Talk:Country/Archive 7

UN membership - out?

UN membership seems unrelated to the actual subject... and the UN has its own articles. Unless there is an objection, I am going to remove everything after "newest member". My thinking in leaving it is that it goes with the largest/smallest highest/lowest population bits and answers a question readers are likely to have.Shajure (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

decided to move it into the body. Added a source for the Sudan. Not sure we need this here at all.Shajure (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The Sudan or South Sudan? 1.64.47.144 (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shajure: As far as I know the Sudan got their membership decades ago. Correct me if I am wrong. 1.64.47.144 (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

All we got to mention is that many countries are members of the UN, but not all of them do. 112.120.39.238 (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The UN has its own article and since the rules for countries to join the UN are listed, it seems clear that countries might not be members. For example: Taiwan.Shajure (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

What about Byelorussia and the Ukraine before 1991, the Philippines before 1946 and India and NZ before 1947? 112.120.39.239 (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

And Switzerland before 2002, Tuvalu before 2000 or the two Koreas before 1991? Or Kosovo since the ICJ's advisory opinion in 2010? 112.120.39.239 (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The UN has its own article and since the rules for countries to join the UN are listed, it seems clear that countries might not be members.Shajure (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

So UN membership and membership criteria aren't something relevant to an entry on "country"? 112.120.39.239 (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Or the Cook Islands or Niue? 112.120.39.239 (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that UN membership is tied to sovereignty status? Or that it has become an unwritten convention over the decades? 42.98.100.27 (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

There's such a trend but that would be OR to say so in the article as long as no RSs are cited. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

ClueBot III

Why is ClueBot III archiving to Archive 2 rather than 5? 219.76.63.115 (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@ClueBot III: Are you around? 219.76.63.99 (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to fix it. 1.64.48.28 (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of reliable sources and whole sentences

There have been repeated attempts to delete from this article reliable sources, including the letter the Chinese government had sent to MNCs obtained by the Washington Post, and whole sentences between unrelated refs, e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6]. While the actual wordings are open to discussions, there is no reason to delete the sources or whole sentences in between refs on different matters. Shajure and Verbcatcher simply ignored them,[7][8] whereas Shajure had even mistaken the whole issue[9][10] – Taiwan's status as a country isn't a matter of dispute as far as that particular paragraph is concern, for that paragraph discusses how the word "country" is used to refer to both sovereign states and some other entities (dependent territories, overseas territories, overseas countries, etc.). With all these issues unaddressed the discussion on this talk page isn't going to get anywhere. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It is well explained in the section 'Dispute between the US and China over the use of "country" in US English to refer to Taiwan'. Just because you disagree does not mean it is 'unexplained'. This Taiwan stuff belongs on articles about Taiwan and/or China, not spread out and shoehorned into articles all across the 'pedia. This should be left out entirely, as I said above. - MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This isn't about Taiwan and/or China. It's about the definition of the word "country", as I pointed out above at 15:17, 6 December 2021. 1.64.47.144 (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the sources actually being cited, this is clearly about Taiwan. MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

See below. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Here are a few more diff links on removal of sources and whole sentences between unrelated refs: [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

See above for which sources and sentences were omitted. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

What content do you propose, with what sources, to the BODY of the article? Currently P1 includes

"It may be an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state,
[2] as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division,
a physical territory with a government,
or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics.
It is not inherently sovereign."

As best I can tell , I *THINK* 2 editors are trying to add that the use of US English by the US Government to refer to Taiwan as a country is causing conflict between the US and China. That would belong, as mentioned by a much better editor than I, in an article, possibly, about US/China relations over Taiwan... not here. If the point is to "add" the bolded definitions, they are already there. If the point is something else, again: "What content do you propose, with what sources, to the BODY of the article?" Please remove your overweening and inappropriate focus from the editors and place it on the content. It seems clear we have a consensus not to add the huge block of sources and a repetition of P1 to the lead.Shajure (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It would be excellent to get at least S1 into the body, somewhere, so we can pull the source out of the lead into the body.Shajure (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Disputes over the use of 'country' to refer to Taiwan reflect the ambiguity of the word in English, and merit a place in the 'Etymology and usage' section. I suggest the following paragraph, to come before "The equivalent terms in French...":

• The interpretation of 'country' as a synonym for 'sovereign state' has featured in disputes relating the the political status of Taiwan, in which the Government of China has objected to the description of Taiwan as a country.<refs>

However, I am not entirely happy with this paragraph: it may be too dismissive of the Chinese position and imply that they do not fully understand English. It is entirely possible that their opponents have deliberately used words that can be interpreted as implying sovereignty, while being deniable. How can we improve the paragraph? Verbcatcher (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe not mention China and Taiwan at all, and simply focus on the word and its ambiguity itself leading to conflict. Empires often object to their subject states being referred to as countries. Then the entire spam of sources can lead interested readers to examples.Shajure (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

See below. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that their opponents have deliberately used words... Quite unlikely. Zara, Delta, Qantas, Swiss, Muji, Mercedes, Marriot... aren't probably their "opponents". 112.120.39.239 (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan?

