue to use a state-y title. Clarified. — LlywelynII 22:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

In the French wiki they say "a country inside a sovereign unitary Nationstate". That is, the constituent country is recognised as culturally different and may have some autonomy in terms of education, language, etc, however laws passed by authorities of the constituent country can't supersede laws passed by the national parliament, or decrees adopted by the national government (that is what a unitary Nationstate is). The English wikipedia used to read like that in the past... Example: Scotland is a constituent country of Britain, however Scotland can't have laws in opposition with national laws 84.103.197.201 (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Except that Scotland has its own legal system..... etc., etc., etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"Scotland can't have laws in opposition with national laws ..." I'm not aware of any "national laws" in the UK. There is English law, Scottish law and Northern Ireland law. However, there is no such thing as UK law. See law of the United Kingdom. --RA (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

now that you say that, that's right, i often see "laws of England and Wales", "laws of Scotland"... however i have always read that the UK is a unitary state. But the UK is not a federal state either, there must be something that makes the UK a unitary state, but i'm not calé enough, shame... 84.103.197.201 (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

UK section

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom#Countries? over the use and neutrality of "country" to refer to Northern Ireland. The article has a lengthy section on the UK, with extensive notes, including the detalied Ref 9. I'd like to cut this section down to a basic description of 1 or 2 paragraphs with a couple of notes, and move the bulk of the section to Countries of the United Kingdom. To me,it only makes sense to vhave the detaitls and extensive notes in the main article on the topic. Are there any objections to doing this? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a controversy tag on the article and no discussion here except for the inappropriateness of the section. It is inappropriate. Any clarification of the concept of "constituent country" in and of itself (as in the case of Northern Ireland or Greenland) should be dealt with in the leading sections. The British section should include

(A) a list of its constituent countries, normally defined

(B) any other valid terminology or country-specific clarification (as with the German bundeslander)

(C) a link to controversy dealt with elsewhere

Here, most of the current discussion fails to meet WP:REL, since controversy or no N. Ireland is in fact generally considered as a constituent country of the UK, just like Ireland before it. Alternate terminology should be noted, controversy itself should be noted, but extensive discussion should occur elsewhere. — LlywelynII 21:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of bolding in references

There is much bolding in the references pertaining to the United Kingdom. This bolding appears to be a device being used to push a specific POV regarding the status of Northern Ireland. Since the quotes themselves are not bolded I will remove all this bolding within 24 hours unless a valid explanation is given as to why the bolding is correct. LemonMonday Talk 18:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that the bold part is a simple device to highlight the relevant part of the quoted section. A simple solution to might be to to just remove the bold and all the text around it, in so doing to just leave the parts that are currently bold, given they are the only parts that are relevant. That would be a viable solution wouldn't it? Fmph (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not. The bolding is blatant, but sneaky, POV. It serves to highlight a political point by leading the eye to particular words and in so doing gives them an undue emphasis. The bolded words should be shown in the overall context of the statement but since they are not bolded in the quote there is no reason to bold them in the reference. To do so, is misrepresenting the quote. And quite why we need more than one or two references to the assertion is beyond me. LemonMonday Talk 19:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Faith, LemonMonday. Have faith. --RA (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what's been going on here (it's just popped up the top of my watchlist), but the massive use of 'nationalist black' (as I call it) was one of the reasons I've vacated a number of articles I've contributed a considerable amount of good work towards the past. It started at British Isles and seems to have spread into a more serious article here - I hope it hasn't spread elsewhere. For the record (I'm not joining polls and all that nonsense), I add my support to removing it all: The English language must be good enough for editors - used skilfully, and not in the smallest sentences humanly possible. Constricted sentences containing inflexible adjectives (as I remember it to be) - combined with bold text in References that support of certain positions - are not the way balanced articles will ever be created. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

German and Austrian states considered as countries?

My German is rusty, but I think not. They're not called lander, are they?—They're called Bundeslander, which has the precise meaning "state" in its American federalist sense. — LlywelynII 20:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Removed tag upon reading de:land, but will add some clarification. — LlywelynII 20:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This sounds dangerously like OR, but see States of Germany. "Länder" is usual legal term, I believe. --RA (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

I believe that it should have been mentioned in the article as well. Norum 23:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Changes to Denmark section

A recent edit to the Denmark section goes off into a rather unhelpful tangent about how some random websites refer to Danish countries as this and that. I reverted it, but the author appears to be quite attached to it. It appears to be cherry-picking terms placed on various websites to demonstrate a point. It's unhelpful to the reader, and it also demonstrates a poor understanding of WP:V.

