Talk:Country/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

countries listing by population

Can someone find a listing for the countries of the world by the population=??

What is the SMALLEST country by its popolation? cannot be Malvinas... there must be sth even smaller :O Zisa

I heard it was the Vatican.

Does Sealand count as a country? Lee M 03:36, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC) who's getting far too little sleep

True or false!!!

True or false: the bottom of this article can be moved to Country (disambiguation). 66.245.75.202 20:19, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I say go for it. -- Dominus 07:44, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Forget it (it could). -- User:Docu

PRC as a non-nation dominant state?

I am insterested in the statement about PRC as a non-nation state? Can someone explain more about it? Which part of its territory claimed itself as a nation? Many thanks.Mababa 04:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, we could start with Tibet. Ddye 20:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Several autonomous regions consisting of people who are of non-Chinese ethnicities.--BlueSunRed 18:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

...such as Sinkiang, otherwise Chinese Turkestan. Sinkiang means "new province" as I've been told. China is the world's oldest empire, but "empire" has disagreeable connotations, especially for those who profess Marxism, irregardless of whether they practice it. The article has to be discreet, so much so that Mababa's question comes quite naturally. --Wetman 18:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

someone please solve a friendly debate

we are arguing as to whether 'the commonwealth' would/could be defined as a place, particularly if we allow that the US is a place, being non-contiguous.

that seems a bit too non-contiguous. i mean, GB and N Ireland aren't contiguous but i would say that's one place. but having territory spread all over the globe doesn't seem to fit. i think the distinction may be that with the US for example, there is one "central" contiguous area much larger than the non-contiguous territory, which is not the case for the Commonwealth. Ddye 20:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The "commonwealth"— just as its name implies— means the "common wealth", the common good of all, that "public thing" that is Latin res publica, which makes English republic. The territory concerned is not inherently a logical necessity in the idea of "commonwealth", though contiguity does engender common aims, as a rule. --Wetman 18:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Country Shapes

I have removed the following text that I find disturbing and irrelevant, although not necessarily false. Unless the are some analyses or consequences drawn from the shapes of lands (rather than countries, to my non-native English ear), and unless this categorization and these analyses are attributed to a notable authority within geography of some sorts, I hardly recognize this as particularly encyclopedic.

There are five main shape-types for countries. The shape of a country can significantly affect it in terms of stability, access and so forth.

Compact: the country is small and genrally round in shape, e.g. Belgium and Cambodia.

Fragmented: the country is split into several parts either by sea or other countries, e.g. Denmark and Indonesia

Perforated: the country is performated by an enclaved country or enclave, e.g. Italy and South Africa

Elongated: the country is long and narrow, e.g. Burma and Chile

Prorupted (also known as protruding countries): the country contains a protrusion or 'finger' (panhandle), e.g. Afghanistan and Democratic Republic of the Congo

Please consider Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
--Ruhrjung 00:36, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

That itme about country morphology is the standard that you'll see if you look on the web. I was going to do a proper page for each type, with this acting more as a links page to those types. In the indivudual poages I will discuss the significance of the shape and so forth. I'll waity for a reply before adding them back.

- sdrawkcab

I agree with the removal of this; it is irrelevant, and partly wrong; calling Denmark "fragmented" (and comparing it with Indonesia!) does not lead to anything meaningful. Claiming that shapes can affect stability and then naming Belgium and Cambodia in the same sentence is also quite, eh, funny. Jørgen 21:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Non-sovereign states

Are non-sovereign states such as Cayman Islands or Bermuda qualified to be called countries? — Instantnood 04:48 Mar 9 2005 (UTC)

Any territorial state is a "country" is the informal sense of "What country are you from?" --Wetman 05:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. From my observation many non-sovereign states are listed as countries on many lists of countries (e.g. by area, by GDP) across Wikipedia. There was a debate over what are qualified as "country", at Talk:List of countries that only border one other country and Talk:List of roads and highways. — Instantnood 06:24 Mar 9 2005 (UTC)

Ireland?

The article states that Ireland consists of two Things: the Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland, a part of the UK. I thought that 'Ireland' was actually the Republic of Ireland's real name, and thus using 'Ireland' is actually correct, and not just a feature of colloquial speech! Is something more confusing happening, or should this be edited out? 203.82.183.147 04:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The name that only refers to the ROI is 'Eire'. 'Ireland' is the name of the land mass, not of any country. (Similarly, 'Great Britan' is the land mass which Scotland, England, and Wales comprise; there's no such country as 'Britain'). The Republic of Ireland is much like the United States of America: it's colloquially acceptable, but technically incorrect to shorten their name to that of the land mass they're a part of. -- random Scotsman that happened to be reading the page

No real need to mention Ireland at all, if it's any kind of problem at this article. --Wetman 11:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Ireland is the official name of the country in English, as defined by the Irish Constitution, and English is an official language of Ireland. Ireland is also the landmass that includes Northern Ireland. Britain is the official short name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (according to The Guardian - couldn't confirm this on any UK government site!), although United Kingdom is in common use as such as well. - random Englishman