(@MrOllie, 16:49, 6 December 2021 and @Shajure, 05:43, 7 December 2021) As I mentioned above, IMHO ...that paragraph discusses how the word "country" is used to refer to both sovereign states and some other entities (dependent territories, overseas territories, overseas countries, etc.) (emphasis added) and that Taiwan's status as a country isn't a matter of dispute as far as that particular paragraph is concern.

Among the sources given throughout the paragraph, ^[1]-[4], namely Tjhe Kwet Koe, Chan Chuen, John Cheung and Kin Wan Tso, are all about the status of Hong Kong. These cases have been cited in the paragraph for quite some time, especially ^[1], which had been there for perhaps a decade. (The use of Hong Kong as an example for illustration is, IMO, entirely reasonable, given that they're the most populous and that they got the largest GDP among all dependent territories etc.)

Among those relatively more recently added,

• Ref ^[5] (along with the actual letter obtained by the author) talks about Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau: "The letter from China’s Civil Aviation Administration says that on Feb. 27, the Chinese government asked each airline to investigate its websites and remove any references to Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau that “mistakenly describe them as countries or anything otherwise inconsistent with Chinese law.”" "网站在“国別”或“国別（家）／地区”选项栏中，不应将台湾或台湾地区与中国并列，不得出现“中国、香港、台湾”并列...",
• ^[6] specifically highlights Hong Kong in the heading. ^[8] says "Zara, Marriott, Qantas, and Delta Air Lines have all updated their websites in the last week after China slammed several companies for listing Hong Kong and Taiwan as countries.", "The Shanghai arm of the Cyberspace Administration of China first contacted hotel chain Marriott regarding an email that listed Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan as countries.", "Qantas confirmed to Business Insider that it mistakenly listed Hong Kong and Taiwan as countries on its website.", "Chinese news site thepaper.cn reported 24 airlines list Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan as independent countries." and "Uniqlo lists both Hong Kong and Taiwan as countries while H&M had both in a drop-down list of countries on its site. Uber also lists Taiwan, with the suffix "(ROC)" to denote its official name Republic of China, and Hong Kong as a country. On two webpages, Amazon lists both Hong Kong and Taiwan as countries.",
• ^[9] says "Foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a regular briefing on Friday that Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and Tibet were all part of China.", "Hong Kong and Macau are former European colonies that are now part of China but run largely autonomously." and "The moves follow a regulator's decision on Thursday to suspend Marriott International Inc's (MAR.O) Chinese website for a week to punish the world's biggest hotel chain for listing Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau as separate countries in a customer questionnaire.",
• ^[10] says "The White House on Saturday sharply criticized China's efforts to force foreign airlines to change how they refer to Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau, labeling China's latest effort to police language describing the politically sensitive territories as "Orwellian nonsense."",
• The heading of ^[11] mentions both Hong Kong and Taiwan,
• ^[12] says "This year already, Mercedes Benz, Marriott Hotels, Zara, Delta Airlines and Muji have been forced to apologise or change online material that did not comply with Chinese policy on the Dalai Lama, or listed Hong Kong and Taiwan as separate countries." and "While a search for Hong Kong airport on the English-language Ctrip website includes the word “China” below it, the listing for Taiwan does not.", and
• ^[13] says "The day after Delta apologized for “emotional damage caused to the Chinese people,” the Civil Aviation Administration of China published a notice on its website saying it requires foreign airlines operating in China to avoid referring to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau as countries." and "China’s foreign ministry hit back the next day, saying Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau are “inalienable” parts of China’s territory and foreign companies operating in China “should respect China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, abide by China’s laws, and respect the national sentiment of the Chinese people.”"

While such an examination may suggest that in the eyes of China Taiwan would be one of such an "other entities", that's apparently not the what this particular paragraph in the article suggests, nor is this the position of most other articles on Wikipedia. One may so argue that Taiwan would be one of the issues which this paragraph had been intended to discuss, but it certainly isn't just about Taiwan and Taiwan certainly isn't a key point. Not anywhere close before refs ^[5]-[13] were added very recently. All we gotta do is to tell people the word "country" refers to both sovereign states and some other entities (as ^[1]-[4] and ^[15]-[23] suggest). Then as a side note that this usage to cover countries which aren't sovereign states is disputed by the government of a UNSC member and that what that government do was condemned by the government of another UNSC member. This would be best covered under the section Verbcatcher suggested (01:22, 7 December 2021). It certainly shouldn't be included in the lead, which should be simple and easy to read. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

What change/addition to the article do you propose. All this spam does is clutter the talk page.Shajure (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

What change/addition to the article do you propose. I've got some ideas in mind but before we are at that point we gotta make ourselves clear on what'd actually happened.