It should be noted that www.denmark.dk, for some reason credited to the Danish government by the editor, is in fact registered to private company Blogging Denmark, and, as it states on the website, does not represent the views of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Danish government.

Other sources relied upon for their terminology include the Greenland Home Rule Act, all the way back from 1978. Information on terminology should be referenced to sources dedicated to such topics or, failing that, current government legislation. It should also be noted that countries like the Faroe Islands and Greenland are designated "countries" in United Nations agencies. Nightw 00:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That's an extremely misleading and inaccurate post:

• It's not a recent edit, it's nearly 5 months old. I notice you originally tried to edit-war your change in, but are now following WP:BRD. I guess you are describing as it as "recent" to try to defend your behaviour.
• Why are you describing the websites of the Faroe Islands Prime Minister's Office and the Danish Foreign Ministry as "random"? It's quite clear that The Danish government and Faroes government use terms other than country. Hardly "cherry-picking".
• The current legislation covering Greenland, enacted in 2008, is cited (and a term, which is not country is used in it). Why are you claiming it isn't? The reason the previous 1978 Act is also cited is to demonstrate that Greenland has a history of being described in ways other than as a country in its constitutional arrangements.
• I accept I made a mistake with the www.denmark.dk website, and will replace it. I thought it was a govt. sponsored site, it's not. It's not the case that I think a commercial site is an RS in this context. I notice a lack of AGF by you in that respect.
• The rather vague unsourced statement that UN agencies refer to them as countries is missing the point. They are not consistently referred to as countries - the current text doesn't deny that there are sources calling them countries. It is you that is cherry-picking by trying make it appear as though they are only referred to as countries.
• I added 5 sources to support the change I made in March, one of which, www.denmark.dk, was an error. You made a non-point on the 1978 Act. The other sources you have not challenged. To then claim that I have "a poor understanding of WP:V" is a rather tellingly aggressive comment. As is the slightly bizarre comment that I am trying to "demonstrate a point" (What point??) I notice you made a comment on your talk page about my "recent interactions with other editors". I don't remember ever interacting with you before, but you seem to have some sort of axe to grind with me personally. I suggest you drop it and focus on improving this article. DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You would do well to follow your own suggestion—all six bullet points focus almost solely on your issues with me. You can choose to deny it if you wish, but there are no significant edits to the section since yours, your edits are the most recent.

"Country" is the most common designation in English for these constituents and that is why they are (and should be) described as such at Kingdom of Denmark and related articles. It's quite clear to me, yes, that the Danish government also uses other terms (e.g., "folkesamfund") in its legislation. Note, however, that the 2008 self-government act for Greenland, which you've cited as a source, doesn't refer to Greenland as anything. The term you've quoted ("people") from a translation, refers to the country's population—"det grønlandske folk er et folk i henhold til folkeretten" simply refers to the people of Greenland, not the polity; this could also be argued for the Home Rule Act, as it's not clear whether the text refers to the polity or its people. This clumsy referencing, coupled with your repeated assertions with regards to the Danish Foreign Ministry and a recently demonstrated misunderstanding of the concept of cherry picking, have led me to believe that you have a poor understanding of our methods. If that is not the case, I apologise, but please demonstrate otherwise.

The main issue I have is your addition of a large amount of dissociative information seemingly aimed at delegitimising the article. Particularly in the case of the Denmark section, you've gone a step further by prominently cluttering the counterclaims alongside each entry. This belongs on a talk page and if an item's inclusion is subsequently deemed inappropriate, it should be removed. Instead what we're left with currently is several sections composed entirely of dissociative arguments bound to confuse the reader. I suggest either moving the information to footnotes or removing the entries themselves. I'm going to ignore the rest of your characteristic baiting. Nightw 06:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a rather long post to say I don't like it. Your original research on the 2008 Act doesn't have a bearing of what is now in the article. The text simply cites what is in the English translation of the Act. You are interpeting it. The rest of your post is mere assertion and provides no sourced contradictions of the text. For example, you have not challenged the Danish Foreign Ministry and Faroe Islands government sources. If you can provide a source backing your claim that says the Danish government most commonly call these territories "countries", then of course I have no problem with that statement being added. But, as is noted at the moment, it is quite clear that terms other than country, as well as country, are used. I don't think that is controversial. This has been the text for 5 months. Several editors have edited this article since then, including a change made by another editor to the text of the Denmark section. I don't think your post calls for any further response. DeCausa (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to read the Wikipedia links you chuck in randomly. This is not a deletion discussion, nor have I proposed that we make it one. I explained my issues with your additions in detail; if it was too long for you to manage, as you alluded to, allow me to summarise the main issues: clumsy referencing and contradictory information lead to inaccurate information and confusion for the reader. Reading over the Denmark section, for example, leads a reader to wonder why it's listed in the first place. The text does not "simply cite" the English translation of the Act, it claims quite clearly, "The Act ... refers to Greenland as a 'people'" and attributes the claim to a document that reads, "the people of Greenland is a people pursuant to international law". I don't know whether English is your native tongue, but a plain reading of the cited text is that it refers to the people of Greenland, not their state. I am not interpreting it.