About Tibet

A recent edit added the italicized phrase to the following: "Tibet, an autonomous region of China, is similarly called a country in everyday speech by people advocating its autonomy or independence." This was unnecessarily contentious, and I've removed it. Fact is, the answer to "What is Tibet?" is "Tibet's a country" in everyday speech. --Wetman 17:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, something similar has been added back. [1] — Instantnood 11:50, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree with the idea that "Tibet's a country" in everyday speech. Everyday speech between who?--Huaiwei 12:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, most western people would probably consider Tibet a country; and it is one in practice, I would suggest. I think that's worth mentioning. --203.173.141.12 02:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone call it that. In U.S. English at least, "country" has a strong connotation of "independent state" (we're not widely aware of the UK's weird situation, and we don't usually call Scotland/England/Wales/etc. "countries"), so saying something like "the country of Tibet" has strong pro-independence connotations. People trying to be neutral will usually use something like "the region of Tibet". --Delirium 04:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Do Americans consider Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Greenland, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, etc., countries? — Instantnood 12:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you just go straight to the point and ask him if Americans consider Hong Kong as a country? It is not as thou you really cared about any of the entities above other then to utilise them to advance your political interests.--Huaiwei 14:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Please substantiate your claim or apologise for what you've accused. — Instantnood 15:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The evidence? Here: Special:Contributions/Instantnood. At least 80% of your edits indicate you are only interested in pushing the international status of HK on the global stage at the expense of the People's Republic of China, and only casually picks on other territories like the above for nothing more than to create excuses of "consistencies" for revert warring. Need I say more? Now would you like to apologise for feigning ignorance and attempting to accuse me of slandering your good name?--Huaiwei 11:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

" .. at the expense of .. " - What are you talking about? I just reflect the reality. Just that you keep refusing to accept the reality and has done whatever you can to downplay it. I see your name [[there too. Good name? Ignorance? — Instantnood 22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

national capital

This phrase is inaccurate:

what are strictly states, as in national capital, international law

The national capital of England is Westminster/London the capital of the UK is Westminster/London but it is not the national capital of Wales (which is Cardiff) or of Scotland (which is Edinburgh). Philip Baird Shearer 09:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

United Nations

I thought the UN had 191 members, since the Vatican City is not a member and yet is recognised as a Country by the U.S Department of State.

• The UN does have 191 members, but it recognizes the Vatican as a state even though it is not a member (the only Observer State), so the article was correct that there are 192 UN-recognized states. I reverted the number in the article back to 192. Ddye 03:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Definition of a Country

This has been addressed in myriad articles across Wikipedia, but this is clearly the best place to create a hard and fast definition of it, which could be used as a framework for all other articles. The beginning of this article does so satisfactorily, but collapses into drivel later. If the opening paragraph defines a country as being "a geographic are that connotes an independent political entity with its own government, laws...", the article is in agreement with almost every source, and its use in usual conversational parlance. This use is identical to the use of 'state' (in the international context), but has none of the other implications. Such a use also precludes the use of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, or Ireland as examples of countries; one should refer to them in this article only to give examples of entities that are not countries, or are incorrectly considered by some to be 'countries'. Bastin8 13:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Go for it! Make it clear! --Wetman 21:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's see if it sets a new record for revert. Bastin8 20:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Huh. I offered to discuss the issue, and yet other users decide that discussion is redundant. I've returned the parts that I changed back to the version of the 4th September, awaiting a reply from those that want to challenge the definition. Bastin8 17:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I wrote to the Prime Minster's office up here in Canada late last year, and had my letter forwarded to the Foreign Affairs Minister. I've inserted the bulk of his response at the appropriate section. (Though, it's a bit late to be saying so now -- please forgive me!)DarkMasterBob (talk) 09:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Countries

There's currently a CFD nomination concerning category:political entities, as a result of articles previously grouped under category:countries being moved to populate this newly created category. — Instantnood 12:12, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Following the classic progression: Category Countries is infantile, and Category Political Entities is a Wikipedianism to avoid "nations" altogether. The next phase in the sequence is the addition of Idaho, Sark and Wallonia in the category Political Entities. Followed by arguments over Bergen County, New Jersey and Kurdistan. Now, before you say I'm cynical, wait and see if I'm wrong. Leisure outstripping culture is probably the essential problem. -Wetman 20:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Idaho, Sark and Wallonia are already articles in subcategories of category:political entities, so I dont think there is going to be a possibility of them appearing in the mother category. The same applies to just about any other entity, so we can see what happens.--Huaiwei 20:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

VOTE!! - HDI in country infobox/template?

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia country infobox/template:

(1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;

(2) Rank of country’s HDI;

(3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?

YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary - NPOV

'Country' is an ordinary word of the English language. It has a number of definitions and usages. Thus the Compact Oxford English Dictionary gives three possible definitions: "1 a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory. 2 districts outside large urban areas. 3 an area with regard to its physical features". Longer dictionaries expand on these usages, and add others which are parallel. See Princeton for another example.

The purpose of this article appears to be to take the first of these definitions and then narrow it, by adding the gloss that its government must be 'independent' or 'sovereign'. Yet it is not so limited in ordinary use, at least in British-English usage. For example, the UK Government in its website National ceremonies and symbols states "The Union ... Jack, is the national flag of the United Kingdom and it is so called because it embodies the emblems of the three countries united under one Sovereign - the kingdoms of England and Wales, of Scotland and of Ireland ..." . So, again, literary usage: "My country is Kiltartan's cross..." WB Yeats; "The truth is that my name is not a very suitable one in this country of Scotland", 'The Master of Ballantrae' Robert Louis Stevenson and so on. The fact is that ordinary and educated users of the English language use the word in broader senses than this article suggests, and they are supported by most dictionaries. The word has an intrinsic ambiguity; ask the people of Edinburgh 'what country is this' and some will answer 'Scotland' and some 'Britain'.

This article, although it may be infringing Wikipedia policy, has some merit. I would suggest however that, if there is to be such emphasis on what the "correct" meaning of this word is, proponents of one point of view should recognise that their usage of this word is not necessarily universal, nor does it exclude other usages.

