Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non-recognised states

Issue 1: The explanation fo this list states "They are listed as unrecognised until they are recognised by the United Nations." Countries in the previous section (Partially recognized) are also not recognized by the United Nations. This suggest to me the two lists should be combined or the entry redone. Issue 2 (minor): If the list is kept, shouldn't it be renamed "Unrecognized states", as per the explanation? Unrecognized states also reads better. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, sorry. "Unrecognised" is the right word. I'll change it. But there is a slight difference between partially and un recognised states. Partially are recognised by some countries but the unrecognised ones are not. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Stable version of the article

This debate could last a very long time as has happened in the past on other country lists when certain editors arrive and demand inclusion of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As this could be a long debate, the stable version of the article which did not include these entries should be restored. Can someone please restore the version from before their inclusion, and if necessary could we get the page locked to prevent edit warring. It is very clear there is no consensus above for the inclusion of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. They must be removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. There is no consensus on this matter, and it is standard on Wikipedia to retain the existing version in the absence of consensus to change. The most recent consensus on this excluded these four. Pfainuk talk 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
In what way is that stable? Ignoring 4 nations legally defined as countries and recognised as such by other nation states when there is, as far as I can see, a clear desire by a majority to address the issue? - either by changing the name or accommodating the countries! I thought we had built a compromise by adding the table (initially suggested by BritishWatcher himself before he flip-flopped... twice) which made it obvious to all that they were constituent countries which form the UK? Just as the Faroe Isles is a constituent country - It all seems a no brainer to me.... and not to mention helps improve the article for the reader. I am happy to go to external mediation within Wiki's Requests_for_mediation and we can all make our cases to a 3rd party if we are unable to find a middle ground - in the meantime I'm going to revert to the edit done by Mclay1 who is, I believe, the most experienced editor to express an opinion. --Richardeast (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there a place where all these countries articles discussions can be settled? GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
We tried a centralised discussion on the inclusion criteria once before, there was no agreement for a single standard across wikipedia, but most certainly accepted just because country is in the title does not mean we must include all entities that some may define as countries.
It was stable for more than 2 years before you arrived seeking to include England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Most lists on wikipedia of countries do not include these entities, there is nothing wrong with that. If you want to take this to mediation then i think we should go along with that, but the stable version must remain until there is consensus to include those other entities. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
If another centralized discussion is held, somebody please inform me. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
No. If there is a mediation on this we'll have it in a place you will never ever find. ;) Jack 1314 (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
lol, well a central discussion or mediation on this matter would be a good idea if we resolve this once and for all and dont end up taking this dispute to another page. An agreed position through mediation would be good. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Yep, an across the board solution is necessary. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Richardeast you referred several times to E/S/W/NI as legally defined as countries. Can you please provide me with the text of law that defines them as such? It is for my personal curiosity, as this discussion is starting to tire me a bit. Place Clichy (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
These entities are not legally defined as countries. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Careful with the edit warring guys. Jack 1314 (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I will not revert again but no matter which version people support, people should accept that the stable version was that one before England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland got added. Someone added it, it got reverted and several editors opposed it on the talk page. Whilst there is a dispute about their inclusion, they should not be on the page till there is consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you will not revert again, because even though you and I have different views I would rather not see you blocked. I have no intention of reverting to any version as there are always admin eyes watching and any more reverts will probably bring one along. Whether or not it should be at the version before this discussion began is something else. Jack 1314 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It should be the version before this discussion - That's basic wikipedia policy. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit waring

Although nobody is going to trip the software fuse with 3rr, this kind of to and froing with everyone now jumping on the revert bandwaggon, is not going to resolve the situation. Nor is running to Auty ANI. The best thing to do at this stage, IMHO, is to draft an RFC. That way it will go out to the entire Wikipedia community, and you can all let them decide by consensus. There's always a danger that the regular editors of an article my not like the result, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.--Kudpung (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It is ashame that editors do not accept that there is no consensus on this talk page for the inclusion of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I do not think a RFC is going to be that helpful, it will simply result in us waiting weeks potentially just for a couple of commnents. I would much rather we go down the path of mediation on if these non sovereign entities belong on our lists. It would be good for us to try and get agreement on this matter at a single location. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I also do not think a RFC is needed for this specific article. It is very clear a few editors want it included but a majority do not. There is no consensus for their inclusion. Those editors should accept that. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I think a RFC is the best way forward... this has become way too political here which I think has distorted peoples reasoning and could potentially damage the article as a result. Failure to accept any form of compromise seems to have left no option but to seek the opinion of external, independent minds. I will get the ball rolling. --Richardeast (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
P.s. BritishWatcher - based on the above, it seems to be 4 editors support and 4 editors oppose, with you flip flopping between the 2 camps (remember it was actually originally your compromise agreement we all agreed on and which McLay kindly spent his time writing - prior to you changing your mind... 3 times) This is clearly an equally split community and external advice is obviously the best solution to solve this.--Richardeast (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Its 5-4 against including them. I opposed their inclusion, i then compromised saying id accept them included as long as they were in their own section. But when other editors raised concerns and opposed their inclusion, i went back to my original position that they should not be included, as the dispute that has followed is exactly the sort of thing i expected to happen. Perhaps i should not compromise in future, it is not the first time ive regretted it recently.
Mclay1 also originally opposed their inclusion, he now supports their inclusion because of the title but has requested a page move to resolve the problem so they do not have to be included. There appears to be support for the page move, so i think we should probably move ahead with that page move which solves the problem. The other articless related to this one seem to have pretty inactive talk pages so there should not be too much opposition to moving those as well so they are all in line. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I seriously do not understand why people oppose the inclusion of the constituent countries. The only reason I'm seeing is because you are trying to avoid conflict, which clearly isn't working. We tried to compromise but that then caused an argument about whether or not it was a compromise. I seriously give up. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Because we can not treat the UK as an exception, it opens up endless debates about other places that have been mentioned on this talk page above by other editors. The best solution which appears to have majority support is to move these articles to a new title about sovereign states. That is how List of countries was handled, that now just redirects to the sovereign states page and the English/Wales/Scotland/NI has been stable. We should consider proposing a group move for this article, all the other sub articles and the main article found at List of countries by continent. THe suggestion above about something like List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent and in this case List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe seems pretty good which deals with the potential problem of people thinking they are sovereign territories. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
List of countries and territories by continent is the primary article, and these sublists should match the criteria of that one. A name change to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe would also address the potential confusion over an unrelated issue of "European territories". For example, The falklands are a British territory, there for a European territory. Saying in Europe rather than European is more clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm with you Mclay1 - it's not like we're looking to have the countries listed alongside sovereign states as equals... but simply have them somewhere! It's not for any of us to decide if these are countries or not - they're already recognised as such by undisputable sources. Which mean, as you correctly state, an article listing countries in Europe is incomplete without them.... I agree with you, it really is that simple! But, it appears that, despite BritishWatcher initially proposing it, the compromise solution isn't acceptable and he'll only be happy if they're totally ignored completely - yet, as you're the primary editor of the article (as listed) I'll leave it to you whether you think RFC is the right way forward or whether we allow some people's somewhat warped political opinions to diminish what is otherwise a very useful information source.... --Richardeast (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Again you mention peoples political opinions and describe them as warped. I can not help but repeat the fact, 3 editors on this page demanding Scotland and Wales be added to this list support the destruction of the United Kingdom and the independence of Scotland and Wales. It could of course be a complete coincidence that they insist these entities appear on lists. As said before, there are different definitions of "country", aslong as the introduction clearly explains what is listed that does not mean the page is incorrect. The vast majority of "country" lists on wikipedia do not include, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Mclay1 suggested we rename the article to list of European sovereign states and territories, there appears to be support for that, or we could try a group move to something similiar like List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe to resolve the matter once and for all. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes but the whole point of being an editor on Wikipedia is you place your political agenda to one side for the good of the community. I, like many from Wales, Scotland & even England, do believe the countries that make up the UK to be nations like any other... with national anthems, flags & distinct national identities. I could stand on my soapbox, spending all of my days preaching against compromise and constantly editing out any bits of text from any article which don't list us as equals next to the likes of Ireland, France & Italy. I could argue this, and although there's great momentum towards our aspirations, the reality as it is today is different. You political agenda seems essentially based on a desire to stamp out the individual nations which form our small island and have a single, uniform state where haggis, bagpipes & Ironbru are considered as quintessentially 'british' as tennis & strawberries - where they's only be 4 teams in the 6 nations and where 1966 is as celebrated in Llandudno as it is in Lincoln. That too is quite different to the realities as they are today. That is why we need to put our agendas aside and look at ways to work together to find a middle ground for the good not just of the article, but for the whole Wikipedia project. You're obviously not 10.... but it does seem a bit of a shame that you give the impression you don't understand there's more important issues at stake than trying to win an argument with some bloke from Wales. Please, put the article first. --Richardeast (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I am putting the article first. This list was stable for a couple of years before the inclusion of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I originally opposed you including them on this page, for reasons i have been over before and for the same reasons there have been disputes on other pages. I then compromised (something you have attacked and tried to undermine me for), saying i wont oppose their inclusion provided they are in a separate section. This is something i have been prepared to support like at List of national anthems and something i supported at List of national capitals but was overruled on and now we have a single big list where sovereign states are in line with non sovereign states and territories.
So after i accepted the compromise here, when other editors raised concerns about their inclusion i too stated again i oppose their inclusion because the dispute i feared would happened (something i mentioned in my first post to you), did in fact happen.
The problem is Scotland and Wales are not the same as France, Italy and the Republic of Ireland. They are sovereign states, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are part of the United Kingdom and that is how they will remain. To put Scotland in line with France is very misleading except for in sporting matters where the British nations field their own teams (only because we invented many of the sports there for played against one another before the world joined in).
The problem here appears to be, because this article title mentions countries, Scotland and Wales must be listed too. So do you consider this list incorrect and in need of changing List of countries by GDP (nominal). This is the problem i have, your demands that because this title says country means we must include Scotland and Wales would cause dozens if not over 100 article title lists to need to be changed or to include them. I do not accept that there is support for that on wikipedia, i think most editors involved in articles are fine with country lists that do not include parts of sovereign states. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
This is what I am doing. The article comes first. Any article that is a list of some kind requires clear inclusion criteria so that it is relatively trivial to determine whether an entity belongs on the list or not. Any such criteria will allow some entities through and bar others.
As I noted before, there is no reason to assume that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are somehow special or unique in Europe. As I noted before, there are several states listed that have divided into "countries" in some form within them, including France, Germany and Spain. Why should Northern Ireland be included and not Bavaria, Brittany or the Basque Country? All are described using the word "country" by the sovereign states concerned. All have strong cultural, linguistic and political identities - stronger in many senses than UK countries do. But you're not arguing for them. Why not?
Fact is, adding these is a massive can of worms of the sort that this article doesn't need. The article is clear in what it refers to and I see little reason to attempt to blur this by including these four.
As such, I reject your claim that those who do not believe that these four belong are not putting the article first. Pfainuk talk 17:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous! 1) Faroes and Greenland inclusion has nothing to do with being "countries". 2) They are part of the stable article, and should be left there till the debate is resolved! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Denmark and Faroe Islands

We need to deal with this matter of Denmark and Kingdom of Denmark.

Is Denmark listed in the sovereign state section about the memberstate of the European Union Denmark or is it the "Kingdom of Denmark" which includes the faroe islands and Greenland, at the moment it links to both. The map currently used there does have the faroe islands coloured in. If it is meant to be about the Kingdom of Denmark(that has 3 associated states) then the Faroe islands do not need to be listed separately in the article in another section.

My view on this has been that we list Denmark (the state that is a member of the European Union) and that is the sovereign state. The "Kingdom of Denmark" term is just how they group together the sovereign state with its two territories. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Denmark should be included, not the Kingdom of Denmark. The simplest reason is the bodies within are different political bodies, exemplified by the fact that only Denmark is in the EU. The Faroe islands should be listed separately, Greenland mentioned in the lede. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
That certainly seems to be the method used throughout wikipedia lists (listing Denmark as the sovereign state and Faroe islands / Greenland separately like territories in italics) and by plenty of reliable sources. I do have concerns about that Kingdom of Denmark article. Between 2005 and 2008 it was just a simple redirect to the Denmark article. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The question here is not if they are countries, but if they are dependent territories, as this article lists both. Dependent territory is currently defined as such in Wikipedia:
Faroe and Greenland perfectly match this definition, as is greatly explained on the [Rigsfællesskabet] article, with sources defining their status. Greenland is closer to North America than Europe, consensus is (was) to have it in the Norht american article. They are also listed in every list of countries we usually use as reference (UN-published lists, ISO-3166-1 etc.) as a dependent territory, just as the Isle of Man or Gibraltar.
BTW Before a recent edit the Faroes were even called a self-governing province of Denmark rather than a constituent country, which would be just another valid translation for the same thing.
So to sum it up: the Faroe have their pace in this listin the dependent territories section, Greenland doesn't because it is in North America. This has no connection to the debate with England or Wales, which are neither independent countries, nor dependent territories. Place Clichy (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference for itself. An editor believing a place perfectly matches a definition is a fine example of original research. To include the Faroe Islands on this article we would need a reliable source to show it belongs here. However, I agree that Greenland should remain excluded as it is not in Europe. Daicaregos (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
He actually sourced an article that was not wikipedia, but I understand your point. For a source, check the list of territories in the BBC country profile many times. Anyway, Greenland deserves a mention in the lede, which was there before it became a victim of this conversation. This is due to its being culturally linked to Europe. Now that I think about it, French overseas departments might merit a mention too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this the reference you are referring to ? If so, it defines the Faroe Islands as a region not a territory. That is the reason we need to quote reliable sources, to avoid this type of confusion. Additionally, if editors can simply choose which references they decide to accept and those they don't, that is also an example oforiginal research and is not acceptable. Daicaregos (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Faroe islands belong in this in line with other self governing territories as it had been before the addition of EWSNI. Place Clichy, you opposed an article name change originally because the title with country and territories is justified (which i agree is the case), but would you support a move to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. (if the other lists related to this one were moved too)? This would resolve the country dispute. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I was citing [1], which is a list. Since it is a list, it is the most relevantly applicable source to this article, both being lists of exactly the same thing. (Of course, it being slightly affected by politics, it does not include countries like Kosovo) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
BBC appear to include all the disputed states like kosovo etc in the territory list. Quite a few wikipedia lists do the same thing as disputed states are just shown in italics usually to unless split off into their own sections. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
By relevant sources I would think of the UN, the ISO, or a text of law of the constitutional level rather than CIA factbook, BBC county profiles, or sports federations. These are the sources we have been putting forward long before this argument even started. Place Clichy (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I find this attempt to put the Faroes in the same category as Scotland to be rather silly. The Faroes are not a constituent country of Denmark in the way that England or Scotland are constituent country of the UK. The situations are entirely different and it seems ridiculous to suggest that they are identical, as some here appear to be claiming. Pfainuk talk 17:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said. BTW Faroe are part of Kingdom of Denmark, not Denmark itself. They are tied to the Crown, not the country, as situation similar to that of Aruba or the Netherland Antilles inside the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The term consistent country is being applied here for situations very different from each other, one major difference being that Netherlands and Denmark have written constitutional documents describing very precisely their status. See what the Scottish Parliament says on its website: “As the UK has no written constitution in the usual sense, constitutional terminology is fraught with difficulties of interpretation and it is common usage nowadays to describe the four constituent parts of the UK (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) as “countries”.” Common usage is really very different from status. Place Clichy (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Yep, though there are some disadvantages to written constitutions (dare I say... giving citizens the right to own military grade machine guns!) it does clear up some tricky constitutional problems. But, I think there's general consensus that the countries which form the UK cannot realistically be called anything other than countries - For example, in France, if there's a 'Villes jumelees' (twinned town) involving a Welsh or Scottish town - I've only ever seen the respective national flag displayed on signs and on documents (with the town said as being in Pays de Galles or Ecosse) - never with the union flag (or in Royami-uni) [2] [3] [4] [5]- It often takes a while for me to explain to people here (en France), but Socially, culturally and even mentally, we are an independent nation (surveys say 87% of people born in Wales consider their nationality to be Welsh - and Welsh alone[6]. Only 13% consider themselves at all british or even Welsh & british) - politically the closest entity to the UK is the EU... and, despite the Lisbon treaty, no one is arguing about excluding EU members.
So - back to the article! The question is now do we keep listing all entites defined as countries and if so where and how do we list the constituent countries... or do we change the article to remove semi-recognised & the 5 constituent countries? --Richardeast (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought we had a deal not to mention POV crap like your above statement? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, not sure what you mean BritishWatcher - where did I mention my point of view in the above? or for that matter discuss the pros and cons of pooling national soverignty in a parliament outside our borders? Lets have some WP:AGF! --Richardeast (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I am referring to your comments: "It often takes a while for me to explain to people here (en France), but Socially, culturally and even mentally, we are an independent nation"and "politically the closest entity to the UK is the EU".These are both your opinions and i thought we were going to be avoiding those sorts of comments and stick to dealing with this article and the issue at hand. As for the fact 87% may consider their nationality to be Welsh (which has nothing to do with this debate) that is almost the exact same % of Welsh voters who voted for political parties that support the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and oppose separatism in the recent general election. A strange but amusing coincidence. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:AGF FFS! I didn't mention my opinion, I was trying to explain to our friend from France how (if the sourced survey is to be believed) 9/10 people here feel... As I said before, I'm not going to debate this with you here (or either how, just because 100% of people elected into the London parliament supported pro-EU parties, it doesn't mean every single person in England, Wales or Scotland support it!)- you have your views about my country, I, with many in Wales, share a different aspiration... it's not related either the article or the argument, and if you're going to constantly hijack comments to other editors... I'll end up having to post in French! --Richardeast (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
You did mention your opinion. You claimed the closest entity like the UK is the European Union. This is simply not accurate, it is your opinion not backed up by fact. Many may share your "aspiration", it appears only about 11% can be bothered to vote to advance the cause. It is not related to the article or the argument, but it was your post that went off topic. Lets try and avoid those sorts of comments again, because they are obviously contentious. Can we please stick with the specific issue of inclusion on these lists or its title here. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
In the spirit of WP:AGF - Do you feel personally lacking unless you can get the last word in everytime?.... even if you're just essentially repeating yourself? --Richardeast (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


