PR is a great example. Why is it shaded green on this map?
While we’re on the subject of literal readings of this map; Argentina is in WHO, and is shaded a color not on the legend. Do you have a problem with this part?
Yes, please do accept your own conflicting examples.
This was never a serious debate. I was meming about your wording (hence my “lol”) and you got offended. There’s much more nuance here, as everyone knows.
PR is still an unincorporated territory in comparison to California, and was invited to join on their own. But you can continue this debate with someone else, if you want, that was never my intent.
If anyone is offended, it’s the person who took this conversation as “rude.”
Point is, unincorporated territory, country, state, autonomous territory, etc are just legal definitions of regions. And the purpose of the map is to show participating regions.
Depending too much on the literal definition of country misses the point of the map (unless the point is the shit on the US, something I would fully agree we are deserving of.) I would certainly understand a modified green/red stripe color to indicate the California participates but is part of a country that doesn’t. That feels honest and in the spirit of the map, dismissing California wholly doesn’t.
It’s bigger than many countries and more populous than many countries. And it’s in WHO.
Unnecessarily pedantic to exclude it.
Yet it isn’t a country. lol
Puerto Rico isn’t a country, yet it is green on this map.
Greenland isn’t a country, yet it is shaded a color.
The purpose of a map is to convey geographic information. What you seem to be looking for is a dictionary.
Those are really bad examples for comparison. lmao
Also wow, rude.
PR is a great example. Why is it shaded green on this map?
While we’re on the subject of literal readings of this map; Argentina is in WHO, and is shaded a color not on the legend. Do you have a problem with this part?
Why is Greenland shaded green?
I’d accept Demark being in WHO.
Puerto Rico?
Yes, please do accept your own conflicting examples.
This was never a serious debate. I was meming about your wording (hence my “lol”) and you got offended. There’s much more nuance here, as everyone knows.
PR is still an unincorporated territory in comparison to California, and was invited to join on their own. But you can continue this debate with someone else, if you want, that was never my intent.
If anyone is offended, it’s the person who took this conversation as “rude.”
Point is, unincorporated territory, country, state, autonomous territory, etc are just legal definitions of regions. And the purpose of the map is to show participating regions.
Depending too much on the literal definition of country misses the point of the map (unless the point is the shit on the US, something I would fully agree we are deserving of.) I would certainly understand a modified green/red stripe color to indicate the California participates but is part of a country that doesn’t. That feels honest and in the spirit of the map, dismissing California wholly doesn’t.
Greenland is a country. It’s a country that’s part of Denmark.
Countries can in fact be part of other countries. It’s allowed.
It’s not a country. Its government is the government of Denmark.
Firstly no it isn’t, they have an independent prime minister, and secondly that isn’t the definition of a country anyway.
It’s an independent self-governing region which Denmark provides for. It’s like 4 seconds to Google this.
Then why isn’t it listed in the official list of participating countries?