I have not done work on the article itself, in view of the debate recorded above to which i am a newcomer. But a number of the comments above appear neither in accord with Wikipedia policy ("this is clearly the best place to create a hard and fast definition": Bastin8 on 13 September) nor common usage. Ariwara 17:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• I concur fully with the contribution from User:Ariwara above. This article has become the subject of some highly counterproductive POV. I am inserting the NPOV template until this article is significantly cleaned up.--Mais oui! 19:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ariwara's points could be edited into the article almost as easily as applying a sticker. --Wetman 02:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Good points of course, perhaps the article needs to say that country can mean "countryside" or "non-urban/rural areas". However, the debate on the first definition that Ariwara cites is a very interesting one. I have seen definitions of "country" in dictionaries where it essentially says "nation states... oh, and we must remember to call England, Wales and Scotland countries too". As far as I am aware, there are no other such "consituent parts" which are generally recognised as countries (correct me if I'm wrong - maybe you can cite me a Basque national football team that plays in the World Cup.... didn't think so) leading me to agree with the comment that they only retain the status because of nationalistic sentiment. Fact is, they're not real countries, the UK is.

So long as the Wikipedia articles recognises that some people regard them as countries, I think it is doing its job. [[User:Davros, 16:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite, removing POV warning

This article was in a really sorry state, and so I was bold and went and rewrote it. I wrote a new intro, and expanded on the comparison to other terms. I also removed most of the material that belongs to pages on individual countries. I also removed the POV warning since it concerned the old text. Zocky 00:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Complete rewrite

Was this rewrite [2] discussed? After the rewrite the meaning of "country" has effectively been equated with and restricted to sovereign States, remarkably different from "a country may be an independent, self-governing state" in the older versions. — Instantnood 20:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This article has consistently been the target for a heavy dose of POV. "Country" and "Sovereign state" are not synonyms. Country is primarily a geographical, not a political, term. Whatever happened to "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"? Whenever Wiktionary tries to be a dictionary, it does a very poor job.--Mais oui! 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)--Mais oui! 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If you look at what I just wrote below, and if you were to declare that the word is a geographical word, then yes, some geographers do equate it with the word "state", and hence an independent political entity. If wikipedia wants to move away from being a dictionary, it has to address the various definitions involved here, and not to remove one definition for the sake of any other.--Huaiwei 13:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Has it? The new version clearly describes the difference between a country and a state, and even explicitly says that a country which is not sovereign is still a country. Zocky 06:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I've modified the article slightly [3] to address these problems. — Instantnood 09:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That was quite a clumsy edit which seems to worsen the state of the article. Two wrongs dont make it a right. I will have to edit it too I suppose.--Huaiwei 13:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

England is a country: they do know what they mean when they use the word

Why on earth is this article equating country with sovereign state? England invented the English language. When English people call their country a country is it not a bit patronising to imply that the (50 million) poor, deluded souls are making an elementary grammatical error? England is a country under any dictionary definition of a country, so why on earth is it excluded from all Wikipedia's country articles?

England didn't invent it! It was from a Germanic dialect, and was introduced around the time the Saxons took over. Which although they were the first to be called english today, they were actualy Anglelandis (angle-land-ish) [User:OsirisV|OV]]

Perhaps this article needs to clarify variations in usage of the word between English dialects. In British English country is clearly a geographical term, but perhaps in other variations of English it has evolved meaning, to become primarily a political term. Either way, this article needs to make clear in the introduction that country is the standard descriptor of England, Scotland and Wales in British English.--Mais oui! 10:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You may be interested to take a look at how that meaning is presented before the rewrite [4] (the 3rd paragraph, i.e. the one begins with " Sometimes, parts of states with a distinct history or culture are called "lands" or "countries": "). — Instantnood 10:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope you may decipher between "English dialects" and that of academic/technical usage and definitions. Variations in thought are not so much about dialects, but more of academic discourse, since some different fields use the term slightly differently, or in highly specific ways. I am a geographer, and while this is not the best info source, it goes something as follows:

country: An independent political entity, also known as a State [5]

Whereas in football (which is pretty much the only worldwide sport) Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland count as separate countries with separate teams. In English of course a state is the larger entity than the country but the US got this bit upside down...BozMo

Right? Wrong? It depends on who you ask. So surely an article like this should address the differing definitions by as many groups of people as possible?--Huaiwei 13:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

We seem to have a bunch of misunderstandings here

Ok, let me try to explain some things:

• Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is no need fot this article to describe every meaning of the word country, as long as it points to articles that explain other meanings.
• Wikipedia is not a usage guide. It is not our place or duty to tell readers that this or that common use of a word is erroneous. We can just record how it is used and report it.
• The claim that the word "country" in British English always means constituent countries and not the UK, is false. In his recent pre-budget speech, Gordon Brown stated that "unemployment is down in every nation of the country", clearly referring to whole of United Kingdom as a "country".

I agree: country can clearly mean either whereas "state" means the whole of the UK. So the article has to reflect this which it doesn't... describing e.g. FIFA as out of line with modern usage is incorrect BozMo

• The article has slowly began to turn into its old state when it tried to be all things to all people. If there is a common geographical meaning of "country" separate from what this article described when I rewrote it, it may be a good idea to put its description in a separate article. For starters, it would be good if somebody gave me some examples of which countries are not covered by the definitions I used. Zocky 16:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"The entire landmass of the world (excluding Antarctica), along with coastal sea is considered to be divided between countries." is this really true? What about historical no-man's lands and places like Spitzbergen? I am not so sure? I thought Norwegian sovereignty but joint mineral rights with USSR and not "part of" Norway.

