Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Constituent countries of the United Kingdom

Four further countries should be included in this article. They are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The reason for their inclusion is: They are countries. This is a list of countries and outlying territories by total area. To complete a list of countries and outlying territories by total area, countries should be included on it.

I propose that:

1. The article's second sentence: "The list ranks sovereign states, as well as self-governing dependent territories." is replaced by:

"The list ranks countries, as well as self-governing dependent territories. A country is a geographical territory, both in the sense of nation (a cultural entity) and state (a political entity)."

With this reference added:

The Oxford English Dictionary lists the first six definitions of country as:

• 1. a. A tract or expanse of land of undefined extent; a region, district.
• 2. a. A tract or district having more or less definite limits in relation to human occupation. e.g. owned by the same lord or proprietor, or inhabited by people of the same race, dialect, occupation, etc.; spec. preceded by a personal name: the region associated with a particular person or his works; also fig.
• 3. 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.

  With political changes, what were originally distinct countries have become provinces or districts of one country, and vice versa; the modern tendency being to identify the term with the existing political condition.

• 4. The land of a person's birth, citizenship, residence, etc.; used alike in the wider sense of native land, and in the narrower one of the particular district to which a person belongs.
• 5. a. ‘The parts of a region distant from cities or courts’ (J.); the rural districts as distinct from the town or towns; sometimes applied to all outside the capital, called, by eminence, ‘town’.
• 6. a. The people of a district or state; the nation.
  — Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, with online updates as of September 2008. Entry "1. country"

.

2. The countries England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are included on this article.

Please note your views on this proposal. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that if we add these "countries", why wouldn't we add Catalonia, Flanders, Wallonia, the Basque Country, Transnistria, Bougainville, Chechnya, ... And before we realise, this list becomes a kindergarten for separatists all over the world. Belgian man (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Belgian Man is right. Although England etc. are commonly called countries, they are in fact not true countries, and shouldn't be included here. Bazonka (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That is untrue. They aren't sovereign states, but they are countries. As for the separatist argument, that should not be a reason for excluding countries from a list of countries and outlying territories by total area. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all demonstrably countries (see UKCOUNTRYREFS) and are recognised as such by the UK Government. If there are other countries that have been missed off a list of countries and outlying territories by total area, then surely, you would want to include them too. BTW, I note that Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Svalbard and Jan Mayen are included on the list and there are probably other entries that have far lesser claim for inclusion than England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland too. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia and Abkhazia are listed because they have been internationally recognised as independent states (albeit by two countries only). Svalbard and Jan Mayen arguably should not be included in this list as they are integral parts of Norway (not dependencies) - however they are separate from the main bit of Norway. There is no way you would say that England or Wales are separate from the main bit of the UK. Svalbard and Jan Mayen are primarily included in this list because they are listed separately (I do not know why) in the UN Demographic Yearbook, the primary source of data for this article. Also, there are no overlaps in this list. If we were to individually list England etc. then we would have to remove the entry for the United Kingdom, which would be a ridiculous thing to do. Bazonka (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Svalbard and Jan Mayen together form a Norwegian outlying territory, they have, for example, they own ISO country codes and internet top level domain. I was against the inclusion of Abkhazia and South Ossetia too, but they are recognized by two independent countries (Russia and Nicaragua) as being independent countries, while England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales haven't even declared their indepence. I think it is very clear that the word "country", as used in the title of this list, has not the same meaning as the word "country" used for the United Kingdom subdivisions. Belgian man (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I agree that we should not remove the entry for the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all countries and are recognised as such by the United Kingdom. This is not a list of independent states and outlying territories by total area. It is a list of countries and outlying territories by total area. Various countries such as Kosovo have been included, but without being ranked. That would be a workable option. Daicaregos (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is the definition of the word "country". I understand why it may be undesirable to include the integral parts of sovereign states in this list - but the list does do it already, listing Guadeloupe and French Guiana, for example, separately from France. These territories are technically as much a part of France as Corsica or Normandy: they just happen to be a bit further away from Paris.

More generally speaking, this list has several issues with its inclusion criteria, which are not applied consistently throughout the list. The inclusion criteria are:

• Sovereign states (in plain text)
• "Self-governing dependent territories (classified by the UN)", which presumably implies the list of non-self-governing territories (in italics).

What it actually lists are:

• Generally recognised sovereign states (in plain text)
• Some, but not all, partially-recognised states (with formatting depending on the state concerned)
  • Taiwan is treated as though it was generally recognised
  • Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Kosovo are treated as dependent territories, but are not ranked (and there is overlap, since these states' territory is also included as part of Georgia and Serbia as appropriate).
  • Western Sahara and the Palestinian Territories are treated as dependent territories.
  • Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria and Northern Cyprus are explicitly included as parts of Azerbaijan, Moldova and Cyprus respectively
  • Somaliland is not mentioned at all.
• Inhabited dependent territories, except that:
  • Australian dependent territories are not included except for Norfolk Island
  • Akrotiri and Dhekelia are included as part of Cyprus (they are not)
  • Saint Barthélemy and Saint Martin are included as part of Guadeloupe (which is an integral part of France, while St. B and St. M are not)
  • The British Indian Ocean Territory is missing
• French Overseas departments (which are integral parts of France)
• Svalbard and Jan Mayen (which are integral parts of Norway that are given special status by an international treaty, similar to Hong Kong)

Now, any list, if it is to have value, has to have some way of defining what is included and what is not included. This list has such rules (they aren't as clear as they could be, but they exist) but it then goes on to ignore them. If these are not the rules that are applied, then the rules that are applied should be put in the article. I don't feel that this list needs England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland included, but it does need to apply those rules which define a "country" or "outlying area" consistently. If French Guiana is an outlying area, why not Hawaii, Alaska, the Canary Islands, the Azores, the Balearics, Corsica, Shetland, Prince Edward Island, the Isle of Wight, Anglesey? All are integral parts of the sovereign state concerned - where do you draw the line?

