Talk:List of European countries by population/Archive 1

Turkey?

Why exclude Turkey? That seems awfully arbitrary. Jd2718 (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added Turkey. But I can't believe that the totals have to be recalculated by hand? Who made this chart? And the percentages too? Jd2718 (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why include Turkey? The very idea of continents is arbitrary, West Asia (i.e. Europe) is a great example as to why. --2601:9:7E00:5D7:64:83AC:21C:135 (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative, perhaps include East Thrace, the European part of Turkey. Its population is around 10 million or so, so still significant. Unlike Russia (the other major transcontinental), most of Turkey's population is in Asia. There is quite a lot of cultural diffusion in this part of the world, both ways. So you might find Ottoman inspired mosques in places like Bulgaria. And the Ottoman mosque takes the (Roman) Byzantine Haga Sofia as its prototype. 60.240.207.146 (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your article needs revisions; Please, look at the geographical definition of Europe; Turkey, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and arguably the eastern part of Russia are NOT part of the continent

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 911Cedric (talk • contribs) 23:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory text

"well partially recognized" — say what?
—DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Transcontinental countries

I recently added all countries with European territory to the list. Kazakhstan is a transcontinental country, much like Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia and Turkey. Armenia and Cyprus have been added as well since they're considered to be part of Europe, according to some definitions, and are, at the very least, at the crossroads of two continents, just like Malta. There was no point to exclude these countries from the list since they're included in other Europe-related articles, categories and templates. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the idea of including in this article some additional countries, just because some of them are transcontinental nations. My point is that they are not European from a geographical and cultural (both linguistic and religious) point of view.

For instance, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkey don't speak Indo-European languages (although Russian is widely spoken in the second one) and the three of them are mainly Muslim countries, while Europe has always been basically Christian for the last centuries (in fact, Christianity has historically been a sort of unifying force in that continent, more than its more complex “linguistic landscape”)

Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, which lie south of the Great Caucasus (Bolshoi Kavkaz) natural barrier, have been traditionally considered as Asian countries during the last twenty years or more. Although it's true that when the Soviet Union still existed (until December 25-26, 1991) they were considered as part o the European USSR for practical reasons, that hasn't been the case for the last two decades.
Kazakhstan is massively Asian, and only 127,300 square kilometres out of its total area of 2,717,300 sq are in Europe.
Turkey is basically Asian, with the small exception of Thrace (historically it was part of Anatolia or Asia Minor).
Russia is the great exception in this list, because although only a smaller part of the gigantic territory is in Europe (some 4,552,000 sq km out of 17,075,400 km), most of its people live in Europe (some 100-100 million inhabitants), and there has always been a tendency to consider the Russian Federation as a European country from both from a cultural and geographical viewpoint.

Finally, because you evidently don’t know how to calculate the other “fields” (assuming that every row is some sort of database record), you have only added their respective populations, and every other demographic data is missing in their new entries. As I was the was who wrote or programmed the original macro (with the LibreOffice Calc spreadsheet) that automatically generated these continental population articles, I could relatively easily recalculate that data. However I don't want to do it just because I am of the very strong idea that those countries don't belong to Europe.

MaxBech1975 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly do the calculations myself. Anyway, the countries I added to the list can be found in almost all other Europe-related articles, categories and templates on Wikipedia, as per consensus, so in my opinion there's no good reason for their exclusion here. To consider whether a country is European or not is pretty much subjective. The fact is that Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Turkey have territories inside the European continent. Therefore, from a strictly geographic point of view, these countries can be listed in both Asia-related and Europe-related articles, categories and templates -- which is exactly how it's done in Wikipedia. Furthermore, speaking a non-Indo-European language doesn't mean you're not European. The Basques, Estonians, Finns, Hungarians, Maltese and many other ethnic groups in Europe do not speak Indo-European languages, yet are considered to be European. Also, countries like Armenia, Cyprus, Georgia and Turkey are member states of official pan-European bodies, such as the Council of Europe. Honestly, I just cant see why these countries must be excluded. Another Wikipedia editor has made a similar point just recently, if you view the history logs of this article. Also, given that countries like Turkey have been integrating with the West since the 18th century at the very least, it's also extremely subjective for one to conclude that they're not socio-culturally European. Last but not least, the boundaries of Europe are not clearly defined and vary from one definition to the next. Generally, countries that are at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, such as Armenia, are grouped with both continents. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love Turkey but, while the fresh Mediterranean caught fish that I enjoyed in Istanbul were amazing and while its Roman cities such as Ephes are second to none, I'd be hard pushed to describe it as European. But what would I know? I'm English so hardly qualify myself. My personal view is that there has got to be a safeguard for heritage even a European heritage. I will mention my two preferred solutions:

1) include only countries in which the majority of the people are in the European area,

2) add a suffix such as EuAs after the country names of all countries that straddle the European border. In the case of Russia the suffix might read EuAs while, after Turkey, the suffix might read EuAs. Perhaps the suffix might be coded < br >EuAs with, at a level of a lot more complexity, the second line being right justified. I think it would make a mockery of the list to add Kazakhstan, at least if this was done without making some kind of strong comment. (Its a list or European countries and this is not the place to redefine Europe). Another thing that would require more, and perhaps unwanted, work would be to add a second ranking column. There could then be a column for "Rank, European" and a second rank for "Rank, Euro+EuAs"

I'd still personally prefer the first option and perhaps this would work if comment was made at the end of the table. Comment could be made regarding Russia's inclusion on the list and regarding the exclusion of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, Kazakhstan and Turkey.

Gregkaye (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This isn't the place to redefine Europe, therefore I don't think we should exclude countries that straddle both continents just because it doesn't "look right" to have them included. Take a look at the Wikipedia article on the list of sovereign states in Europe. It includes Kazakhstan and all the other transcontinental countries by virtue of the fact that they have European territory. The standard has already been set in other Wikipedia articles, category pages and templates, so why should it not be followed here? Your first solution is highly controversial since the geographic boundaries of Europe aren't even agreed upon. Different academic sources say different things about where the eastern boundaries of Europe lie. Furthermore, if we are to apply the strict traditional geographic definitions of Europe -- i.e. the west Eurasian peninsular landmass -- then we ought to exclude all island nations that are considered to be European, such as Iceland, Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom. I doubt that'll go too well with the editors of Wikipedia. Europe is mostly a social construct anyway, and has political as well as socio-cultural definitions. It's more than enough that official European bodies, such as the Council of Europe, consider all aforementioned countries to be European, including Kazakhstan, which is permitted to join the Council of Europe if it so wishes. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something which might be useful for these two big transcontinental nations are the articles on European Russia and East Thrace. Something which might be relevant is that although most of Russia is in Asia, most of the population (77%) is in Europe, making it still the largest by population. In the case of Turkey, about 12% is in East Thrace, which puts it somewhere between FYROM and Slovenia. As for the cultural status of Turkey, we should perhaps consider Turkey's influence on Europe, which can be seen from Bulgaria to Austria and through the Balkans. An historic power on the edge of Europe which inherited and spread the old Eastern Roman (Byzantine), and in some senses was a successor. It's complex, and perhaps is best dealt with by sticking with the common physical definition of Europe's borders, rather than trying to redefine in terms of language/religion/culture. 60.240.207.146 (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Population density

Would there be a way of adding a population density column. A land area column also might be useful although this information might also be entered following the name of the country. Just a thought. Gregkaye (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can find that in the article Area and population of European countries which is perhaps a more logical place.

60.240.207.146 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland

I'm thinking these constituent countries of the United Kingdom should be included here in their respective population ranking orders (but not given a ranking number) for illustrative purposes. For a similar situation, see Kosovo and South Ossetia in List of countries by population. Facts707 (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add at least Scotland and England (clearly european countries), with Wales and Northern Ireland too. Personally, I count Wales as a country, but it has fewer markers of independence than Scotland, by far, and maybe fewer than England. But in any case, there are many other entries in the chart with less of a rationale for inclusion than these four. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.106.129 (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting on Date column is broken

Seems like it will require cleanup of the data itself. See here.

"Alternative"?

The "alternative figure" lacks an explanation. What's its source? 80.195.254.36 (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it's an official estimate in most cases, as you can see in every corresponding link that is cited in the last table column (although some of them might be broken or dead). And naturally each referenced figure usually corresponds to a different date, not to a normalized one.