It is not your place to decide which references you decide to accept and those you don't. That is original research and it is not acceptable. If reliable sources show somewhere to be a country, then that is enough. Daicaregos (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
If you are so concerned about editors here having any influence on what is and is not included on these country/territory lists then you should support the proposal that we follow the ISO, which would take this all out of our hands and leave it to an external body. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The ISO to which I assume you refer is a list of UN member states. If the article was named "List of European UN member states" I would support your suggestion. As it isn't, I don't. Daicaregos (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Please point to the resolution by which Bouvet Island became a UN member state. Pfainuk talk 20:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Would there be any point? Daicaregos (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Why, yes. It would demonstrate your contention that Bouvet Island, an entry on ISO 3166-1, is a UN member state. Pfainuk talk 20:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
If your little demonstration was designed to show that ISO 3166-1 is not suitable to be used as a list of countries, it seems to have been quite successful. Bouvet Island, huh? I'll remember it for the next time ISO 3166-1 is suggested as having any useful purpose here. Daicaregos (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The proposal is to use it for lists of sovereign states and dependent territories. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec) On the contrary: given the distances concerned and the political context, it would seem entirely appropriate to list Bouvet Island separately from mainland Norway in most multi-source lists of countries (single-source lists using that single source). One of the reasons why we should use ISO 3166-1 is that it makes common sense distinctions such as between Norway and Bouvet Island. And, more to the point, it is an outside standard that can easily be used without this constant bickering: far better than your anything-that-someone-wants-to-call-a-country standard.
And where common sense suggests it's more appropriate, it's pretty trivial to instead use permanently inhabited entities on ISO 3166-1. That's not a difficult standard to apply, and one that still has all the benefits of being based on an outside source. And there are still plenty of entries on it that are not UN member states.
But what Bouvet Island isn't is a UN member state. Your argument that ISO 3166-1 is a list of UN member states is entirely false. Your argument against using it is based on nothing at all. Pfainuk talk 20:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I wonder what all the Seals on Bouvet Island think? I can't help wondering if this argument's relevant or going to help improve the article? I, in theory have no problems having only 3166-1 nations, but people have to accept there'll be casualties... and I'm not sure the end result will be better for the reader Richardeast (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Dai is arguing that ISO 3166-1 is a list of UN member states. Which it isn't.
Every entity currently on the article would remain on the article under my proposal, except Akrotiri and Dhekelia (which also appears to fail the anything-that-someone-wants-to-call-a-country test, though that test is so woolly that you could probably get most things to pass it). We would then add the Faroes and Svalbard. Pfainuk talk 21:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, no, it would mean the end of Partially recognised states, Unrecognised states and also would have an effect on other continents (Spanish territories in Africa, Falkland Islands would need to be have 'Malvinas' added to the name, Clipperton Island, Navassa Island, etc must be deleted from North America, Taiwan must be renamed, etc, etc). I have no problems with following ISO-3166, but we'd need to follow them to the letter - if we're going to start editing and changing as we see fit, there's no point using ISO-3166 for anything more than another reference. --Richardeast (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
'MALVINAS' would not have to be added. We would simply be using the ISO to set the inclusion criteria, the WP:COMMONNAME would be used. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ahhh... ok, I see now. So basically what the proposal is... you'd like to use the ISO-3166 as the bases for listings when it suits, but completly disregard it when it doesn't. Ok, for a minute I thought we may have been making some progress but lets torpedo that one. --Richardeast (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't you see Richard? We have all this talk of wooly tests and opinions on what should and should not be included when the only test that matters is reliable sources. You can tell them that till your blue in the face and they will still argue with you. Jack 1314 (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, the irony. People who advocate the woolliest test of all are complaining that clearer-cut options are too woolly for them.
Richard - you're trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You complain that it's too rigid but then complain when we point out that it needn't be as rigid as you say it is. Because you're looking for problems, not solutions.
The whole point of using ISO 3166-1 is that we have an outside standard to determine which entities are included. What it doesn't mean is that we have to leave common sense and policy at the door. States with limited recognition have to at least be mentioned for the purposes of neutrality. As to naming Wikipedia has made up its own mind as to what names should be used in other places. Other lists apply a rule whereby we use the name of the article on the state concerned, unless the MOS or an uncontroversial application of IAR suggests otherwise - and there's no reason why this article can't do the same. When it comes down to it, neither of these are particularly difficult or controversial issues. Pfainuk talk 17:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no... I really like the ISO 3166-1 idea, but then if we're still going to list by common sense then it's logical to include the countries which form the UK too... or rather that's my of interpretation of common sense. And that's the problem; As I said, I don't see how it solves anything if we partly use it as a listing tool while deviating when appears to suit. BW made the argument that naming convention enables the Falklands not to follow ISO and therefore not be called the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) [7] - but an even more solid argument, based on Wiki Policies, has been built above for why we should not follow ISO 3166-1 and list the countries that form the UK. My point is, if we're going to get lists of countries to be based on ISO 3166-1, then great! I'm happy to use that as a criteria (it's simply and a definitive way of ensuring there's no long, drawn out listings arguments) - but if that's our criteria for the data in the article... then it's our criteria for the data in the article! We must follow ISO 3166-1 and, in BW's example, Falklands must become Falkland Islands (Malvinas) - I don't see a logical, balanced way anyone can argue against that!

If we don't use ISO3166-1 as the sole criteria but just another reference, then as Mclay1 correctly pointed out a long time ago, there's really no logical way that we can continue to exclude the countries which form the UK from this article - if you don't have a problem with that, and nor does the the other editors (especially Chipmunkdavis &Mclay1 who seem to edit the other continent country lists too) then we can get them involved in this discussion too and change all the articles accordingly. --Richardeast (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You give no reason why we cannot use the entities on ISO 3166-1 and the names that have been preferred by Wikipedia consensus. Probably because there is no good reason why we can't do it. It's not a particularly controversial proposition. You wouldn't expect us to source the statistics on statistical lists from ISO 3166-1 as well, would you? No - this appears to be nothing more than obstructionism.
Meanwhile, there is no policy that would force us to include England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on this list. The are good policy-based reasons not to include them - the implication inherent that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are or should be equivalent in status to sovereign states or dependent territories would be a serious violation of WP:NPOV - but there is no good policy-based reason to suggest that they have to be included. Pfainuk talk 17:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions and possible solutions

Some of the comments on this talk page are WP:TLDR. Sometimes during a discussion, a small group of contributors might collectively pretend to a majority consensus to negate a minority opinion and try to outmaneuver the minority into WP:CIVIL, or simply force them to leave the discussion in dismay. Those of us who have been around for a while probably know just how much we can taunt each other without recrimination, but may be committed to an agenda with a personal, or group conviction that goes beyond rational discussion, and express themselves in a combative manner . Enthusiasm is fine if you are right, but caring more about your cause than objective editing is counter productive to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, many attempts to address such issues often end in an appeal to ANI or Arbcom, which is sometimes a waste of time because those with an agenda are likely to do whatever they can to prevent the plaintif from getting a fair hearing.
Now please go HERE.
--Kudpung (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, I think I'll sleep on it though, first glance... I'm still a little confused!... slight side note which you may find interesting... here in France the first people to get to vote on the European constitution were living in Saint Pierre and Miquelon - a bit of France a long way from Europe!! --Richardeast (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I know! If you do your research, you'll also know that I lived permanently in France for a very, very long time and still have a home there ;) --Kudpung (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

European Union

Would it be a good idea to colour boxes in the table of members of the EU? An example is how NAFTA is coloured in the List of North American countries and territories. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Best colour I know that works is as such:
  Member of the European Union
Flag Map English short name English long name Domestic short name Domestic long name Capital
Austria Republic of Austria German: Österreich German: Republik Österreich Vienna
German: Wien
If there are no objections I will proceed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-sovereign territories

The status of these in the EU was slightly difficult to ascertain. Special Member State territories and the European Union explicitly states that the Faroe islands are not part of the EU. It explicitly states Gibraltar is part of the EU. It also states the the crown territories were part of the European community, and then listed exemptions to normal EU rules there, so I take it they are part of the EU. As for akrotiri, the article seemed to imply they were only de facto part of the EU, not officially so. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the crown dependencies are part of the EU, their article intros say they are not. Not entirely sure thoughh BritishWatcher (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm those articles are rather confusing. Guernsey and Isle of Man intros say they aint part of the EU. Jerseys article text (not in the intro) says "it is to be deemed to be part of the United Kingdom and of the European Union as well." So i am confused about their status, for the time being it might be safer just to not colour in any territories, and just do the 27 member states. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
This is interesting, passports for all the ones I highlighted Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

100px

People of the Crown dependencies are British citizens and there for european union citizens, but im not sure that makes the isle of Man and channel islands part of the European Union. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well their passports have not only UK written on them, but the name of their island, they are specialized for citizens of those islands. It also has European Union written on it. This contrasts with say, the Faroes and Denmark, who although they have a shared nationality are divided in terms of EU membership. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Faroe islands passport.jpg

No - The channel islands & IOM aren't in the EU. [8] [9] [10] - Like the idea of highlighting EU states... good idea. --Richardeast (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Richardeast, sources all explicitly state (down in the middle of the body of the text in Guernsey's case *rolls eyes*) that they are not part of the EU. Added it in a hidden note, in case others get confused like I was. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dhekelia are not formally part of the EU. But they follow Cypriot law as far as practical - which obviously includes EU law - and there are agreements in place surrounding the potential areas of practical inconvenience. Pfainuk talk 17:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Svalbard

Looked through the archives, and could not find this mentioned. I think Svalbard should be added to the list of territories due to its political status. It was regarded as a terra nullis and a common property [11]. However, when the coal rush ended and due to Norwegian nationalism [12] Norway made a claim to the islands, settled in the Svalbard Treaty, a treaty while although granting ultimate sovereignty to Norway gave select other countries rights on the island. Everyone was allowed to mine, but noone (even Norway) could use it for a military base [13]. Nowadays it is regarded as part of Norway, but its political designation is contentious. The Norweigian government even notes that sometimes others seem to treat Svalbard like it was just given to Norway to manage [14], although it states Svalbard is a definite part of Norway. However, Svalbard even has its own ISO 3166-1 listing (admittedly along with Jan Mayen), and places like the CIA world factbook list it as a dependency of Norway [15]. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Test:

Flag Map English short name English long name Legal status Domestic short name Domestic long name Capital
Svalbard Svalbard Territory of Norway Svalbard Svalbard Longyearbyen
You put a good case for its inclusion... I agree! (not to mention I've always wanted to visit) --Richardeast (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

List of European countries and territories → List of European sovereign states and territories — Sovereign state is the more accurate term and it avoids the constituent country debate. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Support as per my reasoning above. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Country is clear, understandable by everyone and the most simple description for what we want to say. The fact that the UK calls its sub-national entities constituent countries (and not just countries) is an internal UK matter, and should not influence the naming of this list. Place Clichy (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The list title should reflect the contents of the list, and vice versa. Daicaregos (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC) (move support to more appropriate name, see above)
In which sense does the title not reflect the content as it is now? Place Clichy (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
You say that country is clearly understood by everyone. Do you have a source for that? Scotland, England and Wales are verifiably countries. I consider them countries, as I'm sure many others do. When people throughout the world see these countries play in sports such as international football alongside sovereign countries they are likely to consider them countries, as they are. Let's not assume that the reader will understand. Let's give them an article name that actually reflects the content. Jack 1314 (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Or lets simply add them and draw a line under this debate.... We don't need to make a mountain out of a molehill. As you correctly say, no one can deny that E/S/W & N.I are either countries or in Europe - so logically they should be included as such in this article. --Richardeast (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
People can deny they are (in the sense of this list), and have consistently. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
But how will people know what 'sense' this list is in. If you ask anyone which country won the world cup in 1966... they're unlikly to say "well, actually in some senses it was England, but only if by country you mean country and not soverign state, because if you do then no country won it... ". If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.... if you ask anyone in the world if Scotland's a country, how many are going to say no? Lets leave them in the list - and get on with our lives. --Richardeast (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Just because it is a duck it does not mean it belongs in our lists on wikipedia. Plenty of reliable sources that list countries do not include England, Wales or Scotland on their lists, we do not have to either. People know what "sense the list is in" by reading the introduction, which we can improve and even link to Countries of the United Kingdom article as an example. Country has different meanings, as long as the intro clearly defines what meaning we are using. (Sovereign states), then there is no problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Wiktionary has the following definitions for country: 1. A nation state, a political entity asserting ultimate authority over a geographical area. 2. A former independent nation state (e.g., England or Scotland). 3. A rural area, as opposed to a town or city; countryside. 4. Short for country music.
It is quite clear that this list uses the word country in sense 1, because we consistently speak about sources (UN member states, ISO-3166-1) that explicitly refer to sense 1 and not 2. E/W/S/NI are constituent countries, that does not make them sense-1 countries and there is no ambiguity to that. In other languages, Land in German is also used for federal-level entities, and pays in French for cultural regions. My position is still that we do not need to change the name, and we do not need to add German Länder, French pays nor countries of the UK. I won't fight for it if I see a consensus building against this position, (no time for that) but I don't think it is the case right now. Place Clichy (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Slight Oppose Ironically, I fear the new title will get into similar semantics debate, as sovereign states and territories could mean sovereign states and sovereign territories as well. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
What's a sovereign territory? I only put the "and territories" bit in because you said to. I'd be happy with it just being about sovereign states. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The and territories bit is an integral part of this list. Otherwise this list could just be redirected to List of countries by continent. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
But that redirects to List of countries and territories by continent which includes all the territories there too. The fact that article has been stable for years and does not include England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland highlights again why a name change should not really be needed in this case. We should just set the criteria to match that article which has a very good introduction. These lists for each continent seem to be useful, having more descriptions about the entity, its names, capitals, and a map. If it wasnt for that other information, all of these lists would be pointless. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis, how would you feel about List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe suggested below by Pfainuk? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a suitable compromise, as long as WP:FORK doesn't occur, and the similar template is applied throughout wikipedia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support If the list title remains as it is then it is not complete. This article is a list of European sovereign states and territories. It's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned. Jack 1314 (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support on the condition that no contentfolk is created which repeats lots of these countries just so a few extra that will be excluded from this list can be added. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose As there are many other articles which use the same title, Countries and territories, we should not change this title simply to resolve this dispute. This article was stable until England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland were added. They should not be readded and the introduction should explain clearly what is and is not included.BritishWatcher (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support It appears from the above debate some editors will never accept this present title unless certain entities are included, there for we may as well change the title to be more accurate and avoid the need for this debate. If this move does take place no WP:Content fork should be created simply to add England, Wales, Scotland and NI to a new list. If there is consent on the other articles mentioned below for a name change to ensure they are all in line, we should consider moving those too. But clearly Europe has some serious problems that other continents have less issues on. But like i have said previously, i do not think we must change this article title, most titles say country but do not include Scotland and Wales, there is nothing saying they need to be included. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


Good point about those other articles. We should not change this article title, we should simply exclude England, Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland, to bring this dispute to an end. It was stable before they got included. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Then we can rename the other articles as well. Them being different, does not mean we can never rename the article. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I would support renaming the others and this one, although it would be seen as a bit of an over reaction to this limited dispute. I think there is enough editors here opposing the inclusion of EWSNI to mean the present version remains. We should consider tightening up the introduction so its clear some entities are left off. We do not have to change this title, the overwhelming majorty of country lists on wikipedia do not include EWSNI, they do not all have to change their names. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It was not stable before they got added. It was not having them added that started this debate. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It was stable until it got included. Looking over the talk page archive i can not see the issue raised until this year, despite the article being around since 2007. This is what happens when E/W/S/NI get included on lists, it creates instability. Its only been a couple of years since those articles on England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland themselves have started by saying they are countries of the United Kingdom. In the vast majority of cases they do not belong in lists. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, in order to avoid the inevitable it's a country, too arguments. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless all relevant articles are changed. In that case, support. There are better names as well - List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe, say. Pfainuk talk 17:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: the reasoning is sound, and the current title too vague. I also prefer the above user's wording for the new title. Night w (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the Move going ahead?