All this spam does is clutter the talk page. "Spam"? "Clutter the talk page"? So have you figured out what the cited sources are about, and what they are cited for? 112.120.39.239 (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Please remove your overweening and inappropriate focus from the editors and place it on the content. What change to the body do you propose? I begin to think that perhaps wp:deny would apply here.Shajure (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It's you who've kept using words like spam, clutters, mess up, squabbles. I don't think the conversation may be able to carry on since you've refused to read and refused to understand the subject. Nevertheless since you referred to WP:Deny I got little choice and put forward what I have in mind, even though it's premature to do so and won't likely lead the discussion anywhere. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems clear there is wp:consensus that the squabble between the US and China does not belong in this article in such bulk, and very little support for adding it at all. The article clearly states that there are different uses of the word in English. I have seen little support for the suggestions of even the minimal addition proposed. Do you support a minimal addition? If so, which one of the ... mmm... large number... of sources do you think best sums up the conflict?. I'll continue looking for a broader history-focused source covering the fact that empires have long objected to anyone referring to their conquests or intended conquests as countries, in whatever language, but I have not come across one that I can cite.Shajure (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The materials which you have removed isn't just about what you called the squabble between the US and China. Tjhe Kwet Koe, Chan Chuen, John Cheung and Kin Wan Tso have been in the article for some time. Tjhe Kwet Koe, an Australian case, had been here for a decade or perhaps longer (and I came to learn about them here!). The same was true for the reference to the CIA World Factbook and the footnote. They have been included in the article for more than a decade. They aren't recently added (and they aren't my additions). But you deleted them in one go. Meanwhile what you called the squabble, which inclusion involved a few other editors too, was not just between the US and China, but other countries too, e.g. Australia[18][19], as well as the flag carriers of Israel and Switzerland, and many many MNCs like Mercedes, Marriot, H&M, Zara, Uniqlo. And no they aren't cited because of the squabble. They are cited as references on the attempt to define the word differently and the consequent reactions towards such an attempt (accepted by some and dismissed by others). What happened in 2018 was indeed something relevant to the definition of the word country, since that was the point when many MNCs changed their policies for the sake of their businesses and to avoid fines/online shutdowns. If some time onwards people would say, hey, look, almost all airline companies and so many MNCs no longer treat dependent territories as countries, we gotta let readers have the access to the necessary info to know what had happened all along. US-China relations are indeed irrelevant here. Please help this free encyclopaedia project and familiarise yourself with the subjects you genuinely want to contribute in. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

There remains no concensus to even add the smallest proposed additional reference to the conflicts over the use of the word. I see no new suggestion here, but only continued devotion to edit warring the large block of text and sources back into the article as soon as possible. Do you support the proposed addition of a simple, short mention? Do you have a single source that best sums up the issue?Shajure (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The references are all relevant and necessary and they are included not quite for the conflict. It's about how some define it differently and the fact this different view isn't very much accepted by others. The actual conflict should not be part of the article texts, or just very marginally at most. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Nothing new, then. Hopefully an interested editor will gain consensus there and add the text and the wall-of-references (and no, we do not in any way need them all) to the appropriate article (not this one). If anyone can identify a single, English-language, wp:RS (I have not been able to find one), I will propose text and the single ref to add. Then *if there is no objection at all* I will add it.Shajure (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This is the only article which would be relevant and appropriate. Take a good look at Tjhe Kwet Koe, Chan Chuen, John Cheung and Kin Wan Tso if you got time. The first case, which had been cited in this article for a really long time until you deleted it, is probably much easier to read than the three US cases. They are all about the meaning of the word in Australian/US usage as far as the relevant acts/statutes were concerned. They are all English-language RSs. Meanwhile I don't think there is any policy which discourage citation of non-(US) English RSs. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@112.120.39.239 Shajure doesn't seem to be ready to acknowledge the very fact that many of the references they've removed aren't "additional reference[s]" – They regard all of them as new additions recently, which is apparently not the case. You two aren't actually talking to each other. You've got to accept there are indeed something which not even Wikipedia editors are ready to understand, let alone lay readers. That's also the reason why there's the experimental project Simple English Wikipedia. 42.98.100.27 (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That's indeed frustrating. Perhaps we need a more encyclopedic version of English Wikipedia too, for those not-so-lay editors and readers. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

