Talk:Country/Archive 3

Synonym

Does the OED really define country as a synonym as state, and a country of origin is always a state? What about this [1]? Montemonte (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the OED doesn't define it so narrowly, although that is one of many uses. No time to give full references just now, so here are two short quotes from decisions of the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of England respectively:

"13 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. While a perusal of these meanings shows the word is generally used by reference to land, the dictionary does show that, in a technical sense, the word can mean: "A region of the sea or ocean". "

"The term `country' would not appear to be one which has a particular significance in international law... I think that the word [country] is used in the rules in the sense of an area or part of the world where the applicant has authority in relation to athletics and an area to which the word `country' is appropriate because the inhabitants share the right to live there in common as one distinct people. This is a question to be answered broadly and not on a political basis alone. Political status may have some relevance. It may perhaps help to see the inhabitants as being one people but it is not the decisive factor."

And to take the specific example of Hong Kong from your picture, here's another FCA decision: "the fact that Hong Kong has developed and enacted a specific regime of immigration laws dating back to the Deportation Ordinance of 1917 supports a conclusion that its geographic territory and population is sufficiently defined to come within the notion of a "country". " ariwara (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, as already pointed out: "Synonyms are different words with identical or very similar meanings". I don't think all the senses of synonyms have to be identical. Also dependent territories may be states, if not sovereign ones. I'm not sure what your problem is here, but feel free to suggest alternative wordings. OED 3. is the relevant sense:" The territory or land of a nation, usually an independent state ... going on "... the modern tendency being to identify the term with the existing political condition" (original edn.) Tibet is an interesting example - it is certainly a "country" to most English-speakers, but presumably not now used as a "country of origin". That might usefully be mentioned. We should have a link to "country of origin" - maybe a short section. The article (coo) itself could do with a section on this aspect, with some of the quotes above perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of the word state here is sovereign state per se, unless u're referring to other meanings of this word. As Ariwara has explained, I don't think country is a synonym of state or sovereign state. Montemonte (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can establish from the WTO website (not very clear), Hong Kong is in fact the only dependent territory or non-sovereign state able to use itself as a "country of origin", but further information would be helpful, as indeed would suggested other ways to word the text. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Here you are. [2] [3] [4] [5] Montemonte (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The case of Romance languages

«The equivalent terms in French and other Romance languages (pays and variants) [...] have not carried the process of being identified with political sovereign states as far as the English "country" [...]»

This assertion is an illegitimate generalization from the French. In Portuguese the word "país" is strongly identified with political sovereign states, with only two exceptions: País Basco (Basque Country -- Vascónia or Vascongadas may be used, but it's very rare and usually only in Medieval History context) and País de Gales (Wales -- though just Gales is very common). In fact, the identification of "país" with a sovereign state is even stronger than "country" in English: país is never used to refer to rural areas, "a província" (the province) or "o campo" (the field) being the most common expressions. I'm not 100% sure, but I think in Spanish it's the same. Gazilion (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but it is true in Italian. Is «The equivalent terms in French and some other Romance languages (pays and variants), but not Spanish or Portuguese, [...] have not carried the process of being identified with political sovereign states as far as the English "country" [...]» ok? The Spanish article, partly translated from here I think, does not suggest that "the identification of "país" with a sovereign state is even stronger than "country" in English" is true for Spanish in fact; it seems about the same. See also what you get when you put País into the search box. In the Portuguese WP you also have the enigmatic "País (subdivisão)" Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

More accurate picture?

Sorry if im being pedantic - but I noticed that the picture showing sovereign states shows the UK as one country.

Given the fact that the article is about countries, and the fact that Scotland (for example) is a country in itself, should we maybe use a more accurate picture?

As I say, im being very pedantic! :) Macarism (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Though (in high insight) I can see that the current picture might be appropriate in certain definitions of "country"... Macarism (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a different picture, by all means change it. I'll look at the caption. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Colonies and islands

Places that were originally colonies or are just offshore islands, like Aruba, the Åland Islands, Ascension Island, Tristan da Cuhna, Mayotte, or Martinique etc, and especially small groups of islands like the Netherlands Antilles, the Faroes, Shetlands, Orkneys etc, and are now overseas territories or offlying islands of a larger state, are not usually regarded as countries (in English anyway), and were not in the past. Greenland may be a country in this sense, although it has never been politically independent, any more than the others mentioned. But these examples are not helpful here, I think. Much more detailed context would need to be added to address any sense in which they have been or are regarded as counties. Without political independence, I don't think that "a country is a country regardless of size" is true. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should read into things a bit more: Kingdom of the Netherlands#Countries Night w (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

sovereignty

"Some cohesive geographical entities, which were formerly sovereign states, are commonly regarded and referred to still as countries; such as England, Scotland and Wales – in the United Kingdom." Is this really an accurate way to describe Wales? I mean, did the concept of sovereignty actually exist at the time when Wales was last something approaching an independent entity, in the 1200s? 86.179.150.219 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