A rename to List of sovereign states and dependent territories by total area would go a long way to define what this list is actually intended for - but the list also needs an overhaul so that, if it is intended to be a list of sovereign states and dependent territories, it includes all sovereign states and dependent territories and only sovereign states and dependent territories - and so that it treats the unrecognised states consistently. Pfainuk talk 13:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Guadeloupe, French Guiana and Martinique indeed should not be included, Saint Barthélemy and Saint Martin should be included, just like the BIOT and Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Svalbard and Jan Mayen is a difficult issue. The rest should remain the same (only South Ossetia and Abkhazia shouldn't be included, but if we remove them, many many Russians are going to discuss here, these two entities are only on this list because a few Russians came protesting here). The CIA World Factbook is a good guide, but it is not infallible. Belgian man (talk) 13:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pfainuk's statement that "...any list, if it is to have value, has to have some way of defining what is included and what is not included." This list is defined by its title. It is named list of countries and outlying territories by total area. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries. Not to have them on this list means that the list is incomplete. There is no logical reason to exclude them, other than WP:POV. Daicaregos (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The original crieria for inclusion was the list of countries and territories listed in the UN list. Additional entries were added unranked. It would be good to maintain the integrity of the list. --Polaron | Talk 14:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever crieria for inclusion you guys choose, please make sure that there are no overlapping ranked entries. If an entity is already included in another entity's figure, make sure that the smaller entity remains unranked. In the same vein, if we're going to remove some entries that are currently ranked, please make sure and add them to another entry's figure. --Polaron | Talk 14:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have no objection to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being included unranked. :) Daicaregos (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to remove all unranked entries but then people keep putting them back in and most people maintaining the list just gave up. I suppose this is what's going to happen as well here as there seems to be a contingent of people that feel strongly about incuding the UK constituent countries. We might as well go ahead and add the EU entry in as well. --Polaron | Talk 14:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of any further objections, I'll add the countries England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (all unranked) to the list. Daicaregos (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought everybody here said that is a bad idea, either ranked or unranked? For the last time: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not countries in the sense of the word in this title. Belgian man (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't up to us to choose how to define a word. The countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland conform to the definition of country given by the Oxford English Dictionary. Unless you can demonstrate that you have a better understanding of the English language than the OED, any choice you make is WP:POV. And unless you have a better argument than POV for excluding countries from this list of countries they should be included. By the way, aggressive phrases like "For the last time" are unnecessary and bordering on incivility. WP:Civility policy states that editors: "Participate in a respectful and considerate way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. [And] Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible." Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed not up to us to choose how to define a word, but in all languages, when a word is used, it represents mostly only one of the different meanings of that word. That is the case in the title of this list too. Every reader will understand very well that it is a list of independent countries, a small number of only partly recognized countries, and dependent territories... Please do not behave as if you don't understand this. Belgian man (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have asked you to abide by WP:Civility. Please do not tell me how to behave. It is not I who misunderstands the word country. What's to misunderstand? I have provided you with evidence that the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland conform to the definition of country given by the Oxford English Dictionary. You have provided no evidence that they don't. All that you have provided is your WP:POV. If you are unable to provide citable evidence for your argument against inclusion then the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be included on this list. If your (arbitrary) definition of country were so easy for "every reader" to understand, you wouldn't need a 12 line introduction to a simple list, would you? All it needs for "every reader" to understand the inclusion of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be to change the article's second sentence from:

"This is a list of the countries of the world sorted by total area. The list ranks sovereign states, as well as self-governing dependent territories."

and replace it by:

"This is a list of the countries of the world sorted by total area. The list ranks countries, as well as self-governing dependent territories. A country is a geographical territory, both in the sense of nation (a cultural entity) and state (a political entity)."

By the way, "every reader" that clicks on the fourth word of the introduction to find out what country actually means, (if they don't have access to the Oxford English Dictionary), must wonder why all countries - i.e. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - are not included on the article. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

They should not be added - that agreement was never made. England etc. are "countries" in a definition used only in the UK - to everyone else in the world they are not proper countries. Nations perhaps, but countries no. Pfainuk's suggesiton of renaming the article to List of sovereign states and dependent territories by total area (or similar) is a good plan. Bazonka (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There is already an article entitled List of sovereign states by area. I will not seek the inclusion of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on that article because they are not sovereign states. They are, however, countries. I refer you to the Oxford English Dictionary and the article Country. This article is called 'List of countries and outlying territories by total area' and the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be on it. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Is everyone happy with the proposed wording for the lead paragraph:

"This is a list of the countries of the world sorted by total area. The list ranks countries, as well as self-governing dependent territories. A country is a geographical territory, both in the sense of nation (a cultural entity) and state (a political entity)."

Or are there other suggestions? Daicaregos (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You probably all know this already, but just in case you don't (or if you can't be bothered to read WP:V), and it doesn't hurt to reiterate: Wikipedia:Verifiability says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. To discuss the reliability of particular sources, see the reliable sources noticeboard." I'm not saying that it's not true that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries, just verifiable. I believe that they are. What I am saying is that whether I believe they are or not is irrelevant. Just as whether you believe they are countries or not is irrelevant. Because it is Verifiable. Not just the Oxford English Dictionary, or as defined by the Wikipedia article Country, but by numerous sources noted on the article Countries of the United Kingdom. Included in that article is recognition from the British Government that they are countries here and sources don't come much more reliable than that. I would still like your agreement on the proposed wording for the lead paragraph. If you have any suggestions for improvements I like to hear them. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just like I said before, it is in any case a bad idea to add these four "countries", because you will create a huge precedent then for other people who would like their federal state to be on the list (separatists). You can say what you want about your Oxford English Dictionary, but the only thing that remains a classic example of POV here, is that you, as a Welshman, propose to add the four constituent countries to the list. This issue is becoming a little bit ridiculous. Every child knows that these constituent countries are not countries in the sense it is meant in the title. Belgian man (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read my posts? Please read WP:V. You have come up with no reasonable argument for their exclusion. All you have is a rather pathetic ad hominem argument, probably designed to try to rile me up to make me stoop to some similar racist comment. Well, you'll have to try harder than that. As for the (ironic?) remark about children understanding the English language better than the OED - this is an encyclopedia. It is designed to educate. What precedent are you scared of? If an area can be verified as a country, then of course it should be included in this article. I was hoping that you would agree to the proposed wording, or perhaps think of an improvement. In the absence of any intelligent objection, I will use the wording proposed. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I will not waste my time at seeking evidence for something that is fully clear to every normal reader. Verifiability doesn't interest me at all in this ridiculous matter. I will never read one of those Wikipedia pages, I'll rather learn a telephone directory by heart. Belgian man (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, so that was one point raised in my last post. And Jimbo would be so proud. Don't suppose you've 'wasted your time' following the link to the British Government recognising England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as countries either. Here it is again, here just in case you care what goes in your article is correct or not. Were the other points too difficult for you? If you have any questions about them that you don't understand I'd be happy to explain, what with the Wikipedia pages being beyond you, and all. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have read the whole of your comment, but my interest was low because you kept and kept talking about the OED all the time. I know "country" is a correct term for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, you doesn't have to repeat that all the time. And I know all dictionaries say that as well, whether this is the OED or not doesn't even matter then, it's simply the English language. So I do not click your link as well because I know the British government calls it countries. The point is that you doesn't seem to understand that if one uses a word, for example "country", in a word group, for example "list of countries and outlying territories by total area", the word in almost all cases only represents one of its (many) different meanings, and that editors are not obliged to explain in which meaning they use a certain word, because in most cases, the context explains a lot for most readers, just like this case. A maybe exagerated example of your logic: Land is the Dutch word for country. In Belgium, we have a region called Pajottenland. So, I follow your logic: Its name is Pajottenland, so it is a country, so I want it to be mentioned on our nl:lijst van landen naar oppervlakte, the Dutch equivalent of this list (the introduction lines are more or less the same as those of the English edition). You don't believe me it is a real country? Okay, then I will prove that I am right using the most important authority of the Dutch language: nl:Van Dale Groot woordenboek van de Nederlandse taal (no English article, but German, French and Luxembourgish editions too). The 2005 edition contains with its 4th definition of land a shade of meaning:

— area, district, region (without there is thought of fixed frontiers)

