Talk:Lists of national institutions

Completing nations at List of national anthems

I've put in two hatnotes, rather than continue to redirect this to List of sovereign states. This currently empty list will eventually contain the nations within List of national anthems. Please help complete that list! --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What my edit summary meant to say was you can't just create another fork article without consensus.Yman88 (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Firstly, if when there is no consensus either way, I am entitled to 'be bold' and create what I want. As it happens, I had two other editors explicitly agree with me on List of countries, and others implicity. Also I had consensus to do it on anthems in July. For you to prove there is "no consensus" you need to speak up first! Not just jump in and rudely state that there isn't!! You are currently the only dissenter.

The redirect to List of sovereign states was felt to be an unhappy one by many people (only half on all nations are sovereign), so this is only a 'fork' in your opinion, but to others this will be a legitimate top-level article, and a home for many nations that are not properly covered. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Many people? Here there is not one person agreeing with your idea. At list of countries one editor was luke warm to the idea (BritishWatcher) but prefered it be re directed to something else - a disambiguation page. There is no consensus for this change. I have reverted to the status quo and will do so until there is proper support for this article.Yman88 (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You are simply trolling. BritishWatcher (another new SPP) says he does not want the redirect and has backed a List of nations too - you have not bothered to read it all have you? How is that 'warm'? You cannot around looking for places where people simpy haven't mentioned this! List of anthems by country (not list of national anthems), was the other place in July - but you are an 'army of one' anyway. This has been 5 explicit 'supports' now, and countless implicit support. You currently have only yourself.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's one more support here. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear on your proposed criteria. Are you just going to copy over every country that's on the List of national anthems? If so, wouldn't that just make this a "list of nations that have national anthems"? Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The national anthem list will be the base of it, and we can easily add any nations that don't have anthems. We can discuss its format here. Flag/nation is the start I planned - keep it simple and free of controversial text to begin with at least.

I kind of wish I'd moved it in July, but I didin't see the point of developing two together. I though the national anthem list would have been completed by now. Alas, I've not had much time for it myself, although will try and find some soon. I found it involves a fair bit of research from time to time, but there is a quite decent little website out there with hundreds of anthems detailed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on List on national anthems, by the way. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

From the history of the article:

• 21:56, 22 November 2008 Philip Baird Shearer (Talk | contribs | block) (38 bytes) (revert to last version by Timwi. This has been stable for 4 years and preemptivly changing this redirect before the discussion on Talk:List of countries#RESET and start again is ended is prematur)

--PBS (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How have you benefitted the project by directing 'List of nations' back to 'List of sovereign states', when you also know people are unhappy with the redirect? You say it was "stable", but it has not been seen for four years! Look at what links to it - nothing other than recent debate. The original editnote was "(for now....this is a redirect)" and it was simply left - so its 'stability' isn't really an argument. The new page was asking for help completing the list from new people following the debate. I don't see the point of making such an issue out of it, unless you really believe that nations don't exist without sovereignty. Do you? Otherwise it strikes me as being rather unfriendly, to be honest.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's premature to remove the redirect before you come up with a suitable criteria for the page. "Nation" is an awfully nebulous concept (even more so than "country", and people seem to be agreed that you can't really have a "list of countries"). How are we defining nations? Are we sure that definition won't be original research? Is it even possible to create an exhaustive list of nations? If not, how do we avoid giving undue weight to the nations that we do include?

