Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

France overseas

From what i read all of the things listed form part of overseas france and count towards the total of the French republics population they just have different levels of autonomy. They were originally unranked, they probably all need to be removed from the list like reunion etc were. According to the overseas department article all of them have representation in the French senate. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I used a translation website to convert the current source for the french figures it says "At January 1, 2008, it is estimated at 63,753 million D ’ inhabitants including 61,875 in metropolis. On this date, the communities D ’ overseas (French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Mayotte, Saint-Pierre-and-Miquelon and Wallis-and-Futuna) count approximately 720 000 inhabitants. The total population of the French territories thus reaches 64,5 million people." So im pretty sure all these regions, departments, collectivities or other names they call them count towards the french republics main population total and they do all have the right to vote in french presidential elections and have a atleast 1 senator.

Im gonna undo your revision pfainuk, then delete those French territories from the list all together as i think they should of been removed with reunion etc. Pretty complicated though, would certainly help if the french governments stats were all done in English BritishWatcher (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, no two countries have exactly the same relationship with their overseas territories.

In the French case, so far as I can tell from the French constitution, the article Overseas departments and territories of France is accurate: while overseas departments have the same powers as any other part of France - IOW they are equivalent in status to the régions of Alsace and Picardy - overseas collectivities have entirely different structure as provided by article 74 of the French Constitution.

I've been looking for previous discussions on this (on the basis that there must have been one) and this one looks appropriate, if short. I agree broadly with The Tom's comment that "integral" is not the clearest word to be using, but that there - and here - we have been using it (when referring to overseas territory) to say that to be integral to a state a territory should have (in his words) "no effective constitutional differentiation between it and other parts of the country".

I also provide can provide this English-language version of the French constitution (which uses "community" in preference to "collectivity").

I would note that the EU makes the distinction: the DOMs are treated as "outermost regions" - similar to the Canary Islands, Madeira and the Azores, which we consider to be integral to the states concerned. The COM are treated as "overseas countries and territories" - similar to the British BOTs, Aruba, the Netherlands Antilles and the Faeroes - which we consider to be separate from the states concerned.

Figures-wise, they say that there are 63,753,000 people, plus 720,000 for the 6 COM's (including New Caledonia), giving a total of 64.5 million for the entire country. This source does not back up your figure of 64,473,140.

Finally, on a separate matter, the French Senate is elected by grands électeurs - public officials - and not by the general public. It tends to be lower profile than the lower house, the National Assembly. Having representation in the Senate is not similar to having representation in the UK House of Lords, but it's closer to that than it is to having representation in the House of Commons. That said, the Overseas Collectivities do get a certain level of representation in the National Assembly. Pfainuk talk 23:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, while I don't very much like removing all the COM's it is a situation I can live with. I have corrected the figure concerned based on the source. I do like the way the French have done their equivalent though - maybe something to consider for this list and the list by area. Pfainuk talk 23:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes i must admit that table looks very nice and would be more informative for people than the current ones on here and on the list by area. I would certainly support having such a table on here :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I like how they just use the one source as well rather than different updates at different times from different sources like on here which complicates matters and makes the information less accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how good the CIA is on population data (I think the values fr.wiki give are too precise), the colours would be unusual on en.wiki, and I wouldn't follow their inclusion criteria exactly (I would have separate entries for Western Sahara and Palestine and leave out the EU). But basically, I think the basic system works well, giving both a country's total area/population and the area/population of its overseas territories. So I'd support it. I don't know if I'll get the time to actually create a proposed edit myself though.

How we'd handle the China/Pakistan/India issues on the area list I'm not sure, mind - the French equivalent handles them very badly. Pfainuk talk 00:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the colour of their table, i dont know about the best source but i have always prefered the idea of using one or two specific sources rather than dozens of random individual ones currently used for different countries on here. Agreed on the inclusion criteria, im suprised they dont actually rank the EU on the french one, is something i would expect them to do. The area article on there is awful IMO especially how they handle things like china and taiwan as you mentioned but using the same method as their population list for the area list would work very well and look good.

Would be a big change though for the dozens of territories which would basically be unranked on such a system unlike the current one here. I like how tidy theirs is though with just 194 entries almost matching UN membership numbers rather than over 220. I think i prefer that it just ranks the sovereign states and not territories but i could imagine that annoying some people. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Also im not sure how they come up with their totals on there. Counting all the US territories towards the US population. Counting British overseas territories towards the UKs population seems more incorrect and less accurate than our current method of ranking them all separetly. They get the point about the crown dependencies not counting towards the UK population, but add the other overseas territories. Seems to be based a bit too much on a system like the french overseas areas are handled by their own government. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually looking at New Zealands entry on there they dont use the "total" to base the rank on so it is accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Several points to answer here:

• all territories/piece of land in overseas France are integral parts of France. That's quite clear from the French constitution and French law. In fact they are more integrated with metropolitan France than Scotland is with England & Wales. For example even French Polynesia and New Caledonia are completely part of the French judicial system (tribunal de grande instance, then court of appeal in Papeete and Nouméa, then court of cassation in Paris), and they are completely part of the French education system (éducation nationale, with local rectorats in Papeete and Nouméa), which is quite different from Scotland which has its own judicial system and education system separate from England & Wales. So if you separate the overseas collectivities from France, you'd have even more reasons to separate Scotland from England & Wales.
• another point: someone said the overseas collectivities do not send deputies to the French national assembly (the lower house). This is completely wrong. People in the overseas collectivities vote in the French legislative elections just like the rest of France, on the same day, and send deputies to the national assembly. For example, two of the 577 deputies in the national assembly come from New Caledonia, two come from French Polynesia, one come from Mayotte, and so on. People in the overseas collectivities also vote in the French presidential election (in fact the 2007 presidential election started in the overseas collectivity of St Pierre and Miquelon a day before Metropolitan France, because of the time difference). You can find a map of the presidential election results at French presidential election, 2007. Also, the overseas collectivities vote in the French municipal elections just like the rest of France. So for example during the last municipal elections in March 2008 people voted in the most remote atolls of French Polynesia as well as in the most central arrondissements of Paris on the exact same day to elect their local mayors and town councilors. At the last annual meeting of the French mayors in Paris last month president Sarkozy actually welcomed the mayors of overseas France's communes at the Elysée Palace and spoke in front of them. He made no distinction between mayors from overseas regions and mayors from overseas collectivities.
• some people apparently assume that the overseas collectivity are very different from the overseas regions (the latter being exactly the same as Metropolitan France's regions, the former being quite distinct, so goes the assumption). This is oversimplification I'm afraid. In fact there aren't two neatly separated categories (despite the two different names), there are all sorts of shades of gray. You'd be surprised to find out that the four overseas regions in fact don't have the exact same status as the regions in metropolitan France. Certain laws apply to them: for example gas and diesel prices in the fours overseas regions are not free, they are set by the French State, unlike in Metropolitan France where they are free like in the rest of the EU. In the French overseas region of Guyane, some people still have a customary status and are not submitted to French civil law (concerning divorce, inheritance law, etc.), which is the same in New Caledonia, despite the former being an overseas region and the latter an overseas collectivity. In the overseas region of Réunion as well as in the overseas collectivities in the Pacific, civil servants have a special bonus added to their pensions when they retire (their pension is 25% higher than what it would be in Metropolitan France), but in the overseas regions in the Caribbean they do not enjoy those increased pensions, they have the same pensions as in Metropolitan France. And these are just a few examples. In fact the legal situation is much more complicated than what people imagine. There is no clean-cut distinction between overseas regions and overseas collectivities.
• even in Metropolitan France, you'd be wrong to assume there is uniformity. For all of France's reputation as an extremely unitarian country, there are in fact lots of local idiosyncracies. In Alsace and Moselle for example, there is still a retirement scheme that is distinct from the rest of France (incl. overseas France). And there is no separation of church and state (if you ever have to stand before the criminal court of Mulhouse, you'll probably be very surprised to see a big Christian cross on the wall above the judge, which would be unthinkable in the rest of France). In Corsica there are also all sorts of special administrative and legal rules that do not exist in other French regions.
• someone mentioned that the overseas collectivities are not part of the EU. That is quite right (there's a custom barrier between the EU and French overseas collecvities), but that's irrelevant here. France is in the strange position of having a part (the largest part) of its territory inside the EU, and a part that is outside the EU, but nonetheless all these territories are legally part of France, whether or not in the EU. So if we made a list of EU countries by population, we should list the population of France with the overseas regions but without the overseas collectivities (which is what Eurostat does), but if we make a list of countries in the world by population, then we have to include all of overseas France, because the EU is irrelevant here. Also, if you're not already completely confused, there are now talks in Brussels of making the overseas collectivities fully part of the EU (they already vote in the European elections and send deputies to the European Parliament, but are not part of the EU, which some people in Brussels think makes no sense at all). And last but not least, the French overseas collectivities in the Pacific should switch to the euro in 2010 (the other overseas collectivities already use the euro).
• someone mentioned the British overseas territories. Contrary to the French overseas collectivities, the British overseas territories are constitutionally not part of the UK. This is quite clearly stated on the website of the British prime minister: see [1] ("The Overseas Territories are constitutionally not part of the United Kingdom. They have separate constitutions"). In fact I believe there is not even freedom of movement between the UK and the British overseas territories (if you're British, try to move to Bermuda and work there, you'll see what a hassle it is). In contrast, the French overseas collectivites do not have separate constitutions and are constitutionally part of France, and there is complete freedom of movement between Metropolitan and all of overseas France. Someone from Marseille is completely free to settle in French Polynesia and work there, and vice versa.
• concerning the sister article at the French wikipedia, the idea of listing overseas areas below the mainland is a good one, but their list contains some errors (for example they listed the British overseas territories as if they were part of the UK, which is factually wrong as I explained).
• finally, concerning the source for the figures in the table, I think we should keep national sources as is the case now, because they are much more accurate and up-to-date than either the UN or even worse the CIA World Factbook. It's up to people to collect figures from the national statistical offices, and if not then the default figure is the UN figure (which is often older, and sometimes completely superseded by new figures, such as in the Spanish case).