The conclusions of the debate appears to be that it is still best to rename the article to say sovereign state rather than country, to be more clearer and avoid potential disputes in the future, whilst there is no requirement to change names, it would fully resolve this matter. The current RM is proposing a move to List of European sovereign states and territories, as Pfainuk has suggested above List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe seems to me the better title (This is a list of things in Europe, not simply European territories, something the falklands or Greenland could be described as).

I have posted on each of list of countries+territories by continent articles, mentioning the debate here and that those articles may be moved as well if there is agreement here. So does anyone have any objections to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe being the title if the other related lists are moved as well? People reaffirming their support or opposition to the move so the positions are clear now the major debate seems to be at an end would be helpful. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I won't protest such a move. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is any reason to argue against this move, except maybe for the trouble they'd cause! So which one should it be:
I'd go with the last one personally. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with a page rename to Pfainuk's proposed title too, Chipmunkdavis: List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. Daicaregos (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The last one is best IMO. Pfainuk talk 18:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I would also support the last one. Jack 1314 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

We will need to change the WP:RM template in the section above to reflect the amended suggested name change, and then take another straw poll. Anyone against? Daicaregos (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I support all the moving and changing and etc. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It does seem a bit of a shame to loose the Partially recognised states and Unrecognised states from the article - but in the words of on the of the greatest English bands of all time... let it be. it if must be any, I'd say the last too. --Richardeast (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving bot

Hello, since the debate about the inclusion of some countries getting rather long, i was thinking that there should be an archiving bot added to archive dead threads, since this page is getting long. that would be better than someone coming in and archiving everything blindly. Gman124 talk 03:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Somebody has already archived it blindly and re-arranged the sections, which I'm not happy about. But conversations here can last for a long time and it would be a shame if someone posted something and it was archived before anyone replied. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
you set the amount of days that you want the thread to stay. up to the editors. see Miszabot. how a month or 2. and i was only saying until theres high activity around here. Gman124 talk 03:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Everything on the talk page at the moment is related and if some of it were archived, we wouldn't be able to see the entire conversation before the matter is settled. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
OK that's good reason too. though hope someone else doesn't move around and rearrange the talks again. seems kind of fishy, as if they did it to move consensus more towards there side. well that my opinion, (could be wrong). Gman124 talk 03:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
You only need to to look at the history to see who has been moviing stuff around.--Kudpung (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Either you set up a bot or you archive manually: This page is way too long now.--Oneiros (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Final Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


List of European countries and territories → List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe — A final straw poll on whether or not the page should be moved to a better title. This will most likely cause the other continents' pages to be moved as well. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  • "sovereign states" is more accurate than "countries".
  • "dependent territories" is more accurate than just "territories".
  • "in Europe" removes confusion about European areas outside of Europe.
so why are you requesting another move, while the other one hasn't even been closed yet? I donl;t really care if you move or not. just seems weird. Gman124 talk 03:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
We decided to move it to another name. The first proposed move had been discussed vigorously as you can tell from everything below. Now we need to make a final decision. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The list title should reflect the content of the list, and vice versa. Daicaregos (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support This seems to be the most acceptable solution and provides definite closure for both sides of the debate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as per my reasoning above. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note The other continent pages can probably be moved without an administrator, as the List of Sovereign states and dependent territories in X redirect that exists for this page does not exist for those. I will be happy to move the other pages, except for the List of North American countries and territories, where another editor is currently blocking my edits. As soon as the 7 days expires on this, I will move them. (assuming no objections). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
A page can be moved over a redirect sometimes. If there has only been one edit on the redirect page, it can always be moved. I created the redirect to this page so I know there's only been one edit. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, you obviously know more than me :) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • support - I hope this will be moved when the 7 days of the RM below is reached, rather than us waiting another 7 days. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Happy to have a title that accurately reflects the content and is an acceptable solution for all concerned. Jack 1314 (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as the most likely compromise position available to us. Pfainuk talk 16:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as this is acceptable. PS, Why's RM being held at the top of this talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
So we don't have to scroll down to the bottom of this seemingly endless pit of comments to find it. Plus somebody has already taken the liberty of re-arranging the page so I didn't think this would really make much of a difference. Also it's above the old requested move, just so people know to come to this one, not the other one. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose it seems a shame to loose the 6 Partially & Unrecognised states - I think choosing to ignore them can be viewed as more a political statement then listing them as the special case they are! Can see problems in regards states like Palestine too --Richardeast (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I see little reason to assume or argue that this rename should force us to remove the states with limited recognition. On the contrary, just like now, they'd have to be included for reasons of neutrality. Pfainuk talk 19:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Even the most ardent supporter of the right for one's self determination would find it hard to justify inclusion of a breakaway territory (to quote wiki) such as Transnistria in an article which will list only sovereignty countries or dependent territories. They fit neither category, so will need to be removed.... though if you're arguing NPOV... dare I say... what about constituent countries ;) --Richardeast (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The unrecognised states are unrecognised sovereign states. We are definitely not removing them. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Just taking Transnistria as an example - their sovereignty isn't recognised by anyone! Every single UN state (and the UN itself) considers that area to be part of Moldova who claim full sovereignty. ISO3166 doesn't recognise it, nor does the EU. In fact, according to the government of Moldova, nearly 400,000 people in the Transnistrian region applied for Moldovan citizenship[16]. I'd like them to stay too Mclay1 as I think the article is improved by listing all the entities which are considered countries in Europe... but if we're only to list recognised sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe I don't see how we can while conforming to the new title. --Richardeast (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
False. Excluding the Transnistrian government itself, Transnistrian sovereignty is recognised by Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which are in turn recognised by Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Nauru, four UN member states that are essentially universally recognised. There is dispute as to whether Transnistria is an independent sovereign state.
You are arguing for the sake of arguing, and breaking Wikipedia rules in the process. You've already made it clear that you think they belong. So does everyone else who's commented. Remember that it's the inclusion criteria stated in the article, not the title, that is the final arbiter of what belongs in a list and what does not. Pfainuk talk 09:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
No dispute?!?! Pfainuk, please, there's even an entire Wikipedia page on it[17]. Show some good faith, I'm arguing to make the information of any future article accurate and correct! We can't list in an article listing only sovereign nations a non-sovereign country whose sovereignty is claimed by a sovereign state, especially when the non-sovereign country is unrecognised by any of the entities you yourself have listed as required - I.e. Show me the ISO3166 for Transnistria, and I'll agree with you! --Richardeast (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Please don't try to put words into my mouth. For one thing, it's pointless. Anyone can look at the post preceding yours and verify that what you claim I wrote is essentially the exact opposite of what I actually wrote.
As I've pointed out at least half a dozen times now, it is necessary for WP:NPOV for us to deviate from ISO 3166-1 in cases where there is dispute as to whether sovereignty exists or not, to make note that an entity as disputed. You say that Transnistria is a "non-sovereign country". I don't believe the governments of Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia would agree that Transnistria is not sovereign. Neutrality requires that we respect their position. Pfainuk talk 10:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Everyone else seems reasonably happy with the content and the proposed move. If we accepted Richardeast's main argument now then we would have to include England and Scotland but exclude Wales and Northern Ireland. Clearly that is not an option. I think we should wait for the Move to be implemented, then we can start a new debate on the contents if more editors want it changed, but it doesnt seem like they do. Theres no point in us going round and round in circles now things seem to have been agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. I agree Pfainuk. It's necessary for WP:NPOV to us to also include other entities in ISO3166 which are listed as countries too. I'm sure we can forget about the UN and ever single recognised state in the world since Abkhazia and South Ossetia are recognising them - do you know Sealand's position?
It does seem a little odd to me though that we're proposing to change the name of the article as a way of making the list acurate while also controlling the countries listed here... but you seem to say that we can deviate from that when we feel like it and list what 99.99% of the world consider non-countries when it suits. Tell me, is the only reason you support changing the name simply because you want to continue to ignore the countries which form the UK? --Richardeast (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
We are using the ISO as a standard, not a be all and end all. Transnistria is recognized in this list as practically unrecognized, so I don't see how including it breaks NPOV. Changing the title was the compromise that seemed to make the most people happy. It's already stated in the article that micronations aren't included. And besides, how is, as you say, Transnistria a country but not a sovereign state? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I support changing the name as a reasonable compromise. I don't believe it's necessary, but am willing to support if it will get us a consensus.
Perhaps you could show me a source that demonstrates that the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments - and indeed the non-existent English government - consider themselves sovereign and independent, as does the Transnistrian government? Pfainuk talk 11:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
No - they're clearly not sovereign but since Wales, Scotland and N.I. do not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a State, and since devolution and the setting up of independent legislatures remains politically outside of the controlling states integral area, I still think they should be listed somewhere. --Richardeast (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
That wording comes from dependent territory, I believe. No, Scotland, Wales and NI are not dependent territories. On the contrary, they are politically integral parts of the United Kingdom, as is England. By this logic, every Land of Germany, every Région and Département of France, every Autonomous Community of Spain is a separate dependent territory. We can go further than that too - British local authorities have their own legislatures, so that would include local authorities throughout the UK. Pfainuk talk 12:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Tell that to the good people at Boycott Scotland. You're quite correct, wording does come from there and they clearly would not belong in the dependent territories category - though I still stand by my point they should be listed somewhere! .--Richardeast (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
If you're looking for a use of the word country for a non UK area (that is also not included), Basque Country is one. Do you argue we include that? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Basque country is a historic name of a region (not to mention spanning 2 countries) - and, although many Basques believe themselves to be a country, the political realities have them defined in a different way. --Richardeast (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh the irony. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Haha. Anyway, political realities. Since you can't see past a disambiguation page Basque Country (autonomous community). A first-level administrative division of Spain, in fact, officially an autonomous region of Spain. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the politics of that part of the world (have a good friend whose Basque and in fact I'm going to the French part Tuesday!) - though, point something defined as a region is different to something defined as a country... and, to my knowledge, unlike E/W/S/NI the Pays Basque isn't officially recognised as a country by anyone --Richardeast (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I see little difference between the two situations. This "officially recognised as a country" suggestion is a red herring: the UK doesn't diplomatically recognise Wales, Scotland, England or Northern Ireland. The term "country" in the sense of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would seem to apply to the Basque Country. And the area is referred to using the word "country". By your logic it belongs in.
As does Brittany. As does the Loire Country. As does Bavaria... Pfainuk talk 17:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
If an unrecognised state is not a sovereign state then it is not a country either. How does the title "List of sovereign states and dependent territories" specify that it only applies to recognised sovereign states? Unrecognised states will be included under the new title in exactly the same way they are now. They are unrecognised sovereign states in the same way they are unrecognised countries. We will not be putting them in the same section as the recognised sovereign states so there will be no confusion. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
True. I take that onboard. I'd personally like them listed... I just don't understand the point of the name change if it's not going to change the content. --Richardeast (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The point of the name change is to keep the current content. That was the compromise established. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
So it basically is just a way to try to exclude the countries which form the UK from this article?
Though, as per Dependent territory article, it specifically states Aland and Svalbard are not Dependent territories, so these will need to be removed too to reflect the new title. I think Akrotiri and Dhekelia should probably get the chop too since they are not ordinary dependent territories --Richardeast (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Svalbard and Aland should be removed. However, I don't see why Akrotiri and Dhekelia should be removed. They are listed in Dependent territory under the UK. What has "ordinary" got to do with it? McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to note that the table discussed here isn't called "Dependent Territories" it is called "Non-sovereign territories". Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Trouble is we are about to move the article to a title that just says dependent territories. I would be ok with a limited number of exemptions if there is justification, but we would then get into a debate about what else can be included, and you can be sure the nations of the UK will be at the top of the list on the inclusion demnads lol and then we will be back at square one again. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I think we've seen that a nice short and simple article name cannot properly cover every nuance of every word. The two territories not defined as dependent territories are both special territories whose status has been created under international agreements. This seems like a useful criteria to include. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree, i dont have a problem with inclusion of some special entities like that, but if it comes down to having to include UK nations or removing anything that does not strictly fit into the title, id side with removal. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I would too, but I honestly don't think it should ever come down to that. At least, I hope it won't! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support For the sake of consensus & compromise I'll go along with the name change. Once it's completed we'll need to decide which entities no longer belong and how we should order those which do --Richardeast (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support title should reflect content --Snowded TALK 10:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Title should reflect content; the word/concept country and its translations are way too ambiguous to make a list of (see virtually all discussions here) L.tak (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wales / Scotland / England