As the first step the references to these Australian and American cases will be restored, so as the references to the World Fact Book and so on. Their removal was never discussed. 112.120.39.24 (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shajure: Having gone through this whole discussion left me wonder if you have ever bother to comprehend what the cited Australian and American rulings are about. They are clear and succinct. The discussion will not go anywhere if the participants can't even tell what have been removed temporarily and why were they added in the first place. 42.98.100.27 (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Please remove your inappropriate and overweening focus from the editors and focus on the content. No interested editor needs my permission or agreement for any change: instead, reach wp: consensus. Please leave me out of all your future contemplations and seek that consensus among others. Thank you.Shajure (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2021‎ (UTC)

Indeed. And there's never ever any discussion, let alone consensus, on the removal of these Australian and US cases from the citations of this article. 112.120.39.24 (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

12:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. 112.120.39.24 (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Pays d'outre-mer and overseas territory

[20] Shajure deleted from the article the words "an overseas territory". Would propose to change that line to "such as French Polynesia, a pays d'outre-mer of France, or the British Virgin Islands, a British overseas territory", to avoid ambiguity and the unlikely confusion that some words may have been duplicated erroneously. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It's made clear before the parentheses that they are overseas territories. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: That's a generic reference before the round brackets. Within the brackets those are specific to the names of the statuses of the territories given as examples. If a US example were included that would be an unincorporated territory. (A Dutch one would be a landen, but the arrangement of the Koninkrijk doesnt seem to suggest those are considered overseas territories.) 112.120.39.239 (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Good point. I only removed the grammatically incorrect "an overseas territories", and left the French as it was, at least, correct. But it is a French-language duplicate of the text before the parens. Removing. The French is covered elsewhere in the article. No need to repeat it.Shajure (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Please stop the nonsense. That isn't a French-language duplicate. The French equivalence to the word territory is territoire. As I said if there were a US example that would be unincorporated territory. Within the round brackets are specific designations. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

"within the round brackets are specific designations." agreed... specific duplicates in specific languages, and not needed here. The 1 is in English, and listed. The other is French, and already covered in the article. If there is wp:consensus that they are needed, they can be easily added back. But I see little support for that need at this time.Shajure (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

To repeat those aren't duplicates. They are specific designations for the examples given, just that the British one coincides with the generic term. I see little support for their removal, nor opposition towards their inclusion. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

To repeat, the text is still in the article. There is no need to include it twice. wp:undue would apply.Shajure (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no harm to mention them in brackets so as to make the whole article clearer and easier to read. They aren't mentioned twice in the same paragraph or the same section anyway. Wikipedia isn't meant to be written solely for lay readers. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Again wp:undue applies. This is nearly trivia, and barely merits inclusion once. Maybe. Definitely not twice. As with the microstates... a legitimate question is "Why the focus on these few national/regional views? It seems wp:undue/Eurocentric/Nationalist." I think the answer is "Because we can't list them all, so we must choose a VERY small number."Shajure (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This is nearly trivia.. What an insult to those people who come from or edit from dependencies or microstates. And no there's nothing to do with few national/regional views or Eurocentris[m]/nationalis[m] (for instance Puerto Rico and Guam are US territories, whereas Tokelau is a dependency of New Zealand - they can certainly be given as examples). 112.120.39.239 (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hogwash. microstates have their very own article. Please remove your inappropriate and overweening focus from the editors and focus on the content. No interested editor needs my permission or agreement for any change: instead, reach wp: consensus. Please leave me out of all your future contemplations and seek that consensus among others. In fact, please ignore all my posts as they will clearly be unhelpful to you. Thank you.Shajure (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2021‎ (UTC)

Hogwash microstates have their very own article. Microstates and dependent territories aren't the same thing, although many dependent territories are microstates. 112.120.39.24 (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Microstates

Follow-up to the previous discussion: @Shajure: Given the special nature of the Vatican City would you consider adding the next least populous and next smallest sovereign states to that paragraph? Would you mention the Pitcairn Islands too, as another editor has suggested? Otherwise you may add hyperlinks to those two corresponding lists on Wikipedia. 112.120.39.239 (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Please remove your inappropriate and overweening focus from the editors and focus on the content. No interested editor needs my permission or agreement for any change: instead, reach wp: consensus. Please leave me out of all your future contemplations and seek that consensus among others. Thank you.Shajure (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2021‎ (UTC)

What's being inappropriate here, and not focussing on the content? That's responding to your remarks which have since been archived. 112.120.39.24 (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Question

Why they have countries appearing down in every city articles. 2601:500:C201:2600:1DD:FC43:19C0:3F82 (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk page edits / edit war

An editor here [21] changed the title of a section from Edit War continues to "Arbitrary Break" - and I would recommend against that: Please see wp:Talk.
Please see wp:consensus.
A wp:RFC may help or wp:dispute resolution is also available. Editors also continue to ask questions about and attack the thinking of other editors instead of focusing on the edits the editor wishes to place in the article and how they will improve the clarity and value of the article... this will work poorly, in my experience.Shajure (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)