83.202.38.144 (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. sephia karta | di mi 17:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of the points mentioned here apply also to the case of the People's Republic of China. Hong Kong and Macau are constitutionally defined to be 'inalienable parts' of the People's Republic. Yet they are not as 'integral' or integrate to the rest of the People's Republic as, e.g., British overseas territories are to the UK or US unincorporated territories are to the US. Umofomo (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

French overseas collectivities

The user above neatly explained how the French overseas collectivities are integral parts of France. Concerning the INSEE document, INSEE distinguishes the residents of Metropolitan France and the overseas departments, the DOMs, on the one hand (where INSEE is in charge of collecting data) from the residents of the overseas collectivities, the COMs (where daughter statistical agencies are in charge of collecting data). The distinction is purely technical, based on which statistical agency collects data. It's the same in the UK where ONS is in charge of collecting data in England and Wales, while separate statistical agencies are in charge of collectig data in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Most data on the ONS website refer to England and Wales only, but some data sum up figures from ONS and the Scottish and Northern Irish statistical website. The INSEE website is the same. Most data are about Metropolitan France and the DOMs, but some data sum up figures from INSEE and its daughter statistical agencies in the COMs. If we separate the COMs from the rest of the France in the list, then we should also separate Scotland and Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK to be consistent. Obviously it makes no sense to do that. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Does the combined figure ever appear in an INSEE table? This is a statistical comparison table, and for statistical purposes, INSEE normally does not include the overseas territories in the figure for "France". This is clearly not the case with ONS and the United Kingdom. A figure for the "United Kingdom" always includes Scotland and Northern Ireland. --Polaron | Talk 16:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it appears in some INSEE tables, for example in this one, as of Jan. 1, 2006 ([2]). Der Statistiker (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it not part of the total? Anyway, according to this, INSEE uses the term "France" as excluding the overseas territories but including the overseas regions. The statistical entity that includes overseas territories is "Territory of the French Republic". --Polaron | Talk 18:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually your source proves that the overseas collectivities are part of France. In the source you quoted it is stated: "on distingue trois ensembles géographiques de la France" (translation: "three geographic sets/layers of France are distinguished"). The overseas collectivities are one of these three layers "of France" ("de la France"). Can't be more clear than that. Constitutionally speaking, there is no dictinction between the French Republic and France. It's quite different from the Netherlands where the Netherlands are constitutionnaly distinct from the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Next time you're in Mayotte or in Saint Pierre and Miquelon, tell the people there that they are not part of "la France", and you'll see the angry reactions you get. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So what does it mean when at the bottom of an INSEE data table it says "Champ: France"? Which of the three definitions is it using? You're just arguing semantics now. For statistical purposes, "France" does not include the COM. Anyway, the point is moot for now. --Polaron | Talk 19:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistencies, that's all I can say. Everytime I'm in France, I often hear people referring to Metropolitan France" as "la France", even though it is technically and constitutionally wrong. The guys at INSEE are not immune from that mentality. It is only a few years ago that they started to include the departments and territories of overseas France along with the statistics of Metropolitan France. It will take a generation for mentalities to change. Sometimes it can lead to absurd situations: when INSEE says "France entière" ("entire France"), they mean Metropolitan France and the four overseas departments, but when the Ministry of the Interior says "France entière", they mean the entire French Republic (incl. the overseas collectivities). How can two branches of the French administration use the same phrase ("France entière") with different meanings? I've never understood it. INSEE is a bit faulty here, whereas the Ministry of the Interior is more correct in its use of words. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess the same happen for other countries. Danish speakers would sometimes use the word 'Denmark' to mean Jutland, Funen, Zealand, etc. And sometimes the same word would mean the whole Rigsfællesskabet including Greenland and the Faroe Islands too. Materials published by the People's Republic of China demonstrate a similar trend. Statistical figures for 'quánguó' (meaning the entire state) sometimes mean the 31 provinces, self autonomous regions and centrally administered municipalities only. To Chinese speakers the word 'China' may mean those 31 units only, those 31 plus Hong Kong and Macau, or those 31 plus Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan and other Taipei's islands. Umofomo (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So shall we list the figures for the régions d'outre mer separately? Umofomo (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, people. However you resolve the French question, at least put plausible figures for the population of France. As of today, according to this chart, the population of France WITH its overseas territories is slightly LESS than its population WITHOUT its overseas territories. This clearly cannot be right.--seberle (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update of the figures.--seberle (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

