Talk:Country/Archive 2

Where to now? Pt 2

Having added material on the history of Europe, the process of referencing it (still not done I know) & further thought, has led me to question what should be in this article. I certainly approve of the direction into which the recent changes have taken the article, but as I see it what we now have is:

• a lead now covering the different senses of the primary meaning, as the geographical equivalent of both "state and of "nation".
• a criteria section which is all about the "state" sense.
• a history section which is more about the "nation" sense.

I wonder if the criteria sections & much of the history one would not be better in the state and nation articles - as it happns neither of these articles seem to cover the same ground as well, and merges of these sections could be easily and usefully achieved, I think. Looking at referencing what I put, most historians talk of the emergence of "nations" or "national consciousness", whereas "country" is the geographical expression of the same process, and also often a word used by outsiders to the nation. At the same time more can be added here about these and other meanings, and the historical development of the senses of the word - I could do some of this. What do people think? Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to reply here, once again, this talk page has been lost in my watchlist. I think that your idea of moving some of the sections to other articles is a good idea, although, I wonder how much content this article can maintain, as it inevitably ends up discussing nations or states due to the similarity of those terms in different cultures. I originally tried to look for references on the etymology of "country" but I could not find anything, so feel free to add content with references on that topic. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 04:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I have started the process, but I think the lead needs rewriting. For example the first sentence: "In geography and politics, a country (IPA: /ˈkən-trē/[1]) is a political division of a geographical entity." is only true because of the "a" before country. Both geography and politics make widespread use of "country" in the sense of rural areas, as opposed to "town" etc. And in what sense is a country (meaning state) a "geographical entity"? - usually none at all, except for island-states. They are only geographical entities because they are political ones. In the case of this word, I think understanding of the development of the term is crucial to understanding the modern meanings and their subtleties, & some of this should be added to the lead. Johnbod (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bit on that. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 05:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Right - but does any English-speaking society not use the rural sense of country? I'm off for tonight now. Do you think we're moving in the right direction? Johnbod (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats the thing, I can only vouch for my own :), but fair enough. And I definitely think we are going in the right direction. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 08:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well there have been rural political parties called the Country Party in the UK, US, Australia & NZ, which only leaves South Africa of the larger Anglophone countries. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing a web-site for the OED, but I should mention I'm using the 1971 "compact edition" (full text, reprinted small). I doubt if there is much if any difference on the relevant points though. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I changed the edition anyway, just in case there are any differences. By the way, I've {{fact}}ed and templated some placed that I think need it. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 02:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any change of getting the {{fact}}s I put up replaced with citations? Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 08:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

History Section

I have recently gone through and cleaned this section as much as i feel confident to do at the moment.

I am aware that this section is currently under construction but I have serious concerns about the relevance and accuracy of certain paragraphs.

In particular the section seems to be discussing examples of countries without pointing out their relevance to the history of countries as an idea, which is what we should be discussing here.

In the Ancient section: The initial examples of Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations i understand, but the relevance of the conquests of Alexander the Great to this area is doubtful, as i could not think of anything in particular that this did to advance a sense of nationhood. I referred to a union of medeterrainian and central/southern asian vassal states, but this had already been accomplished by the Persian Empire previously, as i mentioned alongside it. While the reference to a Roman establishment of borders is relevant, i doubt that the research is as in-depth as may be necessary, and the specific mention of the British Isles in this section is outrageously Anglo-Centric and i removed it, instead establishing how Roman and Greek ideas of nationhood are relevant to the definition of a country. I notice there is no mention of Chinese development of nationhood here, yet there is a largely irrelevant section in the Middle Ages. Also I dislike how a paragraph that discusses the realistic vagueness of Roman boundaries is complemented by a map showing the same as defined lines, with no reference to other entities.

In the Middle Ages section: The opening paragraph is confusing and appears to be largely irrelevant, though i have left it alone for now. The European section was more promising and seemed to address the relevant topic, though the grammar was poor or confusing in certain areas. I would debate that France was a distinct country in the Middle Ages, which this section seems to imply. France was highly divided and at times completely fractured during the Middle Ages. The sections on Russia and the Ottoman Empire seem ill-informed and in the way presented almost irrelevant, and i have tried to fix this as much as i can without a complete re-write. There needs to be a more distinct link to the history of nationhood in this section. References to the developing ideas of nationhood thoughout this period would be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.227.151 (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

All your contributions are welcome, and thankyou for letting us know about them here as well. Feel free to change any part of the article, provided you back up claims with reliable sources using citations (footnotes are preferred). For example, your paragraph about Roman and Greek ideals requires a citation to back up where the information discussing that can be found (i.e. what book, website etc). Because you haven't provided a reliable source for that information, I have placed a ^{[citation needed]} tag on the sentence. This is a reminder that that particular paragraph needs a citation or it may face removal. Thankyou for your time and happy editing!. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 03:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