I understand that your plan is to copy over the list at national anthems and then add all the nations that don't have anthems, but that's not really an inclusion criteria, if you catch my drift. I'm worried that doing things that way is going to weight the list heavily in favour of sovereign states and non-sovereign nations that have anthems. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the list of national anthems intro for criteria. The list by very definition will be more expansive than others. The only 'extra notes' will be things like 'nation of islam'. Can you think of a 'not quite' nation, per this nation criteria? If someone invents one, we can simply demand refs in Talk - we don't have to show refs for a list though, although ensuring that articles exist for all of them would be helpful, obviously (it is unlikely that there will be any with no articles).--Matt Lewis (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The OED has as its first definition

I. A people or group of peoples; a political state.

For example are the Zulu a nation? During the debates over the South African Constitution Mandela was very careful not to describe the Zulu as a nation because he did not want to stoke the secessionist and federalist movements in Zululand. But it is pushing the limits to describe a peoples who were forged by Shaka into one collective group which now has 12 million members as a tribe. If one does that then many peoples in Europe who are currently described as a nation could also be described as a tribe. If the Zulu are a nation then what of the other groupings in South Africa? --PBS (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Zulus are a people (we call them an ethnic group), a giant tribe, and often called a 'nation', yes - the term "of the zulu nation" is actually used on Wikipedia. Thy are associated mostly now with with South Africa, though they live in other African countries too. Straight lines were drawn through the original Zulu tribal territories in Africa I would guess. It seems many Zulu's have many times been called a nation, and have had 'national anthems' too. I notice the native American article uses 'nation' a lot too. We could have something like "Principally, a nation is linked to an land, territory or homeland, although that area may change. The list excludes societies principally seen as tribal, such as Native Americans, and African tribes like the Zulus (often called the Zulu nation). See also Lists of tribes." Ill-fitting nations like 'nation of Islam' (something specific anyway) can be a form of additional info. I've decided to make a Lists of tribes, btw, as there is quite a lot of unconnected lists out there.

My philosophy is certainly to go with what we clearly have, and not over-worry about unseen possibilities (although it's good to go through things) - it can all be dealt with, and nobodies head is on the block if anything goes belly up. Maintaining the list will be far easier with nations than at 'countries', as it is even harder with the word 'nation' to demand sovereign status. If we do run into difficulties, we could always make having 'national anthems' as an extra criteria (no more restricting that sovereignty at the old List of countries) - but I really can't envision a serious problem now past the tribal one you have mentioned. Lists of tribes should help that. If any non-included group wants more prominence (the 'Zulu nation' perhaps?), we can add more words in the 'Other/Also' section, or reason any arguments for inclusion we may have missed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Excluding everything that's judged to be "tribal" strikes me as very non-neutral and Euro-centric. Why shouldn't the Navajo Nation qualify, for instance? Orange Tuesday (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I so think there is more of neutrality problem in the criteria-moulded List of countries. I mentioned an Other/Also above - I personally think the Navajo nation can have the same extra detail as the Zulu nation, if required. We can soon offer a more inclusive Lists of tribes, and if there is a real case for it, we could add, "Principally, a nation is linked to an land, territory or homeland, although that area may change. Societies principally seen as tribal, such as Native Americans, and African tribes, can be found at Lists of tribes. However, this list does include tribes that are commonly titled as a nation, such as Zulu nation and the Navajo nation." I can understand you saying this is non-neutral to a degree - but to say Euro-centric is a bit unfair. Europe just happens to have less tribes, so it's a rather easy shot! Perhaps we need to think of it as three lists: Sovereign states, nations, tribes. I would be inclined to put Zulu/Navajo nation in the Other/Also section (highlighting the tribes list clearly), and wait to see what happens. It's always easier to edit when issues properly arise - it is very hard to predict these things.--Matt Lewis (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the Zulu nation link. On reflection, I am happy with including tribes with 'nation' within a common name for them - it is clearly societies way of saying these are something more akin to classic (or 'Western', if you wish) 'nations'. I would guess that having certain land rights, being appreciably sizable, having a strong structure, and perhaps even being less nomadic, all have things to do with them acquiring the term. As long as we detail the things properly, and clearly provide the lists of tribes, I think it could be OK. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well now if you're including tribes that call themselves nations, you're running into a problem. Most of the Canadian tribes are called First Nations. Are you going to include all of these? If so, how can you justify excluding the Inuit tribes? Or the other American tribes that don't call themselves nations? What distinguishes a tribe from a nation anyway? Do you have a clearly-defined criteria that you can apply fairly across the world?