China

Same problem with China. I see Polaron has now separated Macau and Hong Kong from Mainland China just because they have separate statistical agencies. Hong Kong and Macau are integral parts of China now. They have a status of large autonomy, but they are integral parts of China, so I see no reason for separating them from Mainland China in the list just because they have separate statistical agencies, just like Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is becoming really silly... Der Statistiker (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the terminologies used by the People's Republic, Hong Kong and Macau are its inalienable parts. Laws of the People's Republic of China do not apply in the two territories unless for very few that are specified. The *National* Bureau of Statistics of the People's Republic of China do not collect statistics for the two territories. One shall ask how "integral" they are to the People's Republic, comparing with, e.g., Puerto Rico or the Faroes and Greenland. Umofomo (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So they have a high degree autonomy. That doesn't make them not integral parts of China. Per the above I don't oppose a change in inclusion criteria to entities listed on ISO 3166-1, but unless that happens HK and Macao don't meet the inclusion criteria. Pfainuk talk 09:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And that doesn't make them integral parts per se. And I don't think a change in the criteria is necessary. Umofomo (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that Hong Kong and Macao are not part of China? I think you need a source for that. Pfainuk talk 08:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that wasn't what I said. They are explicitly defined to be 'inalienable parts' of the People's Republic of China. What I challenged was how 'integral' they are. Umofomo (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Either they are part of China or they are not part of China. You seem to be saying that they are both part of China and not part of China at the same time. Which makes no sense at all. Pfainuk talk 16:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that we've now adopted a standard (ISO 3166-1) that includes HK and Macao separately from China, is there any benefit in continuing these discussions? Pfainuk talk 17:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously yes. I am not asking for adopting the ISO 3166-1 standard. As I've said elsewhere, there are quite a few entities on ISO 3166-1 which are not frequently listed as countries. I am therefore trying to get this list stick with the common practice. Umofomo (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I know of no single definition of the word "country" that could possibly be considered authoritative or even widely accepted. Some say that a country is the same thing as a sovereign state. Others say that a non-sovereign entity can by a country. Among those who say that a non-sovereign entity can be a country, some say that integral parts of sovereign states can be countries, whereas others say that only dependent territories can be countries. Some say that some integral parts of some sovereign states are countries but others are not. Some say that countries have to be inhabited, whereas others say that this is not necessary. Some include as countries states that are not generally recognised by the international community. Others do not. Still others include some states that are not generally recognised by the international community but not others. Some say that a government-in-exile can be considered the government of a country. And so on. And for the most part, all this relies on a large dose of POV. Hence the usefulness of an external standard.

But that's OK, because as I've pointed out repeatedly, the word "country" is only relevant inasmuch as it means the same thing as the inclusion criteria. Note that the inclusion criteria currently limit the list to inhabited entities represented on the ISO list, in order to avoid having a list of half a dozen places at the bottom with a population of zero. Note also that the population density list does exactly the same thing. Pfainuk talk 18:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. and Brazil Populations are Wrong

According to the U.S. Population Clock, American Population is 305,6 million (not 306,1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.72.140 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the Brazil Population Clock, Brazilian Population is 190,1 millon (not 188)

Permanent unranked inclusion of the EU entry

The permanent unranked inclusion of the EU in the List of countries and outlying territories by total area is justified and based on the following reasons:

1. For comparison reasons. The EU as an socio-political entity has a high degree of sovereignty, economic coherence, global relevance. It is a noteworthy entry with a relevant status to compared and listed here.

2. Although not a country in a fully political sense, it is treated as one by several international institutions like the WTO, the G8 summits, the UN.

3. The EU is recognized by many international statistical institutions like the CIA World Factbook , the IMF and is frequently treated as actor in global affairs by numerous credible sources and media like the BBC, NYT, FAZ and a multitude of academic publishers.

4. The EU entry is included in comparable sister Wikipedia language editions and its list. Most notably the French, the German, the Italian the Danish, the Hebrew.

5. The EU entry is already included in several of the most prominent list at the Engl. Wikipedia like the List of countries and federations by military expenditures, List of countries by GDP (nominal), by GDP (nominal) per capita and by GDP (PPP) per capita, List of countries by exports, List of countries by rail transport network size

Note The given reasons can not be cited for other territories or entities like Scotland, the African Union or NATO which underlines the advanced degree of integration and the sui generis status of the EU.

Note 2 The lack of full sovereignty will be reflected by its unranked inclusion to avoid future misconceptions about the nature of the EU as a state. Lear 21 (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Responding in the same way

1. None of this is relevant. It can be compared with the list where it is. Comparison would also potentially include just about any entity you choose to name. There has to be a limit, and on this list it's sovereign states and dependent territories.

2. The EU is not a country. If it were treated as one by the UN, G8 and WTO then EU member states' membership of those organisations would be impossible. But it happens. In any case, I can't see the EU on the UN membership role.

3. The CIA treats the EU as a special case, the IMF don't list it, the BBC list it as an international organisation. And so on.

4. If other language versions of Wikipedia don't feel the need to maintain NPOV then that's a tad concerning but it's ultimately their business. It's not a good reason for us abandon NPOV as well.

5. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and in any case, single-source lists should reflect the single source that they are derived from. This is not a single-source list.

The fact is that this is a list of sovereign states and dependent territories. The inclusion of the EU on such a list would imply that the EU is either a sovereign state or dependent territory. Even unranked this is the clear implication. To include it would be grossly POV and grossly misleading. Pfainuk talk 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The exact same argument is on List of countries by population density and List of countries by area. Let's keep the discussion in one place (here) as all the arguments will apply to all three lists. --Polaron | Talk 19:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

@Pfainuk: The EU is a special, correct. That´s why it is going to be unranked to mark it´s sui generis status.

As I said, even unranked, the implication that it is a sovereign state is clear. But let's keep the discussion on the other list, shall we? Pfainuk talk 19:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Pfainuk is getting unintentionally funny. The IS a sovereign state in many respects. It IS a de facto state. Have you heard of a single currency, single territory (Schengen), EU citizenship and several more ? Probably not because you live on the least integrated part of the EU. Anyway, the EU entry doesn´t need to avoid that it could appear as a sovereign state. IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS a country-state-like entity. Lear 21 (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Find me a reliable source, such as an EU treaty, that defines the EU as a sovereign state, and I will accept the EU on the list. I think something on the level of an EU treaty would be necessary because exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If you can find one, then we can add the EU, and remove all the member states (because the integral parts of sovereign states do not belong on the list).

Schengen applies to only 22/27 EU member states, but also applies to 3 non-EU member states. Lack of border controls is not a defining feature of a sovereign state - for example, the UK and Ireland have never had border patrols, but Ireland pre-1973 was certainly a separate sovereign state.

The euro applies to only 16/27 EU member states and also to 6 non-member states. Sharing a currency is not a defining feature of a sovereign state - the CFA Franc and East Caribbean Dollar are good examples of currencies that are not tied to individual sovereign states. Again, Britain and Ireland shared a currency until 1979.

The existence of a citizenship is not a defining feature of a sovereign state. There is Commonwealth citizenship for example, which (like EU citizenship) means that any Commonwealth citizen can go to a fellow Commonwealth country's embassy if his own country does not have an embassy in the country he is in. For example, British citizens in Laos (where there is no British embassy) are not asked to go to any EU embassy, they are asked to go to the Australian embassy. Commonwealth citizens get preferable terms on visas and suchlike for other Commonwealth countries, and in some cases Commonwealth citizens have voting rights (indeed, in the UK Commonwealth and Irish citizens get rather stronger voting rights than EU citizens). But the Commonwealth is not considered a separate sovereign state.

The fact remains that, however much you argue it is like a sovereign state, the fact that it is not a sovereign state is not disputed by any government in the world - including the EU commission itself. Unless you can demonstrate conclusively not that it is like a sovereign state but that it is a sovereign state, we should not imply that it is. Pfainuk talk 00:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No my dear Pfainuk, I have provided enough credible sources. From now on YOU and every other interested editor provide reliable sources why a few single voices here are more credible than several globally respected authorities. From now on YOU and others convince me why it is a mistake to include the EU while it serves highly relevant purposes. From now YOU have to convince ME an editor with a several years of Wikipedia experience providing highly credible sources in some of the most read and standardsetting articles. From now on YOU and others can try to deliver sources and academics denying the relevance of the EU as a coherent single entity. I suggest you start with the G8 summit authorities and convince them to exclude the EU. Or even better start with the WTO and get an agreement to withdraw the EU mandate for all its members. Until that happens the EU entry will be constant unranked entry in this list. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, you appear to have forgotten that, per WP:V, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material - in this case, that's you, and I'm effectively asking you for a cite to back up your proposed implication that the EU is a sovereign state or dependent territory.

The only test for inclusion on this list is whether the entity is a sovereign state (or dependent territory). Not that it is like a sovereign state but that it is a sovereign state. You have cited no source that says that the EU is a sovereign state. The UN doesn't. The IMF doesn't. The CIA doesn't. The G8 doesn't. The WTO doesn't. The BBC doesn't. The EU itself doesn't. But unless it can be demonstrated that it is a sovereign state (or dependent territory) - that it meets the inclusion criteria - it cannot go on the list.