Strange Sentence

The term country is often, erroneously, used synonymously with other terms like state, nation and land

Forgive my naivety, but is this not wrong? Where is country used if not as a synomnym for both nation and state (which is its inherent confusion) Robdurbar 13:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Examples of official use in British English, illustrating how the word country is used

I hope to get around to editing the substantive article, but meanwhile here are some quotations which will, I hope, knock on the head once and for all the view that the word 'country' necessarily connotes a politically independent state: in British English it is intrinsically ambiguous, see for example the 10 Downing Street page noted below for the phrase 'Countries within a country', so that the phrase 'this country' may mean (for example) Wales or the United Kingdom depending on context. I have confined myself to official, readily-available quotations from sources which could not by any stretch be considered 'nationalist'. Underlying much of the debate on this page is an idea that the word 'country' can only have a single correct meaning; dictionaries, which I may add later, do not bear this out. Note B3 in particular for its definition!

And this is not a use confined to the UK; see Australian references below, and Basque Country for another example.

A. British Monarchy example:

1.The British Monarchy website; “click on one of the following countries: England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland”.

B. United Kingdom government examples:

1. Prime Minister's Office;“The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland “.

2. UK Government Portal: 'Devolved administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales’; Find links to devolved government websites in the three countries”

3. Office of National Statistics Glossary; “Country. In the context of the UK, each of the 4 main subdivisions (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) is referred to as a country”

4. Office of National Statistics: 2001 Census Commentary; “Country of birth. This question asked "What is your country of birth?" with tick box options of: England; Wales; Scotland; Northern Ireland; Republic of Ireland and Elsewhere.”

5. Museums Libraries and Archives Council; “Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales would consider implementation issues in each country.”

6. Met Office; “Scotland often enjoys excellent visibility, since the greater part of the country is remote from the industrial and populous areas of Britain”.

7. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; “criteria for each country of the UK".

8. BSE Inquiry; “Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - a selective chronology of legislation by country”.

C. UK Parliament; statutory examples

1. Way back: Trade Union Act 1876 s 6; “"country" means England, Scotland, or Ireland.”

2. Up to date: Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 Schedule 1 ; “one appointed from each country of the United Kingdom”.

D. Courts of law examples:

1. Court of Appeal (of England and Wales): a typical example; “the only connection with England is Mr Butcher .... In all other respects the country most connected with the contract of guarantee was Scotland”.

2. Court of Appeal (of England and Wales): another typical example; “the important question is whether R shall live with her mother in England or with her father in Scotland. In whichever country the decision falls to be made, the court will strive to achieve what is best for R.”

3.House of Lords:a 2005 example; “This is a United Kingdom statute. Its subject matter... is of equal interest to litigants in Scotland as it is to those in England. Each country has its own legal system.”

4. Federal Court of Australia: was Hong Kong a 'country' in 1965?; "Hong Kong at the relevant date had a distinct area with identifiable borders. It had its own immigration laws, and was inhabited by a permanent identifiable community, and therefore in my opinion it was appropriate to treat it as a "country" ". See also in this judgment quotations from earlier case of Reed v Holder; e.g. "The word 'country' must be given its ordinary meaning, having regard to the `factual matrix' in which it was formed. I should find it surprising if the ordinary person did not regard Scotland and Wales as being examples of countries; in doing so they would not be considering the existence, or absence, of a separate government, nor the desire, or lack of it, of any of the inhabitants of either area to achieve the position of belonging to a separate state."

5. Federal Court of Australia: could an area of open sea be a country?; "We were referred both to The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed, 1989) and The Macquarie Dictionary (3rd ed, 1997) for the meaning of the word "country". The former, gives some fourteen definitions before turning to consider various combinations of words in which the word "country" appears. Many can be said to have no relevance to the particular context. It suffices to say that the first meaning given is "A tract or expanse of land of undefined extent; a region, district". It seems that there was a transition in the meaning of the word to a district with distinct or defined physical characteristics, and that it came to be used for a territory or land of a nation usually, although not necessarily, an independent state".

E. Scottish Government examples:

1. Scottish Executive: a typical discussion; “As a country Scotland has a sparse population”.

2. Jack McConnell First Minister quoted; “I marvel when I see what a fantastic country Scotland is for cultural expression and cultural events.”

3. Jim Wallace Enterprise Minister quoted; “For a small country Scotland is clearly punching above its weight in computer games development”.

4. General Register Office for Scotland; “A key aim for the 2011 Census is to promote UK harmonisation and to produce consistent and coherent outputs for the UK and for each component country”.

5. One Scotland; “One Scotland is the Scottish Executive campaign designed to tackle racism in this country”.

Ariwara 11:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with most of this - hence my edits to the page so that it reads that it can mean state or nation. However, I say this with the following two caveats:

• Its orginial meaning probably was as 'a state'. This should be stressed as the whole concept of coutnry has been taken by the self-detrmination and nationalist ideology.

• Where using British examples, england, soctland and wales can be legitimately referred to as countries without necesairily compromising the meaning of country as as a state. This is because the UK government has officially labeled them 'constiutent countries'.

Robdurbar 13:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• • It is incorrect to say that the "original meaning" of the word 'country' was or had anything to do with "state" . The Oxford English Dictionary explains its origins and etymology. The Middle English 'contre' or 'contree' meant 'that which lies opposite or fronting the view, the landscape spread out before one'. From this, its first use in modern English is simply 'a tract or expanse of land' and a transposition is noted to 'a tract or district having more or less definite limits in relation to human occupation'. The third meaning given by the OED, of particular significance here, was 'the territory or land of a nation; usually an independent state or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories, as England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the United Kingdom, etc'. See my quotation F5 above.

