Talk:Lists of national symbols

---

Old talk

Is "a national emblem" and "national symbols" the same thing ? A country can have its National Animal, National Flower, National Plant, etc. Is everything to be clubbed as a national emblem ? Thats what I have noticed here as all these individual symbols have been redirected to this page. The basic question is : can a country have more than one national emblem ? The article shows three emblems for Chile. Jay

National symbol was redirecting to this article although there was an article available for National symbols. Hence I have removed the redirect. Jay 11:30, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

below two discussions moved from User talk:Olivier

Hi Olivier, you've made redirects for national flower, national tree, etc. So you can answer the first question at Talk:National emblem. Jay 12:27, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am afraid that I cannot help you much in this quite technical question. I made the redirect because I thought that "national flower" was close enough to "national emblem" to justify the redirect, rather than having no link at all. Also the "national emblem" article already had a list of plants, animals..., not started by myself, when I made the redirect. Bottom line, I did it because I thought it was helpful. If I was wrong, please feel free to modify it. olivier 14:30, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

The following are not countries. So is it appropriate to have their entries in the article ? Soviet Union, England, Scotland, Wales. Jay 05:55, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

See Country; country is not synonymous with state. --Jiang

Thanx Jiang, I didn't know the intricacies of it. So England in the UK is a country and a nation but not a state. And Maryland in the US is a state but not a country or a nation !

What about the entry for Soviet Union in the article? It's not a nation. Or do we keep it for nostalgia's sake. Jay 09:14, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There is difference between state and State (w/ a capital S). The terminology may have something to with the sovereignty retained by the colonies after they declared independence and formed a confederation (dont take my word on this). The Treaty of Paris: "His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states".

I think we are listing these entries as countries rather than nations by the strict definition. Nostalgia? Perhaps not. --Jiang

---

The article now says that the symbol of Wales is a dragon, but I thought it was a wyvern. -- Dominus 14:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I've always heard it described as a dragon, besides which, wyvern says a wyvern has only 2 legs - the creature in the Welsh flag has 4... Evercat 14:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, my memory was at fault. Dragon is correct.

Columbia

I don't think "Columbia" needs to be listed as a symbol (person) of the United States. That's a very obscure symbol that is almost never used nowadays. I seriously doubt that a majority of Americans know who "Columbia" is (whereas everyone knows "Uncle Sam").

I think Columbia may be taged as unofficial, just like other national symbols. --Tonyjeff 11:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Catalonia

Should Catalonia be on this page? I realize that this is a page on national emblems, however can Catalonia be considered a nation? It appears that it is just a territory of Spain. -Zer0fighta 21:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

A 'nation' doesn't have to be a nation-state to be a nation. Joffeloff 19:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Brazil

The Brazil embassy says Brasil's national flower is Tecoma chrysostricha, but I suspect they got the latin name wrong. Maybe someone with know-how in Biology should look into that matter or cross-check with other encyclopedias.

Brazil nation tree is the Tabebuia alba (Ipê amarelo), and its flower, the Tabebuia alba flower, the national flower. The problem is that Ipê amarelo may refer to a numerous of different trees, apparently similars. It may cause some confusion. --Tonyjeff 23:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I think the entries under "inanimate objects" and "Nationalized, stylized icons (patriotic)" should be merged into a single column, as, as far as I can tell there is no meaningful distinction between the two. All national symbols are by definition patriotic icons, so I see no need to segregate the two. It seems very arbitrary. J.J. 19:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Inanimate objects" lists real objects, like mountains, constelations and so, while "stylized icons" refers to symbols designed for an especific objective. Both are about patriotic (national) symbols, but of different natures. --Tonyjeff 22:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Official / unofficial

I think that initially this article intended to list only the official national symbols, but gradually many others unofficial ones started to come up. I think it would be better to tag the official ones (as official) instead of the unofficial, since there may be more unofficial than official symbols. --Tonyjeff 11:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

