Talk:Constituent country

Greenland?

Greenland's page says it's an autonomous country since 2009, but this page says it's a constituent country. Which is it?24.57.239.43 (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Constituent country here just means part of a sovereign state with the designation of country in the English language. The official designation "autonomous country" shows that it is considered to be a country, and in the Kingdom of Denmark. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Greenland is a constituent country of the Kingdom of Denmark in the sense that it is a country that is a part of a sovereign state. However, it is also called 'autonomous' as it has complete self-rule except for a few aspects like defence. Being a country within a larger, sovereign state, and being 'autonomous' are two separate issues as the case of England illustrates as it is a country within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom, but is not autonomous as it is administered by the UK government and UK parliament. Hope that is helpful! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

[Relevant to Changes to Denmark section, but maybe more relevant, and easier to access presently, here (the later section is much more involved]. I have to point out it's at least a little bizarre for an actual encyclopedia, which defines and describes and explains, to have an inclusion which is confusion itself without further research or explanation (whatever is written here on the talk page where a very small percent of visitors go): "[Constitutient country] The Danish Realm consists of three constituent parts, each part sometimes referred to as a country. ... However, these terms are not consistent." So why say it in the first place? Surely in a page meant to define the term constituent country - one should be able to read an example is or isn't a constituent country, or if neither or parts of both, should avoid an original wrong defition. The original definition (or what reads like a definition) is strong, clear, forthright, unambivalent. It should not be that way if it is then to be challenged in a way that the meaning of any of it is not then clear.

Without a clearer definition, I feel it would better to leave the Kingdom of Denmark section out of the list of apparent signifiers to the term constituent country. It would be a better idea then to briefly mention at the end of an article that some places in the world such as the Realm of Denmark include territories which have inclarity as to whether they can be a constituent country or not - or to include a short list of such territories. I feel this would be very helpful. People do wish to have a clear idea of what constituent country is. That is if it is not possible to state clearly that the kingdom has constituent countries or not.

However, to me, it seems to be that the best definition of Greenland and the Faroe Islands are as autonomous consituent countries within a sovereign federacy nation.

So, where is the inconsistency in this light? I don't see what the challenge is, in the final examination.

As Chipmunkdavis and Fishiehelper2 have suggested, the article appears to give rise to confusion and suggest that constituent countries can not be substantially or nearly fully autonomous in law or constitution (or indeed that the two lands in question have out and out unqualified autonomy, which probably brought about User talk:24.57.239.43's confusion in the original comment above). As long as there is some portion of rule over the country outside of being autonomous, a territory can be a constituent country.

So I appeal for someone to change this section. As not a constitutional specialist or Kindgom of Denmark specialist myself, I must admit I am rather afraid to do so, and actually I am rather sick of people changing perfectly straightforward and seemingly uncontentious posts I've made in the past. So I don't want to with an area I have no specialy and little recent study in. Funnily, I wonder if Chipmunkdavis and Fishiehelper2 felt similar ways, as we each add to the columns on a talk page very few visitors to the article visit.

I ask a regular editor of the page to adjust, or a specialist. (If that doesn't happen I'll try to return.) You know, it is confusing, this part of the article. At one part of my frustration, as I have done years ago in the past and forgotten, I nearly went down the route of wondering if the Kingdom of Denmark itself hadn't got its definitions wrong and was mistaking a single sovereign territory nation with overseas territories (or colonies) for its claimed 3 country nation!

[I'm not signed in currently, but would be for article changes I would make in future.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.18.46 (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of International bodies section/USSR/Yugoslavia

The OECD source only applies to Yugoslavia and not USSR (which is unsourced). Even in regard to Yugoslavia, it doesn't seem appropriately used. The text is "From 1992 onwards, no longer exists as such. Its constituent countries are Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Macedonia." The context suggests that "constituent countries" reference is applying to the position after 1991, and not referring to the pre-1991 position. To paraphrase, what it is clumsily saying is that the countries which now exist were constuents of Yugoslavia. I don't think it can be used asa source for saying that pre-1991 the constituent parts of Y. were called constituent countries of Y.