I think we both know that this isn't going to get consensus, so I hope that by saying that "the EU entry will be constant unranked entry in this list" you aren't saying that you'll try and force it in without consensus. Pfainuk talk 09:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with comments above by Pfainuk but i would like to just add a little in response to the points made by Lear.

1) Whats relevant to some people in the European Union may not be relevant to the 6 billion other people who do not live there. Putting it unranked in the list with out an explanation is going to confuse far more people than find it useful to compare. Whats relevant is based on the introduction, which makes it clear the list only includes sovereign states and dependent territories. Im sorry but the EU is NOT sovereign in anyway, as mentioned before not all EU countries are part of Schengen and not all have the Euro so the EU can not be listed on those grounds.

2) You admit the EU is not a country. The organisations you list do not treat the EU as a single country. FIFA is an international organisation and it treats Scotland as a single country, but that doesnt justify it inclusion here.

3) The CIA treats the EU as a special case by placing it at the BOTTOM of the list, not at the top above all others. So the only major source that does include the EU in its list treats it differently to sovereign states and territories.

4) Those other language wikis probably havnt had the trouble that English wiki has had when dealing with non sovereign countries like England and Scotland that some believe should be allowed on the list and as mentioned before the french one uses a single source, this list doesnt.

5) The Eurozone is indeed included on GDP lists and rightfully so. The Eurozone has a single central bank, a single interest rate and offical figures on growth etc but not all EU countries are part of the Eurozone and none of the disputed lists are about economic issues. None of us are trying to remove the Eurozone from GDP lists. The others you mention are more questionable, the EU doesnt belong on some of those lists and just because they are incorrect doesnt justify vandalising this one.

All of this doesnt resolve the fact that the European Union is not a sovereign state and not a dependent territory. Currency isnt shared by all EU countries, nor is the Schengen area. The EU may have elements of a state, like a parliament, council, and commission but that doesnt make it sovereign. The EU can agree to legislation, the EU commission can issue directives but it can not implement anything. That is up to the sovereign state, and on many occasions the sovereign state simply ignores orders from Brussels. Thats the big difference, a Sovereign state can do what it likes the EU cant. The UK Parliament has supreme sovereignty over everything that happens within its internationally recognized borders. It can withdraw from the European Union, ignore EU directives, withdraw itself from the European Convention on Human Rights (not linked to the EU but something that has far bigger implications for this countries law). It can suspend devolution and close down the Scottish parliament which is why Scotland (actually called a country) doesnt belong on this list.

Anyway i strongly oppose the inclusion of the EU into the table and believe it should remain underneath the list in the notes section. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lear says: "IT IS a country-state-like entity". Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. Parsecboy (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the EU entry unranked with a rationale in the introduction. It is in line with most of the sister Wikipedia languages. Seems nothing wrong it therefore and can be considered common practise.Lear 21 (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lear, please understand: what other Wikipedias do has exactly 0 impact on what we do here. It is in no way a valid justification for anything on en.wiki. Parsecboy (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The European union can be considered a dependent territory of every single member state. There is just no justification to exclude it. Lear 21 (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How is the EU dependent on the member states? Saying that the EU is dependent means that it is subordinate to the member states. Clearly that is not the case. Parsecboy (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook lists the European Union as a fully ranked entity [3]. It is clear now without leaving a doubt that the recognition of the EU outside Europe is a fact. Based on this source I will re-add the EU entry tomorrow again. Plus: The Population figure for the whole world is going to be reintegrated as well, which is common practise in almost all other Wiki languages and simply makes sense. all the best. Lear 21 (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The CIA factbook also includes the Indian Ocean. Shall we include that as well? Parsecboy (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The points have been made repeatedly. Entities other than sovereign states and dependent territories do not belong on this list. What other wikis choose to do is entirely irrelevant. No country (including the US in the CIA World Factbook) and no major international organisation recognises the EU as a sovereign state. The inclusion criteria for this list do not include the CIA World Factbook. Using the CIA World Factbook to justify entries on this list would potentially introduce major bias because the POV of the US government is not NPOV. And so on. You have no consensus for this - and we've given reasons why it should not be included, which you've not done with the other issue of where the footnote mentioning the EU should be placed. Pfainuk talk 15:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It´s a clear cut case now. @Pfainuk: You violate the idea of Wikipedia. You and others neglect reality, credible sources, international institutions, and common practise in almost all other Wikipedias. This will be a very long boring discussion in the next month, I promise. You and others are just not reliable sources like the majority of examples I have cited. By now, evidence is growing that chauvinism is the main reason for the massive denial of reality. This is harmful to Wikipedia and the encyclopedia itself. In fact, the blind opposition and the lack of expertise even lead to the exclusion of "the World population entry" only to prevent more arguments for an EU inclusion. This was harmful and senseless as well, culminating in an absurd rationale: "The World population entry" is not a sovereign state. It is just one of many absurd and unlogic rationales and disregards the reader. The chauvinist anti EU ideologists would rather cut a leg off than admitting the reality. I will be a frequent editor at this list from now on to ensure that credible sources are acknowledged. On a daily basis. Lear 21 (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If that was a threat please understand that vandalism by placing something thats not a sovereign state or dependent territory in the list will be reverted. It is you who fails to accept reality and the main source you always mention is the CIA. The MAIN list on the CIA world fact book treats the EU different to all other entries by placing it at the BOTTOM of the list.

This has nothing to do with being pro or anti EU although ur obsession with having the European Union added to this list but immeditate refusal to allow the African Union clearly shows you are biased on this matter.

When the European Union is a sovereign state or a dependent territory it can be added, until then it belongs under the main table or OFF this article all together.

One final thing.. you say "It is just one of many absurd and unlogic rationales and disregards the reader". Well one of the most absurd things i have seen written on this talk page was - "The European union can be considered a dependent territory of every single member state." BritishWatcher (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The denial of several highprofiled expert sources is a violation of rationale thinking and heavily lacks acceptance of global common practise and acknowledgement. Maybe the unbiased user Parsecboy can confirm if the CIA World Factbook is a credible source or just a another Disney institution of the USA ? I´m interested in his view. @BW: Read this [4] and tell me in the face that the EU entry is included at the end. If you do that again, I call you a liar straightaway from that moment on. Sorry BW your argumentation has nothing to do with the principles of Wikipedia. Your lack of knowledge can be considered a disgrace of the Wikipedia community. I won´t be surprised to hear "the world is flat" or "god has created mankind" tomorrow from your account. I´m disgusted be myself to answer your ridiculous comparisons of EU / AU. As you have repeated this opinion now many times I consider your messages from now on a joke and therefore inexistent. There is only one solution to end this discussion. The reinstallation of the longterm compromise version (where user Parsecboy was part of) which includes the EU entry at the beginning of the article within the intro. Otherwise I have to insist to accept the multitude of global references which point unmistakably to a justified unranked inclusion of the EU entry. Lear 21 (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference to the EU being listed at the end is for the alphabetical list of countries, i.e. it is not listed alphabetically like the other entries. The note for the EU in the Factbook indicates that, while it is noteworthy for inclusion, it's not quite in the same category as all the other entries in its list. No other independent source (i.e those not based on the CIA Factbook) lists the EU in its ranked lists of countries. Its inclusion in one high profile statistical source is the only reason why there is even a footnote for it here. Until the EU is included as a regular entry in multiple independent statistical compilations, then it has no strong basis for being part of the regular list. --Polaron | Talk 02:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This would be uncommon practise of many Wikipedia statistical lists. Most of them rely on ONE source and several consider the CIA as THE single source. Nothing wrong to copy the methods of the CIA one to one. Again, I seriously wonder about the degree of reality denial. A US citizen which disrespects its own statistics. What comes next Polaron claiming the statue of Liberty as un-American? Admitting that the landing of the moon was fake in order to exclude the EU entry ? I really wonder about how much more of your soul needs to sold to devil. In terms of reputation its going worse and worse. Lear 21 (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Wikipedia lists. I was referring to population tabulations by various international organizations, almost of all of which exclude the EU. You also seem to be devolving into attacking people who don't support your viewpoint. Why don't you instead include the EU in those lists that use the CIA Factbook as a single source? This one doesn't. --Polaron | Talk 04:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Lear, please do not make personal attacks in your comments.