It seems odd to me that we're totally ignoring the countries of Great Britain, deciding instead to represent all of as the united kingdom; especially as they are desisnated as countries on their respective pages. I propose listing them each individually in the 'nonsovereign territories and regions' section - does anyone have any disagreements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardeast (talk • contribs) 13:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting arugment, for to include the regions inside of the United Kingdom we would also have to include Sicily and Sardinia, for I thought that they all were considered states, though they alter from the definition in some ways. Unfortunatly the person who wrote the comment didn't leave their user name so I cannot cite them, but you can scroll up and read the case "Sicily and Sardinia" he mentions something about this manner.--Ianfarewell (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I oppose listing the countries of the UK and Sicily and Sardinia. It's pointless to included autonomous regions that are part of a country already listed under sovereign states. The crown dependencies of the UK and the British overseas territories are not part of the UK, just controlled by it, which is why they are listed. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
That being said, some of the other areas listed under non-sovereign areas are part of listed sovereign states. We need to come up with a definition for the non-sovereign areas section. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the inclusion of England, Wales and Scotland on this article. This has been heavily debated in several places and it was agreed that countries which form part of a sovereign state (the United Kingdom) do not belong in line with other sovereign states.
I will find you some links to where this has been extensively debated in the past if you want, but for now understand that your proposed inclusion of these countries is very controversial.
Putting it in a separate table is less or a problem but it does mean many other places have to be added to the list as well and his opens up a lot of dispute. List of national anthems has information divided into tables and highlights there are lots of extra places that might need to be added.BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Well - A separate table would be a way to do it. There are many parts of Europe whose 'nationhood' is disputed (Basque & Catalonia to name but 2!), But, to my knowledge, the UK is the only state in Europe who specifically define defines itself as made up of constituent 'countries' - so it seems odd that they're not listed as such any where in this article.
What I propose is I go ahead and add the table (when I have time!) then lets debate whether people feel it adds to the article and helps build understanding for those who read it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardeast (talk • contribs) 09:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking again at the present list i would be ok with England,Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland being added to the "Non-sovereign territories and regions" table, with that section being renamed to include countries, so Non-sovereign countries, territories and regions or something like that. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree the countries in the UK should have their own section. Based on Wiki's definition of Sovereignty, calling them non-sovereign countries is simply not correct; each has it's own legislature with law making powers, while Scotland has a totally independent legal system (just look at lockabie bomber's release)! A new section is both the most logical and cleanest way of including these countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.172.16.90 (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The countries of the United Kingdom are not sovereign states. Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales can make some decisions about their own countries but they all still all part of the United Kingdom and subject to British law. They have a common head of government and head of state. They are indeed non-sovereign territories. My local council can make decisions about our small area but that does not make my area a sovereign state. The UK situation is similar to that of federal states, although the UK is not considered a federal state for some reason. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd say they're semi-sovereign countries. Based on your own definition the United Kingdom is subject to European Law (which indeed takes preference over laws London makes) but there's no argument about calling EU nations 'non-sovereign states' or 'non-countries'. I agree with the various contributors here that the countries that make up the UK are a special case and should be in their own table - which I will do for next weekend. We can then decide, as a group, whether we think it improves the article or indeed whether they should be included as full countries (as I would prefer) or as non-sovereign states (as others have shown preference). Richardeast (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
They are no more a special case than the constituent countries of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. "Country" is just a word that could just as easily be "state". The EU is different because members can opt-out of the laws or leave the union completely. Scotland cannot leave the UK without referendums, huge law changes and such, neither can it opt-out of UK laws. The UK is defined as a sovereign state, the constituent countries are not, therefore they are non-sovereign states – there's no in between. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure your point. Both the Kingdom of Denmark and Netherlands are unions made up of states which we've listed as sovereign - while you seem to be arguing for the reverse. As for EU opt-out, this needs to be negotiated (in a not too dissimilar way that powers are returned to the constituent countries in the UK via devolution), states can't simply opt-out of laws unilaterally. Just taking Scotland as an example - given they have their own independent legal system and legislature (over which the London parliament has no power to dictate nor veto) ... based on Wiki's own definition of sovereignty, someone could make a very convincing argument as Scotland being a fully sovereign state while the UK, being a political union of countries, should be put in a similar category to the EU. I still feel a separate table, as suggested by BritishWatcher to be the best way to cover this tricky area. --Richardeast (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
That is not the case. The United Kingdom parliament has absolute sovereignty over the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. At any point it has the legal right to suspend or repeal the 1998 Scotland Act which gives the Scottish parliament its powers. The UK government has veto power, it simply avoids using it for political reasons. Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are in no way sovereign. However this article does list non sovereign territories and entities so as long as they appear in the correct section and are clearly defined as countries of the United Kingdom, there is no big problem with including them. The table they are in at the moment is fine, i would oppose moving them to their own separate table, keeping them with other sovereign entities is the fairest way of dealing with them otherwise you get into disputes about what else should and shouldnt be moved. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with McLerristar. The Kingdom of Denmarks Greenland and Faeroe Islands and the Kingdom of the Netherlands Aruba and Netherlands Antilles are probably more free than Wales/Scotland/England. Country is simply a word used to describe them, much like Home nation. They are in no way a sovereign state. Scotland may be considered slightly autonomous, Wales too, but England fails even that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Those other places you list certainly have more autonomy than countries of the United Kingdom, ofcourse farore islands are already listed in the same section as England,Wales and Scotland, all the others mentioned are not in Europe. Although i suppose the title could be a little confusing as they would be considered "European territories", just not in Europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It makes no sense to add England and Wales to the non-sovereign list and not add all the German and Austrian Länder, Catalonia and the 17 autonomous communities of Spain, the Autonomous Monastic Republic of Mount Athos, Chechnya, Tatarstan and every semi-federal or semi-autonomous piece of land in Europe. I agree that we need a better definition for this list: it is always easier to define something by what it is rather than what it is not. My understanding of the consensus generally reached (in and out of Wikipedia) to create such a list is that a non-sovereign entity worth mentioned next to a list of independant states needs to have both:

  1. a near-independant level of political autonomy
  2. AND a physical separation from the mainland/mother country (such as that of Gibraltar to the mainland of the UK, or Guadeloupe to France)

I can always be a tough call, but I think the list of 7 we have right now has shown to be the most consensual and stable in time. What do you think? Place Clichy (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree in general. Though I'd question your rule for geographical and political separation. The Channel Islands and Isle of Man would appear to be different from that. And Guadeloupe is a DOM: it combines the status of, say, Vendée and Pays-de-la-Loire, but does not have much in the way of further powers. A better example would be French Polynesia.
The way we normally do it is by ISO 3166-1. I sometimes think I sound like a broken record when I say this, but I think we should adopt that here as well.
Germany is worth mentioning in this context because the word Länder means "countries". Germany, like the UK, is divided into countries. So any argument based on British nomenclature also applies to Germany. As well as the Loire Country, the Basque Country etc. Pfainuk talk 20:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, should remain excluded. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As several editors above are concerned about its inclusion on this list, i also agree with its removal to ensure the list is balanced and we are not treating UK entities a certain way whilst ignoring the others mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
No - I completly disagree with this, Wales, Scotland, England and N.I. are specifically defined as countries... so clearly they should be included in a list of European Countries! Next to that simple fact, the arguments of how much national soverignty is held in each respective capital city comparared to that held on their behalf by London or Brussels really is IMO irrelevant. A seperate table, as you suggested BritishWatcher, seems to be the logical way to inform Wiki readers of this - and in the meantime please read the wiki article for Constituent countries. --Richardeast (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
So are the German Länder. Pfainuk talk 21:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the problem with including these entities on these sorts of lists, it opens up a dispute about what other entities can be listed. This list was fine before England, Wales , Scotland and Northern Ireland were added a few weeks ago there for they are not needed. I originally opposed their inclusion through fear this sort of thing would happen, i relaxed my position but its clear the dispute i expected would happen has arrived. We can not treat the UK differently, they should be kept off the list. Countries means different things to different people, aslong as we are clear in the intro what is included (and what isnt) then there is no issue with leaving them off. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The UK constituent countries use the term countries differently. As stated, including them opens up a wide range of problems. The other places on the current list all hold a significant level of autonomy and a status that is different than just part of the country. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
If the majority of people seem to be anti the inclusion of the countries that make up the UK, maybe the article should then be renamed? Instead of 'European countries' should we not title it 'European States'? Or 'European sovereign regions'? It seems odd and slightly illogical to refuse to include 4 countries (complete with their own laws, legislatures, national anthems and flags) simple because we can't decide quite how sovereign they are compared to the political union to which they are a member country! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardeast (talk • contribs) 06:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The name of the page is "List of European countries and territories". The constituent countries of the UK either need to be added to the "Non-sovereign territories" sections, which I did but it was reverted, or the page needs to be renamed. If the page is to be renamed, it should be title "List of European sovereign states", then we can do away with the pointless "Non-sovereign territories" section, since what is to be included in there is so loosely defined that no one can agree. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Well the areas currently in that list all have a special political status. The Aaland islands are an autonomous area of Finland that received their autonomy from the League of Nations, and have such a high level of autonomy that the EU cannot change some of their laws. Gibraltar and the sovereign bases are British dependencies, not part of the UK, but still controlled by it. The Faeroe islands are an equal part within the Kingdom of Denmark to Denmark itself, and when people think of Denmark they don't include the Faeroe islands. The crown dependencies are also not part of the UK, but administered by it.
England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are just administrative divisions. Countries in the sense of this list is synonymous to Sovereign state. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
But who are we to say what is "special political status" and what is not. There are already a number of articles on those things, maybe we could create more for each continent, but for the sake of keeping the article simple, I say we stick with just countries. Sovereign state is the more correct term for country and it avoids the constituent country inclusion debate. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
We aren't saying it, the UN regards Aaland as a special area. The Faeroe Islands are there because they aren't adequately covered anywhere else in the list. Dependencies are regarded as separate from their mother country. The constituent country debate, really, I think is just semantics. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
But the Wiki article itself doesn't mention Åland Islands as either a country or territory (rather a 'region of Finland')! While Wales is clearly defined as a country! I understand there are various motivation (some based on logic, others more.... political) behind refusing to list as a country the countries that make up the UK in this article - but refusing to include them anywhere in an article titled 'European countries and territories' does seem a counterintuitive to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardeast (talk • contribs) 08:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The article lists Aland as an "autonomous area of Finland". It is still a territory of Finland since it is part of Finland's territory. I think we should add the constituent countries to the non-sovereign territories section (which I previously did) and we can close this debate. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The article title is List of European countries and territories. Mention has been made of ISO 3166-1. To be listed on ISO 3166-1 a country must be at least one of the following: A member state of the United Nations, a member of one of its specialized agencies or a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Consequently, ISO 3166-1 is, effectively, a list of UN member states. It is not a comprehensive list of countries. If the inclusion criteria for this article is ISO 3166-1 its title must be changed to reflect the inclusion criteria. Neither sovereignty nor membership of the UN define the word country. Reliable sources do. England, Scotland, and Wales are verifiably countries. Therefore, they should be included on this article. There can be no NPOV reason to exclude them. Daicaregos (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it depends on your definition of countries. Countries is sometimes used as shorthand for Independent country much like state is used as a shorthand for Sovereign state. In this case, the use of the two words are different, as the use of the word state can be different. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not an issue of interpretation. The UK Government, the Office for National Statistics and the government in Wales (question 11), among many other reliable sources, explicitly state that Scotland, Wales and England are countries. It is not our place to decide if they are right or wrong. Wales, Scotland and England are defined as countries. They are in Europe. Therefore they should be listed on an article entitled List of European countries and territories. If you want to create an article entitled " List of independent European countries and territories" or " List of European Sovereign states" then those criteria would apply. As it stands, they do not. Daicaregos (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason not to include Scotland, Wales and England in this list. As mentioned above, they are reliably sourced as being countries. Jack 1314 (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
That's why we need to rename the article. The word "country" in this article title is just shorthand for "sovereign state". We need to move the page to List of European sovereign states. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
List of European sovereign states and territories don't forget. And if that goes through we'll have to change all the continent lists. Keep the redirects, of course. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Or we just stop ignoring England, Wales, Scotland and NI and be done with it! I still think having a separate category initially proposed by BritishWatcher as being the best solution - I'm happy to go ahead and add this if the general consensus is that it'll add to the reader's understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardeast (talk • contribs) 16:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
If England, Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland were to be included, I believe it should be kept to the one list, and sovereign countries were bolded with a note at the top explaining just that. Jack 1314 (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
That works too. So ... do we A) Include them as countries B) in a seperate table as suggested by BritishWatcher or C) As 'non-soverign' states? Lets get a build a consensus and finally draw a line under this debate. I choose A. --Richardeast (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I support excluding E/W/S/NI and leaving the list as it was before the alteration. If the title of this article means people feel strongly they must be included, then i support renaming the article to ensure they are kept off of this page, so we can have a clear criteria that people can not dispute. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I support including them, but if they are not included then I support a name change. Richard, I would support A also, if that means they are on the one list, but if there is a need for a compromise I would go with C. C being the one list and bolding of sovereign states. Jack 1314 (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Scotland, England and Wales be included on this article. If this cannot gain consensus the article name must be changed. England, Wales and Scotland are verifiably countries. There can be no neutral point of view reason not to include them, given the article title. Daicaregos (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
When there was a wikipedia wide debate about the issue of lists, it was agreed then that just because a title says country does not mean everything described as a country must be listed, as long as the introduction is clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, was it? Could you point us to the relevant Wikipedia policy please? And does it override WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS? Daicaregos (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I never said there was an official policy on the matter, simply that people agreed that use of country in the title does not mean everything described by a reliable source as "country" must be listed. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, as it hasn't been agreed on this page, it is not Wikipedia policy and it does not override WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS, I fail to see its relevance to us here. Daicaregos (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Well the status quo is supported by editors here, there is no majority support for the inclusion of England, Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Changing the title is less confusing, thus the best way to go. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree changing the title is less confusing and would resolve this but it would take this list out of sync with the other continent ones. We should not do that just to avoid mentioning E/W/S/NI. This article was stable before their inclusion, they should not be readded to the list. We should just clear up the introduction to make sure its clear what is and isnt included. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with BritishWatcher. We should not avoid mentioning E/W/S/NI. Well done BritishWatcher. Seen sense at last. Daicaregos (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I said we should not change this article title just to appease people demanding EWSNI be added to this list. The article can remain at its present location, but we can continue to exclude these non sovereign parts of the United Kingdom. It was stable until Richardeast asked for them to be included, it got included, several editors objected, and it has now rightly been removed. If there is no consensus for inclusion, we must stick with the status quo :) BritishWatcher (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Well BritishWatcher- I'm all for increasing the knowledge shared with readers of Wikipedia articles, especially if it also involves increasing an articles accuracy! Though reading the various discussions, I think most would agree there's a clear consensus for including all nations legally defined as a country in a list of European countries. Why anyone opposes increasing the accuracy and learning benefit of this article by totally ignoring the 4 countries whose political union form the UK is beyond me - it seems as illogical as claiming countries in the EU should be excluded since some soverignty has been pooled in Brussels. --Richardeast (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The comparison with the EU is completely different. The UK is a sovereign state and country. It has supreme sovereignty over everything and everyone within these borders. The UK parliament has the absolute right to suspend devolution to wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (NI devolution was suspended for years), it has the right to withdraw from the EU and all international treaties and obligations. The majority here do not want England, Wales, NI and Scotland included which is what matters. Several editors have stated reasons why they can not be included above. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Very simplistic view BritishWatcher, but not correct. Google "the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law" and read all about Scottish law's interpretation of the statement you just made - especially the finding that "the Parliament of Great Britain 'could not' repeal or alter [certain] 'fundamental and essential' conditions" of the law governing Scotland. Furthermore, as per the Lisbon treaty Article 50 states may 'negotiate' an exit - a procedure which needs agreement between the state in question and the European Council. The council can, in theory, simply say no! In law, a state has no more of an automatic 'right' to withdraw from the EU than Ireland had to withdraw from the UK. So, based on your logic... As the UK is not the 'fully' sovereign country as you claim is required to be listed, should we not exclude it from the list too?
But this argument is all irrelevant and getting quite farcical - I believe this article (as it is currently titled) will be better with the 4 countries who make up the UK included and, assuming the majority continue to agree, we will add them... and that is the principle hoop through which we should jump to get the 4 included. --Richardeast (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Lmao, i am sorry but you are completely wrong on this matter. The Parliament of the United Kingdom has absolute supreme sovereignty over this country, that includes Scotland. This has not been changed by devolution, the British parliament can still suspend or repeal devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with the click of its fingers if it was needed taking away the powers of the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly and the Northern Irish Assembly (which was suspended for years). It has the absolute legal authority, it just would be deeply damaging politically.
In exactly the same way the British Parliament can repeal the European Communities Act 1972 which would take us out of the European Union and end its binding laws and regulations. The lisbon treaty rightly sets out a clear path for countries to follow to withdraw (a sensible idea and one the UK would follow if it did ever withdraw), but the British government and parliament does not have to follow the lisbon treaty if it repeals the European Communities Act. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh and if you think that the British Parliament does not have the legal authority to "repeal or alter" [certain] 'fundamental and essential' conditions" of the law governing Scotland", who does? BritishWatcher (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Richard. Some people would prefer the reader not to have the whole list of countries. The reader comes second here because users here would like to exclude them because they are not that kind of country or this kind of country, or heaven forbid, some people perhaps believe they are not countries at all, even with all the sources at hand (I hope that's not the case). Jack 1314 (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
That's like saying just because Scotland, Wales and England are described as countries with sources a plenty they should not be in a list of countries. Doesn't make sense. They should be in the article or the name should change to reflect what the article is actually telling us. Jack 1314 (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
"Country" mean different things to different people. Aslong as we are clear what definition of country we are using in the introduction, there is no problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Some are very anxious that E/W/S/NI be included on any country lists. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
A country is a country and a sovereign country is a sovereign country. Stating the obvious there, wasn't I. Now, as long as this is stated as a list of countries then Scotland, Wales and England must be included. If people don't wish for a list of countries then change the name. It's as simple as that. Jack 1314 (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no rule that says anything with "list of country" must include England, Wales and Scotland. The vast majority of lists of wikipedia do not include them and for good reason. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It may be of interest to some people, but I can see a similarly long debate was had on a different article List of national capitals (which included many of the same people having this same discussion now) - the end decision was reached to include the countries that make up the united kingdom on the list of 'national capitals'. Again, in the interest of consistency across Wikipedia, the articles balance and, most importantly, with a view to expand the knowledge of the readers of this article.... I still can't understand the logic behind wanting to continuing to exclude the 4 nations from the list of countries in Europe? --Richardeast (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Most lists do not include the countries of the United Kingdom. You are right a couple of the individuals on this page forced us to keep England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland there, whilst it was very clear there was a majority originally in favour of some more serious alterations. In that case the original version had to stay, along with the minor alteration. In the interests of stability the present article (without England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) here must remain. You asked for them to be added, they got added, it caused a dispute, a majority do not want them on the article there for it has been removed. The reasons for not including these non sovereign entities has been stated above, you include this others demand other things be included as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
This argument is so illogical. Its clear that the constituent countries of the UK are not sovereign states but they are countries. So they either have to be included or the page needs to be renamed from "countries" to the more accurate "sovereign states". There is no other option. We can't just not include them and say that by "country" we really mean "sovereign state" but we just can't be bothered changing the name. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