And the Pajottenland is such a region, which means I am right, so we have to add the Pajottenland to the list of countries by area. Very ridiculous, but it is fully analogous to your reasoning. Note the "Basque Country" as well, another country that is indeed a country, according to each dictionary of most languages. A more simple example, in fact. Belgian man (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I kept talking about the OED all the time because you hadn't agreed that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are countries. Now you have. Thank you. I do understand your concern that the word country has more than one meaning. In this article the lead sentence says "This is a list of the countries of the world sorted by total area." The word countries links to the article Country, which explains the meaning of the word. Its second sentence says " Frequently, but not always, a country is considered a Sovereign territory and is associated with the notations of State, Nation and Government." You will note that a country is not always considered to be a Sovereign territory. The countries of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England already meet the criteria set out by your lead paragraph. I understand that some people would not realise the actual meaning of the word country. So, any misunderstanding would be dispelled by changing the opening paragraph, as I outlined above. Thus: "The list ranks countries, as well as self-governing dependent territories. A country is a geographical territory, both in the sense of nation (a cultural entity) and state (a political entity)." This doesn't change the criteria for inclusion on the list. All it does is to clarify it, setting out the meaning of the word in the lead paragraph, instead of it just being a Wikilink. I hope this sets your mind at rest. I do not set out to change the criteria for inclusion, only to clarify it. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as the goal of the list is not changed, I agree with such a a clarification. And that goal I am talking about is, I think: Only independent countries, clearly partly recognized independent countries (Taiwan and Kosovo, and if it really musts, South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and outlying territories. So no Scotland, no Northern Ireland, no England, no Wales, and thus no precedent for Catalonia, Flanders, Wallonia, Transnistria, Puntland, Somaliland, Chechnya, Bougainville, Basque Country, ... Belgian man (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion in this article do not say "Only independent countries, clearly partly recognized independent countries (Taiwan and Kosovo, and if it really musts, South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and outlying territories". What the criteria for inclusion in this article do say is "This is a list of the countries of the world sorted by total area." and by that criteria the countries of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England should be included. You seem to be just making it up as you go along for some fit dubious WP:POV. The inclusion of the countries of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England is not a precedent for including other regions it is where they should have been all the time. If you want to work on an article about independent countries there is one called List of sovereign states just waiting for you. I have demonstrated that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are countries, that they are recognised as such by a sovereign state and that they meet the criteria for inclusion on this article. There is no possible justification for their exclusion. Just because you "think: Only independent countries, clearly partly recognized independent countries (Taiwan and Kosovo, and if it really musts, South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and outlying territories." i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't good enough. Work with me here. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I know, so I agree with your proposal to clarify the opening lines of this article. So that eventually only independent countries, partly recognized countries and outlying territories may be included. That is the only solution: It would be ridiculous to add the four United Kingdom subdivisions instead of changing the opening lines. Belgian man (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume that your opening phrase "I know" means that you concur with my premise that the countries of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England meet the criteria for inclusion on this article. And because you WP:IDONTLIKEIT you want to change the criteria for inclusion. There is a significant difference between the verbs 'to clarify' and 'to change'. Your proposal is to create an article that already exists, List of sovereign states by area, and add a few of the countries to it that you do like. How pointless. And you have the temerity to accuse me of WP:POV. You seem to be arguing just for the sake of it now. Please let's agree the second sentence. I propose: "The list ranks countries, as well as self-governing dependent territories. A country is a geographical territory, both in the sense of nation (a cultural entity) and state (a political entity).". Can you think of a better way to phrase it? Daicaregos (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

When will you eventually realise that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England simply do not belong in this list? This issue is far too clear for everyone. Isn't it obvious to you that if you "clarify" the opening lines so that the four United Kingdom subdivisions may be added, you will create an enormous precedent for separatists, and we will have long discussions for each "country"? Belgian man (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I will accept leaving the opening paragraph as it is, if you are scared it will cause problems. There is no need to change it at all, as you agree, the countries of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England already meet the criteria for inclusion on this article. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, if the opening paragraph has to be changed so that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England cannot be included in the list, then we simply change it. Belgian man (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So, just to recapitulate: 1. You agree that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries; 2. You agree that by the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries; 3. You agree that frequently, but not always, a country is considered a Sovereign territory and is associated with the notations of State, Nation and Government; 4. You agree that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are recognised as countries by a sovereign state; 5. You agree that the countries of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England meet the criteria for inclusion on this article; 6. But you don't think they belong in this article. Forgive me for asking, but what have you got against these countries? Do you really want to change an article's raison d'etre just to exclude countries from an article in which they legitimately belong? Do you think you might have WP:OWNERSHIP issues? Daicaregos (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that none of the references that tabulate a world-wide list of countries include England, etc.? The CIA Fact Book list of countries, the UN list of countries and areas, the EU list of countries and territories, the ISO list of countries, the BBC list of countries - all do not include them. Whatever criteria it is these well-established lists are using is the same as what this list is using. --Polaron | Talk 12:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Really sad that we all have to waste our time at this Welsh nationalist. I have never agreed that the four "countries" meet the criteria for inclusion on this list, I only have agreed that for one percent of readers, or only for Daicaregos, the sense of the word "country" in the opening lines is not clear because the text doesn't explain the list is only purposed for sovereign countries and dependencies. Belgian man (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised you don't know that Poloron. But I'll (WP:AGF) and explain it to you. It is because the way most lists define a country is to say that if it's a member of the United Nations, it's a country. England, etc have no need to belong to the United Nations, as the United Kingdom is a member, and England, etc are members of a larger state, the United Kingdom, which is already a member of the UN. Hence England, etc are not on the list. A similar story exists for the EU and ISO have followed them. Please provide a link for BBC list of countries, as I haven't seen it. Still, for political reasons, some countries find it convenient to recognise or not recognise other countries. For example, Taiwan claims to be a country, but China states that Taiwan is just another part of China. Consequently, as the USA doesn't want to upset China, it doesn't recognize Taiwan as a country and it is not, therefore on The CIA Fact Book list of countries (which you claim is the list the article is using). Another example, from the end of the Second World War, the Soviet Union annexed the countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania but the USA continued to regard them as independent countries that were 'occupied' because it didn't really get on with the USSR. It didn't stop them being countries, even thought they weren't sovereign states. Though I suppose you would have tried to exclude them. However, as I explained above, all that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Verifiability. It is verifiable that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries, that a country is frequently, but not always, considered a Sovereign territory and is associated with the notations of State, Nation and Government, that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are recognised as countries by a sovereign state, and therefore they meet the criteria for inclusion on this article. But the most important thing is that the areas of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are WP:Notable. Surely even you, Poloron, would agree with that. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor correction: Taiwan is on the CIA country list, it's just listed at the bottom (I guess the CIA figures the Chinese won't look that far.).Readin (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(or Daicaregos) Doh, my mistake. The rest stands, of course. Daicaregos (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, the most ridiculous joke I have ever heard: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are recognised as countries by a sovereign state. How many times I already told you that country is meant here in another sense as the sense in which the United Kingdom uses it while ""recognising" its four subdivisions? And why, do you really think, all lists Polaron refers to do not include them as countries? Because they simply are not countries in that sense. Why would we do as if we were awkward and add these four regions to this list as if they were independent countries? Belgian man (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Belgian man, looking through this thread it would appear that you asserting an opinion (often in a uncivil way) without showing any respect for sources. A considerable body of references were collated on Countries of the United Kingdom and the OED definition explicitly includes them as countries. You should also know that you cannot appeal to another list in Wikipedia. Please respond directly on the citation record or withdraw your opposition to their inclusion. --Snowded TALK 22:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So why are dependencies and a few other areas always listed in these well-regarded lists of countries when they are not UN members? Why do dependencies have country codes and top-level internet domains? The same can't be said about the constituent countries of the UK. I don't think being a UN member has anything to do with being included in these well-established lists of countries. Why is it that we have to invent our own definition when perfectly reasonable and widely-used lists already exist? --Polaron | Talk 05:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No one is making up a definition - the OED defines country to include the constituent countries of the UK and I have referenced an extensive citation list. Please deal with the evidence Polaron. --Snowded TALK 07:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not separate entries in the main list, but details of their areas are included in the Notes section of the United Kingdom entry. We really should not be including them separately as they are clearly not countries in the true sense of the word - at least not in any definition used widely outside the UK. Bazonka (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Poloron, you asked me a question and I took the time and trouble (and the courtesy) to reply. Please do the same. I asked if you agree that the areas of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are WP:Notable. Bazonka seems to think so, although if all the other countries are in size order, it would make sense for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England to be in size order too. I also ask you if you agree that it is Verifiable that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are countries and if you agree that a country is frequently, but not always, considered a Sovereign territory and is associated with the notations of State, Nation and Government. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question - why is it that all reputable lists of countries exclude them? And please don't say it's because of UN membership or sovereignty as dependencies are always included as separate entries in such lists when generically talking about "countries and territories" but the UK constituent countries are not. Put them in the Notes column as Bazonka has suggested. --Polaron | Talk 12:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I did answer your question. You just did not happen to like/agree with my answer. Now please do me the courtesy of answering mine. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you have not answered why reputable lists include only certain types of teritory and exclude others because you said it has to do with UN membership, which is clearly not true. The inclusion criteria for this list is the same as the inclusion criteria for the UN Demographic Yearbook, which is virtually the same as the ISO, the CIA Factbook, etc. None of these reputable lists include the UK constituent countries. It does not matter what I think - only what the international organizations that tabulate lists of countries have agreed upon as to what to include. That's the bottom line. Add them to the notes section. --Polaron | Talk 12:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer a query from earlier, the BBC list of countries and territories is here: [1] The UK is treated as one entity. Wales etc are not listed. Bazonka (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Bazonka, I hadn't seen it before. I note that Jersey & Guernsey aren't listed either, not even in Territories. There are sure to be other discrepancies. Daicaregos (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Other BBC sources (see the citation tables) also state that Wales and Scotland are countries. Guys you need to be wilipedians here. If this was a list of SOVEREIGN countries then they would not be included (and given other edits on the former USSR that seems to be the direction some of you are going) then it would be the UK only. If it is a list of countries, then the dictionary definition of country stands. Other lists have nothing to do with this, its about facts and citations. So if you want to propose renaming the page fine, otherwise deal with the evidence. --Snowded TALK 13:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