I have not challenged the Danish Foreign Ministry because you have not cited it. Remember? I have not challenged your other source because I'm not disputing it; I am disputing how you've used it. Likewise, I have not claimed that the Danish government most commonly refers to them as "countries" (the Danish government would most commonly refer to them by something in Danish), instead I said that this is the "most common designation in English", the Danish government being but one source. This becomes obvious by using a search engine on the Internet, and can be partly attributed to their inclusion in ISO 3166, which is used by international organisations such as the UN. Again, I suggest either moving the information to footnotes or removing the entries themselves. Nightw 09:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Your answer suggests you haven't properly reviewed the sources I included. I have cited the Danish Foreign Ministry. Please pay more attention to what's actually in the article rather than putting your efforts into an unwarranted personalization of this. The Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in its fact sheet on the Faroe Islands (a copy of which happens to be on www.denmark.dk) describes Faroes simply as a "self-governing part of the Kingdom of Denmark" not a "constituent country" in the infobox on page 2. This is consistent with the Faroese Prime Minister's website which describes it as "a self-governing territory under the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark". Our previous exchange on www.denmark.dk was only in relation to Greenland. I'm at a loss to know how to respond to you further. You simply make unsourced assertions and expect me to say OK I believe you. The fact is that the territories are inconsistently referred to as countries, as I have demonstrated. Citing the Danish Foreign Ministry and the Faroese Prime Minister is not cherry-picking.

There is nothing to support putting that information in a footnote. The article is hardly lengthy and it is material information. Now, if you have sources to support a statement that they are predominantly (or whatever word you consider is reflective of the sources) known as countries, then please go ahead and add it to the article. That would be constructive. Badgering me in a highly personalized way to remove a sourced piece of information is not. As far as "confusion" for the reader is concerned, I find this a telling comment. The issue is not a straightforward one. Why pretend otherwise and give simplistic and inaccurate information so that it is "clear"? You appear to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. DeCausa (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. I'd forgotten about this discussion until the page popped up on my watchlist today. Thankfully these efforts to discredit the article have been adjusted by LlywelynII. Nightw 22:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC);

er, no...the changes I made have been kept & have had consensus support for almost a year now. DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Socialist Yugoslavia

I think Socialist Yugoslavia should be added here. It had constituent republics which can certainly be considered constituent countries.

The 1946 Yugoslav Constitution: http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Yugoslavia_1946.txt

"...PART ONE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

CHAPTER I THE FEDERATIVE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA

ARTICLE 1. The Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia is a federal people's state, republican in form, a community of peoples equal in rights who, on the basis of the right to self-determination, including the right of separation, have expressed their will to live together in a federative state.

ARTICLE 2. The Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia is composed of the People's Republic of Serbia, the People's Republic of Croatia, the People's Republic of Slovenia, the People's Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the People's Republic of Macedonia and the People's Republic of Montenegro.

The People's Republic of Serbia includes the autonomous province of Vojvodina and the autonomous Kosovo-Metohijan region. ...

CHAPTER III FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLES AND THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLICS

ARTICLE 9. The sovereignty of the people's republics composing the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia is limited only by the rights which by this Constitution are given to the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia. The Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia protects and defends the sovereign rights of the people's republics. The Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia protects the security and the social and political order of the people's republics.

ARTICLE 10. Any act directed against the sovereignty, equality and national freedom of the peoples of the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia and their people's republics is contrary to the Constitution.

ARTICLE 11. Each people's republic has its own constitution. The people's republic makes its constitution independently. The constitution of the people's republic reflects the special characteristics of the republic and must be in conformity with the Constitution of the F.P.R.Y. ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice and Reason (talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Greenland?