Regards from Argentina :-)

MaxBech1975 (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan

Is Kazakhstan in Europe? What is the source for this? It is highly unusual to see Kazakhstan among a list of European countries... 212.120.245.155 (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not usually, but in Europe#Definition, the western edge of Kazakhstan is counted as Europe it seems. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islands

Technically islands are not part of continents (by definition). Especially remote islands like Iceland, Cyprus, and Greenland. But most of all, the inclusion of Cyprus into Europe is rather arbitrary (see a map). So, "European" in this article refers to some loose interpretation of the geographical entity called Europe, and the political region called Europe. There is some discussion on this (specifically about the islands) in the article on Europe, but perhaps it would be beneficial to point this out here as well, or add some footnotes as a reminder. 193.145.230.3 (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to evaluate cities or countries which are split between Asia and Europe?

There is a Request for Comment which affects this article at the page Talk:List of European cities by population. The question is, "In articles which rank European cities or countries in order by population or area, should the entire city or country be counted, or only the portion which is in Europe?" Your input there would be appreciated. MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia and Cyprus have no portion in Europe

Since the dividing line between Asia and Europe is generally accepted to pass through the northern edges of Georgia (country) and Azerbaijan, then Armenia is fully in the continent of Asia and has no portion in Europe. Also, Cyprus is geographically an island belonging to Asia as per this map (notice the purple color both of Cyprus and Armenia in the map, indicating they have no portions in Europe). On the other hand, Georgia and Azerbaijan have only small portions in Europe but are mostly Asian, so Georgia and Azerbaijan can be included in this list as transcontinental countries. Khestwol (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "limits" of Europe are a pure convention, it is not like the continent was separated from Asia by an ocean. The countries you mentioned are part of the Council of Europe, so they are definitely relevant on a list of European countries. Also, this question always comes back here every so often, and so far the community's consensus has always been that they belong on the list. Place Clichy (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To add them a counter evidence would be needed, because the map shows both as part of Asia. Without evidence including them would be an WP:OR that must be removed as per WP:V. Khestwol (talk)`

Cyprus and Armenia are considered European by the Council of Europe. Article 4 of the Statute of the Council of Europe (and also the preamble) specifies that membership is open to any "European State". Nobody denies that they would be beyond a Bosphorus-Caucasus-Ural line, but this "traditional" line is only worth what it's worth, a mere convention, it is not as inalterable or carved in stone as a limit based on, say, an ocean. Place Clichy (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the map is incorrect. I can't find any source claiming Cyprus has ever been considered to be Asian. It even is a member of the European Union which requires their applicants to be [European State]. T v x1 17:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, we have Cyprus in the list but have no countries such as Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. What's justice? CickSlowUnion (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Left out number 12

Netherlands is listed as number 11, and the next county down, Belgium is listed as number 13. There is no number 12. You have one too many countries listed. You may want to correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:31EB:2EC0:B9A5:4E51:FDC:1498 (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colours

Before colours for EU and OECD membership was added, all transcontinental states were indicated. Now they aren't. Turkey for example is shown as a OECD member rather than as a transcontinental state. This isn't as helpful. There are two solutions: Remove colours for EU and OECD membership, or show EU and OECD membership using a different method (eg have additional columns for this). I don't really know why OECD membership is that important? More important would be Council of Europe, or the EAEU. Rob984 (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I think we could remove all colours. Transcontinental countries can be mentioned with a note. It may be more useful to have a slightly different aspect (colour, italics?) for non-sovereign countries. Place Clichy (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing them, per WP:Color. They create visibility issues, especially with the flags (and specifically with the German one). We should remember that not everyone can see colors. It's better to use some symbol instead. T v x1 17:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Population Density

I reckon it would be very useful to show population density in people per square kilometre, because the countries vary widely in area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speculatrix (talk • contribs) 07:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Population of France is much lower

Heaps of folk don't understand that any numbers for the population of France they may run into often includes the population of its oversea holdings! Indeed, the listed French population is the only one without an citation in the article. Also, (unlike a lot of nowadays Europe) the French are still oldskool nationalistic size-queen primitives whom are always comparing themselves to other major European countries - take a look how they despeartely bump up the population of their reletively small cities alikened to German, British, Dutch, Italian so forth cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.210.155 (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I added a source. — 37 ^(talk) 08:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

This table has multiple issues, and I very much doubt the accuracy of the figures presented in it.