You say: Nothing wrong to copy the methods of the CIA one to one. Yes there is, both in theory and in practice. We do it a fair bit, but we shouldn't.

The CIA takes recognition by the US government as the defining feature of a state. It then adds the World, the Oceans, and various dependent territories (not always in the most logical way - note the way it divides Akrotiri and Dhekelia) to form the main list, and adds Taiwan and the EU - in that order - at the bottom.

But US government recognition, while fine for an arm of the US government, is not NPOV. In theory, the US government could quite easily decline to recognise an otherwise generally recognised state, and that state would not go in the CIA World Factbook - or it could recognise a state that most others refuse to recognise, and that state would go in the CIA World Factbook.

In practice, it has actually done that. The United States recognises Kosovo as independent of Serbia. Therefore the CIA World Factbook's Serbia entry excludes Kosovo, and there is a separate entry for Kosovo. But it does not give similar treatment to all the other states in equivalent positions to Kosovo. And the only reason it doesn't is because the US government recognises Kosovo but not Abkhazia/South Ossetia/Northern Cyprus/wherever. That's what I mean when I say that the CIA takes the US government POV, and that's why I oppose the use of the CIA World Factbook as a basis for inclusion of entities on any list where there is an alternative way of collecting the data.

In the case of the EU, of course, there are other good arguments against inclusion as well - for example the implication inherent in a list of sovereign states and dependent territories that every entity on the list is a sovereign state or a dependent territory, while the EU is not. Pfainuk talk 10:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

A thread concerning Lear's behavior/attitude in regards to this dispute has been posted at AN/I here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Above or below

Lear has now given a reason why, he says, the footnotes must go above the list: "what else is an introduction for other than to explain and to inform the reader about the nature of the article?" I can't see that anyone is better informed about the nature of the article by seeing three entities that fail the inclusion criteria than they are by actually seeing the list that is the whole point of the article. In what way does listing the world, Antarctica and the EU at the top of the article inform the reader about the nature of the article? Pfainuk talk 10:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Just noting, I've made a suggestion Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area#Resolving this to see if we can get this dispute resolved. Pfainuk talk 19:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

growth rate

I think a very valuable addition to this list could be the population growth rates for each country. — <b>[[User:Vikingviolinist|<font color="darkblue">VikingViolinist</font>]]</b> | [[User talk:Vikingviolinist|Talk]] (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a separate list for growth rate here. --Polaron | Talk 02:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dependent territories are countries ?

This list names itself List of countries by population. But it includes dependent territories which are not recognized by any international institution. Most notably the UN. Does anybody see this basic mistake? KJohansson (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The way we decide what belongs on this list is not by using title of the list, but rather by applying the inclusion criterion stated on the first line: the list includes sovereign states and inhabited dependent territories. The word "country" is rather ambiguous - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries, for example, even though they are not sovereign states - but it is also a convenient short name for the concept and most other possible names are similarly ambiguous. The dependent territories, generally, are not parts of the sovereign states listed - but at the same time they are not independent. That said, I would have no on-principle objection to a move to List of countries and dependent territories by population (preferably accompanied by a move of the area and population density lists to similar titles).

Note that the UN's POV is not the same as NPOV - this is a common mistake. The UN is fundamentally a political institution and it does take sides in what it considers a country - a view that is disputed in a many cases. Pfainuk talk 00:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dependent territories are NOT countries, neither are England and Scotland because they are not recognized. A move to a "List of countries and dependent territories by population" seems even more irrational. On what base I might ask. Where is the reference for a so called criteria here? Does any global institution list the territories as countries ? Most of the territories are bound to their home country (sovereign state) which is recognized by the UN. Even the linked list of sovereign states does not list the territories. The inclusion seems baseless by any means. I rather suggest to look at the French Wiki were the territories are separated but also connected to the home country. The other possibility is to remove them because they are simply not countries. KJohansson (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean when you say that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not countries but at the same time we have bags of references here that say that they are - check the archive for sections dealing with precisely this point. They don't belong on this list not because they are not recognised by the UN (though they are not) but because they are neither sovereign states nor dependent territories - which, as described in the first line, is how the list is defined.

As I say, we don't include or exclude entities in this list based on whether they are countries, but whether they meet the more precise criterion "sovereign states and dependent territories" - a criterion that is then qualified further in the second paragraph. The title of the list is a convenient shorthand, not the basis for inclusion. After all, we are not going to call it the list of sovereign states and inhabited dependent territories - excluding integral parts of sovereign states, entities that have a measure of sovereignty but that do not consider themselves to be sovereign states, and uninhabited dependent territories - by population. For one thing, I don't think the software would let us.

The list of sovereign states lists sovereign states that fit a definition described at the bottom of that list. The fact that this list distinguishes dependent territories from sovereign states in the sentence "[t]he list includes sovereign states and inhabited dependent territories." should serve as a good indication that the dependent territories are not sovereign states, and as such are unlikely to feature on a list of sovereign states.

On the word "countries", I note that the ISO uses the word "country" in reference to all of these - and more - here.

UN POV does not equate to NPOV, and thus UN recognition is not a neutral measure of whether an entity is a sovereign state or not. UN POV on Taiwan is that it must be called "Taiwan, Province of China". That's not neutral. It accepts the Chinese POV that there is one China and that the PRC is the legitimate government of China. We cannot base this list on UN recognition because that would fail WP:NPOV. Pfainuk talk 10:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You haven´t answered the simple question why the dependent territories are included in a list of countries when at the same time these territories are part of recognized sovereign states (countries). There are many lists of countries in Wikipedia, almost all of them follow methods or sources. This is not the case here right ? Quote from the Dependent territory article "A dependent territory, dependent area or dependency is a territory that does not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a State." By clicking at some of the territories articles it becomes clear that most of them are part of a motherland. So can we agree that these parts are not sovereign or independent or recognized ? I also clicked the Swedish Wiki, they based their list at the UN list as well which seems pretty logic. And then again were is the source that rationalizes the inclusion of the territories? And who is WE ? ;) Do you speak with a royal WE ? KJohansson (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

All of this is true, but what is your point? You seem to say that we can't have a lists that include non-independent places, but why? Also, the reason why you see only Pfainuk is because he has the patience to go through these endless efforts. I admire him for it, and I admire his efforts to rationalise these lists. So when he speaks of WE, he is including me and people like me who have less time but who agree with him.sephia karta | di mi 12:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Most dependent territories have their own population information and size / area information. Gibraltar is a British overseas territory, but when the British government or international agencies produce reports on the United Kingdom population size they do NOT include our overseas territories. Gibraltar is not part of the United Kingdom, there for it seems sensible to list them individually however i do think there should be a clear difference between a sovereign state and a territory which at the moment there isnt. On some others Sovereign states are bolded or there is a notes section where we could say the dependent territory is part of which sovereign state.