China's national flower

• China – Primary: peony (specifically Rock's Peony or tree peony) Supplementaries: chrysanthemum (autumn), mei blossom (winter), orchid (spring), water lily (summer), (See: [1])
  • People's Republic of China – sunflower (obsolete), peony (unofficial)
    • Hong Kong – Bauhinia blakeana
    • Macau – Lotus
  • Republic of China (Taiwan) – mei blossom

Why is it so difficult? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.214.17.5 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

China's Offical Bird

Sparrow has never been confirmed as an official bird for China. In fact that sparrow was chosen as 'official bird' was an internet prank by Chinese netizens. Red-Crowned Crane is more likely a suitable candiate due to cultural reasons, but it's also not official. --Hnfmr(talk) 20:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I second it. And I changed Eastern Dragon to Chinese Dragon since the first one points to nowhere.

Italy's unofficial symbols

Excuse me, I'm Italian and in this article I can see that the tower of Pisa, the Colosseum and the Gondola are considered unofficial symbols of Italy. I think it's wrong because the tower of Pisa is the symbol of Pisa, the Colosseum of the ancient Rome and the Gondola of Venice. Course everyone thinks at them as an important part of Italy's art and culture, but not as national symbols; otherwise it may sound a little bit stereotypical. Thanks and sorry for my bad english. --Duvilar 16:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

-*crisza tagalog*-

I agree with the above. Moreover, about the animal, I have never heard that the (Italian) wolf is the Italian national animal emblem. -- AnyFile (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Horse

Canadian Horse has been an official Canadian Symbol since April 30,2002 - along with the Beaver as the two fauna emblems[2][3]. Common Loon is not official, nor is the Canada Goose, Canada Lynx, Moose or any other animal.Likemike1 18:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

ASEAN

I've cited ASEAN as a reference for the national flowers for ASEAN countries, but now I am asking myself was that okay to do? http://www.asean.org/18204.htm --Dara 23:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nepal's national animal

I had changed the national animal to 'cow' and added 'lophophorus' as national bird but it's been changed back to 'Bengal Tiger'. I am sorry that I didn't discuss first. But I think I was not wrong. Please comment on this. May be I was wrong.Rabindrabrj03 18:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

United States

I deleted the material that presented the patron saint of the United States as Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception. Anyone who is willing to make up a reference to a law which supports the rediculous claim that Americans have a patron saint, or by declaring such we have officially established or give preference to a particular religion, may put it back in. 67.172.153.122 (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Albania

Pigeon or Eagle National animals of Albania? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 00:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes . Albania Is A Double Head Eagle. No Pigeon I Think. HarryPotterNot (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Symbols or emblems

These appear to be national symbols, not emblems. A symbol, according to Dictionary.com, is something that "represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible". So an eagle is a symbol of the United States, as a rose is a symbol of England. An emblem is "object or its representation, symbolizing a quality, state, class of persons", or an "allegorical picture, often inscribed with a motto supplemental to the visual image with which it forms a single unit of meaning", like a coat of arms being the emblem of that state. They can overlap, as an eagle is, because of its use in the coat of arms, also an emblem of the United States. It would be safer to list all of these as symbols, however, as they all would be symbols of a nation/country/state, but not all are emblems. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There are many national emblems in Asian countries for example, which do not use a coat of arms such as in European nations. This article seems to talk more about symbols. Gryffindor (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree; these are symbols rather than emblems. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 06:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

China

Officially, P. R. China do not have national bird, plant, animal, flower, etc!

So It Is A Special Design Kid . HarryPotterNot (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Turkey Gray Wolf?

gray wolf is not national emblem/symbole of Turkey, it is just used by the turkish nationalists. as I don't there are any animal symbols representing Turkey I remove it completele. Any objections? --ArazZeynili (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Improve Article Notice ..