The note accompanying the third column from the left mentions that the population figure for each country on July 1, 2015 is calculated "using a exponential formula" based on "the latest national censuses or most recent official estimates". The actual numbers on which the calculations are based are however not mentioned, and I doubt that these are the same as the figures included in the third column from the right. Further more, the resulting population figures are added up to calculate a total population number for Europe. That figure is then used to calculate a % for each country. All of this is own research, as the figures can not be verified using an external source. The same is true for the "estimated doubling time"-figures. These too are based on own research using a mathematical formula, and not on actual demographic data. I suspect these "estimated doubling time"-figures to be hugely incorrect. I could, for example, not find a single source predicting the population of the UK to double in the next 90 years.— 37 ^(talk) 09:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: France is shaded red, as a "Transcontinental countries largely located in Asia." I'm pretty sure France is located entirely on the European continent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.152.179 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria and Northern Cyprus

I can't find a discussion about these two regions. I oppose to include them in the country list. Please compare List_of_sovereign_states. Any opinions? Nillurcheier (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a definite list of sovereign states. Why remove information from the article? They are entirely self-governing regions so surely including their population is informative? It isn't in any way legitimising their existence. Rob984 (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "three" Baltic States?

Have the authors heard of Estonia? Greets, xyz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.240.127.161 (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Turkey and Kazakstan from the list

Turkey is mainly in Asia Minor and Kazakstan is in Central Asia. For God's sake stop this autistic nonsense. Nobody view these countries as European, not even the most autistic person on this planet does. --83.252.108.204 (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the facts

Various claims abound on this page, for example that Turkey shouldn't be included (which it clearly should, since part of it is located in Europe - unless we should then also remove Russia). The claims regarding various such transcontinental countries, or countries with various claimed strong ties to Europe, refer to things such as culture, language, religion, and so on. Not only are these claims irrelevant (since Europe and Asia are geographical entities with clear delineations by defining mountain ranges), but they are also ignorant. Even if language had anything to do with it, it would still be wrong as the term "Indoeuropean" in "Indoeuropean languages" refers to Europe and the Indian subcontinent since the languages stretch over such vast areas.

Let's look at Turkey again, and let's pretend that culture has anything to do with the definition of Europe: Constantinople, the very capital of the East Roman Empire (also called the Byzantine Empire), is today's Istanbul, the capital of Turkey. In Constaninople, most people at the time spoke Greek, and Latin was also important. It was the very city that, among others, vikings (Scandinavians) frequently visited for trade and work around 1,000 AD. More to the point, much of the European heritage in the form of ruins from Ancient Greece are located in Turkey, for example "Ephesus".

Again, culture has nothing to do with the definition of Europe, which is geographical entity - nor does the Euopean Union have anything to do with what's Europe and what's not, except for its suitable name. (I only brought up Turkey to demonstrate the problems with various opinions put forward on this page.)

There is at least one country included in the list which, according to today's borders, has no part of itself in Europe, and that's Armenia. (And again, whether Armenia is involved in various European cooperations, partnerships, or organizations is irrelevant. In that case Israel is also European simply because it participates in the Eurovision Song Contest - so let's add Israel! No?) Involving aspects that has nothing to do with the geographical definition of Europe turns it all into a hazy mess of facts, random opions, and various nonsense. 84.246.89.172 (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious nonsense

This Wikipedia page displays a table in three colors. Violet means "European Union", green means EFTA states, and red means "Transcontinental countries largely located in Asia". Armenia is colored red, which, of course, is nonsense since Armenia has no part of its territory in Europe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundaries_between_continents#/media/File:Europe_Asia_transcontinental.png

(Armenia is the little country in violet sticking out.)

The ONLY reason I didn't remove Armenia is because I don't have the time to recalculate all the relative figures for the other nations, and recalculate the totals. 84.246.89.172 (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC) 84.246.89.172 (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what possible sense is Svalbard a "country" ?