We can. The overwhelming majority of country lists on wikipedia do not include England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I agree that a name change makes it easier to defend the exclusion, but it is not really needed. If the other articles mentioned below are changed, and its on the condition no new list is created to use the term country (which would be a content folk) then i would support the change.BritishWatcher (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The articles on Europe that use the term "sovereign state" are newer, whereas the articles that use "country" are older. The names all need to be standardised to "sovereign state". McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I actually quite like the way you've updated the page Mclay1 (with the 'Constituent countries' table originally recommended by BritishWatcher). It's simple, clear and I think helps improve the article for the reader. --Richardeast (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Well like i say, i will support that if the other articles are changed and there are no WP:Content forks created simply so that EWSNI can be included on those lists, i just do not think it is something we must do. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, hopefully that's the end of that debate then. Why didn't we do that sooner? McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That resolves nothing. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing to resolve here. Scotland, England etc are countries. If you don't want them here that's obviously your opinion, but your opinion has no weight here when up against verifiable sources. We can't have an article titled List of European countries and then use a criteria to exclude those countries that some believe aren't quite countries. As I've said previously, either change the title or include all the countries. Jack 1314 (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
There is obviously something to resolve here. An article should not have to cover every possible connotation of every word. The article on evolution does not cover the evolution of the english language. There is an article on constituent Countries of the United Kingdom anyway. They don't belong in this list at all. If you'd prefer we could link to the aformentioned page in italics under the lede? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Mentioning in the introduction that the list does not include entities like countries of the United Kingdom and linking to that article would be a good compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
If you follow the debate you will see after originally stating i opposed their inclusion through fear it would lead to a dispute about what else should be included, i said id accept inclusion of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. However several other editors have raised concerns about their inclusion on this list, the sort of dispute i originally expected. There for the stable version which excluded them should remain. This article has been here for years, this is the first time the inclusion of England, Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland seems to have come up and like always it has caused huge problems. I think i will have to support the article move again, it seems to be the only way some people will accept England etc do not belong on this list, but if we do make the move no content fork must be created.
I do reject the idea we must include England etc because the title says country. Most wikipedia country lists rightly do not include England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. They are simply lists of sovereign states and territories. Many people define "country" as sovereign state, it is certainly my preferred definition. As long as the introduction explains this there is no problem at all. That seemed to be something most editors who responded in the debate about lists (a debate which was advertised on over 100 list articles) seemed to think. If it was just me then your point about my opinion having no weight would be true, however it is clear from the debate above and below other editors do not support the inclusion of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. They have to remain off the list, if we have to change this article title to restore stability then so be it. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok people... this is getting stupid. The work done by Mclay1 seemed to be perfect, it listed the countries as the article correctly should while mentioning which were constituent countries - to most, I'm sure this would seem a perfect compromise. BritishWatcher, looking at your page I can see you have strong personal opinions about the union - as do I... but when there are undisputable independent sources of evidence, personal opinions are irrelevant. The point of Wikipedia is not to act as a soapbox from which we can preach our tainted views of the world, but to try and be balanced, factual and reach comprises which improve articles and bring benefits to those reading them.
I am going to revert back to Mclay1's version and if any further changes are made without agreement first... I will ask this article be locked! --Richardeast (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Offboard Richardeast. The stable version is the one without the countries of the UK. If an article is locked, per policy it is locked before the edit that started the conflict is added. In this case that edit would be the addition of the constituent countries! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The stable version should be restored, Richardeast has reverted it back to the one including England, Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Well as you mentioned my personal opinion about the union, i can not help but notice 3 of the main editors here demanding England, Wales and Scotland be included on this list support the destruction of the United Kingdom and independence for these non sovereign entities, this of course could just be a coincidence and peoples personal views should not matter. The other editor who is prepared to support their inclusion because of the title is also prepared to support renaming the article to avoid confusion and the need to include them. What does matters is several editors here oppose the inclusion of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There is no consensus for their inclusion, the previous stable version must be restored. This list was here a couple of years without major problem before England, Wales, Scotland and NI got added. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but while on here, our opinions about the political union and whom should govern our respective countries is irrelevant and, as an editor of wiki, you should put the stability and accuracy of the encyclopaedia first. I see you've re-changed your mind again about renaming the article, as you've changed your mind about having a separate table for constituent countries (which you yourself proposed). Tell me, if the article is renamed as you now re-support, will you also remove and therefore completely ignore the Faroe Islands as you must? --Richardeast (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The situation of the faroe islands is completely different. The faroe islands are not included due to their name as a "country", they are included because they are fully autonomous from the main body of Denmark. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Our opinions should not determine what belongs in this list or not. The fact remains most lists on wikipedia using the term country do not include England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. They should not be included to avoid confusion, to avoid putting them in line with sovereign states and to avoid disputes about other entities that people think should also be added if they are included. As an editor of wikipedia i too want stability, this article and the others closely connected to it have been stable for years, until you requested England, Wales and Scotland be added. This caused a dispute, the addition was removed (although you have restored it again).
The Faroe Islands issue is a self governing territory of Denmark, separate from the entity in the sovereign state section which is talking about the state in Europe called Denmark, it does not include Greenland and the Faroe Islands, there for Faroe Islands is rightly listed separately. Scotland is not self governing, the faroe islands is much more like the situation with the Isle of Man. Scotland forms part of the sovereign state already listed on this article. It has more limited autonomy than American federal states, and probably many other european federal states. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
You can't have it both ways. Either we include constituent countries, or exclude them. Faroe Islands does not have full sovereignty as a country in the 'sense' you seem to demand for inclusion - and it's not for you or I to redefine them to fit our political agendas. They are a constituent country, that's where they belong. Though BritishWatcher I, like a few other people, seem to be getting a little confused about your flip-flopping... Am I right in reading that you're now in favour once again about Scotland and the other constituent countries being in their own table on this article? --Richardeast (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no having it both ways. Being a "constituent country" is not a criterion used to create this list. Whether entities are or are not is besides the point. The faroe islands is included because it is not included in the area generally defined as Denmark. Instead it acts more like a country in a personal union with Denmark. The "constituent countries" of the UK, while in a personal union, are all fully integrated and accepted parts of the UK (independence movements aside). In short, the inclusion of the faroe islands has NOTHING to do with it being called a "constituent country".
As for BritishWatcher, I'm reading he is simply sick of this argument. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Faroe Islands is not in this list because it is a country, it is in this list because it is a self governing territory a bit like the Isle of Man, it is nothing like Scotland. Just to clear up my position as i have had to change it several times, because i was prepared to compromise.
I originally opposed the inclusion on this list of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Fearing it would spark a dispute, which has been seen in previous debates. I then dropped by opposition saying i was prepared to accept their inclusion provided they were not in the section for the sovereign states. This all changed when several editors arrived disputing their inclusion (something i thought may happen), as other editors have raised concerns i now support their complete removal from this article and the restoration of the stable version which for years did not include England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
On the issue of what we should name this article. I have always thought that there is no requirement for us to change this article title, most country lists on wikipedia do not include EWSNI and as long as the introduction and criteria for inclusion is clear, use of country is not a problem. However as some editors here seem reluctant to accept this fact, i am prepared to support the article renaming to ensure this dispute is resolved permanently. Just like List of countries becoming a redirect to List of sovereign states resolved the problem there. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to clear things up, BW. Your position is that you will change your position to whatever position will most likely preclude the inclusion of certain countries. I think we have that clear now. I'm trying to assume good faith, I really am! Jack 1314 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
No just to be clear. My position was England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should NOT be included on this list, the same position i take on other articles. However i then relaxed my position in the spirit of compromise, saying id accept their inclusion on the condition that it was in a separate section and not mixed with sovereign states (like the version u guys are supporting now). I was then prepared to leave this issue alone, that was until other editors raised concerns about its inclusion and several have said they support its removal. Since there is now a dispute over the issue, i agree they should be removed and the stable version restored.
I have always stated in the past i do not think England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland belong on the vast majority of country lists. My position is backed up by the fact reliable sources that list countries do not always include England and Scotland either. If you wish to start questioning my agenda, then again i can only point out that 3 editors demanding the inclusion of Wales, Scotland and England support the independence of these nations. It would seem we all may have conflicts of interest on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Here are a couple of examples. CIA world fact book [18].. "Select a country or location" United Kingdom is there, Faroe Islands is there, but oh look, England and Scotland are not there. The BBC country profile [19], (paid for by English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish households), it mentions the UK, Faroe Islands(in the territory list) but oh look, no England, Wales or Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you remember these posts on another article talk page? [20][21]. Your quite happy with the CIA factbook now that it backs up your POV but not so happy when it didn't. I actually laughed out loud when I saw your above post. BW, you can't make your mind up here and you can't make your mind up over the CIA factbook. Jeez! Jack 1314 (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
lmao the point of mentioning the CIA world fact book and BBC was to highlight that reliable sources provide lists they define as of countries, yet leave out England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Just because the CIA does not list them in their country list, does not mean it is not a country (exactly like its failure to say the UK is a parliamentary democracy doesnt mean we are not one), the point is reliable sources list countries, but dont list everything that could be described as a country as you guys demand we do here because of the title. The BBC often describes, England, Wales and Scotland as countries, yet they see no reason to include it in their list of countries for obvious reasons and for the same reasons we do not list them on wikipedia lists. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The CIA factbook is not 100% accurate, and in fact has quite a few flaws. However, it is generally seen as quite reliable, and accusing BritishWatcher of POV because he pointed out the occasion when the reliable source was wrong is bordering on a personal attack. BritishWatcher actually did make up his mind, but was open to the spirit of compromise. Quite a respectable position. The fact the BBC does not list them in a list of countries means a huge amount. They are, after all, the BBC. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
What! Are you telling me that BW is allowed to tell us when a reliable source is wrong or not? Let me pick something out then. The CIA factbook is wrong because we here at wikipedia have numerous reliable sources that tell us Scotland, Wales etc are countries. As for a personal attack against BW. Please, do me a favour. Jack 1314 (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point. I was not saying because the CIA dont include Scotland it is not a country. My point was just because Scotland is called a country does not mean it has to appear in every list of countries. The BBC one is the better source as they often use the term country to describe Scotland, Wales and England, yet see no need to include it in their country profile page. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary has the following definitions for country:

  1. A nation state, a political entity asserting ultimate authority over a geographical area.
    Australia is both a country and a continent.
  2. A former independent nation state (e.g., England or Scotland).
  3. A rural area, as opposed to a town or city; countryside.
    I come from the country — I'd hate to live in the city now, I'm so used to the woodland and meadows.
    These animals are now found only in the high country.
  4. Short for country music, a genre of popular music that has rural Southern roots and embraces numerous subgenres and styles.

It is quite clear that this list uses the word country in sense 1, because we consistently speak about sources (UN member states, Montevideo convention, ISO-3166-1) that explicitly refer to sense 1 and not 2. E/W/S/NI are constituent countries, that does not make them sense-1 countries and there is no ambiguity to that. In other languages, Land in German is also used for federal-level entities, and pays in French for cultural regions. My position is still that we do not need to change the name, and we do not need to add German Länder, French pays nor countries of the UK. I won't fight for it if I see a consensus building against this position, (no time for that) but I don't think it is the case right now. As for sources, it'd be great to have a primary source of what exactly do they mean by constituent country, however in the absence of a written constitution of the UK we will be left to speculate, as opposed to US States or German Länder. The sources of the stable pre-discussion list did not lack, the sources for the requested inclusion do lack. Place Clichy (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Whilst we should not have to change the title of this article, it has proved to be a good way of resolving the dispute in the past. List of countries redirect to List of sovereign states has been very stable (regarding EWSNI) compared to the complete mess that consumed the article prior to the change. Ideally we would keep this current title, there is no majority support for EWSNI to be included in the list (although they are at present). BritishWatcher (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
For reliable sources see Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs. I'll be taking a break from this discussion and indeed wikipedia for a couple of days. I'll look forward to coming back and seeing a sensible solution. ;) Jack 1314 (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
There is fairly clearly no consensus to include these four. Since the last stable version did not include them, a no consensus result to this discussion means that they are not included as per standard procedure on Wikipedia.
I agree, Place Clichy. The German Länder and French Pays have just as much right to be included in this article as UK countries. As, indeed, do other areas that use the word "country" such as the Loire Country and Basque Country. I find it rather arrogant to assume that the UK countries should somehow be considered special exceptions when the fact is that there are several areas called "countries" in Europe, and many areas within sovereign states with similar or greater historical, cultural, linguistic, political and/or geographical distinctiveness than exists between UK countries. Even those cases where those two overlap, such as Brittany and Bavaria, are apparently to be excluded. Pfainuk talk 17:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that list of countries here fulfils WP:COMMONNAME more, as shown be BW's sourced lists above. However, if it is changed, then similar lists everywhere (Which are otherwise stable) will have to be changed.Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A compromise?