Has AnyBody Yet Improved The Articl . HarryPotterNot (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for Nations

Quebec, England, Scotland & Wales don't belong in this article. We should limit this article to sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That article would be Emblems of sovereign states. Your WP:POV does not belong here. You removed a cited entry from this article simply because you don't like it. I have reverted. Next time it it goes to AN/I. If you don't think of Quebec as having national emblems, best you find a reliable source that says so, and it can be added to the article - alongside the reliably sourced entry that says it has. Daicaregos (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Quebec isn't a nation, only the French speaking people of Quebec were recognized as a nation within Canada. The province itself, wasn't recognized as a nation. Must a dig up the source of that resolution? GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well here it is [4]. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Methinks it is soon time for that AN/I. This edit removed the ref referred to by Daicaregos. I for one am thoroughly sick and tired of the years of disruptive editing by the Canadian nationalist. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Instead of harrassing me, follow Caillil's advice. GoodDay (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've reverted to Daicaregos' version & sought input & clarification from Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board - PS, if they happen to agree with me, I hope you will not take them to ANI, too. GoodDay (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a Canadian noticeboard? I'll have to drop by one day and be appropriately self-deprecating and passive-aggressive ;P Elinruby (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, I find it impossible to believe the inclusion of Quebec is anything other than "Quebec nationalism". Quebec does not belong on this list any more than Alberta or Texas or Wyoming do. England/Scotland/Wales is a bit trickier, depending on how one chooses to define the status of the "home countries". Resolute 19:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, etc. should not be included. If they are included, then Macau and Hong Kong should also be included, and every separate customs territory in the world, and every autonomous territory in the world... and the republics of Russia... 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

While we're on this, we also have to contend with semi-autonomous regions that call themselves nations, such as Navajo Nation, etc. I say we explicitly limit "nation" to those so recognized by the UN or similar international organizations. This leaves Palestine as the only edit war :) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the Navaho think they are a country too ;) Tsk. Seriously, the Navaho Nation lives in Navaholand, and it is their position that they have never surrendered to the US (I think) and therefore are NOT US territory. Elinruby (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's Core content policies:
”Wikipedia's content is governed by three principal core policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Editors should familiarize themselves with all three, jointly interpreted:

1. Neutral point of view – All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias.
2. Verifiability – Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
3. No original research – Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.”

In a nutshell, in this context; it is not for editors to decide whether something is a national emblem or not. If a reliable source verifies something as a national emblem, it belongs on this list. Daicaregos (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Why has Quebec been re-added to this article? It's a province not a nation - which I've already provided a source to explain. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read and try to understand the preceding post relating to Wikipedia's Core content policies, which will answer your question. Daicaregos (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

My source contradicts your source. Rightly or wrongly, including Quebec is a delicate matter. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, in what way would it offend you, exactly, if Quebec were included? Just wondering why it's so delicate. I think excluding it would be far more delicate, but I am interested in your reasons. Elinruby (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

We need to be consistent within articles and decide whether to include the symbols of sub-sovereign national groups. Quebec and Scotland are both sub-sovereign states whose population has a distinct national identity. Yes, they have governments that call them a "nation" and a "country" respectively, but those titles do not make them legally distinct from other sub-sovereign states with nation-like identities, such as Texas or Bavaria. If we want to include sub-sovereign nations, let's do it consistently, and let's split this article by continent so that it can accommodate all of the new nations. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Much though I love my United Kingdom and hate POV-pushing from sub-nationalists, I suggest that we nest sub-national entities which have psuedo-national emblems under their sovereign state. (i.e. nest England, Scotland etc. under UK; Quebec under Canada; etc. etc.) How does that sound? DBD 21:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There is clear evidence that England, Scotland and Wales are internationaly designated as countries and therefore they can have national emblems. You might want to add a note to say they are part of the UK although I am not sure why that is necessary as the article pages make things clear. That is sourced and is not a POV position (although its denial would be). For Quebec I am not sure, a Government of Quebec web site does not weigh as much as an independent one; I would like to see some other source before accepting that. GoodDay, I thought you were keeping out of B&I issues? This started off about Quebec, there was no reason for you to make one of your "this is my opinion" statements. --Snowded ^TALK 22:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