• • The British usage has nothing to do with some sort of imagined 'official labelling' by the UK government, but simply reflects the ordinary meaning of the word. There is no "meaning of country as a state" to be "compromised". Again, look at the better dictionaries (and I don't mean by this schoolchildren's geography homework helper sites such as that quoted by one person above!). The phrase "constituent countries" has no official status at all; it is used also as "constituent countries of the EEA" or "constituent countries of the former Yugoslavia". Try Googling the phrase!

Now when I get round to it I will do some reworking on the main page, which remains deeply confused and confusing!

Ariwara 11:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, French constitutional law now recognizes such a thing as a pays d'outre-mer, which could be translated various ways, but the best is probably "overseas country". So the (constituent) countries of the UK aren't the only fly in this definitional ointment. QuartierLatin1968 03:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This article has changed a lot in recent months - I do think it is getting there. However, I am of the opinion that the term "country" in English usage is indeed a synonymous with nation state, with the following exceptions: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which are recognised (although not in the public international law sense of recognition) as countries - incongruously, along with the UK.

I am yet to hear a convincing argument of any other non-UK entity which is commonly considered to be a "country" in the sense used when talking of Scotland etc. For example, I do not know of any other entities that participate in international football tournaments that aren't nation states. They are an exception which clouds what would other be a very simple term.

Nationalistic sentiment means any attempt to edit this idea into the page is likely to be resisted, but I think this is the truth. Any thoughts?

--Gianniv45 21:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Note also the use of "overseas countries" in the treaty of Rome Annex II ("Overseas countries and territories to which the provisions of part four of the Treaty apply") for a list of overseas possessions of member states, in which it seems quite impossible to distinguish which ones are "countries" and which are "territories". French Tourist 07:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a few other possible examples, mainly Basque Country and the French example of "overseas country" above, but the use of the bare word country itself with no qualifiers to mean something other than sovereign state appears mostly to be limited to the UK. Indeed the French example even in French has that property: the "overseas countries" are always called exactly that, never simply "countries" with no qualifier. Usage in Canada and the U.S. at least, and from what I can gather also Australia, is to use more explicit phrases when something other than sovereign state is meant, like "historical country" or "country within the UK", and colloquial usage in phrases like "how many countries have you visited?" is nearly exclusively to mean sovereign states. --Delirium 04:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Ireland article titles

A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Flag icons in the text

Is there a good reason why there are flag icons in the article text? -- nyenyec ☎ 22:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of any, so I've removed them. --Mal 01:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Add one?

Quoth the article:

There are currently 192 states (countries) recognized by the United Nations — its 191 members and the Vatican City.

Should that be one higher now w/Montenegro joining the UN tomorrow (6/29)? Or was that taken into account already? --Jfruh (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by user:Huaiwei

Re [6] - That sentence is comparing the two definitions of the word country - i) sovereign states only and ii) sovereign states, dependencies, etc. User:Huaiwei disregarded the fact sovereign state, instead of nation-state, is actually the matter that sentence discusses. [7] — Instantnood 19:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Those sentences were directly sourced, and these sources are talking about nation-states. I would like to see better justification if instantnood finds it within his powers to misquote existing sources.--Huaiwei 20:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The cited webpage [8] uses the words countries, States, independent countries and independent States interchangeably, and it says " The term State can be used interchangeably with country. ". It was therefore cited to justify " definitions tend to place it as meaning only the state " [9]. — Instantnood 20:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And if we are to read the source correctly, it specifically states that "A State (note the capital "S") is a self-governing political entity." and that "The term State can be used interchangeably with country." In other words, the source actually supports the notion that the word country can be used interchangeably to mean a self-governing political entity. The text then goes on to define the concept of a nation, and a nation-state. Of interesting note, is that is says "Examples of entities that are not countries include: Hong Kong, Bermuda, Greenland, Puerto Rico, and most notably the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. (Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England are not countries.)". Considering you chose to keep these citations when attempting to change the meaning of the above sentences, why do you not amend it to more closely align with meanings as stated clearly in these sources, choosing instead to skirt around it as thou it didnt exist?--Huaiwei 21:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The cited article equates country with sovereign state. Therefore Hong Kong, Bermuda, Greenland, Puerto Rico are not countries within the context of that article. The section in the lower part of that article discusses the concept of nation-state, which is not relevant to the sentence here on Wikipedia citing it as a source. — Instantnood 21:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This does seem like a very lame attempt in dismissing a cited source. I await your full explanation on your own contradictory statements above, and your position on the viability of this source.--Huaiwei 22:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Which of the statements is/are contradictory? — Instantnood 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Read it for yourself.--Huaiwei 11:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of my statements is contradictory. — Instantnood 16:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you at any point think it is anyone's concern about what you think then in this regard?--Huaiwei 11:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If there's anything contradictory, point it out, and explain why is it contradictory. — Instantnood 22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Re " "Nation-state" is a geopolitical concept, a "sovereign state" is not " (user:Huaiwei's edit summary [10]) - A nation-state is a country sovereign state that is made up of a nation. Iceland and Japan are the commonly cited examples of nation-states. In international law, a sovereign state is an entity which has full sovereignty. — Instantnood 20:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC) (modified 21:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC))

