This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
total rubbish for the heading , while "Any person visiting a country, other than that in which he usually resides, for a period of at least 24 hours" is defined as a 'foreign tourist'. It is not uncommon for general information or statistical publications to adopt the wider definition for purposes such as illustration and comparison.
This article does a poor job of differentiating between country, nation, and sovereign state. It claims that England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland are countries with no justification presented. It also claims the Bavaria and Piedmont are not, if you speak English. The reason the speakers language has a bearing on the classification is not explained (and imho, inexplicable). ISO does not list the four segments of the U.K. as countries. So, on what basis is there justification for the claim? This really needs a good overhaul. If the definition is so vague as to be inexplicable, or if there are more than a handful of (conflicting) defintions, should the term actually be included in Wikipedia?188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, in large part. What lies behind this article is that the word's notability as an encyclopedia article comes from it being a touchstone for identity/nationalist politics, mainly in the UK. (If that were not the case WP:DICTIONARY would apply, and there is no reason to have an article on this word.) But what is objectionable is that does not come out in the article. There are several users that are invested in the importance of the word from that perspective. I tried a bold edit a couple of years ago to move the emphasis of the article (here) but to no avail. DeCausa (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Not really. The constituent countries of the UK just are normally called that, whereas Canadian provinces, German Lander etc just aren't. The uses of the word are not entirely logically consistent - deal with it. Johnbod (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The point is there is logicality to the usage: (mainly) UK politics. It's just that the article pretends that it's not so. DeCausa (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
And the use is referenced - the EU for example uses country for England, Wales & Scotland etc. etc. Its messy, thats life. Oh, and for the record the attempt not to use it represents a Unionist anti-nationalist PoV etc. etc. Clarity and common use should inform how we use the term ----SnowdedTALK 08:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
In the UK, we DO have 3 or 4 countries. (Wales is a principality) Some of the signs pointing to this, especially where England and Scotland, (and to a lesser extent Northern Ireland) are concerned, are the fact that there are distinct systems present, governing, Education, Law, (and even the National Health Service), in fact these are enshrined in the articles of Union. Scotland and Northern Ireland also have their own distinct banknotes, albeit valued in Sterling. The current situation is that with devolved parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, many processes are run by the people in those countries. This devolution can be rescinded, but the 1707 Act of Union governing the Scotland and England political union makes clear that this can be dissolved by a mandated unilateral declaration. Technically this means that the BRITISH Government could NOT stop Scotland dissolving the union, even if it wanted to. With Scotland and England, again, we see the example of sovereignty being notable, as in England, it rests with the monarch, via her parliament. In Scotland, sovereignty rests with the PEOPLE, although in general deference is to the monarch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks and sorry for so many pings. I didn't expect so many but believe it best to try to follow through with initial plans and not change tack mid way which might otherwise be done due to bias. GregKaye✍♪ 10:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
^Bhatia, A. K., The Business of Tourism: Concepts and Strategies, Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd, 2006, p.xxx