My lone concern is Quebec's entry & I've provided a source 'disputing' Quebec as a nation. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Your source apparently disputing Quebec as a nation is irrelevant. To be relevant, your source would need to dispute that the Fleurdelisé (the flag of Québec) is the national emblem of Québec. Does it? Because this reliable source verifies that it is. Daicaregos (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Quebec is not a nation, that's an undisputed fact. The inclusion of the Yellow Birch here, is a delicate matter. I'm not gonna edit war over its inclusion, however. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of edit warring over this either, but I believe just as firmly that Quebec *is* a nation, and that an English-language television network is hardly authoritative. Shrug. Quebec says it is a nation, and the Canadian House of Parliament says it's a nation. If you don't like it, use another word. Eh? ;) Elinruby (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The Canadian government calls the francophone majority of Quebec's population - a nation within Canada. Quebec itself isn't a nation, but merely a province. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Now you really are splitting hairs. And you keep *saying* that ;)

Look, I am sorry if you don't like it but it *is* a disputed fact, and if the Parliament and the Prime Minister say it's a nation then that's official enough for me. Furthermore, it has its own National Assembly and National Library, not to mention its own national emblem, national anthem and national foods :)  ::::::::Lighten up, at least nobody is disputing that *Canada* is a country. And usually there's one of *those* in every crowd :) Let us turn our minds to really important matters -- why are snowbirds listed under inanimate objects? Is this a military plane I've never heard of of or something? I know them as a, cough, bird, about whom there is a beloved story. You? Come on now, we can be a mosaic if we really try, hehe. Yes we can!

Incidentally, I never pay attention to lists and am here solely due to the Quebec angle, but the suggestion that anyplace has a national anything belongs on a list of national anythings works for me. If the place does not have a national animal leave it off the list of national animals. Saves lots of headaches about who's a nation. Just a suggestion. Elinruby (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Quebec is not a nation & so there shouldn't be an entry on this article, from that province. Inclusion rightly/wrongly, creates the impression of Quebec (seperatism) nationalism. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You're *still* saying that. This is a good place for a display of mild, don't you think? We don't have to worry about creating an impression of Quebec separatism. It exists. There are huge chucks of Montreal where the other parties don't even bother to campaign. So c'mon. Let's be as Canadian as possible, eh? How bout them snowbirds? LOL. Elinruby (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)What clear evidence is that? ESW&NI are constituent parts of the United Kingdom. For instance, nowhere does my passport refer to which constituent part of the nation I was born or reside in. British; United Kingdom; Her Brittanic Majesty etc. etc. I have applied my suggested compromise (which was already partially in place) universally, and I hope you won't feel the need to revert to a state where the delusion that each of ESW&NI are nations in this sense is communicated. DBD 22:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

However, DBD suggestion of how to handle Quebec's entry, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on that point, Snowded. It is internationally accepted that the UK uses the word "country" for its sub-sovereign constituents, but when people use the word "country" in a worldwide context outside of soccer, they usually mean "sovereign state", and there is not general acceptance that ESW&NI are sovereign states. Note that ESW&NI are not members of the UN and that their representatives to in other states do not have embassy status. I have yet so see any reason why ESW&NI are more worthy of inclusion in lists of states than Quebec or Texas or Bavaria, except for the fact that the UK uses the word "country" rather than "state" or "province", which is just semantics. I'm fine with the proposal to list sub-sovereign national emblems under their sovereign state, but we should note that if every sub-sovereign nationality does this, this article will get very long. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A country is not the same thing as a sovereign state and you can't dismiss sourced material as "semantics" because you don't like it. Its not just the UK by the way its international standards bodies. Now can we please work from sources rather than the personal view of editors. --Snowded ^TALK 06:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm dismissing it as semantics because it is semantics; we are using different definitions of the same word. There are multiple definitions of the word "country", just as there are multiple definitions of the word "state". In most cases in general conversation and on Wikipedia, the word "country" used as a synonym for "sovereign state". In the case of ESW&NI, it is used to refer to the constituent parts of a sovereign state. Being a country under one definition of the word does not make it a country under all definitions of the word, so when we talk about "countries", we are usually not including ESW&NI or any other constituent entities. In the same way, California is a "state", but that does not make it a state in the same way that France is a "state". —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for again expressing your opinion. Now would you please supply a source to support your view that country is synonymous with sovereign state and/or to the wikipedia policy which sys that. --Snowded ^TALK 07:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