If the nation-state article states that "A nation–state is a specific form of state, which exists to provide a sovereign territory for a particular nation", and that you chose to substitute the word "state" with "country" in your definition of the said term, can I then conclude that you are assuming a country = a state = a sovereign territory? Next, how does the above fail to support the fact that the term "nation-state" is a geopolitical concept, while "sovereign state" is not? Would you also mind cite us sources which clearly shows the application of the phrase "sovereign state" in international law, and its implications for this discussion? Does its use in international law mean it becomes a geopolitical concept? Do you take geopolitics courses at any point in your life, may I ask?--Huaiwei 21:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Did I ever say the terms are or are not concepts in geopolitics or political geography? — Instantnood 21:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone imply anything about what you say other than your own twisting statements? And I await your answers to my above questions.--Huaiwei 22:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, the word country is sometimes, but not always, synonymous with sovereign state. I.e. the word country sometimes = sovereign state, sometimes doesn't. — Instantnood 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And so?--Huaiwei 11:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That answered your question - " can I then conclude that you are assuming a country = a state = a sovereign territory? " [11] . — Instantnood 16:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? I looked at your comments, and found you making the above equation. How does the text which was "spoken elsewhere" debuke what you yourself said here? I am certainly all ears.--Huaiwei 11:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no equation. Depending on context, country may be synonyomous with State (sovereign state), may be not. — Instantnood 22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

---

What part of the about.com source suggests that anyone limits the definition of the term "country" only to nation-states? The soruce pretty clearly says that states = countries. This is about the most limited definition that I've ever heard. Either I am misreading something or the source does not support the article at all, so please elucidate the passage from the source that supports the claim in the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And the word states in the About.com source actually means sovereign states. — Instantnood 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If the source writes the word State, then please exhibit some basic integrity by quoting as such. the argument that the word "State" refers to only independent countries or not is another issue to be dealt with, so do not attmempt to use a second assumption on the first.--Huaiwei 04:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The word State (often uppercase s, e.g. in laws) is almost always synonomous with sovereign state (see state; sovereign state is now a redirect to state, btw). state (lowercase s) may refer to subnational entities (e.g. Australian, US states; see state (subnational)), or a legal concept (see state (law)) in international law. The States means an assembly of representatives of the estate of the realm. — Instantnood 10:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you then explain why you replaced it with the nation-state? My issue is with your unilateral attempt to replace the word "nation-state" with "sovereign state", neither of which were mentioned in the indicated source. You then argue that you are merely "correcting" a historical error, which points back simply to the word "state" as per the cited souce. If you argue that a state, a nation-state and a sovereign state all means the same thing, then could you explain your attempt to edit war in the first place?--Huaiwei 11:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Within the context of that sentence the word state means sovereign state. Do you actually know the differences between the terms State and nation-state? Having followed your arguments and edits, I'm afraid I don't think you do. — Instantnood 16:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I await in baited breath on seeing your evidence that I "fail to distinguish between a State and a nation-state". Indeed, that coming from someone who happily switches between terms inconsistently and without any consultation nor reference to the indicated sources.--Huaiwei 11:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Who first switched it? Was it correct to have it switched? What's wrong to switch it back? — Instantnood 22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Re " Recent attempts by Instantnood to replace nation-state with "sovereign state" " [12] [13] [14] - It was not me who attempted to replace nation-state with state. I was just undoing the mess which was the result of a series of edits. [15] [16] — Instantnood 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If my eyesight did not fail me, the original word used was "State" and not "sovereign state", as also pointed out by others above. And this is precisely the edit which needs discussion here, since that triggered the latest round of reverts.--Huaiwei 04:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

See my response above. — Instantnood 10:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

---

" If you bother to read, the first part talks about academic usage. Grammar: Its THE nation-state. And DO NOT remove others' sources and impose your own. GWR more authoritative than a dictionary? " [17] - Which is " the first part ", and is it only talking about academic usage (i.e. nothing beyond academic)? Why is the definite article necessary? Why wasn't the Guinness World Records links removed in the previous edits? Is the Merriam Webster one really that useful here to compare the differences between country and state?

" The UK usage is much broader than merely Constituent countries " [18] - Any source to justify that " This disparaty is also observed in general English usage, where usage within the United Kingdom tend to adopt a wider definition of the word "Country". " [19]? — Instantnood 21:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The answer is in the paragraph. Go read it yourself. I dont have a policy of removing sources, quick unlike yourself. Could you tell me in what way does a definition of the word country by a dictionary like Merriam Webster be any less definitive then a book like the Guinness World Records? And could you please cite in which part of the Guinness World Records does it explain what the word "country" mean?--Huaiwei 04:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this based on talkpage discussions I read sometime back, but cannot remember its source by now. In particular, I remember someone saying most people outside the UK uses the word "Country" to refer to an "Independent country", with the UK usage being the main exception. I dont see you replying to that remark thou, which is quite unfortunate.--Huaiwei 04:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the definition that you added to the article, which seemed to be based on the Merriam Webster entry, immediately relevant and useful to that paragraph, which compare country with State? Why was the definite article "the" necessary? Which is the so-called " first part " are you talking about, and is it merely academic? What else does the word country mean in the UK usage, other than constituent country, that make(s) it such an exception? — Instantnood 10:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