France is a good example, Her overseas territories actually form part of the French Republic and some are treated just like any other region of mainland France. For that reason Frances Overseas territories are included in the French figure and theres a note saying so. But British overseas territories have not, do not and never will form part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. "WE" would refer to previous consensus reached on this article and other articles like it. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the one from Sweden, which does mention the individual territories, they just place it under the sovereign state. So what this is all about isnt the fact they are shown its the way they are shown and the fact they are counted. I agree in part with the point you are making. A few months ago the French article was mentioned http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_pays_par_population now that one presents all the information in a nice and clear way and i would support something like that if someone has the time to make it. However it will create problems for some people who think their territories or "countries" should be ranked, otherwise we are singly ignoring 100,000s of people. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I´m not promoting a full removal of the territories in general. But obviously this is a list of countries. Without going into detail a country is considered to have sovereignty or recognition. The degree of sovereignty of most of the territories listed here seems not relevant enough to be listed on par with recognized countries. Maybe there are special cases like Gibraltar, but this is one case among 194 UN fully recognized states. A clear distinction needs to be made here. How about giving them no rank at all while adding them to their motherland ? By clicking even more other Wikipedias this seems to be the most spread solution. In any case, none of the several Wikipedias (I clicked around 10 of the major languages) lists the territories as a fully integrated single country. The underlying methods used here seem more and more odd to me as I investigate further. KJohansson (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The sweden and other population lists still show the territories despite the title just being countries. Like i say i would rather a list like the french one which presents the information in an nice clear if someones prepared to make it. But most wikipedia articles on the English wiki that contain dependent territories, do infact rank them as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Britishwatcher, are we talking about the same list ? [5] ? The Swedish list does not rank the territories. And what other lists in English Wikipedia do list the territories as countries among the sovereign states ? Apart from the "List of countries and outlying territories by total area" which seems to have no references as well I don´t find any. Not even the Olympic Committee list the territories as nation or country. They are not members. Please folks, without a source, at least one which cites the territories as countries or other noteworthy lists it seems pointless to add them here on par with fully sovereign states/countries. KJohansson (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Area list uses the Demographic Yearbook from the UN for all entries, unless otherwise noted. Parsecboy (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That list and other language lists such as the french one show the territories under the sovereign state, i didnt say those other language ones rank them. The point was territories are shown with their population figures seperated on a list which is just about countries still on thise other language wikis.

Now if you just want those dependent territories unranked some would support that, although id only support it if it was for replacing the whole thing with a table like the french one does. But if we do that and remove the ranks from dozens of territories, there will be many who come here moaning wanting them to be ranked and its more useful to rank them than simply ignore 100,000s of people who live in those territories. There are over 400 "country" lists on the English wikipedia, quite a few are a mixture of both countries and territories. The country title isnt the most important defining factor of the list, its the criteria which lays out whats included. Sadly in English we do have countries which are not sovereign states as mentioned by others before. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, all country lists using the UN as a reference lists dependent territories separately, as that is how they are listed in the source. Also, the list by area is sourced to a single source listed at the bottom of the table. The fact that dependent territories have their own country codes, top-level Internet domains, representation in the Olympics (yes, the dependent territories participate separately in the Olympics), etc. means that a good chunk of the international community treats them as separate countries. This list was originally singly sourced to the UN World Population Prospects Report but there was a clamor for using population clocks since the UN report only changes every 2 years. In that UN report, dependent territories are listed separately as well. Dependent territories often track their own populations as well. They have separate statistical agencies that do the count, and population figures are released independent of the sovereign country that excercises sovereignty over the non-independent countries. --Polaron | Talk 14:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So what is the solution? Everybody agrees that the territories are not fully sovereign, right? Or at least vary in the degree of sovereignty. I think the distinction of these entries from real sovereign countries is not clear enough. So either the Swedish/French model seems convincing or a solution without any rank number for the territories could be reasonable. KJohansson (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As it is right now, entries that are not independent, widely-recognized countries are italicized. We can make the formatting distinction more obvious if needed but the non-independent countries should not be unranked as we will be excluding a significant chunk of the world population in the rankings. The French/Swedish solution doesn't work since we can't really add Puerto Rico, etc. to the United States population and report that as the population of the United States. Even the U.S. Census Bureau defines the "United States" as only the 50 states and D.C. The same situation is true for other countries like the UK. You will also have issues as what to do with the Palestinian territories, Taiwan, etc. Add clarifying notes and formatting as necessary but do not remove the ranking of non-independent countries. --Polaron | Talk 15:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, i think thats the fairest way. The source section could be changed to notes where it explains which sovereign state the dependent territory is with and the sovereign states should be bolded. Its impossible without zooming in on my screen to see the difference between regular and regular italic, we need a bolded sovereign states. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Polaron, the Puerto Rico article confirms, "People born in Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens" and Barak Obama is the Presidential head. I don´t want to go in detail because every of the 40 territories listed here is likely to have its own story. What does the French/Japanese/Swedish/Chinese/Spanish list don´t know what the list here knows better ? Why should the list of countries be justified by minority examples like Gibraltar and not the vast credible majority of sovereign states ? The footnotes belong to special cases like the Puerto Rico entry. I´m not advocating the removal of the territories, but they are simply not countries in a common sense, they are not countries with recognition and other Wikipedias do not recognize them as well. KJohansson (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that when the the U.S. Census Bureau reports the population of the United States, it includes Puerto Rico? I am quite certain it doesn't. Are we in fact listing citizenship? That is a harder task than you might think. Not all population counts distinguish citizens from legal non-citizen residents. There is a strong argument for treating non-independent countries as separate ranked entries. Why does the ISO assign country codes to dependent territories? Why are they assigned top-level Internet domains. Why are they allowed to participate separately in the Olympics? Why do practically all UN statistical tabulations list them separately? Many people confuse widely-recognized sovereign states with the term "countries". The introduction to the list explicitly says what the list contains anyway, which is what most international organizations use for "country". --Polaron | Talk 15:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The UN lists the territories but does not rank them. It is a fine distinction. The IOC has 205 members, the UN 194, this list here 221. 17 territories are not taking part of the Olympics ! The internet domains are given for other non-country locations as well. The distinction between fully sovereign countries and all others is not accessible at the moment. Territories are not countries ! KJohansson (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that the UN does not rank them? The UN does not produce ranked lists at all, only alphabetical ones, or ones grouped by region. Not all sovereign states participate in the Olympics either. The non-independent countries that don't participate in the Olympics are probably those with very small populations anyway. If it really bothers you about using the term "countries" for non-independent countries, then let's rename the page to "List of countries and territories by population". However, none of your arguments override the fact that these non-independent countries are treated at the same level as countries for statistical purposes, which this particular list is. --Polaron | Talk 17:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The introduction of the United Kingdom article writes: "The UK has fourteen overseas territories". The USA article writes: "The United States also possesses several insular territories scattered around the West Indies (e.g., the commonwealth of Puerto Rico) and the Pacific (e.g., Guam)"

It seems that even the editors there consider these territories not as countries. Instead the territories are seen as part of the motherland. It doesn´t make sense to include them as full countries here. As I investigated further, the German Wikipedia [6] doesn´t even mention the territories and rather lists the disputed sovereign states. The inclusion of the territories seems more and more strange. KJohansson (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If we're using Wikipedia articles as sources now, then I will point out that the first sentence of British Overseas Territories says that [t]he British Overseas Territories are fourteen territories that are under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, but which do not form part of the United Kingdom itself. There is a distinction between having dependent territories and considering those dependent territories as part of "the motherland". The British Overseas Territories are not part of the United Kingdom - and that applies in most other cases as well.

We do not base our decisions on what other Wikipedias do. They make their decisions, and we make ours. We might take inspiration from them, and they might take inspiration from us - but the fact that someone else does something does not mean we have to, and the fact that we do something does not mean they have to.

In this case, there are very good reasons for separating the dependent territories from their respective sovereign states. The fact is that they are generally not parts of the sovereign states concerned. They are generally governed entirely separately (beyond foreign affairs and defence), and particularly they generally gather statistics entirely separately. Further, the sources - and specifically the main source for this list - generally list dependent territories separately from their sovereign states. The precise choice of dependent territories on this list may differ from other sources, but the principle of including some dependent territories is shared.