In less than a minute of searching I found a few notable examples of the word "country" being used as a synonym for "sovereign state". This page on the UN website that refers to the UN's members as "the countries of the world" (remember that ESW&NI are not UN members). On Wikipedia, Category:European countries does not include ESW&NI. The CIA Factbook here refers to a list of two kinds of "entities"; one is "countries" like the UK, France, and China; and the other is "locations", like the Isle of Man, Hong Kong, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon. ESW&NI are not included in either group. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 08:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that country is used as a synonym for sovereign state I freely accept, it does not follow from that use that country is a term which can only apply to a sovereign state. Something that is made clear in the relevant wikipedia article. The ISO list which is official, lists Wales, Scotland and England as countries and if you check the history you will that this country status was established by an extensive and lengthly mediated process looking at multiple sources. You have not provided any link to any wikipedia policy which says that country is only to be used as a synonym for sovereign state. --Snowded ^TALK 08:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess what I'm looking for are lists that include British subdivisions but do not include Quebec or Texas any other subdivisions. You cite the ISO list, but neither our ISO list nor the one on their website include UK constituent countries in their top-level list. They do use the name "country" as the name for subdivisions instead of "province" or "state" or "region", but I don't see any reason why we should treat first-level subdivisions differently based on the title used. The only place that I know of that includes UK constituent countries but not other subdivisions is FIFA, but the use in sports contexts is pretty limited and does not extend to bodies like the Olympics. For the sake of clarity, I think that Wikipedia should avoid including subdivisions in lists that otherwise only contain sovereign states, even if the subdivision's title suggests that they would be included. Otherwise we have lists of countries that include Scotland but exclude Texas and Quebec, lists of states that include Texas but exclude Scotland and Quebec, and lists of nations that include Quebec but exclude Scotland and Texas. Organizing lists like that would be confusing, so I think we should make it clear when we are including only top-level nation-country-states, and when we are including first-level subdivisions regardless of what they are called. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is most definitely not a list of nations. This is a list of sovereign states, according to the current content. If it were a list of nations, many of the countries listed would need to be removed, since they consist of multiple nations. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A real nation and a sovereign state are the same thing. A lot of places call themselves nations, but they doesn't make them so. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

@ GoodDay: Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff are just two of many who do not agree with your personal opinion that “Quebec is not a nation, that's an undisputed fact.”.

@ Arctic Gnome: You suggest including states here, such as Texas or Bavaria. The difference is that their emblems are not verified by reliable sources to be national. This list is for national emblems - state emblems do not belong here. I would be opposed to splitting the article by continent. It is split into several different sections already. Any further subsections would render the list pretty much useless for the casual reader to be able to find what they were looking for.

@ DBD: Please do not edit war. Your suggestion to move English, Scottish and Welsh emblems to their sovereign state was not agreed by anyone and its implementation was reverted. Consequently, you should accept it is controversial, and discuss it, per WP:BRD. btw: unless it is with reference to specific editors (and if it is, please name them), a personal list of loves and hates is inappropriate for a talk page.