In both Yugoslavia and USSR they were referred to as Republics not countries. DeCausa (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If you were claiming the irrelevance of the deleted text, DeCausa, I want to point out the article is about what the term constituent countries means, not when or if it was indeed used particularly. But rather when the term could be used.Your comment, DeCausa, led me originally to want to ask what source do you have which establishes or suggests that republics cannot be countries. I don't see why it is inappropriate to call the former parts of the pre-1991 Yugoslavia consituent countries. If you think this is not right, please could you say exactly why?

The Yugoslavia article reads, "On 31 January 1946, the new constitution of Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, modeled after the Soviet Union, established six republics, an autonomous province, and an autonomous district that were part of SR Serbia. The federal capital was Belgrade."

If you contest the published, deleted text on this consituent countries article, please could you outline why you feel it would be inappropriate to regard the republics and autonomous areas of the former federal republic as constituent countries?

Whether or not you consider that each region might have seemed to have close to full autonomy, even that can not be legitimate for inappropriacy at least given that they were USSR states whose policitians were inherently inextricable from the Union Communist Party and its concerns and directions, from which the Yugoslav Republic was established as an entity & one may say quietly maintained. (Whether or not former Eastern European territories were and are now recognised by Western Europe, USA etc as official USSR dominions or even a lesser thing, something amounting to USSR patronised nations, the full autonomy of most to all of those nations was objectively limited by political concerns from central USSR Communist Party. This means whether expressed in the first instance through the actual politicians of the individual Yugoslav republics or by the Federal Republic. What this means is that, however it happened, full autonomy in each region or so-called "autonomous" area, is unlikely to have been consistently present. One can indeed analyse the political meaning of those lands without considering external Communist Party connections that amounted to more than just influence, but it would be unlikely to be the full, true picture.)

The lands had a Federal Assembly parliament concerned with collective federal policy issues and a collective presidency with a rotating head of the presidency. The presidency head was considered the Head of State of Yugoslavia, therefore, beyond urgent Union Communist Party concerns, states commonly were also officially headed from without their regional republic - an obvious suggestion of constituent country status. In my opinion also, even regions with full, unchallengeable autonomy existing within a collective may be considered as constituent countries in those circumstances. (While a right to leave the Yugoslav Republic of most of the regions could not be a relevant consideration in whether it is appropriate to describe these former regions as constituent countries.) Defence is another important point, where should a territory come under attack, if defence resources can normally extend without the single territory in question, as was theoetically true at that time within the Yugoslav republics and two autonomous territories.

Again, please state what challenges this if you do think it is inappropriate that the former individual republics can be called constituent countries.

I feel that all of this is very relevant to the term constituent countries. Also, regardless of whether or not frequent editors do not wish to include the former Yugoslavia by name in the article, the criteria I've happened to mentioned above in connection perhaps ought to lead to the inclusion of that itself in potential elements to consider in regard of the meaning of constituent country: principally the degree of autonomy; cases of unseen, unrecorded control (and / or elements of control which are extra constitutional) that limits autonomy; how collectivity with other territories is organised and carried out; external leadership whether permanent or periodic; and, obviously, policy consistently made in mind of and /or for, and in part by, more than just the territory in question - without the sovereign option to withdraw from such policy terms without reforming the basic political identity of the territory. (Not signed in.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.18.46 (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Denmark section

A recent edit to the Denmark section goes off into a rather unhelpful tangent about how some random websites refer to Danish countries as this and that. I reverted it, but the author appears to be quite attached to it. It appears to be cherry-picking terms placed on various websites to demonstrate a point. It's unhelpful to the reader, and it also demonstrates a poor understanding of WP:V.

It should be noted that www.denmark.dk, for some reason credited to the Danish government by the editor, is in fact registered to private company Blogging Denmark, and, as it states on the website, does not represent the views of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Danish government.