This list (or article) is important and now that I've read it a couple of times, I have found it very useful and have learned a few things from it that I didn't know already.
Anyone can start an RFC - you don't need a consensus for starting one, or arguing who does it. I came here only because I flap the WP:EAR occasionally, but I'm neither a geographer nor a politician nor a geopolitician. Personally, I don't care who is right and who is wrong in this issue, but for the sake of reasonable accuracy in the encyclopedia, we need to get a consensus. There may be one person who has created the article and/or made the most edits, and while out of respect we often defer to the major editor, it often happens that a wider call for opinion will close with a consensus that would be contrary to his/her hopes, but as I already said, that's the way the cookie crumbles, and it's happened to me a couple of times, even on articles I created or have made 350 edits against the next editors' 50 or 60. So what?
Because I'm neutral here, I suggest you each make a proposal on my talk page for a motion for an RFC. I'll synthesise them into a neutral RFC motion, which will be about what should be included and how, and not about the dispute between the editors, and and I'll launch the RFC and try to make sure a couple of hundred people know about it. I won't offer any personal opinion on the RFC, but I'll be around to keep the discussion tidy and on track. You 'll ned to be patient because if a consensus is not immediately apparent, an RFC will run for 30 days. The borders in Europe are not likely to change dramatically in that time, so how do you feel about that? Note that I won't be in the slightest offended if you reject my idea.-Kudpung (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is this is a much wider issue than this single article and i do not think a RFC linked to just one article will produce a suitable outcome, especially as it is likely to last several weeks and the potential responses could just be a few. That is then several weeks gone by and this may all start up again on another article elsewhere. If people are concerned about the accuracy because of this title, then we should reform the introduction or should press ahead with the outstanding request move proposal which currently has majority support. If the article is moved then this specific issue relating to this article is resolved completely.
I would much rather we attempt some form of mediation on this matter, as quite a few of the editors here are regularly involved in these matters on other articles. If mediation produced nothing then there could be a RFC over the outcomes of that mediation perhaps, but the few RFCs i have been involved in accomplish very little and are very open ended. It is also worth noting that this matter has been raised centrally before, there was a huge debate a year or two ago at a central location where editors from many lists (It was advertised to over 100 article talk pages) attempted to get agreement on these matters, i will find the link to the page if you would like to take a look at that, but it highlights this is not a new issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a great idea - we're not making any progress trying to find a compromise so a neutral pair of eyes seem the perfect resolution to our problems here... I'll make the proposal on your talk page as requested. --Richardeast (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I've had a look at the wider issue, and I'm even more concerned and convinced now that it is time the personal nationality issues of the editors are to be put aside, and that focus should be made on the neutral accuracy of an encyclopedic article for the benefit of our readers.--Kudpung (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
This is where an extensive debate took place on these sorts of matters relating to the inclusion criteria of lists of countries etc. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries. Tightening up the introduction or changing the name will address any neutral / accuracy issues. However there are many dozens of lists of countries on wikipedia, most of which do not include Scotland and Wales, all those lists can not be wrong, but that is what people are saying by insisting on England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland being included on this article simply because they are described by some and meet some definitions of the term country. It was only about 2 years ago there was an agreement to describe Scotland and Wales as countries in their first sentence, and that was only stable by clearly stating they are countries that are part of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
BritishWatcher - seems you're so sure of yourself, why don't you write to Commonwealth Secretariat to tell them they're wrong... then there's the Welsh Assembly to make them to update their website!... then when you're at it direct your fire to the UK prime minister - No need to compromise, remember, all these people are 100% wrong and you're 100% right... life's so simple when it's 100% black or 100% white. ever thought of running for English president? --Richardeast (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
You do seem to be missing the point. I accept these entities are described by plenty of sources as countries. That does not mean they belong in every list simply because it has the name country in the title, that is why we have introductions which define clearly what is and is not included.
Now you linked there to the Commonwealth Secretariat. Take a look at that website on the right hand side. You will see a drop down box under the word COUNTRY. Oh look, the United Kingdom is there.. But wait, where is England? where is Scotland? where is Northern Ireland? where is Wales?
The exact same goes for the BBC. They call England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland countries. But look at their country profile page. [22] .. they too do not see the need to list England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in their country menus, despite them calling those entities countries in numerous articles. I could you some other examples if you like.
I notice you completely missed my question above. Do you think Wales MUST be listed on List of countries by GDP (nominal) because it has the name country in it? The demand that every list with the name country must state Wales is totally unacceptable and would be strongly opposed on many of the individual lists. So if there is no need to list Wales on that List why must it be listed here? Wales is not being left out, it is part of the United Kingdom which is where it belongs in the sovereign state section of the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'd just like to say that just because I put my name down as one of the article "caretakers", that does not mean I have more authority over the article than anyone else. I'd also like to say that my nationality has nothing to do with this debate. My final point is that we are not treating the UK as an exception. The Faeroe Islands are also part of this debate now but they were quite happily included in the article until they were deleted along with the constituent countries of the UK. No one seemed to object to their inclusion but they are exactly the same as the others. Just because they are not physically connected to their motherland, does not make their situation any different. If we included the constituent countries, it would not bring up any other arguments about what should be included and what shouldn't – only constituent countries would be included! McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The faroe islands were deleted? That's not good. They were in this article for a completely different reason. At no point were they included because they were a 'constituent country'. They were included because they are not part of Denmark proper. All constituent countries of the UK are part of the UK proper. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The Faeroe Islands are not part of Denmark proper. Denmark proper is a constituent country of the Kingdom of Denmark. The Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of the Netherlands have the same situations as the UK, only their constituent countries are on different continents so Denmark proper and Netherlands proper are generally substituted for the actual sovereign states for convenience. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it's slightly more complicated than that. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is indeed a country made up of 3 smaller and equal countries. However, Denmark is slightly different. While the Faroes and Greenland are known as countries of the empire, Denmark never has been. Denmark retains the image of both the country and the empire, while the Netherlands makes up one part of the country. The world just doesn't make sense sometimes! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The Faroe Islands should be in the list, in the section for non sovereign territories. Their inclusion has nothing to do with the fact they may be defined by some as a "constituent country" of Denmark, but because throughout wikipedia they are listed as a territory of Denmark. I must confess, whilst i may be biased on this matter, i think Britain has dealt with its territories far better than the Netherlands/Denmark which both use the "Kingdom of Netherlands/Denmark" terms which are far more complicated than the UK which clearly separates its territories from the United Kingdom.
Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland are already covered in the article as part of the UK, The sovereign state of Denmark is about the country that is a member of the EU, the Faroe Islands and Greenland are not part of the European Union so it is not covered by that entry (unlike EWSNI).
Just to be clear on one of my previous posts, when i have been talking about national views of 3 editors i have been referring to Jack, Dai, and Richardeast who all openly support the destruction of the United Kingdom and independence for the nations they seek to be included on this list.BritishWatcher (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, thanks for clearing that up. Would you like to be completely transparent now and confirm if in your opinion some editors are only making POV edits on Wikipedia, and if so, whom? Daicaregos (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No i am not suggesting anyone is doing that. The only reason i have stated such things is because Richardeast has attacked others (likely he means me) for having " Somewhat warped political opinions" amongst other things. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to throw your toys out the pram BritishWatcher... don't throw them at me! Anyone who deems compromise and consensus as unacceptable has, in my opinion, a warped sense of politics, regardless of where they sit on the issues. --Richardeast (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe the first time i mentioned peoples national views on this page was in response to this comment by you: " BritishWatcher, looking at your page I can see you have strong personal opinions about the union - as do I... but when there are undisputable independent sources of evidence, personal opinions are irrelevant. The point of Wikipedia is not to act as a soapbox from which we can preach our tainted views of the world, but to try and be balanced, factual and reach comprises which improve articles and bring benefits to those reading them." BritishWatcher (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
What's wrong with that statement? Maybe I am too much of an idealist, but isn't that editing Wikipedia in a nutshell??! --Richardeast (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The point is you mentioned my personal opinions on the union, and that you have your own. In response i thought i should just note that 3 of the 4 wanting their inclusion on this list hold such views and the 4th editor (Mclay1) wants them included because of the title but had proposed a page move so it is no longer an issue. Anyway, ive replied to your other post below in a new section so we can get back onto the subject. Ive outlined the two practical problems i have with the position we must include EWSNI on this page. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I reckon we should desist from throwing personal politics around. As editors the point of what we do is create an NPOV article which is based of criterion which are derived from logic, although I'm sure the official wikipedia policy words that better. Mixing arguments with insults (which many have done here) degrades the whole quality of the posts, and causes strife and unresolved arguments. So if we could all refrain from accusing others of whether they support independence of the nice kind hardworking scot from the evil english overlord, or whether they a support a rampant extremist group seeking to destabilize a great nation? Just to keep the debate WP:CIVIL! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree we should avoid personal views, i have only mentioned such things previously in response to Richardeast who has said things about others like having " Somewhat warped political opinions" BritishWatcher (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:AGF BW, WP:AGF. For all our sakes :) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not accusing any of them of doing anything wrong, i understand the reasons why they want these entities added to the article and accept the fact they are called countries. However when someone questions my political motives for taking the position i have, i am not going to ignore the fact the majority of the editors on this page pressing for inclusion of these nations, also support the independence of these nations. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a fucking disgrace. How exactly is linking my political views and my editing pattern assuming good faith? Daicaregos (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Dai, I would felete the f word. BW, a quick analysis of your comments on talk pages over the last week or so shows a pattern of constantly ascribing political motives to other editors who disagree with you. Please stop and WP:AGF--Snowded TALK 10:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
When someone brings my political views into the debate, i see no problem highlighting other peoples openly stated views just so we all know where we stand. like i said before, i understand the reasons for stating they should be included on this article. I am not accusing anyone of just doing this for their own political views. Its clear because this article title includes "country", some may think it must list every country. I understand that, i disagree for practical reasons that ive stated before. I am sorry i mentioned it again just now, i just wanted to be clear when i have mentioned national views its not been regarding Mclay1. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
You see, that's what I fail to understand... you disagree for 'practical' reasons?! How is ignoring 4 entities officially defined beyond doubt by a plethra of offical sources [23][24][25][26][27] as countries from a list of countries at all practicle? To many, that would seem distinctly impractical! - Not withstanding prior to you deciding there was to be no compromise we were all working towards a solution you yourself initially suggested and which Mclay1 very kindly spent his time actioning[28]!. --Richardeast (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I will try to explain this to you again in a new section below. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Countries

I fully accept that reliable sources describe England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as countries. I support the stable wording on the 4 articles which says they are countries that are part of the United Kingdom. But i said at the time when agreeing to those wordings i do not think they belong in lists of countries across wikipedia, this is an opinion i have continued to hold even when i have supported a compromise like i did at one point on this page and have done on other articles.

There are two main practical problems that i have concerns about.

1) As soon as you allow nations that form the UK to be included it opens up a dispute about other entities that form sovereign states, for example people above have mentioned the German states and the fact the German language name translate to country or along those lines. The UK can not be treated as a special case, we may think it is and in some ways it is unique (like the football and some other sports where i accept for obvious reasons, England, Wales, Scotland and NI belong in lists rather than the UK) but there are other places where inclusion is very problematic as this dispute has shown. When its for a clear reason like sport or even legal systems i accept Scotland, England+Wales, and Northern Ireland may need to be listed separately in those cases as the UK has different legal systems, but again that is controversial as there are 50 US states that have their own legal systems and differences.

2) The argument here is that because they are described as countries, we MUST list them on this page because of its article title. The trouble is there are over 100 lists on wikipedia, many saying country and the vast majority do not include England, Wales etc. Many are simply lists of sovereign states. Now id happily support a full renaming of all these articles to avoid the term country, but there would be no majority support for that, and it would seem like we are over reacting a bit just to resolve a UK matter which is the one that often causes the problem. As i have shown above, the Commonwealth and BBC which describe our nations as country have country lists which do not include England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There are many other examples, this justifies the fact we do not need to include every entity known as a country just because of the title. As long as the introduction is clear about what is and is not included, i do not think there is a problem with leaving them off.

It is these two reasons why i oppose their inclusion on these country lists. There is also a 3rd issue, and that is most lists have a single big table that mixes sovereign states and territories. I think it is wrong that non sovereign states be in line with sovereign states which is misleading and confusing (even if we use the italics/bolding), as they are already covered in the list anyway as part of the UK. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


We're not going to find any compromise here, we're all just repeatedly regurgitating the same rehashed augments over and over again. I'm think a better option for me from here on forward whenever trying to edit Wikipedia is to stop trying to find a compromise solution and always demand my opinion and view take preference over others regardless of how many sources, or how much evidence and independent references they provide.
So, on that note, I no longer am going to promote the original compromise solution BritishWatcher initially put forward, we'll seek a 3rd party ruling and from now till that ruling i'm going to demand England, Scotland, Wales & N.I. are listed as the full non-sovereign countries they are rather than creating a new table to keep everyone happy.
I feel a little sad that a group of adults working for the good of the community in a supposedly friendly environment has allowed it to come to this... but here we are. --Richardeast (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


BritishWatcher, I respect and agree with some of your reasons. Here are some points I'd like to make:

  • As I think we've all agreed on, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries but not sovereign states.
  • Country is often used synonymously with sovereign state for ease of understanding, which is probably why organisations such as the BBC use the easier term.
  • This is an encyclopaedia, so the most correct and technical term should always be used. The most correct term for most of the country lists should be sovereign state.
  • Other Europe lists only list sovereign states whereas this article should list everything in Europe.
  • The other lists should be put aside for the sake of this debate.
  • I do not think we are treating the UK as a special case. The parts of Germany are not constituent countries. The term constituent country has its own article so it must be different from other sub-national divisions. The countries of the UK (and other constituent countries) often compete as individual countries along with sovereign states in competitions such as the FIFA World Cup and the Commonwealth Games. Sub-national divisions of other countries, such as Germany, never do this.
I think including constituent countries in their own table does not defy any Wikipedia rules or conventions nor does it disagree with the title or concept of this article. I do not see why they should not be included. They should be included if only for completeness. If including them brings up debates about the inclusion of other sub-national entities, so be it, but that should not influence this decision. I believe that constituent countries are fundamentally different from other sub-national divisions and deserve inclusion or at the very least, a mention (which they already have in the footnote for the UK).
As a final irrelevant point, Richardeast, I'm not an adult. So does that excuse me for being immature? McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The trouble is we can not just leave aside the other lists. The argument is the article states country, there for must include everything that is described as a country. If that argument can be made here then it can be made on every other article list as well. I would be prepared to accept some form of wider compromise with individuals here in some form of mediation, about a set of certain articles (like this one) where they should be listed on the condition we accept they should be excluded elsewhere, but as its the exact same argument that seems rather unworkable. There are cases where it is fully justified like sports. I have no problem with sporting lists saying England, France, Germany, Wales, Scotland etc, it makes sense to there, but inclusion on other lists is far more questionable.
I agree with you that the most correct term is sovereign state, and i believe that is the primary use of the term "country". Thats why it makes more sense to go with the proposal to change the article title of this one to say sovereign state. There appears to be support for that move, and if we included the other 6 or 7 lists related to this one, the move would make sense and keep everything in line, as sovereign state is the more precise term.
I fully accept there is nothing against wikipedia rules or policy to include EWSNI on this list, the trouble is it still opens up disputes about other entities (rightly or wrongly) and it has caused an endless amount of problems in the past, which is why something like List of countries now simply links to List of sovereign states which resolved the problem. That seems the best way forward in this case. More importantly i do not think we are violating any wikipedia policy by not including EWSNI in this list as long as the introduction is clear. If we are breaking a rule, then all the other lists on wikipedia are too. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Am I right in reading in-between the lines from your statement BritishWatcher that the primary reason behind your refusal to contemplate compromise on this article is a fear that it'll be used as leverage on other articles? Such as List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita or Member State of the European Union??! - I think your worrying too much, unless Wales started to have her own GDP figures published by the 3 main ratings agencies (as the EU now is... which, for simplicity's sake on the article is described as a country too!) or we make a separate application to join the EU - it's not going to happen... the arguments here are simply not relevant.
My sole desire to include the countries which form the UK in this article is the wish to make this article more informative... I'm not seeking pitched battles with anyone or political slugging matches, which was why I was ready from the start to accept what we collectively felt was the most relevant compromise agreement and your suggestion of a separate table seemed perfect - it would ensure the article was complete and accurate while still making the political status of the constituent countries clear to the reader. Having them listed with the other non-sovereign countries, which technically is probably the correct place for them (since they're, as you rightly say, undeniable countries without full sovereignty), would not inform the reader of the unique politics of this island. Renaming the article is an option... but we're still left to fight over the likes of the Faroe Isles who're only partly soverign yet are not technically an overseas territory.
If we must seek 3rd party review, then we will - but I still think it's a shame and we should, where possible try to clean up our own mess... but if you refuse to have it any other way, then that is the only logical next step.
Finally Mclay1 - after this discussion, I think I'll sit out of trying to find the exact definition of what constitutes an adult ;) --Richardeast (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
If E/S/W/NI are included? they have to be shown as non-sovereign. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The compromise agreement which was reached had them listed as constituent countries of the United Kingdom, so, yes.. it showed they were not sovereign states. Please have a look at this link for how Mclay1 had it --Richardeast (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Listing them separately like that does not deal with the problem of other entities which people have raised in this dispute above, and it is that version which several editors have opposed . BritishWatcher (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
the implications for other lists is one of my concerns yes. If you accept the principle that Wales does not belong on a list of countries by GDP then i fail to see how you can not accept the fact it does not "have" to be included on this list. Its true that sources help determine content, so in the case of GDP lists because the main sources dont calculate the countries of the UKs GDP clearly there is a far stronger case for exclusion. But that doesnt change the fact we have an article title saying list of countries, wales is a country, it has a GDP, so there would be a case for inclusion if it is strictly down to the article title. Yet the article title is the issue here too. If sources can justify exclusion of certain countries, why cant the introduction?
Like i said though, i would be prepared to support some form of full scale compromise where England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are included on certain lists but it is agreed by editors (including those supporting their inclusion here, that they do not belong in the other lists). Mediation would be the best path on that. But i still think to resolve this issue here on these lists, we should move ahead with the request move which has majority support. All the sub articles and the primary article relating to this one should be considered for a move too. Farore islands are a territory, they are listed in all wikipedia lists as a territory. The BBC country profile lists it as a territory. It belongs in this list and other lists in line with entities like the Isle of Man, despite being slightly different. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Fine BritishWatcher before we go to mediation... are you even prepared to entertain the idea of compromise on this article what-so-ever? Or will you continue to refuse outright to any idea of trying to build consensus for the article? --Richardeast (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I am prepared to compromise (or flipflop) over inclusion on this article, but it has to be part of a wider agreement on other lists. As i said before, the problem is people demanding inclusion here on the grounds that the title mentions country, that is the core part of the argument for inclusion, and it is one that could be applied to more than 50 lists across wikipedia. And even if i compromise on the inclusion, nothing we do can resolve the issue of the other entities people feel could be justified for inclusion as well if they get added to the list. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of the Faroes, is there any objection to them being added back in? (Objections based on the Faroe islands, not based on its inclusion against others please?) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
IT should be readded. I was not aware until earlier they were removed with the previous reverts, i thought it would have moved back to the territory section. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Clearly this article should list countries in Europe, including constituent countries like the Faroe isles... If it's a country, it should be in here! The question is.... where ;) It's best we leave them out until all the issues are resolved, either by majority consensus here or by 3rd party intervention. As mentioned above, Faroe isles have the same definition as ESWNI and adding them as a non-sovereign territories could be seen as acceptance that's where all constituent countries should be placed. --Richardeast (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry Richardeast, honest mistake, I readded them before you added the "It's best we leave them out..." sentence. Honest mistake! Is there any objections to adding it though? It's on the BBC list of territories, and it holds a special political status that removes it from its controlling state, like the others in that list. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
no worries mate, copy and paste skills are a mess at the moment (I'm trying to work, watch a very good rugby match and have a discussion here all at the same time!) - I was hoping to update before anyone noticed! As my ond media studies teacher would say, just because someone at the BBC has decided something, doesn't make it right! If there's no consensus on constituent countries, we can't make exceptions for any of them and so we should keep them out until common ground is reached. As the Danish version of BritishWatcher would probably say, they're included in Denmark anyhow so what does it matter if the article's inaccurate ;) --Richardeast (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Farore Islands do not form part of Denmark in the way England, Scotland and Wales form part of the United Kingdom. The country listed in our article is the country that is a member state of the European Union, something there for Farore Islands are not part of and so at present are completely missed off the list. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I object. We appear to be using different sets of criteria for including different countries, which cannot be WP:NPOV. Daicaregos (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
If it cannot be NPOV, why do you propose we do just that, using one set of criteria for the UK and another for Germany, France and Spain? Pfainuk talk 16:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. I propose only one selection criterion for this article. If a place is verifiably a country, and it's in Europe, it is to be included. It doesn't get any more NPOV than that. Daicaregos (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
On the assumption the article isn't changed to sovereign states, I've no probs with inclusion of non-sovereigns, as long as it's clearly shown they're non-sovereigns. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
GoodDay, did you have a look at the version built by McLay1? Is this ok for you? --Richardeast (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I have no probs with it. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Great - Chipmunkdavis, do you have any issues with the McLay1 build? --Richardeast (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm worried that it detracts from this article's current content. Although an interesting compromise, I'd much prefer either an explanation in the lede or an article move. I'd be happy to move the other continent lists if this article name change goes through. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Understood. But If there is a name change or a explanation at the top that we've decided to excluded constituent countries - what would you consider to be the correct action deal with the other country which is officially recognised as a constituent country, namely the Faroe Isles? Would you be happy that they would then be excluded too? --Richardeast (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Faroe is not included on this list because of the title "country". It is included on this list because it is a autonomous territory of Denmark. Faroe is included on most lists of countries and territories. List of countries by GDP (nominal) for example. It is displayed in that list as a territory, and covered by two of the 3 sources. This is the point, Faroe islands are separate from Denmark (the state). The countries of the UK are not separate from the UK. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
BritishWatcher - you can't have it both ways... you can't decide to include some constituent countries but exclude others... it's not for you or I to decide which constituent countries readers are allowed to get information about. The question is, do we, as I propose, include constituent countries in this article - or not? but on a side note, your opinions are well known and frequently expressed... which I why I was trying to get the views of some other editors in the hope to build a compromise with them. --Richardeast (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not a case of having it both ways, you refuse to accept the fact it was not in this article because it was defined as a "constituent country". It was in this list because it is basically an autonomous territory of Denmark. The sovereign state called Denmark that is a member of the European Union does not include the Faroe islands in the way the sovereign state called the United Kingdom that is a member of the European Union includes Wales and Scotland. Can you not see the difference? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