If you don't like the word "countries" then I think we're all willing to accept a rename of the list. But I see no reason to remove the dependent territories from the list. Pfainuk talk 20:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Pfainuk, you cited the following: "The British Overseas Territories are fourteen territories that are under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom". Do we read different texts ? Sovereignty is the base for the recognition as a country (sovereign state). Because this is a list of countries, and yes I like the word "country", there is a contradiction of including territories on par with all other entries here. Right now the distinction seems very unclear. One personal note, I´d rather prefer to hear argumentations deriving from your account avoiding the royal "WE". It is highly disturbing as there is no indication that your account speaks for others. Thank you. KJohansson (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No-one is denying that they are under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. But you ignore the very next part of the sentence, "but which do not form part of the United Kingdom itself". The British Overseas Territories are not part of the United Kingdom. But it doesn't make any difference because WP:RS wikis are inherently unreliable due to the fact that anybody could have written them.

Now, your objection appears to be based on your contention that a list of countries should not have non-countries on it. Fair enough, if we didn't have several different definitions of the word "country". You define "country" as "sovereign state" - you treat them as synonyms. They are not. There are non-sovereign countries in the world that are not listed here - and there are entities on the list that are not countries as defined by many sources. But that's OK because we don't list "countries" as our inclusion criterion, we list "sovereign states and dependent territories" as qualified by later paragraphs.

You say "this is a list of countries". It is a list of countries only inasmuch as countries means the same as - as I put it earlier - sovereign states and inhabited dependent territories - excluding integral parts of sovereign states, entities that have a measure of sovereignty but that do not consider themselves to be sovereign states, and uninhabited dependent territories. Now, it can mean exactly that, but it can also mean several other things - that's why we aren't using it more authoritatively. The word "country" is a convenient shorthand, nothing more.

Finally, on the word "we". "We" is the English first person plural pronoun. I therefore use it in situations where I am referring to a group of more than one person that includes myself. In that last comment, it referred (in different contexts) to me and you, to me and those others who have participated in this conversation, and to the community surrounding English Wikipedia in general. In English - like just about every other language - pronouns are used so that you don't have to repeat noun phrases over and over again. In this case - in reference to a community of which I am a member - there is no other pronoun that is appropriate. This is a concept we refer to regularly on the English Wikipedia, and "we" is the pronoun that is practically universally used. And it's a usage that you're going to have to live with if you're going to spend a lot of time here. I will continue to use in in that context and other appropriate contexts. Pfainuk talk 01:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine Pfainuk. WE in cross national Wikipedia community do not consider territories as countries. Around 90% (among the 20 major editions) of us wonder why the English edition is the last oddball among our global community. We not only feel or think that a country to a very high percentage is determined by sovereignty we also can proof it as well. We also wonder why you repeatedly assume that we advocate a removal of the territories. We have always argued for better distinction of the territories which are not countries. Two solutions seem adequate, keeping the order of the list while giving the territories no rank number, or, integrating the territories to the motherland like so many of us are doing it.

One comment about the situation in the United Kingdom. Obviously this one sovereign state is the only one using the name country for its federal substates. This is not the case for 191 other UN members. I wonder why this special case should determine a discussion or the ultimate list. It is worth a footnote but nothing more like so many other special cases. The Engl Wikipedia is read and written from inhabitants all over the globe. I can´t see the reason why a singular national case should determine a list which rather should aim a global unbiased view. KJohansson (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Why should editors on other language editors be concerned about this? These are different projects, editorial decisions are taken independently for each of them. Well, if other people are really so concerned about this, they may come here and voice their opinion. Right now, it is just you who seems to have a problem with how things stand currently. Conversely, when Pfainuk uses we, he includes me and other editors who have expressed agreement with them on this talk page.

You are wrong when you say that we here decided on our own that the term country can also refer to non-sovereign entities. Pfainuk provided sources where it is used in just this way, and not just for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, which aren't even included on this list. He pointed this out to you, the fact that you ignore this tells me that you are not constructively participating in this discussion.

And lastly, I would just like to point out, however obvious it may seem, that words are used differently in different languages. What ever corresponds best to the term country in, say, French, may very well only be used to refer to sovereign entities. I don't know, people on the French Wikipedia will have to find references to determine this. But in the same way, we here on the English Wikipedia can only be led by references when determining what country may mean. It is a fallacy to believe that country and its closest French equivalent should mean exactly the same thing.sephia karta | di mi 16:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The relation of the FCO to the British overseas territories is confirmed here: "We’re responsible for the security and governance of the UK’s 14 Overseas Territories" [7]. A country is generally considered to be an independent sovereign state. This should be the 1. priority when creating such a list. The second priority can deal with unrecognized states, like the ones listed at list of sovereign states. At the end of the priority list stands the question of how mention or how to include special cases like Scotland and overseas territories. But this is the last question not the first. A serious Wikipedia article in general is dominated and outlined by its priorities and not by secondary or third level special cases. Right now the territories are displayed almost on equal terms with countries. This seems to be wrong. I´m convinced that these territories belong to the list somehow because of statistical reasons but they should be presented with a clear distinction. KJohansson (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You continue to ignore the fact that 'country' is not the inclusion criterion for this list, but merely a handy short hand. And you seem to suggest that there is something intrinsically wrong with mixing independent states and non-independent territories. sephia karta | di mi 14:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) We currently distinguish dependent territories from sovereign states by putting the dependent territories in italic. I would not object to putting the sovereign states in bold without changing the order or inclusion criteria of the list, so that instead of distinguishing normal text and italic, we're distinguishing bold and italic. Pfainuk talk 14:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sephia karta, you seem to ignore the fact that this is article is named List of countries by population. And yes I´m convinced, that in a list "of Elephants", Elephants should be the priority number one while mice should be mentioned in footnotes or presented in a different ways. It doesn´t make your argumentation better arguing that mice are part of a so called Inclusion Criteria. Obvioulsy the inclusion criteria has no base. BTW, the inclusion criteria is as amendable like everything else in Wikipedia. The introduction right now is not even based on any references. That makes even more questionable. KJohansson (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not ignoring that the article is named thus, I have said that is used as a short hand, which is acceptrable because we have references which support this usage. The difference with your false analogue is that you won't find references to the term Elephant being used to include mice. And again you ignore something that Pfainuk has said, namely that if you find this usage of the term country too misleading, we can change the name of the article to something like List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population.

Sure the inclusion criteria can be changed. But why? You haven't provided an argument as to what is intrinsically wrong with mixing independent countries and dependent territories. sephia karta | di mi 15:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ive bolded sovereign states so they are now clearly different to the territories. Disputed states like Palestine, West Sahara, and Taiwan i bolded and left as italic so hopefully people can also see the difference between dependent territories and disputed states. Someone can change those couple of entries if theyd rather they wernt bold. To resolve this debate perhaps we should rename the article, this is one of the main lists which alot of people may come to so including dependent territories in the title may be helpful and wouldnt require us to change all the other pages. Sorry if i missed any sovereign states out when bolding, pls fix if you can see any BritishWatcher (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that must have been a lot of work. I'm neutral on renaming, depends on what the others want. I noticed that some generally unrecognised sovereign states are missing, if no one else does, I will add them when I have time. sephia karta | di mi 15:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya the trouble with some of the disputed states is the figures are confusing as some may count towards the total population of the other sovereign state (like Kosovo / Serbia) or (georgia / South Ossetia and that other place). I dont mind them being added, just need to make sure we have a clear source that doesnt double count the disputed population figures. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Sure - though I think we'll need a discussion on exactly how to handle them. I don't think we can neutrally reduce the population figure for Serbia or Georgia, for example, but at the same time I'm not exactly wild about the idea of including Kosovo twice (once as part of Serbia, the other independently). Maybe we can have two lists side by side: one listing numbers in territories recognised by the UN as being part of the state/territory - as a proxy for internationally recognised borders - and the other by de facto control. Pfainuk talk 15:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If you find the name of the article misleading, then several people here have indicated willingness to change the name of the article. I would oppose list of sovereign states and dependent territories unless it was rolled out on every list (for reasons not entirely related to this discussion), but would accept list of countries and dependent territories.