I get that Greenland has at least a bit of autonomy, and their own flag, and a history of moving from sponsor to sponsor. But Svalbard? It would be like saying Johnson Atoll is it's own country. I don't see why it is included in this table, at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of European countries by area

One of these two articles is useless since you can sort the tables by any information you want. --147.142.185.68 (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, original research, and other problems removed

The "Current Population" column was completely unsourced, and much of it appears to have been based on original research. Most of it was very inaccurate. Therefore I have removed it.

In 2013, this column was sourced to United Nations data and projections, and was then changed to be based on US Census Bureau data and projections, with this edit:[1]. So far, so good. However, in April 2013, it became based on unpublished spreadsheet calculations by a Wikipedia editor, with this edit:[2]. An explanatory note was added:

"Calculated, when available, from the latest national censuses or most recent official estimates (many of which are cited in their respective column), using the exponential formula shown on the List of countries by past and future population article. This is done to normalize the different populations to a unique date, so that they are really comparable."

At that point, the information became original research, as the final numbers were not verifiable through any published reliable source. The editor stopped updating the article from their spreadsheet, sometime in 2015.

Since then, numerous editors have been more or less randomly changing the numbers. None have given a reliable source. For example, this edit:[3] changed about half of the numbers, without giving any sources, and changed the column title from "January 2015 Projection" to "January 2018 Projection". In the most recent version, most of the numbers vary widely from any published population numbers, and the column when added up gives a total population of about 100,000,000 more people than current reliable estimates of the total population of Europe. I would suggest that if anyone wants to replace them, they could use the current numbers published by the United Nations for example, which are available here:[4] in various formats, such as this wall chart:[5], or from the US Census Bureau, here:[6].

I have also removed the columns about Annual Growth and Doubling Time, as again they are unsourced and apparently based on unverifiable original research. I have removed the "% of Population" column, as it's also unsourced and unknown how the calculations were made, though it appears that at least some of them combine two different sources, one giving the country's population and a different one giving the total population of Europe, to create a result that isn't contained in either source - this is considered a synthesis, another type of original research which is not allowed. Correspondingly, I have removed the pie chart as being unsourced, inaccurate, and containing original research.

I'm sorry to have removed so much material, but it's simply not acceptable to have such inaccurate, unsourced, and unverifiable statistics in Wikipedia. Please do not reinstate any of it, without giving citations of reliable sources.

I have left the "official figure" columns as they appear to be sourced. However, it's also obvious that people have been changing these without updating the sources, for example with this edit:[7]. To the dynamic-IP editor in Poland on the Orange Polska network, who has been making a very large number of changes recently, I understand that you are trying to improve Wikipedia, but please STOP adding unsourced changes to this and many other articles! See Wikipedia:Citing sources, thanks. If anyone has time, it would be appreciated if you could go through that column and check that the numbers match what is given in the sources. --IamNotU (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the dynamic-IP editor I mentioned above is Ufufcguc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also known as Nbmmplo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and perhaps other names, who has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and for disruptive editing including knowingly adding unsourced, unexplained, and false information and statistics, and a litany of other infractions as you can see on their talk page. Their edits (since 30 July 2018) can be reverted according to WP:BLOCKEVASION. --IamNotU (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updating

I've updated the first ten countries, and a couple of others, but there may be many others that have out of date information, dead sources, or numbers that have been added in contradiction to the sources, etc. (see above section "Unsourced, original research, and other problems removed"). I copied the information from List of countries and dependencies by population, which seems to be reasonably up-to-date and sourced. It might be easier to just copy that whole table and remove the non-European countries, rather than checking and updating the 50+ entries here. That would also make it easier to update in the future. --IamNotU (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished updating the list. As of today, everything matches the List of countries and dependencies by population, except for the Åland Islands which are not listed there, some changes to notes, and a fixed number for Netherlands instead of the auto-updating template. I tried copying that table and removing the non-European countries, but it uses special templates that make it difficult to use the table editor, and it seemed faster to do each entry manually. --IamNotU (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania wrong UN population estimate

Hello, Lithuania seems to have a very wrong number written in the column of un pop estimate. You can see it when compared to the national statistic an if you go to the official un pop statistic page [[8]] and find Lithuania. Could someone that understands how change it? I myself could not figure out from where this number comes from in the table.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Perkunvilkis (talk • contribs) 22:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Table colors

I don't know about other people, but I can't see any of the colors on the table. I've tried to fix it, but I haven't been able to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FatPanda6 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the UK?