@Daicaregos - The BBC list Jersey and Guernsey together in the Eurpoean Territories section under "Channel Islands" Bazonka (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And yet they are listed separately in the article. I miss your point, I'm afraid. Daicaregos (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

When the list was based on the 2004 DYB, there was a single entry that reflected how it was tabulated in the DYB. In the 2006 DYB, the entries were split and so they have also been split here. Jersey and Guernsey were only assigned individual country codes in March 2006. Apparently the BBC list has not been updated. --Polaron | Talk 23:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with Polaron - when he says "It does not matter what I think" (although, by refusing to answer the questions he has managed to agree with them rather eloquently), because the point is not whose lists shall we follow (and BTW, Pearson include Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England on their list of countries), the point is that it is Verifiable that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are countries and it is WP:Notable. Therefore, they belong in this article. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Jersey and Guernsey are listed in this article because they are not part of the UK. They are dependencies. Wales is not a dependency, it is an integral part of the UK. It is a country from a British perspective (hence the BBC calls it a country), but not from an international perspective. Wikipedia is international (and NPOV), and should not reflect the British POV. It is only a historical anomaly that we in the UK call England, Wales etc. countries. The states of the US are more like true countries than the UK subdivisions, and of course it would seem ridiculous to suggest including those. However if they were the constituent "countries" of a hypothetical United Countries of America (differently named but otherwise identical to the USA), then you may want to consider including them. This is the situation we are in with the UK. A historical naming anomaly is clouding your judgement. Bazonka (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And your belief that you know how to define a country better than the OED is clouding yours. This is an encyclopedia. It is here to educate. Just because the ill-educated consider some countries not to be countries doesn't make it so. That including Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England in this article is WP:Notable, is WP:POV and therefore open to argument. That they are countries is Verifiable, is WP:NPOV and therefore not open to argument. Please stop this. That they are countries is cited many times over. You just choose not to believe it. You cite the BBC to help your argument. Please cite where the BBC say that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are not countries. And btw, Jersey and Guernsey are not listed separately by the BBC. They are listed under Channel Islands, yet they are listed separately in this article. Where is the logic in that? Daicaregos (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Then the BBC is wrong. It is correct to list Guernsey and Jersey separately. I would propose to vote about this issue so that Daicaregos and Snowded eventually see they are not right, but I am sure they will get together dozens of other Welshmen then. Daicaregos, you keep on repeating your OED thing, but I am not going to repeat everything again and again. Can't you simply read attentively the comments of Bazonka and Polaron, if you don't want to read mine anymore? Maybe then you'll understand that it has no sense to repeat all your nonsense again. Belgian man (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you're reading that I'm agreeing with you. Please don't put words in my mouth. You are effectively saying that we should ignore the lists used by reputable international organizations and use your interpretation instead. There is a perfectly well-understood definition used by the UN, ISO, IANA, and IOC. That is currently what is being used here and there is nothing problematic about that. Any quirks of the internationally accepted definition can be explained in the notes column or in a footnote. Wikipedia is not supposed to invent its own definitions. --Polaron | Talk 22:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

@Daicaregos. You miss my point. I do believe that England, Wales etc. are countries (of sorts). But that's because I'm British and (here's the important bit), they are only countries from a British point of view, where for historical reasons we use the c-word to describe them. They are not true countries though. (Of course the OED mentions that they are called countries as it lists all words in common usage. NB Called countries, not are countries.) Elsewhere in the world (the world of your "ill-educated" perhaps), they are seen as subdivisions of the UK, rather like the American states or the German Länder, which of course no-one would dream of adding to this article. You state that it is verifiable that they are countries, yet it is also verifiable (from very reliable sources) that they are not, so your argument there rather falls flat. That the BBC calls them countries is irrelevant - the BBC is British, so it has a POV bias. Are they notable enough for inclusion? Possibly, but only as a footnote to the UK entry, and nothing more. Bazonka (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I do find this amusing in a way. Bazonta and Polaron are refusing to deal with evidence and resorting to accusations of bias rather than assuming good faith. Its really very simple. If this is a list of countries then the definition of country from the OED and other citations includes Wales, Scotland etc. If it is a list of sovereign states then they are not included, but the article should be renamed. One of the other really. I have read attentively all the comments by the way Belgian man and I find your comments to Dai patronising at best, especially as you don't actually deal with any of the arguments, you simply shift the ground to some other list or opinion that you hold. In fact in general your language over this thread has been a clear breach of Wiki rules so please stop --Snowded TALK 09:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