My inclusion of MW's definition was inserted at a point discussing the varied usages of the word country, so whats with the issue of the word state? If you wish to remove the word "the" in front of a conceptual word like "nation-state", then please write your own dictionary or grammar guidebook and have it outsell other established publications. If you still cannot find the "first part", then either you edited it beyond recognition, or you have basic comprehension issues which I cannot and refuse to resolve for you. In the UK, the word country is almost similar to the MW's definition, which was confirmed judging by some responses in wikipedia. Do you have any sources on the other hand to indicate they are exceptional only due to their usage in reference to constituent countries?--Huaiwei 11:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And btw, I just found that statement on the peculiar use of the word "country" in the UK, which is but a few digitial cms right above this talk page [20]. In fact, do you even bother to read the entire section in Talk:Country/Archive 1#Examples_of_official_use_in_British_English.2C_illustrating_how_the_word_country_is_used, or is ignoring it cause it isnt going in a direction which would fit your agenda?--Huaiwei 11:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That paragraph discusses when the word country is synonymous with State, and when it doesn't.   What is a " conceptual word ", why is nation-state a " conceptual word ", and why "the" is necessary in front of a " conceptual word "?   You didn't even indicate in your edit summary [21] what you were referring to by saying " the first part ". The cited source or that paragraph in this article (the country article on Wikipedia)?   " In the UK, the word country is almost similar to the MW's definition, which was confirmed judging by some responses in wikipedia. " - What responeses? What else would the word country means in the British usage, within the scope of this article, besides those that are not sovereign states and the constituent countries?   " In fact, do you even bother to read the entire section in Talk:Country/Archive 1#Examples_of_official_use_in_British_English.2C_illustrating_how_the_word_country_is_used, or is ignoring it cause it isnt going in a direction which would fit your agenda? " - I did read that section of discussion, and as a matter of fact, two links related to that section of discussion were added to the article. — Instantnood 16:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What utter rubbish. That said sentences describes the dualistic meanings of the word country, and how it varies widely depending on usage. My edit expanded on it to reflect this varied usage both within academia as well as outside it. If you cannot see that the "first part" refers to the academic use, and the "second part" refers to general use, then do you expect me to ship a new pair of visual aids to your doorstep and set it on your nose for you?

If you fail to realise why a phrase is a concept, then you just have to educate yourself by picking up a political geography dictionary at the very least, something I did more than a decade ago. And why the word "The" should appear in front of the conceptual word of a "nation-state" is again a grammatical issue which you can only resolve for yourself by picking up a grammar guidebook, which you probably did not do a decade ago. Do not expect me to explain all that within an edit summary. What, then, may I ask, is a talkpage for? I suppose you probably dont know considering your extreme love for talking via edit summaries only.

What responses? I am sorry, but are you truly madly deeply stoned? My previous post above directly points out to you the very discussion which discusses UK usage of the word country. You even indicated you read that section, so why dont you freaking pry open your tiny eyes and read it for the answers? In my local context we would call such folks like you an utter Blur Sotong, but that is only for true blue blur kings. Your situation appears to be a conscious attempt in being blur!--Huaiwei 11:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mind your language. No original research, please, and bear in mind Wikipedia is not anybody's " local context ". Thank you. — Instantnood 22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My language is well minded, thank you. Point out instances of these "original research" if you are ever able to, and my "local context" relates to how I think of you, and not on the topic itself, so since when is it related to wikipedia? You do have a rather amusing way of miscomprehending things here, eh? ;)--Huaiwei 14:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Original research?

Is it based on observations here on Wikipedia that the word country carries political connotations of separatism in usage outside of the UK? — Instantnood 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How often do you hear people in East Asia saying "HK is a country" in both English or Chinese? Original research?--Huaiwei 23:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this your observation? Is there any source to substantiate that? Is English and Chinese the only languages in East Asia? What are the equivalence of country in each of the East Asian languages? — Instantnood 11:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My observation? I was casually browsing around the web right now, when I chanced upon [22]. A Malaysian writes, "A major difference between the two is the fact that, while Hong Kong and Shenzhen are both a part of China, Johor Baru and Singapore belong to two different countries." You insisted before, that the word "country" has a different meaning from the word "国" in Chinese, hence my mention of these languages. So what does "English and Chinese being the only languages in Asia" has anything to do with this discussion, just because I happen to mention them?--Huaiwei 14:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You were the person who first mentioned about East Asia under this section, but you referred only to English and Chinese, effectively implying these are the only languages in East Asia. As for Chinese, the contemporary meaning of the character "國" or the vocabulary "國家" is sovereign state. In English the word country, depending on context, may or may not be synonymous with sovereign state. Calling Hong Kong a 國 or a 國家 carries political connotations of separatism, calling Hong Kong a country doesn't, unless the word country is perceived as synonymous with sovereign state. — Instantnood 18:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way China, Taiwan and Hong Kong cannot be brought up everytime the words nation, sovereignty and country are mentioned? This is just getting out of hand. 國家 has a variety of meanings, it can mean "country", "state" or even "dynasty" depending on context. The character 國 has an even wider range of meanings and sometimes mean "region".--Niohe 19:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why I said contemporary meaning. Kingdoms of the Zhou Dynasty were "國"s, so as those which paid tributes to the emperors of the Chinese dynasties. The Qing Dynasty was called "清國" in late 19th and early 20th century Japanese sources. The name in kanji of the region Chūgoku of Japan is "中国地方" (written as "中國地方" in the past). — Instantnood 19:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to bring up Japanese to argue your case, 四国 (Shikokuo) is a better example, which refers to four ancient provinces (国) of Japan. --Yuje 23:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese example weakens the case, I think.--Niohe 23:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In contemporary usage the character 國/国 almost always means sovereign state. — Instantnood 13:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess! The word country is widely used as a synonym for region, without political connotations. Examples from the United States include "wine country", which is even a region of California (Wine Country) routinely described as a country (ie, http://winecountry.com/ ); the "coal country" of the Appalachians, "gold country" (Gold Country), "corn country", etc. Montana is often said to be "Big Sky Country". Southern Utah is "canyon country". This usage is similar to "empire", as in "Inland Empire" (Inland Empire (Pacific Northwest)). I have trouble seeing why this is such a problem. Pfly 18:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Real life meaning