Honestly, I doubt that this list could ever be neutral or free of original research. Orange Tuesday (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I thnk I've made the criteria pretty clear now - you have actually added nothing that passes it - we only need clarify what is a commonly-used term. First Nations is a collective noun for two peoples - on their own they are two groups of 'culturally similar' indiginous peoples. Where are they called nations themselves, and in the present tense? The American tribes who call themselves (usually historically?) nations - would need to be commonly refered to as such ('commonly' meaning 'without' as well as 'within', like Zulu and Navajo nation - the nature of 'common' can easily be clarified). By the way, I hope your not staggering all this 'information' - I'm a busy man! I will be doing this list (with the "x-tribe nation" inclusion or not) when the initial nations are completed at national anthems - so an AfD may ultimately have to decide whether it stays. I wish I got it all done in July! I'm not letting these diminishing 'possibilites' stop it from happening, as there is no other list like this (apart from national anthems), and Wikipedia simply needs a home-list for these places. We've got Sovereign states, we have Tribes (a list of lists) - we just need Nations - and they can all disambiguate under Lists of countries.--Matt Lewis (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Matt The devil is in the detail. The list you are proposing to create is using more than one definition of nation. It mixes nation with its meaning of a sovereign state and nation as an ethnic group. For example the UK is a nation state, it is not an ethnic group. The English are also ethnic group for which the term nation is often used, but England is not a nation state. If this dual meaning of nation is used in the list then there are going to be lots and lots of points of view of what constitutes a nation. In the next paragraph I will include some examples.

Like the word country nation has several interrelated meanings and the problem is not with a state/country/nation like New Zealand, the problem will come on the margin. Is Taiwan a nation and what about Tibet? If Germany is a nation then were West and East Germany nations or were they sub national entities? In which case are Koreans one or two nations? What about Estonia is it a nation? If it is a nation was it a nation after it was subsumed into the USSR? What about the Chechnians or any of the other republics/nations in Russia today? One can argue that the Northern Irish are not a nation because the peoples of Northern Ireland they are not a self contained ethnic group, but it is clear that the nation state of the Republic does not represent all/(any?) of the people who live in Ireland, so does that mean that the Northern Irish are nation less? Are the Zulus a nation (to say yea or nay in South Africa is a political statement), so reliable sources will say different things depending on the politics of the author. If the Zulus are a nation then are the Xhosa? There is no simple yes or no answer to any of these questions as the answer depends on the POV of the source used, and lists by their nature an not forum that can easily be structured in such a way as to present a balanced NPOV which inevitably leads to conflict over inclusion and exclusion. --PBS (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to reread the First Nations article, because there are certainly more than two peoples involved. Every native group in Canada besides the Metis and the Inuit is referred to as a First Nation. Is that usage not common enough for you? Or must every "tribal" group on the list have the word nation right there in its name?

As for your proposed criteria, I don't see how they've been made clear at all. I certainly don't understand how you propose to distinguish between a tribe and a nation, for instance. Perhaps you should write them out here like you intend to in the lead section. Orange Tuesday (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue this beyond this comment (sorry - I just haven't the time) as the above just aren't plausible arguments to me for not having this list. PBS - you are listing some clear nations, like Tibet etc. Sovereignty isn't the idea here. Are we going to take Tibet etc out of national anthems? East Germany is historical now, and there is no evidence to my knowledge that they retain a sense of East German nationhood. USSR - for the historical list too. Ireland is an island - ROI and NI are the nations (ROI is officially called Ireland as a country, not an Island). Chechnya etc - obviously all nations. to my knowledge, we don't have a 'nation of Xhosa' like 'nation of Zulu' (though I agree the politics involved might favour leaving all tribes out of the main list (that are often known for territorial wars after all), and keep them as 'additionals' (per my first criteria above).

I never said it won't involve some research (as we are not all experts in human geography) - that doesn't bother me, as the national anthem one did too, and could what to use, and what not too (ie some anthems can just be old songs for a changed people - but national anthems are normally quite clear - as the culture and identity is behind them, and the word 'national' is used!!).