But note that, per policy, the title is not used as the basis for inclusion of entities in the list - rather the inclusion criteria for the list are defined by the lead section. The inclusion criteria for this list includes the dependent territories and I have yet to see a credible argument to change that. Pfainuk talk 15:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to BritishWatcher the distinction is much clearer now. I would suggest to add the sovereign motherland in brackets after the territory as well, like Guam (US), Falkland Islands (UK) etc. I can only suggest that everybody takes a look at the template List of countries. You will find that name "List of countries and outlying territories by total area" is another oddball and does not provide consistency while naming the list. Thats why I´m highly opposed to rename this list here. This would establish an even bigger stupidity. I would rather suggest to rename the 2 or 3 strange names and reduce the names to List of countries by total area. KJohansson (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Bolding every country

Am I the only one who finds this unpleasing to the eye? No other list-article does that. I removed the bold a few weeks ago but someone has put it back. Sbw01f (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is, as evidenced above, people are having difficulty distinguishing sovereign states from dependent territories when they're not bolded. I personally have no strong preference either way, but this was the result of the discussion just above this one. Pfainuk talk 21:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

UN 2004 figures

I replaced the 2004 UN figures for Afghanistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Burma, Congo (Zaire), Korea (South), Nigeria, Uganda & Vietnam, with the 2008 figures for those countries from the US Census Bureau, with citations. Presumably these July 2008 from the US Census Bureau, are based on more data than was available in 2004 for current population estimates. Nonetheless, without comment Polaron restored the UN figures, and incidentally restored a problem at Argentina where the stated figure did not match the expression figure. I have looked at Archive 2 and Archive 3 for this page and the consensus there seems to have been that the UN figures are to be used as the default source if nothing better is available, and that all figures must be sourced. I would appreciate a discussion about continuing to use the 2004 figures for some countries, while other countries are updated to current estimates, when more recent data is available, such as the US Census Bureau estimates. If there is something seriously wrong with the US Census Bureau estimates, could that be pointed out? --Bejnar (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The UN figures are for 2007, not 2004. I'm not sure where you got the notion that these are 2004 figures. The figures used by that U.S. Census Bureau database are identical to the CIA World Factbook. If you look through the archives, you'll also note several discussions about how CIA figures for less developed countries are off from other estimates and why the list was switched to UN figures as a default. Your Argentina correction was to use a projection for mid-2009, which is still in the future so I restored it to mid-2008. If 2007 figures are too old for your taste, the UN does tabulate 2008 figures from the World Population Prospects report but in a different databse. We can switch over to that if you prefer but I don't really see the point. I'll provide specific examples about how certain CIA figures are off in a few hours. --Polaron | Talk 21:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

When the UN and CIA figures don't match, more often the UN estimate is closer to national census authority estimates. Let's take Afghanistan, for example:

• UN figures -- 28,225,600 (2008); 18,256,000 (1995); 25,067,000 (2005)
• CIA figures -- 32,738,000 (2008); 20,881,000 (1995); 29,929,000 (2005)
• Afghanistan CSO figures -- 22,097,900 (2006) --> excludes refugees and nomads --> adjusted figure is 24.1 million [8] (see also Table 2 of [9])

Both the UN and the CIA overestimate the population of Afghanistan but the UN figure is significantly more accurate. --Polaron | Talk 23:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at my Argentina correction, which I made again at 20:53, 26 February 2009, and note that in my edit summary of 20:09, 20 February 2009 I said update/correct Argentina, while all of the others were just updates. There is no date for the UN figures in the date column. The first external link is to United Nations Analytical Report for the 2004 revision of World Population Prospects. The footnote to the UN figures (FN23) is to a 2006 report, the FN says pages 37-41; but the 2007 forecasts are on pages 39-42 (TABLE A.1) and again on pp. 44-47 (as part of the 1950-2050 table (TABLE A.2)). --Bejnar (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Gambia

This country is missing from the list. The_Gambia is lists the country as 150th, but here is it not present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.122.142 (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, actually the country is there at position 146. It seems the ranking on the country's page doesn't match the value here. I'll go fix that now. --McSly (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancies between articles

I don't know if you noticed but we have huge differences between the population values listed in this article and the values present in the articles linked from the See also section, specifically the articles in the Lists of countries in various regions by populations section and World population. Some articles list List of countries by population as their source but haven't been updated in a while. Some have a completely different set of sources. Some don't specify any source at all. And obviously, the main problem is that the numbers don't match. They are sometimes off by millions and some countries are not ranked the same way depending on the article.

So I'd like to spend a little time to clean this up. The idea is to use this article as the primary point to do all the updates. I'll use the values and sources present here, after all the other articles are supposed to be subset of the current article. I'd also like to add a sentence on each article stating that the values are just copied from List of countries by population and add a comment so when editors want to change a value in one of the subsets, they are told to update List of countries by population first and then replicate the change in all the applicable subset articles.

Before I start, I'd like to make sure that this article can safely be used as the primary source for the others. Also let me know if you think that's a bad idea. --McSly (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The figures in the main table in this article are all sourced to a reliable (though not necessarily the most appropriate) source. In that sense, the figures here can probably be used as a source for other figures. However, many of the figures are sourced to population clocks and, unless the update process is automated somehow, you will likely never be able to fully match the figures in this list with figures in other articles at all times. You may also have to discuss with the various country article editors about that. I synchronized this list with all the country articles a few years ago but it was a nightmare to maintain. --Polaron | Talk 19:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd add that this list includes Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and so on as parts of the UN-recognised sovereign states concerned at the moment. This may be at odds with the conventions used elsewhere and may soon change (considering that a different standard was agreed but has not so far been implemented). Pfainuk talk 20:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

United States Overseas Territories and Commonwealth=

Why are U.S. possessions such as Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands listed? These are not countries but territories of the United States. Hence, their populations should be either included into the USA population or these territories should not be listed at all since in fact, they are not countries. --Yoganate79 (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, it one of the strange stupidities of Wikipedia. The overseas territories are not countries and do not belong here. They should not have an own rank. KJohansson (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

UK Population

The UK population is quite clearly incorrect. The population of Britain was 65 million in the early '90s. It is currently aroung 70 million. This needs to be changed. It is the third most populous country in Europe after Russia and Germany, but is heading to overtake Germany due to t he number of immigrants arriving in the country. mspence835 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mspence835 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, the UK census of 2001 gives a population of 58,789,194 [10], The current number used in the article is from EuroStat which should be fairly accurate as well. Do you have a source giving other values ? --McSly (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

editing country populations

do we have permission to, when we visit this page, go to the population source, change the population and then change the date for 'date last updated'. De Mattia (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

On principle, yes. Note though that the date should be the date for which the population figure was accurate, rather than the date on which the page was accessed. So, if you went to the source for the population of Elbonia today and saw something that said "On 31 March 2009 the population of Elbonia was 45,682,421", the date you would use would be 31 March 2009, not 7 June 2009.

It's helpful if people use the edit summary to explain what they're doing when they do this. Pfainuk talk 09:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, and just another thing, why do some of the countries have automated numbers, the current number are some way off the number counting on the website. De Mattia (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Negative growth rates

should we put a note alongside the countries with a negative growth rate?? De Mattia (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Disasters etc

If there was to be a huge earthquake in china today (for example), and say 5000 people were confirmed to have died, would the offical china population clock reagust or would it just keep on climbing. De Mattia (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think population clocks readjust for natural disasters. From what I know, the population listed for a population clock increases/decreases is solely based on data using the last census and using a mathematical formula or algorithms (based on growth rate, birth rate, death rate, immigration, amd emigration.) It doesn't take into account other problems. It would also be pretty hard to keep up with natural disasters because the number of people that died changes frequently and I know China experiences a lot of them especially floods/typhoons. This might be too time consuming to keep readjusting the clock. To answer your question, I don't think that natural disasters would affect the population clock. Elockid (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. De Mattia (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)