So, they are "quirks of the internationally accepted definition" are they Polaron? Of which you have not managed to provide not a single example. And as far as Bazonka is concerned "Elsewhere in the world (the world of your "ill-educated" perhaps) they are seen as subdivisions of the UK, rather like the American states or the German Länder", really? Again, you have not managed to provide not a single example. And the BBC "has a POV bias", unlike you of course. The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't seem to have defined the word to your satisfaction, so is Webster's Dictionary good enough for you? Or is that too British English too? Websters top definition of Country see here is "The territory occupied by a nation". Perhaps they are POV too. As noted more than once, that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are countries and are recognised as countries by a sovereign state is verifiable. They belong in this article. It is time to accept the facts. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Further down in your Webster's article it states: "Sometimes, parts of states with a distinct history or culture are called "lands" or "countries": England, Scotland and Wales - three nations on the island of Great Britain are sometimes called countries, even though they are administrative components of the State of the United Kingdom." There's one example of a non-British perspective for you. Bazonka (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not my Websters. It is Websters. And, as an example of a non-British perspective, they say that "three nations on the island of Great Britain are sometimes called countries". So, (at last ) you accept the fact that they are countries. Hallelujah. Just Polaron to convince now, then. Daicaregos (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What??? I haven't changed my stance. If you read my previous post properly, you will see that I said that they are countries... from a British point of view. You seem to be utterly missing/ignoring this point of my argument that hinges on the vital Wikipedia principle of WP:POV. Websters says that they are called countries (and no-one disagrees with that) - not that they are countries. Bazonka (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Its the application of WP:POV that concerns me here. We have two dictionary definitions that make it clear that a country does not have to be a sovereign state (your called/is distinction is a good example of POV). The British perspective is not insignificant by the way if we are looking for authorities. If the British Government calls them countries (as it does) then that is citable evidence from an authoritative source. Man countries are or have been administrated by other governments. In the case of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland they also have legislative assemblies in case you had forgotten. At the moment the arguments against inclusion look like POV or OR. Rename the article "sovereign countries" and I have no objection to excluding the UK constituent countries. However if this is a list of countries then it is factually incorrect not to include them. You can of course put a note in the article to make it clear that there is no claim of sovereignty in the list, it could even be in the hatnote. --Snowded TALK 11:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, this is a list of countries and territories as defined by the United Nations/ISO. The consitituent countries are not included there and so are not included here. It really is that simple. --Polaron | Talk 13:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well if it really is that simple propose a move to "sovereign countries and territories" then the title won't be misleading. --Snowded TALK 08:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please show some academic verifiable source that is created to do the same thing this page is designed for. Does it list England, N.Ireland, Scotland & Wales or does it list only the United Kingdon? Simple solution. If in question see what the experts have done before. Don't use dictionary definitions, use sources to prove your case otherwise it might be WP:SYN. Show simple example proving one way or another. No one has done this yet. -- Phoenix (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd throw this one in. Whether that is considered an academic source is for others to decide. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Show a something created by academics or other encyclopedias (passing WP:V & WP:RS) that list the size of countries/sovereign states from largest to smallest or visa versa (i.e. the main topic of the article). Show evidence on what to do with this page by looking at what other experts have done. -- Phoenix (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that lists like this are the sort of thing that academics would publish papers on. I can't find anything from reputable encyclopedias on the web, but I have found the following: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Most of these don't mention Scotland etc. Only one (Indopedia) mentions them, and this is as an addition to the UK entry. Bazonka (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have some paper encyclopedias at home - only one lists countries by area. (The Cambridge Factfinder, published 1995.) It only mentions UK, not the subdivisions in its list. Bazonka (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Indopedia is a Wiki mirror. That format was first implemented on this list in April 2003. A few other language wikis still use that format. The UK constituent countries were added in June 2004 and persisted until February 2005 when the CIA Factbook list of countries became the basis of the list. --Polaron | Talk 18:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional: nationsonline.org is using the current version of the wiki list (UN DYB). The rest are based on some version of the CIA Factbook. --Polaron | Talk 20:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we all recognize the validity of the CIA world fact book... Someone would have to check up on Cambridge Factfinder, any others? -- Phoenix (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge Factfinder is published by Cambridge University Press, edited by David Crystal, ISBN 0-521-55892-1. A reputable publisher. Bazonka (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Other lists are irrelevant. Firstly, because the lists in other encyclopedias would be of sovereign states by area. Wikipedia already has a List of sovereign states by area article and this isn't it. Secondly, because it is Verifiable that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries, and are recognised as countries by a sovereign state. As this article is called 'List of countries and outlying territories by total area', the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be on it. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for two (almost identical) lists of countries. I'm going to see if I can do something about the other article. Bazonka (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've now redirected it to this article. A quick look at its What links here shows that it is only referenced from Talk and User pages and Articles for Deletion logs. Therefore, it's clearly not needed. Snowded's edits now highlight the fact that this article is about sovereign nations. Bazonka (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Then clearly, the name of the article needs to be changed to reflect the fact that it is only sovereign countries and not countries. Both of you (Polaron & Bazonka) have agreed that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries, even if you qualify that by saying they are only known as countries in the UK (I disagree, but that's another matter). If you call this article List of countries... then you do a disservice to people in the UK, whom you agree call England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland countries. Daicaregos (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I accept renaming the article "List of sovereign countries and outlying territories by total area" as a compromise, as that is what it is. Thank you Fishiehelper2. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the reason i originally had a problem with the term country to describe England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland because one by one there are attempts to edit lists which have been around for years simply because of an agreement on the internal naming of parts of the United Kingdom. The change that has been made is a good one, although there certainly shouldnt be a new list of countries just for the sake of being able to include countries of the United Kingdom. The only thing i would like to see changed is the title use the term Sovereign State rather than sovereign country, so its in line with other lists on wiki and the article used to describe the meaning. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

changes

This is getting no where. Given that other editors made direct changes yesterday I decided to be bold. The list is sovereign countries so I changed the lede to say that. I also changed the pipelink, as countries clearly states that a country does not have to be sovereign. I also changed the pipelink on yesterday's addition of the four countries to link to Countries of the United Kingdom. That page was created by a broad consensus to explain the complex constitutional issues. On that basis I am happy to leave the title unchanged, and agree not to pursue listing said four countries in their own right. --Snowded TALK 09:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with your edits. Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Good solution. Belgian man (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the change made, well done snowed. One thing i would like to request is we use the term sovereign state rather than sovereign countries, just so its in line with other similiar lists with that criteria and the explanation pages of the term. Countries should still redirect to this page though. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the page name change has been reverted on the premise that the change wasn't discussed (and BritishWatcher's points above), are there any objections to renaming this article "List of sovereign states and outlying territories by total area"? Daicaregos (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The best option would probably be to go through the standard WP:RM process where a wider audience would be able to participate. --Polaron | Talk 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In the section WP:RM#Requesting uncontroversial moves it says "If the move you are suggesting is uncontroversial and technically possible, please feel free to move the page yourself." Are you suggesting, then, that this would be a controversial move? Daicaregos (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The move was reverted was it not? That means it is controversial. If there really is consensus, then there is nothing to lose by going through the RM process and would probably close early. By going through the process, the name change would have more force. --Polaron | Talk 23:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment. Would you support a move? Daicaregos (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I, personally, would support the move. It's rather silly that is was reverted. Belgian man (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I support as well - I think that means (as it is unanimous) it can be moved "as per talk page" without a formal RM --Snowded TALK 05:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is all the other "List of countries by..." pages. If this one is renamed, then it will be inconsistent. Perhaps a proposal should be made to rename all the pages. Bazonka (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is amazing the huge number of changes that have to be made simply because a few people on UK articles made a decission about how to describe England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Now i accept there is no better way of describing these places than countries, however there is no justification for them to be included on all these lists. I would support the changing of all lists to be called "Sovereign States" and do away with the term country all together which is highly debatable and simply leads to these endless arguments as people go through the country lists one by one demanding certain places be added. If such changes take place there should not be further lists of "countries" added which duplicate almost everything except adding a few places like England and Scotland to the list.