Well then British Watcher, may I recommend to you that you tell the editors of the Constituent country article that they can remove Faroe Isles from the page as you've now deemed that they're in fact just basically an autonomous territory of Denmark. While you're at it, maybe you should tell the Faroe Isles themselves, Denmark and the possibly the UN about your decision to reclassify them. --Richardeast (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry that you can not see there is a difference between the UKs constituent countries and the situation with the Kingdom of Denmark, i have tried to explain this in simple terms although considering some of your claims in this debate above i am not surprised you can not accept there is a difference. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
And I'm sorry that you don't seem to see that just because you believe something, it doesn't make it so! You may believe that The Faroes isle are somehow different... or that visitors will all somehow understand in which context you've intend the term country to be taken for this article... You clearly believe many things as fact that many other people would question. As stated before, I've given up on a compromise with you long ago... I think it was just after I read some of the statements you made elsewhere on Wiki. I'll put them below so other editors can make their own assesments about whether they think there's any chance for reaching a consensus here which includes you.
Terrorism can kill individuals, a couple of muslims strapped with bombs blowing themselves up on the London transport system is not going to bring about the end of the United Kingdom. Separatism has that power to destroy everything, throwing away 100s of years of history for a pathetic little dream.
No the Chinese government would not tolerate any of this nonsense and could have stamped it out long ago, I have never advocated the use of force. All I support is our government taking action to ensure the citizens of this country are loyal and have some responsibility. God knows how you separatists would feel if we still had national service in this country like many European countries still have (or kept until recently). I oppose dictatorship, but I also oppose the break up our country which puts us all at risk.
Sadly at times non violence is the more dangerous tool, at least violence can be condemned and met with force. You do not have to use violence to be an enemy of this country and do grave damage to it by pushing separatist or extremist propaganda and views which would not of been tolerated a few short decades a go.
You reject them because we now live in liberal Britain, such ideas now seem totally unacceptable or radical yet other democracies manage with them somehow. What is wrong with people having loyalty towards the state that protects them and the monarch that represents them? For too long in the United Kingdom, we have been obsessed with rights and scared of responsibility. It is good to see the mainstream parties are starting to recognize this too. [29]
So rest of the board - In Good faith and with a view to move on.... together (though I've never really met someone who seems to avocate the views BritishWatcher is hinting at supporting here) - in these sad times of non violence - I'd like to update the article with the compromise based on McLay1's version prior to arbitration, does anyone (other than BritishWatcher) reject getting constituent countries including Faroe Isles back in?? --Richardeast (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
lol BritishWatcher (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wales, England and Scotland are verifiably countries. This article's title is “List of European countries and territories”. Not “Lists of European countries and territories” It is hardly a compromise to exclude a country from the list of countries. This is not a “List of European sovereign states and territories”. It is a “List of European countries and territories”. There is no NPOV reason to require a reader to check other tables to see if a country is included or not. Anyone searching for Estonia would look under “E”. This would not change if the number of entries on the list were 260 or 2600. A country is either a country or it is not. England, Scotland and Wales are countries and should, therefore, be included in that list. Not on one of those lists, but on the list. Daicaregos (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well Richardeast in the debate above clearly stated he did not think that Wales needs to be added to List of countries by GDP (nominal). What i do not understand is if it must be included on this list because of the title saying country, why does he think it does not need to be added to that one? What do you think would be the response if all of us went over to List of countries by GDP (PPP) and tried to demand Wales be inserted in that list, somewhere between Tunisia and Sudan based on the 2006 estimate. Would they accept our inclusion or reject it? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
What is the obsession with relating the Danish constituent countries to that of the UK? The two terms are not identical, much like an associated state of the USA is in a different situation than an associated state of New Zealand. Why don't we not add or remove based on their identification as a constituent country, but look at other criteria? Or use WP:V, the BBC's list of countries and territories in Europe includes the Faroes.Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't fully disagree with you CMD - but equally given official and undisputable independent sources seem not to be enough, we must decide a better and more fair measure than BritishWatcher's whims for deciding which countries people find acceptable to inform readers about. Although no 2 constituent countries are the same (even between the countries which form the UK) - I equally don't think it's for us to decide it's ok for one flavour of constituent country to be listed, while another should be totally ignored. --Richardeast (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
We do not decide by ourselves, this is based on reliable sources. As i mentioned above, 2 of the 3 sources for the GDP lists, list Faroe islands separately. The BBC lists it as a territory, The CIA world Fact book lists it and many others. There is a huge difference between the Faroe islands and Wales. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
We do not decide by ourselves, this is based on reliable sources. - I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I read that! John Kerry has nothing on the speed to which seemingly irrelevant & ignorable sources becomes relevant & reliable depending on your side of the argument! But, now as you're happy to follow the lead of the BBC editors (i.e. who refer to Wales, Scotland, England and N.I. specifically as countries on the respecive country profile pages) then I'm finally glad, after many days of wrangling, we've finally got agreement on acceptable sources. I'll have them added to this page as non-sovereign states within 20 minutes. It was a battle, but finally it appears you've come onboard. Thank you for agreeing BritishWatcher --Richardeast (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
They describe these entities as countries, i have never denied that. The point is the BBC do not list them in their list of countries, they just list the United Kingdom. They list the faroe islands as a territory. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Richardeast, as much as I want to, I'm having real trouble accepting WP:AGF with you (and to an extent BW too). Can we please all calm down? WP:TE is something some of us should look at in spirit. The BBC is reliable, no-one is going to deny that. Note they don't have ESWNI in their list of countries. Please stop twisting other's words to suit your own view? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure - sorry, it's partly my uniquely bad Welsh humour at quite an easy target. I know the countries that form the UK are grouped together within the 'guide to the united kingdom' section (while, on the BBC website it would be illogical to have a guide to Denmark section!) - I'll try to increase the WP:AGF too if BW promises not to recommend me and my family go to one of the re-education camp he wants the London government to setup ;) --Richardeast (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
lol i promise. Some form of voluntary rehab center may not be such a bad idea though! :) BritishWatcher (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Article title update

I take it, it's been decided to keep the current article title? GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Richardeast and I gave two sides of the debate to User:Kudpung. I think we are waiting for their response. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he left the following message on his page;
"Thanks for your input everyone. I'll do some background checks and follow up on your links and leads over the next couple of days. I think I'm probably going to be making a suggestion for a compromise solution, and if you still feel it needs a broader consensus I'll suggest a suitable neutral motion for an RFC, but let's wait and see. I'll leave a message on your article's talk page when I'm ready."
I'd still like to try to work with everyone to get the majority of people happy. I accept it may be impossible to please everyone but if Wales can win the grandslam twice in four years, It can't be impossible to come together here. --Richardeast (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
A solution will be found, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
If there is majority support for the page moves to go ahead, i do not see why we should not implement that. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
There's no consensus for the rename, a quick count has 5-4 against the change with you flapping inbetween the 2. --Richardeast (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have renamed most of the European article titles. There are currently only four European lists with "country" in the title, including this one. I didn't rename the other three because they are similar to this one in that they list the non-sovereign territories on this list. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Mclay1, could you provide a list of those other pages? I'd rather no move's went ahead until we have figured this one out, just to try and avoid unnecessary conflict. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There should be no conflict about the other pages. Most of them had very little activity and no talk page discussions. They were only about sovereign states with no mention of any non-sovereign territories so there is no reason why they should not be moved. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
A collection of most European list pages can be found at Template:Europe topics. I've also just noticed that Azores should be included in the non-sovereign territories list. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I suppose, I would just rather a list, just so we all know. (I'm not objecting to you moving them, just trying to stay informed!)
The azores are an integral part of Portugal, and I'm not sure, but they straddle continental boundaries a little. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Aland is also an integral part of Finland but it's included. I don't really like the non-sovereign territories list. That's why I think the page should be moved to List of sovereign states in Europe. We can provide notes about the non-sovereign areas and there are enough articles covering them already. With that name, it is a sub-article of List of sovereign states. I'd rather not list all the pages I moved. Most of them had long names and there were quite a few. They can all be found in Template:Europe topics. I haven't changed any that aren't in that template because I'm not aware that there are any others. If I find any, I'll probably add them to the template. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Aland was included because of its WP:NOTABLE political status, much like Hong Kong and Macau are in the asian list. I think they should stay. This list is out to give a complete picture of Europe. As such, it has all sovereign states, as well as areas that are not a full part of the sovereign state, and other WP:NOTABLE areas, such as Aland.Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with CMD, regardless of the end result in regards constituent countries Wikipedia needs a list like how this page currently is - excluding all territories which are not 100% sovereign (such as Gibraltar or Jersey) does seem to be a step backwards for the article. I think CMD is right too in saying the Azores are classed as a region (not a country) within Portuguese law - like Corsica in France. Maybe you're right about Aland too McLay? Will sit this one out! --Richardeast (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the reasoning behind my suggestion that we apply ISO 3166-1, with appropriate account taken of the states with limited recognition. The point of using a list such as the ISO list is that it is an outside source, reducing the scope for arguments of this kind. It includes UN members and areas with the sort of notable political status that Åland, the Faroes, Gibraltar, Svalbard and the Channel Islands have.
Doubtless someone will now announce that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all actually states with limited recognition on the grounds that the fact that the UK government calls them "countries" is equivalent to the UK diplomatically recognising them as independent sovereign states. You wouldn't believe that anyone could take such a plainly absurd argument seriously, but it's been made several times in this kind of discussion.
The ISO standard should be applied for all continents, with all relevant articles renamed if it is felt that this is needed. Pfainuk talk 10:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Simply handing editoral control to a 3rd party would be one way forward - it would avoid these arguments but equally mean that we essentially have shackled the encyclopedia to another organisation's reasoning and criteria. I personally think Kosovo, South Ossetia and the like should be included somewhere on this page but they'll not be listed on ISO some time soon. We'd then also need to remove Ceuta, Melilla and Canary Islands from the African territories--Richardeast (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that use of the ISO would at least mean it is up to an external body rather than a bunch of editors on wikipedia deciding which would make it fairer and more stable. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ironically, following the actions of a body which has strong links to governments could make the whole affair even more political and less balanced! --Richardeast (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
So we sanity-check the list. There are issues, sure - we wouldn't use the names used by the ISO, and as I noted we'd need to make some accommodation for Kosovo, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and so on (the states with limited recognition). But the basic methodology is, I believe, sound, and appropriate for a article of this nature. Pfainuk talk 12:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that basing it entirely off one list leaves little room for movement. I think that the ISO is definitely a good base, but as stated there are anomalies, and I think basing it entirely off one list would be constricting. It would be a good base though.Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Most lists on wikipedia include both sovereign states and territories, usually though their title just mentions countries.

List of European countries and territories > List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe.

List of countries and territories by continent > List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent.