@ All: This is not a list of sovereign states, countries, or even nations. It is a list of national emblems. Any national emblem verified by reliable sources should be included on a list of national emblems – as an entry in its own right. Daicaregos (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a typical Wikipedian semantic debate about the meaning of the terms "national", "country", etc and about how the context in which they are used is decided upon. We either go down the route described by Dai above of assuming that because a preponderance of sources label something as "national", it can be included in "national xxxxx" articles, or we go down a different route of attempting to define Wiki-wide what types of content can be contained in articles labelled "national xxxxx" and then seeking references to clarify if a particular piece of content is of that type. At the moment, confusion reigns because people can't agree which of these should apply. Therefore all the sub-discussions that take place (does Q have a national flower? - is E a nation for the purposes of soccer?) will continue more or less indefinitely. We must agree on a basic paradigm, which needs to include wiki-wide defined contexts and usages of "nation", "sovereign state", "country", etc. This will be a difficult project. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly the problem seems to come up most on lists - on articles there is no real issue any more. We had the same at national anthems - a whole host of references make it very clear but those who spend their time on lists have some scars and are looking for something that makes life easy and avoids ethnic conflicts which can be the bane of wikipedia. However avoiding the issue by falling back to sovereign states ignores the body of third party sources. To my mind the ISO list now gives us that structure - if its a country there, then its a country and can have national symbols, anthems etc. --Snowded ^TALK 11:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It always boils down to semantic debates from what I have recently observed, pretty pathetic behaviour for an online 'encyclopedia' to be honest. WinterIsComing (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Which surely is why we should go with sourcing? --Snowded ^TALK 16:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Snowded: Except the title of this page uses the word "nation", and your sources use the word "country". Quebec calls itself a nation, does North Ireland? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Diacaregos: The problem is that some subdivisions use the word "national" whereas others do not, even if they have equal claim to be national. Quebec uses the word "national", but they have a comparable claim to be a nation as do Wales and Texas, even if the later two do not use the word "national". I don't think that we can rely on what places call themselves since usage varies. For the sake of consistency, we have to decide whether (1) to only include sovereign states, (2) to include first-level subdivisions, or (3) to include any cultural grouping that has an emblem. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I am still waiting for the reference to Wikipedia policy that says countries are only really countries if they are sovereign states. I agree that we can't rely on what places call themselves (and can't see anywhere which would justify you in making that assumption. Otherwise the point is a very simply one. There are, by multiple reliable sources national symbols and national anthems which do not belong to sovereign states. This I recognise creates a problem so one possible restriction is to those that third party sources call countries, that has more validity that a sovereign state restriction the use of which excludes a large amount of well referenced material. The default position should be if something is properly references as a national X then it belongs in those lists, or those lists should be renamed National emblems of sovereign states. That solution would not serve the reader well, but at least the title would then reflect the content--Snowded ^TALK 16:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd support changing the article name to National emblems of sovereign states, where the argument over Quebec's entry/exclusion is concerned. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It might help if I summaries our options. These are the inclusion critiria that I have seen proposed or sugestsed:

1. Only sovereign states.
2. Sovereign states plus subdivisions, which will be listed under them.
3. Soverenign states plus subdivisions that use the title "country".
4. Sovereign states plus subdivisions that refer to themselves as a "nation".
5. Only ethno-cultural groups (excluding multicultural sovereign states).
6. Put this debate on hold and start an encyclopedia-wide discussion to define the words "nation", "country", and "state".

Am I missing any? If not, can we eliminate any of the above options or show a consensus for any of them. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• The problem with this is that it is a pan-wiki issue, thus I see little point discussing it here. There is zero prospect of a solution that will satisfy everyone, either on this talk page or on a global scale. But the advantage of trying to deal with the long-running country issue on a global basis is that the outcome should result in Wiki-wide consistency, whether that solution is right, wrong, "right" or "wrong". —WFC— 17:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see an editor with such a short edit history get to the essence of this. The issue is that on the lists there is a move not to rely on sources, but to provide a restriction to another list. I find this strange. For me if something is properly sourced as a national anthem its a national anthem. But the main editors on the lists want to restrict this to sovereign states. It is a wikiwide issue --Snowded ^TALK 17:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The definition of the emblem in the first sentence should clarify the matter, the wkiki definition of nation is A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history., so this whole argument about "sovereign nations" is null and void because it is not about "sovereign states", take up your concerns on the relevant article talk page if you have a problem with the semantics here. (fairly pitiful 'problem' to be fair) WinterIsComing (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a tricky definition. By that definition, England and Scotland are certainly nations, but Wales not as much. It makes the theoretical Unified Ireland a nation while the actual sovereign states are not. North Korea and South Korea are two sovereign states, but arguable a single nation (same with the two Germanies back in the day). Texas and Quebec have roughly equal claims to being a nation as they both have quite a bit of history and culture independent of their countries, but Hawaii is probably more of a nation than both. Most countries in Africa wouldn't count as a nation by this definition, as very few of them match ethnic groups and languages on the continent, even remotely. I'm not sure if the above is a workable definition. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Under that definition, do we have to remove Belgium, Canada, and Bosnia & Herzegovina, which each describe themselves as a union of three different ethno-cultural-linguistic groups? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, by that definition Wales is a nation. However the wikipedia page does say may refer it recognizes that its not a clear concept, one of the delights of the English language is its ambiguity and adaptability. I think this comes back to a very simple sequence:

1. By default lists of things which are "national" should be based on reliable sources, those clearly have national symbols and anthems for countries such as Scotland and Wales
2. However there is a problem with nationality and ethnicity issues on wikipedia that can lead to lengthy and non-constructive conversations
3. On several articles, to avoid this, some editors have chosen to restrict national to sovereign state which itself gives rise to regular controversies and flies in the face of the general policy
4. Despite several requests no one has been able to supply a wikipedia policy that says either nation or country only means sovereign state
5. Using a third party list to avoid controversy can make sense, but that needs to be inclusive enough that properly sourced material is not excluded. Readers would expect for example to find the national anthem of Wales on a list of national anthems.
6. So if we are going to take the list restriction as a means of avoiding conflict, then (i) we need to agree that reliable sources can be so restricted and (ii) agree what is the list or lists that are used.

I've tried to summarise what I see as the issue over multiple pages, and its not an issue which is going away if we keep to the current status quo. --Snowded ^TALK 07:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if I can play devil's advocate for a moment -- how do you define a sovereign state? It's not a silly question -- Canada arguably is not, though in all sobriety I would not argue this myself. If the criteria is "self-governing" then how do you define that? It's an infinite regress and I honestly think too much emotion is being expended on these definitions. Why not just say that any national anthem can be on a list of national anthems? I don't think the Navaho have one, so you may be off the hook there :) Otherwise you wind up having to parse the nominal and actual autonomy of Belarus, say, or debating whether having your own money makes you sovereign -- I think Scotland does but Texas, Wales, Quebec and Navaholand do not, again for example. Or does having to have the head of some other country sign off on your laws disqualify you? If so then maybe Georgia is more a country than Wales, Australia or Canada, hmmm? I respectfully submit that perhaps this discussion is looking for a bright line that simply does not in reality exist. Elinruby (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

All US states and Canadian provinces are more sovereign than NI,SCO,WALES,ENG. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Meaning Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England)D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Sockpuppet Regarding the above edits by WinterIsComing. That username [[User:AndThenTheWindsOfWinterShallHowl|WinterIsComing]] has been blocked as a Sock puppet of indef banned editor Sheodred on 13 January following a CU investigation. See:- Sockpuppet investigations/Sheodred. Richard Harvey (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for unofficial emblems

If the Indus is the unofficial river of Pakistan, then the Mississippi is the unofficial river of the US and the Volga for Russia, and so on. So which of these unofficials is worth a mention? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Housekeeping needed

This is a very long list to have only 20 references! I see it's also been tagged {{refimprove}} for over a year and many other unreferenced entries have been added in that time. Please remember that WP:Verifiability is one of our core policies. Any entry that does not cite a reliable source is subject to removal. Please add references. I will look for references for some of these myself over the next few weeks, but I am also busy off-wiki this month. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I started with Afghanistan, and unfortunately I could find few sources that even appeared to be reliable, but most of these give only the emblem, flag, and national anthem. I found a lot of humorous answers for "what is Afghanistan's national flower?" but the most frequent answer I found was that Afghanistan does not have a floral emblem. Then I found this page supporting the assertion that the tulip is their national flower (which is what we have listed), but is http://targetstudy.com a reliable source? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 18:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I just gave the article a pretty serious haircut. Given the overwhelming lack of sourcing, it is easier to rebuild a new list from reliable sources than to go hunting sources for a huge list of unreferenced entries, particularly when others continue adding unreferenced entries. Now at least we can go forward with a smaller but far more reliable list and build it up from there. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 14:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

India and Bangladesh in examples

Why do India and Bangladesh dominate the examples? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 13:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)