I have deleted an edit which claimed that "contrary to popular belief" England, Scotland, Wales amd Northern Ireland could not be described as 'countries'. See the examples of actual use above, 16 January 2006; and also the exhortation at the top of the page "Do not seek narrowly to define the word country without first considering the range of dictionary definitions such as OED and Chambers (British); Macquarie (Australian); Webster (American)." As Pfly points out, in the comment immediately above, the word 'country' is widely used without the connotation of 'sovereign state' or 'UN member state'. ariwara 22:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of external link to Nationmaster.com

I am about to remove the link to Nationmaster.com as a source of reference. I have looked through the site, and it contains too many errors and omissions to be considered worthy of being referred to by Wikipedia. I believe that Wikipedia strives to offer the reader the greatest possible level of accuracy. I therefore think that the external links suggested by Wikipedia should reflect our wish to offer reliable information. If they cannot, they shouldn't be suggested as points of reference. Maybe other readers disagree with me on this. Please let me know your feelings here. I simply believe that an external source that cannot even place the top ten countries of our planet in the correct order, and previously even failed to have France (which, for any international-phobes, is a country in Europe) on the list of countries on this planet, cannot warrant being referred to. The site is incredibly US-centric and unreliable - as a point of 'reference' I think it should be avoided. Pheasantplucker 11:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

United States

I think the word "country" should re-direct to the United States. It is much more important than all the other countries. Please hurry up and do this! 58.178.2.176 (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we follow a neutral point of view, this means that every point of view gets fair representation. You may think that the United States is the most important country, but most of the people in the world who are not Americas, such as myself, would disagree. So in the interest of fairness, country will stay as it is. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 10:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is this article supposed to be going?

I have just deleted the bulk of this article.

(i) Substantial new passages seemed to take for granted that the concept of 'country' was synonymous with that of 'independent state' (the maps of Europe, for example). While that is one meaning of the word, it is not its inevitable meaning. See the opening paragraphs and ponder the references, which have been here for a long time! Few, for example, would suggest that England is not a country. This assumption inevitably then slides into arid discussions of whether a particular entity is or is not a country, usually by reference to some didactic list and circular assumptions as to definitions.

(ii) Much of what was here seemed to be developing as a general history of the world. Histories of the Sung dynasty or of ancient Sumer have little or no connection with this article; they would find a happy home elsewhere, perhaps under the history sections of the country in question.

(iii)The so-called ' Constitutive theory of statehood' has nothing to do with the subject matter; it is simply a concept in international law as to the mutual recognition of states.

(iv) Deletion of some commercial and unofficial links, typically wedded to the 'country equals UN member' sort of idea. ariwara (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(i) Firstly, the maps accurately show what Europe looks like in both topographical and political view. The regions outlined in the political view are classified as countries (Don't believe me? Have a look at England, France, Germany, all these articles describe their namesake as a country in their first or second sentence, none of these articles describe them as an independent state), and thus the images are totally valid for an article on Countries, as the boundaries being shown are those of countries. I also in no way make the assumption that the term was "synonymous with that of 'independent state'"; all the sections I created, were intended, and I believe are written to be, on the fact that all the countries I described were independent states and in none of my assertions do I say that all countries must be independent states or otherwise (also you should consider that one of the references you asked me to ponder[23] explicitly states that "The term State can be used interchangeably with country"). As for your statement "[...] which have been here for a long time!", longevity on this project has no correlation to quality, famous people have sued Wikipedia because non-factual has been placed into their articles from not-so-reputable-sources and it has remained. As for the suggestion that England is not a country according to some of our sources, the consensus on England clearly states the popular (and nearly universally prevalent view) that England is, in fact, a country. It is important in our articles that we do not give undue weight to minority opinions (which I believe the "England is not a country" group fall into) as to present the article in a neutral point of view, which is what I hope to achieve.

(ii) The history section of the article describes (or was going to describe, it was still under very active development when it was removed) the evolution of countries, in particular, their borders. Early dynastic Sumer is one of the first "countries" of sorts to exist, and I endeavor to describe its, and many other, country's development, this history omits civilizations that could not be classified as countries. The history is very country-specific, and thus, deserves a place in this article.

(iii) As I talked about above in (i), the constitute theory of statehood, describes how a state (or country) can receive recognition by the wider international community, I feel it is important that we describe the criteria in which a country/state exists. I noticed you also removed the section on the Montevideo Convention, was this collateral damage?

(iv) Your removal of links of this nature does not bother me.

I would like to include my content in this article and I invite your contributions to its content, but before my hard work is trashed, can we please talk about this? I fell that my contributions are perfectly valid and would be very happy if they could be included in this article. Thankyou and happy editing! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 12:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have undid the removal of this text pending discussion, none of your changes such as the removal of links from the External links section, copyediting or adding of a paragraph have been affected, as I have manually merged the two versions. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 22:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up the aricle for some NPOV problems. I'll not take a position for now on whether the theories of statehood belong here, but it is clear that we should be neutral in explaining them rather than taking a position that one is correct and the other is not. One may be more accepted by certain parties, but if we provide that information we should say who the parties are. Readin (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"The first countries of sorts, was those of early dynastic Sumer, and early dynastic Egypt" Of course under the Constitutive theory, these were not countries as there were no other countries that could recognize them. In fact we can prove by induction that their are no countries, because each country requires a pre-existing country to recognize it, and at some point in the past (say, 5 million years ago) there were no countries. Readin (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your statement both your statements.

@23:26; Can we find some good sources on who accepts what?

@23:32; You could always get around that by simply saying that the Constitutive theory does not apply before its introduction. ;) Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 09:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The recent changes

I just wanted to say wow and well done to those who have been working on this article over the past month, it has been improved so much. Great job! thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your kind words :-) Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 12:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Country/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Recent POV dispute, but content seems generally OK to me.

Last edited at 02:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)