Greenland's page says it's an autonomous country since 2009, but this page says it's a constituent country. Which is it?24.57.239.43 (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Constituent country here just means part of a sovereign state with the designation of country in the English language. The official designation "autonomous country" shows that it is considered to be a country, and in the Kingdom of Denmark. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Greenland is a constituent country of the Kingdom of Denmark in the sense that it is a country that is a part of a sovereign state. However, it is also called 'autonomous' as it has complete self-rule except for a few aspects like defence. Being a country within a larger, sovereign state, and being 'autonomous' are two separate issues as the case of England illustrates as it is a country within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom, but is not autonomous as it is administered by the UK government and UK parliament. Hope that is helpful! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

[Relevant to Changes to Denmark section, but maybe more relevant, and easier to access presently, here (the later section is much more involved]. I have to point out it's at least a little bizarre for an actual encyclopedia, which defines and describes and explains, to have an inclusion which is confusion itself without further research or explanation (whatever is written here on the talk page where a very small percent of visitors go): "[Constitutient country] The Danish Realm consists of three constituent parts, each part sometimes referred to as a country. ... However, these terms are not consistent." So why say it in the first place? Surely in a page meant to define the term constituent country - one should be able to read an example is or isn't a constituent country, or if neither or parts of both, should avoid an original wrong defition. The original definition (or what reads like a definition) is strong, clear, forthright, unambivalent. It should not be that way if it is then to be challenged in a way that the meaning of any of it is not then clear.

Without a clearer definition, I feel it would better to leave the Kingdom of Denmark section out of the list of apparent signifiers to the term constituent country. It would be a better idea then to briefly mention at the end of an article that some places in the world such as the Realm of Denmark include territories which have inclarity as to whether they can be a constituent country or not - or to include a short list of such territories. I feel this would be very helpful. People do wish to have a clear idea of what constituent country is. That is if it is not possible to state clearly that the kingdom has constituent countries or not.

However, to me, it seems to be that the best definition of Greenland and the Faroe Islands are as autonomous consituent countries within a sovereign federacy nation.

So, where is the inconsistency in this light? I don't see what the challenge is, in the final examination.

As Chipmunkdavis and Fishiehelper2 have suggested, the article appears to give rise to confusion and suggest that constituent countries can not be substantially or nearly fully autonomous in law or constitution (or indeed that the two lands in question have out and out unqualified autonomy, which probably brought about User talk:24.57.239.43's confusion in the original comment above). As long as there is some portion of rule over the country outside of being autonomous, a territory can be a constituent country.

So I appeal for someone to change this section. As not a constitutional specialist or Kindgom of Denmark specialist myself, I must admit I am rather afraid to do so, and actually I am rather sick of people changing perfectly straightforward and seemingly uncontentious posts I've made in the past. So I don't want to with an area I have no specialy and little recent study in. Funnily, I wonder if Chipmunkdavis and Fishiehelper2 felt similar ways, as we each add to the columns on a talk page very few visitors to the article visit.

I ask a regular editor of the page to adjust, or a specialist. (If that doesn't happen I'll try to return.) You know, it is confusing, this part of the article. At one part of my frustration, as I have done years ago in the past and forgotten, I nearly went down the route of wondering if the Kingdom of Denmark itself hadn't got its definitions wrong and was mistaking a single sovereign territory nation with overseas territories (or colonies) for its claimed 3 country nation!

[I'm not signed in currently, but would be for article changes I would make in future.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.18.46 (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of International bodies section/USSR/Yugoslavia

The OECD source only applies to Yugoslavia and not USSR (which is unsourced). Even in regard to Yugoslavia, it doesn't seem appropriately used. The text is "From 1992 onwards, no longer exists as such. Its constituent countries are Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Macedonia." The context suggests that "constituent countries" reference is applying to the position after 1991, and not referring to the pre-1991 position. To paraphrase, what it is clumsily saying is that the countries which now exist were constuents of Yugoslavia. I don't think it can be used asa source for saying that pre-1991 the constituent parts of Y. were called constituent countries of Y.

In both Yugoslavia and USSR they were referred to as Republics not countries. DeCausa (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If you were claiming the irrelevance of the deleted text, DeCausa, I want to point out the article is about what the term constituent countries means, not when or if it was indeed used particularly. But rather when the term could be used.Your comment, DeCausa, led me originally to want to ask what source do you have which establishes or suggests that republics cannot be countries. I don't see why it is inappropriate to call the former parts of the pre-1991 Yugoslavia consituent countries. If you think this is not right, please could you say exactly why?

The Yugoslavia article reads, "On 31 January 1946, the new constitution of Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, modeled after the Soviet Union, established six republics, an autonomous province, and an autonomous district that were part of SR Serbia. The federal capital was Belgrade."

If you contest the published, deleted text on this consituent countries article, please could you outline why you feel it would be inappropriate to regard the republics and autonomous areas of the former federal republic as constituent countries?