France was recognised as a country in the Middle Ages - defined by language as well as the often largely theoretical Kingdom of France. But sub-divisions of it could also be recognised as countries too, as with Germany and Italy. In English the word was then more flexible, as the equivalents still are in German, French & Italian, and could be used of several different levels of territorial divisions more easily than now. In the UK more of this effect remains than in the USA - Great Britain and England are both countries, and other terms like those in the article survive for regions, areas etc within England using "country". Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Country#Early modern era has began

I've started the Early modern era section, feedback on it would be appreciated. I will be placing images on it. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The section is now basically done, feedback is still appreciated. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 09:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there's rather too much detail, but also the more we add here, the more I think it really belongs to nation or nation-state]]. Both of these are pretty messy articles, but don't really covere this ground, and should. But I think the section, wherever it is, should stichk close to the emergence of the concept of a particular country/nation. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fell free to trim, although I'd appreciate if major changes were discussed first. It should be noted that I won't have time as much time on Wikipedia, so edits may be sporadic. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 10:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

History section

What's the point to have such a section to illustrate the history of many different countries? Montemonte (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No idea. The 'history' section has nothing to do with the heading of this article, and appears to be an attempt to include a world political history. Further, it contains many errors of history, geography, grammar, syntax, and spelling. Given its lack of relevance to the article, it seems pointless to try and improve it, but consider these gems:

"bringing Medeterrainian (sic) nations into contact with those of central and southern Asia, much as the Persian Empire had before him"; brought them into contact?

"The boundaries of [the Macedonian] empire extended hundreds of kilometers"; hundreds?

"...Iceland... had effectively become a kingdom... by 1000 CE"; a kingdom?

"In 1299 CE, the Aztec empire arose in lower Mexico, this empire lasted over 500 years and at their (sic) prime, held over 5,000 square kilometers of land" ; So there was an Aztec empire after 1799? And in its prime it was "over" 50 km by 100km?

"200 years after the Aztec and Toltec empires began, northern and central Asia saw the rise of the Mongol empire"; the beginning of the Aztec empire has just been given as 1299. So this gives the rise of the Mongols as 1499!

"...in the 18th century, in 1642..."

"...settlements by the Scottish in the..."

"...Span..."

This is merely to note a small but representative selection of errors which can be seen in a phrase or sentence. Much of the content of the 'history' section, however, contains more profound howlers; and their effect is more pernicious. Consider these examples:

"Roman and Greek ideals of nationhood can be seen to have strongly influenced Western views on the subject, with the basis of many governmental systems being on authority or ideas borrowed from Rome or the Greek city-states."

"Exploiting opportunities left open by the Mongolian advance and recession as well as the spread of Islam. Russia took control of their (sic) homeland around 1613"

"[In 1793] In response to this radical uprising, Britain Span and the Netherlands join in the fight with the Jacobins until the Reign of Terror was brought to an end in 1794"

Could I suggest that the entire section formerly named 'History', and now 'Political History of the World and of the development of sovereign states and governments' (which is the most accurate title for its contents I can think of), be put into a separate article and worked on there; or, better still, deleted in its entirety. I've done this before, and it was put back again; could we have consensus on this, or at the very least on a minimum standard of accuracy? I cannot find the time to rewrite it. ariwara (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

See above. Are we going to have seperate conversations then? Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I will admit, I am not the best in spelling and grammar, and I may have made some factual errors in the article, but suggesting that we just delete the section because you do not have time to fix it is a bit harsh (tags are our friends). I also do not understand some of what you are saying, you speak of trying to get consensus on this, but the last time we talked, I responded with my argument and you never replied, I was perfectly willing to discuss the issue more, but nothing came of the conversion. Also, it doesn't matter that much, but the new heading is a bit verbose. I also do not think that splitting the history section into a new article is a good idea, as the section does not have what I think to be enough content (for now). That is my 2¢. Thanks and happy editing! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 08:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry this is a bit harsh, but there are two fundamental problems with this section. The first is that it really doesn't have anything to do with the subject: it should not be here, but elsewhere, perhaps in a 'History of the World' page. The second is that it contains so very many mistakes; not just spelling, but major factual errors in almost every sentence (and in some cases the maps, for example the map captioned 'Boundaries of the Roman Empire' which claims the Romans had conquered Iran in 117!). Look at the examples quoted above; and they are only examples, not by any means a complete list. Tagging is pointless; there would be so many tags the text would be unreadable. Editing the section would require complete rewriting; and what's the point? What have the surface area of the Aztec empire or the history of the War of the First Coalition got to do with the topic? After all this, we would not have a section that should be in an article titled 'Country' anyway. ariwara (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, I have made my argument against the removal of the section previously in the archives (link is above), if you want to respond to that please do so. I'm sorry that the map is inaccurate, if you have a look at the page you will see I didn't make it, and I took it's caption as the truth. It seems like the section is not welcome, so I will remove it. Unfortunately, since that is my current focus on this article, I will not be working on Country until the history section is finished. And as for all the errors you are seeing, I am pulling all this straight from sources and it is all referenced, so if you're going to claim that it contains so very many mistakes; not just spelling, but major factual errors in almost every sentence you're going to need to prove it by countering with other WP:RS that show to the contrary, granted, the map was inaccurate, but that has been explained above. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 04:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)