How about autonomy rather than sovereignty? —Tamfang (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sovereignty and country are not synonymous concepts. The issue of how to describe them has been extensively discussed and the material (including the citation evidence) was summarised at Countries of the United Kingdom. The concept of sovereignty certainly existed in the 13th Century, in fact it was an essential aspect of the legal and other debates surrounding Edward I's two invasions and final conquest. --Snowded ^TALK 07:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

sovereignty

"Some cohesive geographical entities, which were formerly sovereign states, are commonly regarded and referred to still as countries; such as England, Scotland and Wales – in the United Kingdom." Is this really an accurate way to describe Wales? I mean, did the concept of sovereignty actually exist at the time when Wales was last something approaching an independent entity, in the 1200s? 86.179.150.219 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

How about autonomy rather than sovereignty? —Tamfang (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sovereignty and country are not synonymous concepts. The issue of how to describe them has been extensively discussed and the material (including the citation evidence) was summarised at Countries of the United Kingdom. The concept of sovereignty certainly existed in the 13th Century, in fact it was an essential aspect of the legal and other debates surrounding Edward I's two invasions and final conquest. --Snowded ^TALK 07:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Number of

This article could use a paragraph on the number of countries. Of course it is a moving target and there are as many definitions as there are countries but it would give people an idea. I guess the number is around 200. 85.77.170.127 (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? —Tamfang (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To have a number, first you need an uncontroversial definition. —Tamfang (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

German usage

Quote: The equivalent terms in French and Romance languages (pays and variants) and the Germanic Languagess (Land and variants) have not carried the process of being identified with political sovereign states as far as the English "country" [...] [from the article, as per 01/01/10]

- That is simply not true. "Land" does indeed also refer to sovereign states in both German and Scandinavian language (as well as the regional / subdivisional and physical meanings of the word). 76.113.104.88 (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Labels for countries on maps?

A suggestion:

I looked up the articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan today to find the location of Kyrgyzstan. There is a nice outline map showing it and surrounding countries but those countries are not labeled. I looked at several countries and did not find labeled maps. I came to the "countries" article looking for a labeled map. I did not find one with a couple exceptions.

Here's a map with single letter labels and an external table of letters and province names that would seem easy to implement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan#Provinces_and_districts

Google maps do not show country boundaries labels in a way that is easily comprehended. OpenStreetMap has some labels in this area but most are not in English so I do not know if there are country names. They are also quite small. The letter label / table system allows the letters (and table) to be more legible. Fholson 13:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fholson (talk • contribs)

Nation

Koreans and Kurds are nations. Country are usually associated with government too. 112.118.149.119 (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

two Ks

Some countries are divided among several states, such as Korea and Kurdistan.

I don't see the problem. Which is dubious: that they are countries, or that they are divided? —Tamfang (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, this is (currently) the last thing in the archives: Koreans and Kurds are nations. Country are usually associated with government too. 112.118.149.119 (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I hesitate to take instruction on terminology from someone who writes "Country are"! The Koreans and Kurds are nations but Korea and Kurdistan are places. What to call them if not countries? Must the language always be determined by violence? —Tamfang (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Bold re-write

I think there are a number of significant problems with this article. The lead isn’t a summary of the article and contains material which is not covered in the article itself and it is rather unsystematic and confused. I’ve inserted a re-write of the article per WP:BRD and of course anyone should feel free to revert per WP:BRD if it is not liked. DeCausa (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it - referenced and significant material has been removed for no obvious reason, and the lead, if too long before, is now much too short. If you want to have another go, do so, otherwise in a few days I shall probably go back to something closer to the old version, depending on what others think. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? DeCausa (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

For example, The dictionary section is downright misleading - the OED records MANY senses of the word and this implies there is just one. No doubt the other dictionaries are the same. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a question of relevance. Note 1 says that the non-urban land meaning has been left out. The rest of the def is "2districts and small settlements outside large urban areas or the capital:the airfield is right out in the country[as modifier] :a country lane

3 [mass noun] an area or region with regard to its physical features:a tract of wild country

a region associated with a particular person, work , or television programme:an old mansion in Stevenson‘s’ Kidnapped ' country

4 short for country music"

I don't think its misleading not to include those definitions in an article about the geo-political concept of "country". I was really asking for more specifics on what significant material you think was left out. DeCausa (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You can do that for yourself, as you left it out. Who says "the article is about the geo-political concept of "country""? That is mainly covered at sovereign state. The coverage of other aspects was hardly extensive, & the article is still pretty short. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a rather unnecessarily uncivil reply. Obviously, I don't think anything I left out was worth having. I was asing what you thought should have been kept (as I'm not a mind-reader). IMHO, I left out mainly unsupported synthesis. The article has alot of unsuported nonsense trying to define "country" eg all the "categories" where a non-sovereign territory can be a country. Oh well, if it gets reverted I'll deal with the issues individually. DeCausa (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing uncivil about it. I don't see anything in particular in the old version that needed to go - no "nonsense" certainly. I see someone has reverted it all anyway. Some of your additions were fine, & could be added in carefully. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't like it either and have reverted per WP:BRD. It was far too big a change to make in a single edit. The Lead has been beaten out over many edits, by many editors. It isn't as if the article has reached this point through stealth, with hardly anyone watching. Nothing wrong with bold editing, but with at least two dissenters, please agree any changes here first. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course! That's how BRD works. DeCausa (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I liked the part you added, where it said country was synominous with sovereign state; which it is. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)