As country can mean different things to different people, as long as the opening paragraph states this is a list of Sovereign states there is no real need for the title to be changed unless ALL other list of countries titles will be changed. The stats about the parts of the UK are included in the notes, i see no reason at all why there would be a need to include England etc in the actual list (especially if its unranked). The most important part is that each country list states clearly straight away how they define COUNTRY, and currently almost ALL of them (rightfully so in my opinion) only list sovereign states.

Perhaps a new article could be created to list ALL stats of the United Kingdoms four countries in tables. So on every country list instead of providing a link to the "countries of the UK" page it provides a link to the actual data itself that is being searched for. So every "list of countries" page such as for GDP, total area etc link to the relevant table and data BritishWatcher (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of these lists actually describe things that are UK-wide, and splitting the UK could either be very difficult for sourcing or rather pointless in most cases. I think the best solution would be to rename the all the lists to something of the pattern "List of sovereign states and dependent territories by average teapot size", though another would be to impose the ISO list as a uniform standard. Pfainuk talk 11:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

⬅ If the lists are renamed as sovereign states then there is no ambiguity and citation etc. is easy. Its also a good idea to create a table with the UK countries with all the figures (land area etc) and the place for that would be Countries of the United Kingdom where it would be a welcome addition. Other than that I will ignore the Unionist POV BritishWatcher  :-) --Snowded TALK 12:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on renaming all the lists to sovereign states and dependent territories (or something like that)and as long as it doesnt just lead to a creation of new full lists of countries which includes the same thing but just adds few left off the main lists. I agree most lists are UK wide although most of the data is now avaiable for the different parts of the UK, but most lists dont provide the space to include notes like this list does.

I could see how it might be useful for the data that is available if there was a single article with dozens of tables for all the information so people can easily compare the different parts of the united kingdom on these issues with out messing up and impacting on the actual international lists (where they clearly dont belong). Alot of the data could be added to the UK countries page as suggested by snowded. You can ignore my points of view, but i also think we should be careful about opinions from people who clearly have separatist ambitions when it comes to international lists. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

one should acknowledge ones motivation BW. I am a Welsh Nationalist and see myself as European before British. That means I will be concerned enough to monitor pages to do with Wales and its status. However I am bound by NPOV and citation and need to be especially careful when I am editing pages where my political/religious/ethical perspective come into play. I'd suggest fewer throw away opinions (you have a tendency to them) which provoke a response and more argument based on facts. --Snowded TALK 12:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My views are also clear on this matter, i am proud to be a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but ofcourse this is not the place for points of view. On this issue like other similiar issues, the reasons for only listing sovereign states are clear as are the reasons for not including England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on such international lists. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

I was asked to pop in here to let you know why I moved the page back to the current title (i.e., removed "sovereign" from the title). The first issue is, I had to click the "new thread" button, instead of opening an existing one. Moves that aren't just correcting grammar or bringing an article into line with policy/MOS/naming conventions are likely to be controversial, and should be discussed first, preferably through WP:RM.(Just realized there was discussion for the move here) If you look at {{Lists of countries}}, you'll see there are scores and scores of "List of countries by x" articles; there's no reason why this one needs "sovereign" in the title. This is the main issue with the move back to the current title. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To add to this, after having read through the above discussion a bit, it seems the whole move was based on the drive to add the separate countries of the UK into the list, which seems incorrect to me. I think Polaron made a very valid point with this comment:

Why is it that none of the references that tabulate a world-wide list of countries include England, etc.? The CIA Fact Book list of countries, the UN list of countries and areas, the EU list of countries and territories, the ISO list of countries, the BBC list of countries - all do not include them. Whatever criteria it is these well-established lists are using is the same as what this list is using. --Polaron | Talk 12:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Picking definitions out of OED and then applying them to this list is quite obviously to me novel synthesis, especially when the conclusions reached do not agree with the several highly-respected sources listed by Polaron. This is unacceptable. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It was the right thing to do considering there are over 60 "country lists". Whilst most of these are only based on sovereign states some do list other things as well. The important thing is that all these lists have an introduction that makes it very clear what gets included in the list. This list now seems to have one of the best introductions which explains things well, and many of those other pages could do with similar opening paragraphs. Id prefer to see just lists of sovereign states and then separate list for non sovereign states (if needed) but thats going to be impossible to get consensus on. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is less important than following what the reliable sources say; if none of the regular sources (CIA Factbook, UN list, ISO list, etc.) include a country, there should be no basis for including it here, regardless of the 5 editors from separatist-region-of-the week who might show up and demand ranked inclusion here. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Your reference for novel synthesis states: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources." The fact that England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are countries is not a "novel conclusion". It is backed up by numerous cited sources (see Countries of the United Kingdom) that say they are countries. In addition to that they are recognised as countries by a sovereign state and meet the criteria for a definition of countries by the OED & Websters. Ironically, noting the lists on which these countries do not appear to conclude that they are not countries is novel synthesis. i.e. "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources (noting the lists on which these countries do not appear) to reach a novel conclusion (that they are not countries) that is not in any of the sources (which it isn't)." I think a little mutual respect is warranted here. A reversion was made by Parsecboy to a change without having made him/herself aware of the facts first, and reaching an erroneous conclusion after only "having read through the above discussion a bit.". This does not entitle you to belittle or insult people. I could be wrong, and if I am I apologise, but it appears that you already believe that England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not countries and you have tried to fit the facts around that belief while ignoring those that don't conform to it. So, thank you for your time. Now we know why you reverted the move. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have belittled or insulted no one; it's a simple fact that in the unstable times in which we live, separatist regions like Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Kosovo, and others assert their independence to inevitably mixed reactions; partisans of both sides will without question find their way to lists like these demanding inclusion/expulsion of whatever entry over which they're fighting. Geographic issues like these are frequently sites of the most rabid arguments; go ask the editors over at Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo/Takeshima who owns those near-useless, barren rocks, and don't be surprised if you get your head bitten off. If you don't like it, avoid areas such as this that attract this type of drama, but don't pretend like it doesn't happen. Parsecboy (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Parsecboy you have listed some sources which are clearly orientated to sovereign states. There are other sources which specifically address the question of countries that are no soverign. Mediated discussion with multiple citations has established that Wales, Scotland etc are countries, albeit they are not sovereign. This has been referenced and if you need a reminder then look at Countries of the United Kingdom. Your derogatory comment on separatist-region-of-week is a clear breech of Wikipedia rules and I suggest you retract it. --Snowded TALK 14:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not listed any sources, myself, I merely pointed out those that Polaron did. Please tell me which rule I have violated with the comment, which you interpreted as having been derogatory, about "separatist-region[s]-of-the-week"? Parsecboy (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not sovereign states and this lists introduction clearly states that is whats listed. As always the term country can mean different things to different people, in this case it is clear this list of countries is only about Sovereign States and territories. There is a huge difference between the United Kingdom calling different parts of the United Kingdom countries and including such countries on international lists when offical international lists such as the European Union, CIA, Council of Europe, Commonwealth of Nations, IMF, World Bank and others list the UK as a COUNTRY but NOT E/W/S/NI. This is exactly why i originally had a problem with the term country being used to describe England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and i agree with the comments made by Parsecboy.