Orange Teusday - So what if the First Nations are many people? - it is not in written into their common names, and they are not commonly - internationally - called nations. We can always leave out tribes to 'additional', anyway - If I did in July I am certain it would be absolutely fine now. To have no List of nations because of we have lists of tribes too - sorry - you are both too close the devil in these details - in reality it as silly as the 'German lander' argument against us having nation-proclaimed constituent countries at List of countries. We state a criteria, and we stick to it. There is no evidence at all that it will cause offense to people - and if it does, we simply address it. And unlike at LOC, we have a Lists of tribes - so nothing is being left out. It will be much better when we've done the work involved - a real bonus to Wikipedia in an area it never had quite right. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The word national may be used in national may be used in "national anthem" but that does not get away from the fact that nation is being used in more than one way when the term national is used in the phrase. See my comment above about the UK and England. One the two are mixed then one ends up with symbolism attached to term "national anthem", for example see how those who support the concept of an ever closer union for the European Union, pushed for one passport, a flag and an anthem. Tibet and Kosovo are good example of why the term nation is controversial, as is the adoption of those trappings. There is nothing wrong with producing a list of national anthems because even if one does not agree that Kosovo is a nation one can agree that the administration of the region has adopted a tune/song that they call a "national anthem". The problem comes when we produce a list of nations because in a list an entity is either in or out and experience with list of sovereign state flags (where it kept diverging from what one would have been the same list as list of sovereign statesshow that it is very unstable with changes driven by POV considerations. --PBS (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

List of nations is the natural home for places like Kosavo and Tibet - don't you get it yet? All it needs is the neutral and concise explanatory detailing, and no one can argue about sovereignity because it simply isn't an issue here. You can't kick people out of Wikpiedia entirely - you've seen what that has done. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not neutral to require tribes to have the word nation right in their common name when you give more western nations a pass, especially when you haven't provided any criteria for how to distinguish a nation from a tribe. San Marino isn't commonly called the "Sammarinese Nation", for example. You're holding nations you consider to be tribal to an unfair standard, and it's going to colour the content of this list.

And how would you suggest proving that something is "commonly" and "internationally" known as a nation anyway? How could that criteria ever be verifiable according to Wikipedia's standards? Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I find this so silly. Who are you, Sting? I said to PBS above that tribal politics would suggest going back to tribes as an extra note - ie not include Zulu nation et al (they have a List of tribes, for Petes sake - many countries and nations currently have nowhere!). Which is the tribeless List of nations I started with, isn't it? The 'commonname' guideline can easily be varied in any direction - you have no insight that way, that's your problem. This is the English language. You are coming from an unhappy and broken situation and picking specualtive holes in a clearly far superior direction, which will be moved on anyway. We simply won't get better than sovereign, nation and tribe - it follows human nature. Your method of completely excluding nations from any all lists will always be an unhappy one. People need a home. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I still think you a mixing up two different concepts of nation. Which is why nation is not a sensible name to use when creating lists. Why is Kosova clearly a nation and the Zulus not? Are there no within the territory of Kosova two (or is it three or is it four) groups of people all of whom identify with other groups in neighbouring states, so Kosova is clearly not a nation in the sense of a ethnic group. The only way one can call Kosova a nation is if one considers it a state and it does not have anything like universal recognition. So any national list that includes or excludes Kosova is making a political judgement and as such has a political bias. --PBS (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So by that logic, should you not remove all sovereign states from this list? They have a list of their own as well. No, it's ridiculous. You're treating these terms as if they're obviously mutually exclusive, but you still haven't even explained how you intend to differentiate them. What specifically is the difference between a tribe and a nation? Define tribe and define nation. How do you determine what is "commonly" known as a nation and what isn't? What is it specifically that prevents a tribe from being a nation? What qualifies as "international" recognition of nationhood? What sources are you going to reference when you write this list?