We should follow that pattern i think, it seems to be the most accurate title for all these related lists linked on the by continent page. Saying in Europe rather than European also addressing the potential problem of confusing people about european territories that are outside of europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry yourself about this BritishWatcher, we'll update the European part of the List of countries and territories by continent to keep it consistant with this list once the majority here have formed a consensus. You get back to planning what government actions to ensure loyalty would be best against people with a different political opinions to you. --Richardeast (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes as I've been saying those pages exist. Once they're changed the best thing to do would be to put a note in their talk pages leading to this discussion. That way any disagreements can be centralized. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
That is another problem with keeping England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on this list. You will mess up the detailed and clear criteria on the main by continent article. This list should reflect that criteria, we should not change it and then potentially mess up other continents. Oh and it is not about differing political points of view, seeking the destruction of your country is hardly just a "Differing political opinion" although i must admit thats how some people sadly view it these days, i can think of a few more accurate words or terms to describe it. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into the politics of it BW... There's different platforms to have this discussion and for the sake of the article we should both try to focus on facts and sources rather than personal aims and objectives to ensure the end result is as balanced and accurate as possible. The future of the united kingdom and the countries whose union form it is not going to be effected by the information on Wikipedia - but some kids school project maybe! --Richardeast (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
lol, ok from now on lets both try and avoid going off topic and stick to the specific issue of the inclusion of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on this list and others like it. Deal? (although if in the future after this is resolved, you would like to debate these matters more widely, you know where my talkpage is). BritishWatcher (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok - deal... now back to the issues of the best place for the 5 constituent countries. --Richardeast (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Best place for the Faroes is in the section is was in before all this started. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with using an ISO list or something similar is that it doesn't separate the world in continents. So it doesn't need to include territories such as the Spanish possessions in Morocco, but they should definitely be included in the African list. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There would be nothing stopping us listing Spain on account of Spain's African territories on the African version of this list if we were to use the ISO standard. And naturally, such listing would emphasise Spain's African territories. I don't see this as being that far different from our listing Russia on both European and Asian lists. Pfainuk talk 17:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
ISO could work and does seem a simple solution, it also gives us the ability to bat away people who complain about names (i.e. Macedonia or Taiwan Province of China) territories. Though I do possibly we have a responsibility to inform the world about the likes of Kosovo, Transnistria, Akrotiri and Dhekelia and co. If we do go ahead with this... we should probably look to getting other editors of the other continent lists onboard too.
But- on the flip side of the coin... rumour has it official ISO recognition for the home countries may soon be on the way- only this year the UN's just officially started to include UK constituent countries as separate entities on many of it's statistic reports [30] [31] - the first step on way to being included in the UN's Country and Region Codes for Statistical Use database, which is used for ISO3166 --Richardeast (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The first would seem to be recognition of the Scottish Human Rights Commission as able to give useful data. The second is based on statistics that have always separated Scotland from England and Wales (as opposed to England and Wales) and Northern Ireland. That latter point is logical and one that we would do well to follow on lists based on crime statistics or education systems - but this is not such a list.
That said, if these four did go on ISO 3166-1, then naturally any list based on that standard would follow that decision.
On Kosovo, Transnistria and so on are states with limited recognition. As I've already said, WP:NPOV requires us to take account of them. They are - have to be - the exception to the ISO list simply because doing otherwise would take a side in each of those disputes. There are ways of doing this - it's not too difficult - but it does represent a minor deviation from the standard. (Obviously, it should go without saying that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not claim independence and are thus not states with limited recognition, despite what some would argue.) Pfainuk talk 20:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


And then, building on you logical interpretation of WP:NPOV - surly when there is WP:Verifiability proof that a entity is a country... it should be added somewhere to an article listing countries too!! WP:NPOV explicitly states The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a particular topic. It requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. In what way is refusing to list nations which have been proved beyond doubt as countries, anywhere in this article in anyway, shape or form fulfilling the requirements of WP:NPOV? No one can be in any doubt what so ever that there is, at the very least, a significant minority view to include the countries that form the UK somewhere in this article - and unless we base this article on ISO 3166 (who, as it happens in ISO 3166-2 also define the countries which form the UK as 'countries' [32] - this must surely be the route we go down?
Listing constituent countries in a separate table as initially recommended by British Watchers seems to fulfil NPOV while ignoring them totally and instead just bundling them all together into the United Kingdom does not.
(p.s. I saw someone added Faroe Islands back in and, obviously they should be included in this article, but given the debate had so far about whether we should include constituent countries or ignore them... should the agreement of other editors not have first been sort before changing the listing unilataly?) --Richardeast (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The Faroe Islands are an entirely and fundamentally different case from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the notion that they are similar is difficult to sustain with any logic - and I notice that you haven't tried.
Your claims about ISO 3166-2 are rather ridiculous, I'm afraid. Sourcing to an article on the Simple English Wikipedia - that does not claim that the word "country" is based on the ISO - is never going to make sense. From my own searches, notably of this database, I see no evidence whatsoever that the ISO actually does use the word "country" to reference England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
But even if it did, it wouldn't matter. The "country" in this case is the United Kingdom. As per that database. This is just as in the case of Germany, where it's Germany and not Bavaria, Bremen and Schleswig-Holstein. Just as we it's Spain and not the Basque Country. Just as it's France and not Brittany or the Loire Country. The whole point of basing our list on ISO 3166-1 is that we avoid randomly adding entries that aren't on ISO 3166-1. The only reason to deviate is because WP:NPOV requires that we accept the possibility that Kosovo, Abkhazia etc. are independent sovereign states. But there is no dispute as to whether England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are independent sovereign states and thus no reason to deviate from ISO 3166-1 in these cases. Trying to suggest that the two situations are equivalent is plainly daft. Pfainuk talk 14:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


I don't disagree with outcome that has the Faroe Isles should be listed, my point was that they were temporarily taken out because of the disagreement about whether we should include or ignore constituent countries, someone asked if they should be added back in and objections were raised. Yes, they should be included in this article, just as the countries that form the UK should be - but it doesn't seem like very good faith to then add without telling anyone despite objections... Even if they did seem to be somewhat petty reasons!
As per your point, Wales, Scotland, England and N.I. are very different to the Loire country - and being fluent in French can say with 100% authority the French word 'pays' is not the same for the English for 'country' especially when it has an identifier after ('pays' is like the English 'land' England, Northumberland - Pays de Galles, Pays-Bas). For the official source from the ISO website please have a look here [33] - Search for 'Country (en) / pays (fr)' to go to the relevant part of the article - I know it's only been relatively recently that the ISO has stated to list these nations as countries in ISO3166 – but now they are, we can't seriously continue to ignore them on this article! --Richardeast (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The Faroes are not a "constituent country" in the sense of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Never has been. That's always been an excuse to violate WP:POINT, never a good reason to remove the Faroes.
You may note that I am also fluent in French. The word "pays" means "country". Both words can have multiple meanings - allowing for narrow definitions that describe the arrangements of sovereign government or for wider meanings that are not tied to sovereign government.
You're arguing that we should have one rule - using a broad definition of "country" - for the UK and another - using a narrow definition - for France. I don't accept that such clear double standards are appropriate on a list such as this. Either we accept - as I argue - that the word "country", and its French equivalent "pays", can have different meanings - implying that there is no need for England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Loire Country, Brittany and others to go in. Or it always means the same thing, in which case your argument would have to conclude that they all have to go in.
Can I take it from your ISO 3166-2 argument that you're no longer pushing for Wales and Northern Ireland to be included - limiting yourself only to England and Scotland? I'm not sure a lot of our Welsh visitors would appreciate that. Or is it the alternative, that you're now pushing for this list to include Buckinghamshire, Pembrokeshire, Renfrewshire and Castlereagh, among what would certainly amount to hundreds if not thousands of other entities at ISO 3166-2 level throughout Europe? It must be one or the other. There's a reason why I argue for ISO 3166-1 and not just for ISO 3166 as whole: using ISO 3166-2 tends to make lists unwieldy with entities that pretty plainly don't belong. Pfainuk talk 19:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
No, you asked for where in ISO3166 it defined the countries which form the UK as countries. I sent you a link to the exact official document! I don't know what other irrefutable source you could want?!! - and equally I have no idea what you point about Buckinghamshire or Castlereagh being defined as countries is; unless there's another document from the ISO, the UK seems to be made up of only 4 countries.
There is, to my knowledge, apart from the UK, no other entity in ISO3166 which specifically defines itself as made of up countries - France is 'metropolitan departments', Spain lists 'autonomous communities' and Germany is formed of 'lands'. I tell you what, if you can find another European entity not included on this page which ISO3166 specifically defined as a country - I'll stand corrected and accept your above point of now wanting to disown ISO due to it tending to make lists unwieldy with entities that pretty plainly don't belong.. As it is, there can be no disputing how the ISO officially lists the countries[34] which form the UK.
ENG England country
NIR Northern Ireland province
SCT Scotland country
WLS Wales [Cymru GB-CYM] principality --Richardeast (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
So you want Wales to be described as a principality throughout Wikipedia? If we followed the wording in that list then we could add England and Scotland to this article but leave out Wales and NI, that would not make sense. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The category we are creating than (non sovereign-non dependent countries mentioned as countries in ISO) might be factually correct, but to me not really notable. Making a notable list should be about the concept of this type of nations, not about their names. problem 1 is that inclusion is English biased (what if this list were in German, how would translations be? problem 2 is that for a conceptual list we need to discuss it through evaluation of the terms and translations in national law: just some examples: Catalonia is a nation by constitution, the netherlands is a country of the kingdom of the netherlands by statute. The most objective way to keep this wiki stable is renaming as suggested above and not adding this new category L.tak (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree L - you're correct that the countries which form the United Kingdom are a unique type of country, but they are no less of a country because they currently collectively pool together some of their sovereignty. Pfainuk argued that, because they weren't defined as countries in ISO3166, they should be ignored from this page... except they are defined exactly as that! It's not for us to pick and choose which sources we deem relevant - if an entity is a country, it should be included in an article listing countries... it really doesn't need to be any more complex than that. --Richardeast (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I've always specified whether things are listed on ISO 3166-1. ISO 3166 in general includes all sorts of entities that plainly don't belong, and I certainly wouldn't endorse its use generally. What's more, your statement that ISO 3166-2 uses the word "country" to describe these four is pretty plainly false. Or are you now arguing that only England and Scotland be included, and accepting that Wales and Northern Ireland should be excluded? Pfainuk talk 09:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Taking comments out of context isn't really on. Any reader can go back and see that I stated that "But even if it did [say that these four were countries], it wouldn't matter." It still doesn't matter. ISO 3166-2 is your distraction, and as far as I'm concerned it's nothing but a distraction. When I propose ISO 3166-1, I'm discussing ISO 3166-1, which doesn't include any entities on ISO 3166-2.
Even if ISO 3166-2 were relevant - and it isn't - according to the ISO document the UK is not made up of four countries. Your argument is based on an entirely false premise, as is obvious to anyone who reads that document - or indeed your own comment! That document lists two "countries", one "principality" and one "province". Wales is no more a country, based on your argument, than Pembrokeshire.
This is an important point because it highlights the absurdity of these anything-that-someone-happens-to-call-x type suggestions. You have a list of places with essentially equal status (in some cases exactly equal status) and yet they are treated differently because one chooses to use one word and another uses another. Sometimes, the government of one such entity does it to promote a particular POV. Other times it's a historical difference that is meaningless in practice. Whichever, we end up with a list that violates WP:NPOV in many different ways and that makes unnecessary and arbitrary distinctions based on little more than the whim of the editors - a list that, in other words, is essentially useless to our readers.
I notice with interest that you have entirely failed to comment on your double standard, suggesting that we have to take a broad definition of the word "country" in the UK but a narrow definition in France, Germany and elsewhere. One rule for the UK and another for the rest of Europe would be serious systematic bias and is most distinctly inappropriate. Pfainuk talk 09:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


From your long winded response, I take you you couldn't find any other entity listed specifically as a country on ISO3166 with which you don't agree. It was you who claimed The ISO standard should be applied for all continents as the definitive source - it was you who disagreed that the word "country" is based on the ISO since it is never going to make sense. Now that I've supplied you with a WP:Verifiability source which proves beyond doubt that they are, you can't simply disown that same ISO standard as irrelevant! ISO3166 lists are the same lists complied by the same people!
I've been proved wrong many times in my life and I've always adapted my opinions because of it... I always try to look at all the evidence before choosing my point of view on a subject - not only choose to look at evidence which validates my personal opinions! Maybe if you can find me an entity of ISO3166 which is defined as a country (or pays - it's in French too[35] - but sadly not in German) which isn't on this list, I'll adapt my point of view again, but as it is, I don't think we can argue with the logic of ISO3166! (p.s. please also read up on Liechtenstein, Monaco and what a Principality is). --Richardeast (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Quoting people out of context does not make your argument stronger. And your continued insistence on quoting me out of context - apparently deliberately - makes it very difficult for me to assume any good faith in you. You want people to assume good faith in you? Try demonstrating some good faith for a change.
As you well know, my position is that we should apply ISO 3166-1. As you well know, I regard this whole thing about ISO 3166-2 as a distraction. I know what a principality is - though I note that Monaco isn't in the same position as Wales because Monaco is an independent sovereign state and Wales isn't - but it's irrelevant because your argument is entirely based around the word "country". Given this, it seems logical to assume that in cases where that word is not used, you aren't arguing for inclusion. So I repeat my question: do you now accept that Wales and Northern Ireland do not belong on this list? Pfainuk talk 11:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Pfainuk - simple test... find me that ISO3166 entity (in either language published) which is, quite clearly, wrongly defined as a country and I'll agree with your latest point of ISO3166 being a distraction. Otherwise, I'll once again agree with BritishWatcher that use of the ISO would at least mean it is up to an external body rather than a bunch of editors on wikipedia deciding which would make it fairer and more stable. --Richardeast (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Christmas Island is on the ISO list, and I've never heard it referred to as a country. One example, if that helps. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Falklands too. You're right. ISO3166-1 as a bases of listing is naff! They're wrong on that whole principality thing anyhow! [36] --Richardeast (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
ISO 3166-1 does not list Wales as a principality. It does not list Wales at all, so listing it as a principality would be quite surprising. Pfainuk talk 12:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
And again you try and put words in my mouth. I have never claimed that ISO 3166 as a whole is a distraction. But ISO 3166-2 and ISO 3166-3 are indeed irrelevant when discussing a proposal to base a list on ISO 3166-1. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not on ISO 3166-1, and thus do not belong on a list based on ISO 3166-1. The only reason to deviate is in cases where using ISO 3166-1 means not listing entities whose sovereignty is disputed as is necessary for NPOV. The sovereignty of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is not disputed: they are parts of the United Kingdom.
In response to Chimpmunkdavis, ISO 3166-1 does contain entries that many would argue are not "countries" - but that are separated geographically and politically from the sovereign states concerned, and are thus useful to list separately.
So, which is it? Are you arguing that Wales, Northern Ireland, Buckinghamshire, Denbighshire, Renfrewshire and others all belong on this list, or that none of them do? Because either you're arguing that the word "country" is all-important (thus excluding Wales, Northern Ireland, etc.), or that we should list everything on ISO 3166-2 (thus including Buckinghamshire, Denbighshire, etc.). I'm saying we should stick to ISO 3166-1 and ignore everything on ISO 3166-2 and ISO 3166-3 because they aren't relevant. Pfainuk talk 12:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

May I ask the reason for this discussion? Has the article re-name achieved consensus or has it not? Whether or not the article's name is to be changed, its content should reflect its name and vice versa, and no exceptions. ISO 3166-1 is, basically, a list of United Nations member states (plus a few UN and international legal agencies). It is neither a definitive list of sovereign states and territories, nor is it a definitive list of countries and territories - the two possible names for this article. It so has no relevance here. Depending on the final choice of article name, if a territory, sovereign state and/or country can be reliably sourced to say so, it should be included on this list. Daicaregos (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

IS0 3166-1 is not a list of UN member states. It is not a list of UN agencies and it is not a list of international legal agencies. It is not a list of all three put together either. What it is is a UN list of countries. As such, it is a useful outside standard to base our lists on. Not perfect, but far better than nothing. Unlike your proposal, which allows any POV pusher to come in and say that their "country" really really should be independent really based on a source from a government that wishes it was, ISO 3166-1 allows us to create a stable and encyclopædic list. As such, it is a good basis for a list such as this.
Lists do not, and never have, had to list their entire inclusion criteria in the article title. And with good reason: you could easily end up with lists with very long titles. The title should be a description of the contents of the list. It is the inclusion criteria listed in the article that give a final word on the list's contents.


Interesting point of view, pfainUK (I assume it to be you, as the only POV pusher of ISO 3166-1, please remember to sign your posts in future). I agree that ISO 3166-1 is a list of some countries. However, it cannot escape the notice of even the blinkered or the ignorant that its inclusion criteria are somewhat restrictive. I quote ISO who say:

"For quite some time now, individual persons or organizations interested in obtaining their "own" TLD have been requesting the inclusion of "new" country names into ISO 3166-1 in order to get a new alpha-2 code element from the ISO 3166/MA and subsequently a ccTLD from ICANN. Such requests are absolutely futile, however, because the only way to enter a new country name into ISO 3166-1 is to have it registered in one of the following two sources:

United Nations Terminology Bulletin Country Names or Country and Region Codes for Statistical Use of the UN Statistics Division
To be listed in the bulletin Country Names you must either be
  • a member country of the United Nations,
  • a member of one of its specialized agencies or
  • a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
The list of names in the code of the UN Statistics Division is based on the bulletinCountry Names and other UN sources.
Once a country name or territory name appears in either of these two sources, it will be added to ISO 3166-1 by default."
As is shown, the ISO are well aware that their standard 3166-1 is not a complete list of countries. And if you weren't before, you will be aware of it now too. As I said previously, ISO 3166-1 is, basically, a list of United Nations member states (plus a few UN and international legal agencies). The ISO say so in their own words, and I believe them. I trust we will hear no more nonsense suggesting that it is anything else. Daicaregos (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
"POV pusher of ISO 3166-1"? Says the person who goes from article to article demanding that their POV be treated as fact on every single one of them. Yes, I want lists to use a neutral outside standard. I think that neutrality is important in our articles. I think that we ought to reflect the world as it is, not the world as you or I might like it to be. And I find it very concerning when people like you try and push it aside, when you try and insist that Scotland and Wales really should be treated as though they were sovereign, even though they aren't.
ISO 3166-1, with adjustments as I have described, is a neutral and appropriate standard for a list such as this. That's why I want it used. I have no idea what bizarre agenda you think I have, but suffice to say, my agenda is the neutrality and integrity of Wikipedia's lists. Pfainuk talk 20:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_in_Europe/Archive_3&oldid=1136952575"