This list like over 100 others have been called "countries" for a long time before this title was changed to the Sovereign States without consensus. It was right for the changed title to be undone, as its clear there is no agreement on this issue. Countries can mean just Sovereign states so aslong as the introduction explains that (Which is does) so no further changes need to take place, unless we rename ALL lists of countries pages to list of sovereign states and remove the "countries" that dont belong there. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a little list of organisation websites where country is mentioned but (E/W/S/NI) is not included in the list.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ - Select a country or location (no E/W/S/NI)

http://web.worldbank.org/ Select ABout / Members - UK is listed as a member COUNTRY. (no E/W/S/NI)

http://www.imf.org/external/country/index.htm - (no E/W/S/NI)

http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/About_Coe/Member_states/default.asp - Also called member countries throughout the website)

http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/index_en.htm - (no E/W/S/NI)

http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/142227/members/ - (has COUNTRY profiles for the UK but not E/W/S/NI)

http://www.oecd.org/countrieslist/0,3351,en_33873108_33844430_1_1_1_1_1,00.html (no E/W/S/NI)

Im sure i could find dozens more organisations websites that use the term country but ONLY list the United Kingdom. There is NO justification for adding England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to country lists on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you BritishWatcher. That was a really good example of synthesis, as introduced by Parsecboy above. You may like to read this thread, or read WP:SYN. Unless you can find reference to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland noted by these or "dozens more organisations websites" as not being countries, the evidence you are providing is synthesis, and not, therefore, a verifiable reference. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources." - I am sorry but that is certainly not what i have just done. Each of those websites have LISTS and each of those lists describes COUNTRIES, whilst not mentioning England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You may want to review WP:NOTOR; while it is not a policy itself, it is a supplement to WP:OR, in that it outlines things that might be confused with OR, but in fact are not. The first entry on the list is "simple syllogisms" (i.e., "if A is a list of all Bs, and C is not on list A, it is not a B"). Parsecboy (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I said this before but I feel it needs to be reiterated. Please show some academic verifiable source that is created to do the same thing this page is designed for. Does it list England, N.Ireland, Scotland & Wales or does it list only the United Kingdon? Simple solution. If in question see what the experts have done before. Don't use dictionary definitions, use sources to prove your case otherwise it might be WP:SYN. Show simple example proving one way or another. -- Phoenix (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary section break to make a slightly separate point

I want to make clear I have no objection to renaming the "list of countries by x" articles to something different, like "list of sovereign states by x"; the problem I have is changing only one of them like this. It makes no sense to have a standard naming format for some 60 articles, and then to change one to fit what some people think should or should not be in the list. If you want to propose a mass change to all 60 or so articles that use this naming format, I suggest you do so with a centralized discussion, as was done for the EU mess a year or so ago (see here). It would be wise to notify any associated wikiprojects, such as WP:GEOGRAPHY, and file the whole thing with WP:RM, because, as we can well see, it's at least somewhat controversial. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus clearly against move.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

---

List of countries and outlying territories by total area → List of sovereign states and outlying territories by total area —

The current title of this article (List of countries and outlying territories by total area) does not reflect the composition of its content. The list is incomplete because it does not include all the countries of the world. Specifically, the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are excluded from this article. That they are called countries does not appear to be disputed. That they are countries and belong on a List of countries and outlying territories by total area apparently is disputed on the basis they aren't sovereign states. The dispute appears to be intractable. It seems that whatever evidence/references/citations are produced to show that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries has not moved opinion of the editors of this page in favour of their inclusion. The article country says: "Frequently, but not always, a country is considered a Sovereign territory and is associated with the notations of State, Nation and Government." Note that a country is not always considered to be a Sovereign territory. The verifiable evidence that they are countries is:

1. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland meet the criteria of the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's Dictionary (Country is "The territory occupied by a nation"). They are specifically called countries by the Oxford English Dictionary - "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." - and Webster's Dictionary - "Sometimes, parts of states with a distinct history or culture are called "lands" or "countries": England, Scotland and Wales - three nations on the island of Great Britain are sometimes called countries, even though they are administrative components of the State of the United Kingdom.".

2. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all verifiably countries (see UKCOUNTRYREFS).

3. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are recognised as countries by a sovereign state - the UK Government

4. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are listed on Pearson's list of countries

The argument against the inclusion of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is that these countries do not appear on international country lists such as United Nations, CIA Factbook, ISO country codes and internet top level domain. However, such an argument is WP:SYN as no references have been produced to show that England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not countries.

It seems unlikely that any compromise will be reached without renaming the article. A compromise was suggested to rename the page as List of sovereign states and outlying territories by total area, which seemed to have a favourable reaction. However, it was actually renamed List of sovereign countries and outlying territories by total area and was reverted on the basis that there was no consensus to rename the page using the term "List of sovereign countries ..." when other articles begin with "List of sovereign states ...". It has been suggested that all "List of countries ..." articles be renamed "List of sovereign states ...", but that is for another day. The proposal here is that this article be renamed List of sovereign states and outlying territories by total area. — Daicaregos (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support - as proposer. Daicaregos (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - There are over 60 lists on wikipedia that use the term "country". Most of these are just listing sovereign states. The term country means different things to different people. "country" is a perfectly acceptable term to describe sovereign states, as long as the introduction states clearly what is included on the list (like this article currently does) there is no reason to change the title.

I would agree with a proposal to rename ALL country lists "sovereign states" so they are more accurate as long as such a change does not lead to the creation of new country lists which will show almost identical data. The amount of changes required just to satisfy some people because a few editors on UK articles made a decision to label England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland countries and create all of these problems should not be able to do so much damage to international country lists which have been around for years. (unlike the more recent change to just call E/W/S/NI Countries) BritishWatcher (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You know you can be really irritating at times. A few editors did not make a decision to call them countries, they are countries and designated as such by the UK government as well as custom and practice. Please do try to avoid making remarks like this and focus on facts and citations. --Snowded TALK 13:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for my comment, sorry it wasnt meant to offend or annoy anyone. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per BritishWatcher's reasoning. Bazonka (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose this proposal, though not the principle. Again, as per BritishWatcher, we should move all lists (and I would support this) or no lists. Pfainuk talk 11:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose with reluctance. There are too many lists which use countries and the whole think is a mess anyway. I am happy if the lede of any article clearly states that country is being used in the sense of sovereign country. If that is not on, then I think a wider discussion might be useful but there are far more important things to do. I was tempted to support simply due to irritation at BritishWatcher's unfortunate POV statement but pragmatism won out. --Snowded TALK 13:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Using particular dictionary definitions to reach a conclusion that supports your argument is textbook WP:SYN; taking reliable lists like the CIA World Factbook and making obvious deductions is not original research. There is no valid reason why this article should be moved from the standard "List of countries by 'x'"format used by 60+ other articles. Start a centralized discussion at a relevant Wikiproject to move every page, and we'll see where it goes. Parsecboy (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Parsecboy. This is not the right forum for this discussion. -- Avenue (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Parsecboy and it is basically unnecessary.LedRush (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as long as England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland are kept off the list. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Nevada is a sovereign state; which is why we do not pursue the endless road of mathematical precision for non-mathematical objects. It's hard enough there; it's impossible here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Uh? Bazonka (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course. All fifty states are sovereign; so is the United States. (For a mention of Nevada's sovereign immunity, click the link. That's what makes American constitutional law so much fun. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Just for peoples reference, the following international organisations have LISTS of "Countries" on their website. These international organisations do not have a problem with using the term country to only describe Sovereign States.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ - Select a country or location (no E/W/S/NI)

http://web.worldbank.org/ Select ABout / Members - UK is listed as a member COUNTRY. (no E/W/S/NI)

http://www.imf.org/external/country/index.htm - (no E/W/S/NI)

http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/About_Coe/Member_states/default.asp - Also called member countries throughout the website)

http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/index_en.htm - (no E/W/S/NI)

http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/142227/members/ - (has COUNTRY profiles for the UK but not E/W/S/NI)

http://www.oecd.org/countrieslist/0,3351,en_33873108_33844430_1_1_1_1_1,00.html (no E/W/S/NI)