This isn't just speculation here. These are serious problems with your proposal. If you go ahead with this list it's going to be non-neutral or unverifiable or original research or some terrible combination of the three.

Also, this First Nations thing isn't just a hypothetical. I am actually disputing your proposed exclusion of the First Nations. I've always heard them referred to as nations, and to exclude them because they don't conform to your definition of nation clearly violates NPOV. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

1) I've just look through the SPA country-only-edits of the 'Orange Tuesday' account, and it is clear to me you will go to AfD - so I will talk to you there. You cannot be bothered to read what I have written - you are just being hyper talking about converse logic like that. My logic is boringly sound. I read that the innui as a nation is based on possible historical evidence - snf they are pretty nomidic now, very tribal, and simply not connected enough -as the moniker of the innui people- to collectively meet for anthems etc. They are collective tribes, like the article says - innui is almost a western 'collective' name for them - an ethnic identity. 'First Nations' is a semi-historical and politically correct term. The kalaallit in Greenland indentify with a territory and have a name and a national anthem (and they happen to be innui). Do half the other innui even know about them? This is simply ping-pong arguing from you now, anyway. Between the intro of List of national anthems and what i've written in my discussion above, we have pretty much all the criteria. It was never that hard! --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

2) PBS - after your crazy redirect stunt at List of flags by country, I can't take you seriously either. You are restricting to your own 'ethnic group' (there is not one per nation) and 'sovereign state' restrictions of nations in turn - I said at the top of this debate to look at the definition on List of national anthems for the sensible approach - and I've supplied new prose to counter your projected wanderings too. I've pretty much written out the criteria for the commonname text - but I don't think tribes should be in the actual list. It's all in the criteria, and the prose.

The pair of you are certainly into your restrictions, and I find it a bit unreal - I can only conclude that you both must have real fears regarding the status of your own sovereignty, and particular nations that you want to keep in check. I've seen it too many times now, guys! See you at AfD.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A few comments if I may.

• There is nothing against policy about being an SPA, except where accompanied by sockpuppetry, POV pushing, or whatever. But the term implies these things, and I am not inclined to use the term in reference to Orange Tuesday in view of his long edit history compared with your standard SPA. Instead I am inclined to accept Orange Tuesday as a long-time editor with a specialism.

• I strongly oppose the redirect to list of sovereign states. As discussed, a nation can be quite a different construct from a sovereign state, and I feel that a user typing "list of nations" in the search box will likely be looking for something other than the list of sovereign states. If we are not to have Matt's work in progress article here (and this should not prevent him from working something up in his userspace), the redirect target should be nation, or failing that, lists of countries.

• As a general rule, any list should clearly and objectively define what is included and what is not at the beginning of the article. This is Featured List criterion 2 and part of the stand-alone list style guideline, and I would say that it goes especially for potentially contentious lists.

• In principle, I support the creation of a list of nations. My only issue, speaking generally, would be the need for an objective definition of the word "nation" that can be applied consistently and that is difficult for POV-pushers to game - IOW a definition that leaves as few borderline cases as possible. This is as much for the benefit those maintaining the list as for the readership. Verified self-identification could be such a criterion, and there may be others that are suitable. Pfainuk talk 18:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with a List of national anthems, what I have a problem with is a List of nations (as I do with List of countries) because nation has so many different and overlapping meanings. But as the primary one is nation state, so I for clarity I think List of nations should remain a redirect to List of sovereign states with a WP:hatnote there to disambiguation pages for other meanings. A good example of this ambiguity is the line in Flower of Scotland "A nation once again" does it mean an independent (nation) state or an ethnic group (of Scots as opposed to North British)? --PBS (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this improves clarity - rather, that it makes it less clear what a "nation" is be concentrating on only one definition. It can be a nation state, but I would not expect someone to write "list of nations" when looking for a list of sovereign states. Indeed, they'd probably write "list of countries". Someone who chooses the word "nation" over "country" is more likely, IMO, to want a list of nations in the sense of peoples. If it must redirect there then a hatnote would lessen the impact somewhat, but IMO this redirect is a bit misleading and likely to be unhelpful to many readers. Pfainuk talk 19:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You might use country but it is the "United Nations" not the "Untied Countries", so clearly many would use nation to mean sovereign state. --PBS (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the strength of the word nation is its flexibility. Whats been good about this lately (for me at least) is that I can picture a workable model of Sovereignty, followed by Nation, followed by Tribe - where everyone has a place, and nobody gets kicked out of Wikipedia lists. Crucially, they must all come under "Lists of counties", as there are a great many people who insist that Scotland (etc) has to be attatched to the word "country" in some way. Some of these people simply will not bend, and being in the UK, they have wiki-numbers.