Other sources relied upon for their terminology include the Greenland Home Rule Act, all the way back from 1978. Information on terminology should be referenced to sources dedicated to such topics or, failing that, current government legislation. It should also be noted that countries like the Faroe Islands and Greenland are designated "countries" in United Nations agencies. Nightw 00:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That's an extremely misleading and inaccurate post:

• It's not a recent edit, it's nearly 5 months old. I notice you originally tried to edit-war your change in, but are now following WP:BRD. I guess you are describing as it as "recent" to try to defend your behaviour.
• Why are you describing the websites of the Faroe Islands Prime Minister's Office and the Danish Foreign Ministry as "random"? It's quite clear that The Danish government and Faroes government use terms other than country. Hardly "cherry-picking".
• The current legislation covering Greenland, enacted in 2008, is cited (and a term, which is not country is used in it). Why are you claiming it isn't? The reason the previous 1978 Act is also cited is to demonstrate that Greenland has a history of being described in ways other than as a country in its constitutional arrangements.
• I accept I made a mistake with the www.denmark.dk website, and will replace it. I thought it was a govt. sponsored site, it's not. It's not the case that I think a commercial site is an RS in this context. I notice a lack of AGF by you in that respect.
• The rather vague unsourced statement that UN agencies refer to them as countries is missing the point. They are not consistently referred to as countries - the current text doesn't deny that there are sources calling them countries. It is you that is cherry-picking by trying make it appear as though they are only referred to as countries.
• I added 5 sources to support the change I made in March, one of which, www.denmark.dk, was an error. You made a non-point on the 1978 Act. The other sources you have not challenged. To then claim that I have "a poor understanding of WP:V" is a rather tellingly aggressive comment. As is the slightly bizarre comment that I am trying to "demonstrate a point" (What point??) I notice you made a comment on your talk page about my "recent interactions with other editors". I don't remember ever interacting with you before, but you seem to have some sort of axe to grind with me personally. I suggest you drop it and focus on improving this article. DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You would do well to follow your own suggestion—all six bullet points focus almost solely on your issues with me. You can choose to deny it if you wish, but there are no significant edits to the section since yours, your edits are the most recent.

"Country" is the most common designation in English for these constituents and that is why they are (and should be) described as such at Kingdom of Denmark and related articles. It's quite clear to me, yes, that the Danish government also uses other terms (e.g., "folkesamfund") in its legislation. Note, however, that the 2008 self-government act for Greenland, which you've cited as a source, doesn't refer to Greenland as anything. The term you've quoted ("people") from a translation, refers to the country's population—"det grønlandske folk er et folk i henhold til folkeretten" simply refers to the people of Greenland, not the polity; this could also be argued for the Home Rule Act, as it's not clear whether the text refers to the polity or its people. This clumsy referencing, coupled with your repeated assertions with regards to the Danish Foreign Ministry and a recently demonstrated misunderstanding of the concept of cherry picking, have led me to believe that you have a poor understanding of our methods. If that is not the case, I apologise, but please demonstrate otherwise.

The main issue I have is your addition of a large amount of dissociative information seemingly aimed at delegitimising the article. Particularly in the case of the Denmark section, you've gone a step further by prominently cluttering the counterclaims alongside each entry. This belongs on a talk page and if an item's inclusion is subsequently deemed inappropriate, it should be removed. Instead what we're left with currently is several sections composed entirely of dissociative arguments bound to confuse the reader. I suggest either moving the information to footnotes or removing the entries themselves. I'm going to ignore the rest of your characteristic baiting. Nightw 06:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a rather long post to say I don't like it. Your original research on the 2008 Act doesn't have a bearing of what is now in the article. The text simply cites what is in the English translation of the Act. You are interpeting it. The rest of your post is mere assertion and provides no sourced contradictions of the text. For example, you have not challenged the Danish Foreign Ministry and Faroe Islands government sources. If you can provide a source backing your claim that says the Danish government most commonly call these territories "countries", then of course I have no problem with that statement being added. But, as is noted at the moment, it is quite clear that terms other than country, as well as country, are used. I don't think that is controversial. This has been the text for 5 months. Several editors have edited this article since then, including a change made by another editor to the text of the Denmark section. I don't think your post calls for any further response. DeCausa (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to read the Wikipedia links you chuck in randomly. This is not a deletion discussion, nor have I proposed that we make it one. I explained my issues with your additions in detail; if it was too long for you to manage, as you alluded to, allow me to summarise the main issues: clumsy referencing and contradictory information lead to inaccurate information and confusion for the reader. Reading over the Denmark section, for example, leads a reader to wonder why it's listed in the first place. The text does not "simply cite" the English translation of the Act, it claims quite clearly, "The Act ... refers to Greenland as a 'people'" and attributes the claim to a document that reads, "the people of Greenland is a people pursuant to international law". I don't know whether English is your native tongue, but a plain reading of the cited text is that it refers to the people of Greenland, not their state. I am not interpreting it.