Whether or not you consider that each region might have seemed to have close to full autonomy, even that can not be legitimate for inappropriacy at least given that they were USSR states whose policitians were inherently inextricable from the Union Communist Party and its concerns and directions, from which the Yugoslav Republic was established as an entity & one may say quietly maintained. (Whether or not former Eastern European territories were and are now recognised by Western Europe, USA etc as official USSR dominions or even a lesser thing, something amounting to USSR patronised nations, the full autonomy of most to all of those nations was objectively limited by political concerns from central USSR Communist Party. This means whether expressed in the first instance through the actual politicians of the individual Yugoslav republics or by the Federal Republic. What this means is that, however it happened, full autonomy in each region or so-called "autonomous" area, is unlikely to have been consistently present. One can indeed analyse the political meaning of those lands without considering external Communist Party connections that amounted to more than just influence, but it would be unlikely to be the full, true picture.)

The lands had a Federal Assembly parliament concerned with collective federal policy issues and a collective presidency with a rotating head of the presidency. The presidency head was considered the Head of State of Yugoslavia, therefore, beyond urgent Union Communist Party concerns, states commonly were also officially headed from without their regional republic - an obvious suggestion of constituent country status. In my opinion also, even regions with full, unchallengeable autonomy existing within a collective may be considered as constituent countries in those circumstances. (While a right to leave the Yugoslav Republic of most of the regions could not be a relevant consideration in whether it is appropriate to describe these former regions as constituent countries.) Defence is another important point, where should a territory come under attack, if defence resources can normally extend without the single territory in question, as was theoetically true at that time within the Yugoslav republics and two autonomous territories.

Again, please state what challenges this if you do think it is inappropriate that the former individual republics can be called constituent countries.

I feel that all of this is very relevant to the term constituent countries. Also, regardless of whether or not frequent editors do not wish to include the former Yugoslavia by name in the article, the criteria I've happened to mentioned above in connection perhaps ought to lead to the inclusion of that itself in potential elements to consider in regard of the meaning of constituent country: principally the degree of autonomy; cases of unseen, unrecorded control (and / or elements of control which are extra constitutional) that limits autonomy; how collectivity with other territories is organised and carried out; external leadership whether permanent or periodic; and, obviously, policy consistently made in mind of and /or for, and in part by, more than just the territory in question - without the sovereign option to withdraw from such policy terms without reforming the basic political identity of the territory. (Not signed in.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.18.46 (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Northern Ireland: obviously not a "country"

What is this silliness I've just come across. Claiming the North is a "country" - "constituent country" or otherwise - discredits the entire Wikipedia project. Referencing a British government website to support this patently silly claim (it's not even an argument) is not exactly referencing an impartial/neutral source. Calling the two-thirds of Ulster still under British rule a "country" certainly isn't anything like "common usage". NI is, as I write, still a region of the UK. Claiming it to be a "country" rather than a "region", "area", "part" (or any other accurate description) is plainly not NPOV and is designed to provoke. 79.97.64.240 (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Countries are regions, and areas, and in this case, the "country" is a "part" of the UK, much as the other constituent countries, England, Scotland, and Wales, are also part of the UK. The most common term for the constituent parts of the UK is "countries", as the United States has "states" and Spain has "autonomous communities". CMD (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The situation with Northern Ireland isn't so clear cut. For example, ISO 3166-2:GB defines the sub-divisions of the UK. It defines the UK as being comprised of three countries (England, Scotland and Wales) and one province (Northern Ireland). More discursive RS also exist that contrast Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK in this regard. --Tóraí (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying the individual semantics are clearcut, I'm saying that as a group, "countries" is really the only term out there. I'm also pointing out that saying "it's not a country it's a area/region/part" is an entirely meaningless statement, as it is all of those regardless of whatever 'title' it is given. CMD (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted this revert. The substance of the edit summary was that the added material contradicted an earlier (now dead-link) reference. I've therefore added supporting references and trust that everyone involved will respect policy on keeping a neutral point-of-view with respect to (apparently) contradictory references. --Tóraí (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality is not preserved with apparently contradictory references if the text then strongly picks a single position out of all those the sources provide. CMD (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your changes. Reverts don't help. Constructive work like that does.

I (and Snowded) have tweaked it and done further copy edits. For example, I've removed the bits about the NI assembly in 1973–74 and 1982–86 as these assemblies were non-functioning. And I added about the 1999 referendum so as to match the referendums in Scotland and Wales. Also Ireland was partitioned in 1920, not 1921. --Tóraí (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Much improved so thanks all round ----Snowded ^TALK 00:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Apology: Comments above were made when I thought DeCausa had wholesale reverted a change. I cannot explain why I thought this – but it was incorrect and I sincerely apologise for my error and comments made because of it. --Tóraí (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)