If all of these wesbites which are used as sources on 1000s of other wikipedia pages do not list England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in their list of countries, there is no reason for wikipedia to do so. This is not about if England etc is a country or not, its about if they belong on INTERNATIONAL LISTS, and the above sources show they do not. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of those unaware, the issue precipitating this debate is that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are called "countries" by the UK government. Therefore, the argument of some (including the proposer) goes, they should be included on any list that has "countries" in the title, and that the inclusion criteria of these lists should be altered to allow for such a change.

The UK is not the only independent state to call its subnational entities "countries", but nonetheless, the proponents generally wish to consider the Countries of the UK and no other such entity. When describing the states of Germany, for example, the German constitution prefers the word Länder (countries) over Staaten (states). During the debate at Talk:List of countries it was never satisfactorily explained how we could remain consistent while including the countries of the UK but not the Länder of Germany - instead I was told I was being "foolish" to suggest that the list should actually follow the inclusion criterion proposed.

Nonetheless, that list was redirected to lists of countries (though list of sovereign states may have been more appropriate) as it was felt that it was essentially a duplicate. The UK countries debate wasn't the only thing that brought about that decision, but it was a major part of it.

It's a tad inconvenient for those who've been trying to sort this out, but User:Pmanderson is quite right. There are plenty of sources that describe the US States as "sovereign states" - this isn't difficult to do through Google or Wikisource. Check out the Louisiana 1974 state constitution, for example:

Section 26. The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free and sovereign state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.

I now wonder whether those who wanted the UK Countries in the list of countries will now come to argue for the US States to be listed separately in the list of sovereign states.

I don't object on principle to replacing the word "country" with "sovereign state" on all the lists involved. But I don't think we will ever hit on a single concise description for the concept we're looking at that will work in every case without exception. Instead, we must use our inclusion criteria to define what exactly we mean by a word used in a title such as "country" or "sovereign state" - so that these lists will closely match those produced by comparable sources such as those cited by BritishWatcher above. In most cases, this means a state that meets the criteria set out at the beginning of the list of sovereign states, and may or may not also include dependent territories. Obviously in a few cases - application of the death penalty, FIFA members, abortion rights, drinking age, time zone - it would clearly be more informative to split countries up as necessary. Pfainuk talk 14:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland do not belong on any of these Countries Lists. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Pfainuk makes a very valid point; this list could easily double or even triple in size if we start including all of the legally sovereign subdivisions of the sovereign countries in this list—I'm sure the US, UK, and Germany aren't the only countries that do this. And then those who see others getting their favored entry included will insist on their pet entries as well. In the end, we'll have with a hodgepodge like this, something totally unusable for a reader who's looking for a simple ranking of countries by geographic areas. And that, my friends, is what of which we must not lose sight; we're not making this list for our own pleasure, we're trying to make something useful to the reader. Parsecboy (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Another point, since the move appears unlikely to gain consensus, could I suggest that we open a centralised discussion on these issues, spammed to all relevant talk pages? I think we could do with consensus on a general set of inclusion criteria (which obviously could be overridden in specific cases such as those I mentioned above) and on a general pattern for naming and suchlike. That way, we can hopefully close these issues with some measure of consistency rather than having the same arguments on every article individually. Pfainuk talk 19:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed this issue should try to be resolved for all wiki lists rather than simply having the same debate over and over again on the different articles. As you say there will be plenty of exceptions but it would be helpful and save alot of time if there were reasonably similiar critera for most of the lists. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to WP:BOLDly create a page for discussion. Almost certainly not tonight, more likely tomorrow. When I have done so I will give a standard notification on all of the lists' talk pages inviting users to the discussion. Pfainuk talk 23:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am still unsure about alot of the processes on wikipedia, but considering there are over 100 lists based on countries, is there justification for an actual wikipedia project page for lists of countries rather than just a discussion on resolving the current problems and setting criteria? It seems to me Wikiprojects for Lists or Geography or countries are too general and having one wikiproject for all related lists might be helpful. Sorry if thats what you had in mind anyway or if such a thing already exists. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There was one but never got off the ground and was recently deleted at MFD. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Country lists. --Polaron | Talk 00:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Polaron, maybe it could be created again considering there was only a couple of votes to have it deleted as it wasnt used? A project page to hold the debate on what belongs on most of these lists of countries rather than just having to be repeated on dozens of articles might be useful. I would like to join such a project if it existed. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My intention was to create a dedicated discussion page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries and then link to it from all of the lists' talk pages. I've got the thing roughed out, but I'll reread it in the morning to make sure I'm not saying something mad before posting it. Pfainuk talk 00:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks for the clarification :). Let us know tomorrow if you need a hand linking it on the talk pages considering how many there are. Night BritishWatcher (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done the ones linked from the lists of countries, excluding ones where the title references some external measure and those to do with sports (since I think we can assume that they will include whatever their sources do). That's a total of 198 lists. There are probably a few more out there that I've missed, and you are obviously welcome to notify them - just make sure that any notification is neutrally worded. Pfainuk talk 12:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done yes theres a hell of a lot of lists there, i saw my watch list get flooded with your edits a little while ago :). There are quite a few country lists on the "list of countries with rankings" template ( Template:Lists of countries ) that dont appear on the "list of countries" or "lists by country" pages from what i can see so at some stage they should probably be added to the lists pages as well BritishWatcher (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't done the lists by country (I'll go and do that now), but I have done that template - mostly. A few, like Global Development Index, I felt were very unlikely to be affected - since the inclusion criteria are whatever the source says they are and the title doesn't include the word "country". I've also not done sports article because the word "country" in those cases is generally defined by the governing body of the sport - I can't see anyone arguing that England, Scotland, Wales and NI should be excluded from the FIFA list or included in the IOC list, for example. Pfainuk talk 13:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on no point in including the sports ones, although i would hope all of them do have introductions or atleast explanations as to why some teams compete on their own like England at the commonwealth games / football and like Hong Kong at the olympics. I expect most of the things included on the list by country page are on the template you did so you probably have got almost all of them :). Its pretty crazy just how many lists of countries there actually are on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't quite know what I was letting myself in for! I haven't done any from the List of sovereign states by year - that's another 150 straight off (I've done 242 so far). But I'm rather hoping that those lists will take their cues from the main List of sovereign states. There's bound to be some others that I've missed, and some that I've included that shouldn't be - but when doing that many notifications there's not a lot I can do about that. Pfainuk talk 13:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes the articles on sovereign states by year by the looks of it follow the criteria on the main sovereign states page and theres not a problem with their titles at all so no point doing all of those. So theres over 300 lists of countries sheeeeeesh. That should be enough to get a good view of how people feel about the lists and terms used. Just have to wait and see peoples responses now. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)