I have not challenged the Danish Foreign Ministry because you have not cited it. Remember? I have not challenged your other source because I'm not disputing it; I am disputing how you've used it. Likewise, I have not claimed that the Danish government most commonly refers to them as "countries" (the Danish government would most commonly refer to them by something in Danish), instead I said that this is the "most common designation in English", the Danish government being but one source. This becomes obvious by using a search engine on the Internet, and can be partly attributed to their inclusion in ISO 3166, which is used by international organisations such as the UN. Again, I suggest either moving the information to footnotes or removing the entries themselves. Nightw 09:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Your answer suggests you haven't properly reviewed the sources I included. I have cited the Danish Foreign Ministry. Please pay more attention to what's actually in the article rather than putting your efforts into an unwarranted personalization of this. The Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in its fact sheet on the Faroe Islands (a copy of which happens to be on www.denmark.dk) describes Faroes simply as a "self-governing part of the Kingdom of Denmark" not a "constituent country" in the infobox on page 2. This is consistent with the Faroese Prime Minister's website which describes it as "a self-governing territory under the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark". Our previous exchange on www.denmark.dk was only in relation to Greenland. I'm at a loss to know how to respond to you further. You simply make unsourced assertions and expect me to say OK I believe you. The fact is that the territories are inconsistently referred to as countries, as I have demonstrated. Citing the Danish Foreign Ministry and the Faroese Prime Minister is not cherry-picking.

There is nothing to support putting that information in a footnote. The article is hardly lengthy and it is material information. Now, if you have sources to support a statement that they are predominantly (or whatever word you consider is reflective of the sources) known as countries, then please go ahead and add it to the article. That would be constructive. Badgering me in a highly personalized way to remove a sourced piece of information is not. As far as "confusion" for the reader is concerned, I find this a telling comment. The issue is not a straightforward one. Why pretend otherwise and give simplistic and inaccurate information so that it is "clear"? You appear to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. DeCausa (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. I'd forgotten about this discussion until the page popped up on my watchlist today. Thankfully these efforts to discredit the article have been adjusted by LlywelynII. Nightw 22:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC);

er, no...the changes I made have been kept & have had consensus support for almost a year now. DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

German and Austrian states considered as countries?

My German is rusty, but I think not. They're not called lander, are they?—They're called Bundeslander, which has the precise meaning "state" in its American federalist sense. — LlywelynII 20:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Removed tag upon reading de:land, but will add some clarification. — LlywelynII 20:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This sounds dangerously like OR, but see States of Germany. "Länder" is usual legal term, I believe. --RA (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

I believe that it should have been mentioned in the article as well. Norum 23:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Socialist Yugoslavia

I think Socialist Yugoslavia should be added here. It had constituent republics which can certainly be considered constituent countries.

The 1946 Yugoslav Constitution: http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Yugoslavia_1946.txt

"...PART ONE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

CHAPTER I THE FEDERATIVE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA

ARTICLE 1. The Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia is a federal people's state, republican in form, a community of peoples equal in rights who, on the basis of the right to self-determination, including the right of separation, have expressed their will to live together in a federative state.

ARTICLE 2. The Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia is composed of the People's Republic of Serbia, the People's Republic of Croatia, the People's Republic of Slovenia, the People's Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the People's Republic of Macedonia and the People's Republic of Montenegro.

The People's Republic of Serbia includes the autonomous province of Vojvodina and the autonomous Kosovo-Metohijan region. ...

CHAPTER III FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLES AND THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLICS

ARTICLE 9. The sovereignty of the people's republics composing the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia is limited only by the rights which by this Constitution are given to the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia. The Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia protects and defends the sovereign rights of the people's republics. The Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia protects the security and the social and political order of the people's republics.

ARTICLE 10. Any act directed against the sovereignty, equality and national freedom of the peoples of the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia and their people's republics is contrary to the Constitution.

ARTICLE 11. Each people's republic has its own constitution. The people's republic makes its constitution independently. The constitution of the people's republic reflects the special characteristics of the republic and must be in conformity with the Constitution of the F.P.R.Y. ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice and Reason (talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)