Having a top-down 'Lists of country' disambiguation page is the obvious way to solve the problem, and disambiguating "country" is the key - the word is ambiguous, contentious, and a general pain in the neck - so we are far best to disambiguate it. For most people, 'nation' really isn't that contentious, and we have plenty of space to write in the exceptions. We still have some work to do to sell it to the UK though - we have to make the flag situation very clear (otherwise they could make redirecting that list very difficult) and make it very clear on the List of nations that it is comes under the 'banner' of Lists of countries. Perhaps some kind of template can do this? Lists of Countries:::: Sovereign states: Nations: Tribes?

In july there wasn't a List of national anthems, and no place on Wikpedia for my own national anthem - one thing that is clear about the nation/country/state drama, is that its been a 5 year work in progress. But a lot of Wikpedia is still badly formed - people are too often just covering the cracks.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid don't really get this Sovereign State -> Nation -> Tribe model. Doesn't every sovereign state qualify as a nation? And what specifically is the difference between a tribe and a nation? I'm still unclear on a lot of the details here.

I'm sorry that you feel that I'm trying to exclude your nation from having a Wikipedia list to call its own, but that's not the case at all. I just want to make sure that the lists we have are neutral and have a clear inclusion criteria. And honestly, I don't think your proposal has that going for it right now. I think it's very titled towards your particular worldview, and while I'm sure it makes sense to you, I don't think it'll make sense to everyone else. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it will when its done. The model might look odd - but presentation is the key. Like pfainuk I thing that people understand teh broadness of nation, which between sovereignty and tribes makes sense. Even country at the top will make sense if phrased right! S states will be in nations too, btw. It will work, i promise..--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Current disam page

There is a clear cross-article consensus that nations are not all sovereign states - therefor I am replacing the disam page (and removing the redirect to List of sovereign states). Nothing lists to here yet (which is why its been misdirected for so long), so no harm is done.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The recent change to a lists (plural) page

I'm accepting this for now, but per Lists of countries, this is clearly a Lists of nations (note plural) page that has been created here. When a proper List of nations is created (based on the work done at List of national anthems), we can move and rearrange the contents over. For now, this is ok. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I stopped adding lists when I got down to List of national variants in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? but what makes you think that what is being done on List of national anthems is any more correct than than of at least half a dozen other lists now listed on the page? What makes List of national anthems any better for this page than say List of national mottos? A list BTW, like many other national lists, that use sovereign states for nation (as does the primary meaning of the OED) --PBS (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There is always a 'primary' meaning in an list, but what comes below it? I'm not arguing this anymore anyway. As a Welshman I've been told I have no country and no nation on Wikipedia (despite everyday reality to the whole of the UK - it is not contentious at all). People really should be looking towards fitting each other in, not being 'tough guys' and excluding based on very arbitrary 'primary meanings'. List of national anthems (as you keep making me repeat - and I knew you would again here!) is only on a bloody base to work on/from. We have to work on it somewhere - and that list needs completing. If I put a List of nations in with gaps or holes in now, the handful of begrudgers like yourself will simply use that fact to reason (speculatively, as always) the deletion of it. I've only got one pair of hands, and am always busy elsewhere. (and nver more than right now)--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)