Now that Brexit happened, should it be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.104.252 (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. The United Kingdom left the European Union. It didn't physically move the island of Great Britain to another location outside of Europe. --IamNotU (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why Turkey is on 3d position if their population is larger than Germany's?

Please fix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:500:4CF0:F113:357:8250:378D (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And why is Montenegro ahead of Luxembourg? Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with the UN section?

Where are the sources for the UN estimates for population? Some seem to have been vandalized (20bn people in Russia, for example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by VORSEY (talk • contribs) 07:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Russia reads 20 Billion in the UN est. column

As the title says. I attempted to edit but my kung-fu is not strong enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.86.8 (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I found the offending data table. See - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations)&action=history . The table is a mess, in a big way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.86.8 (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holy internet wizard! @IamNotU has fixed it up, what a legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.86.8 (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out... the data displayed by template:Country population is indeed taken from List of countries by population (United Nations), which has been experiencing vandalism lately. I reverted the vandalism and requested page protection for that article. --IamNotU (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan as Transcontinental Country and Armenia as full in asia but culturally european

so, Part of Azerbaijan is in EU (as the border between EU and asia at the caucasus is marked by the Caucasus Mountains, and part of them are in Azerbaijan, meaning that it is a transcontinental country), and, armenia is in fact totally in Asia, but, their culture is much more European than asian, so i ask someone to add both azerbaijan and armenia in their categories (that are in the title). PastaEditor2 (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed and Unincorporated Territories.

so, i see that some people removed Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia from the List, yes, i know that they are Unrecognized Nations, but, they are De Facto Independent, so i ask them to be added back.

regarding Unincorporated Territories, Svalbard and Jan mayen should be re added, as they are Unincorporated Autonomous Territories of Norway (they should be added but with the thing sinalizing that they are part of norway (like this: "(Norway)")).

in addition, Akroti and Dekhelia should be shown Separated from cyprus (with the same color as cyprus, but with UK banner and the thing "(UK)" in front of it).

PastaEditor2 (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Population - citizens or residents in the country?

What is meant by population of a country? Is it the number of people actually residing in the country, whether they are citizens or not, or does it mean those who are citizens, whether they actually live in the country or not? Oddeivind (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first one. The numbers are based mostly on censuses, which count residents, not citizens. I added a link to the UN methodology, see the cited sources for specifics of the others. --IamNotU (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Kosovo

Why these 3 territories do not appear on the list? And why does Kosovo appear? This list is not neutral.--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo is a sovereign country recognized by ~100 countries in the UN, depending on when you ask the question, roughly a majority. The fact that Serbia would dispute the neutrality of Kosovo's inclusion does not mean that the article is not neutral. Zero UN members recognize Transnistria, and the Caucasian provinces by five UN members. Their exclusion makes sense on both that definition (the constitutive theory) and also by the declarative theory, since they each variously lack one or more of the 4 prongs of that definition. Kosovo does not. Denzera (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are also sovereign states and 2 of them maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereign states and members of the UN. That is a theory, not a Wikipedia rule. Clearly it is not neutral to include Kosovo and exclude 3 other states that have similar conditions.--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro, there is no good reason to exclude them, the difference with Kosovo is a matter of degree and there are plenty of RS describing these three as countries (see List of states with limited recognition). I would support adding them. Alaexis_¿question? 06:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wholly located in "Europe"

@IamNotU: The thing is, Europe is actually a social construct, not a real continent, and is formed by culture and history only. It shares the same landmass as Asia, and forms Eurasia. So, saying something like "wholly in Europe" does not make any sense to me. Germany's total land area is around 357,022 km2, while European Russia covers almost 4,00,000 km2, and is literally larger than India. So the sentence "Germany is the most populous country wholly located in Europe" should be removed.

Now, coming to this sentence — "Though more than 75% of its total land is in Asia, approximately 110 million people, or 78% of its population, are located within its European territory." Is it needed, since we already know that Russians are Europeans? I get this for Turkey, because the country only has 3% of its territory in Europe, and is culturally, and linguistically Asian. But Russia's "25%" territory in Europe, is roughly 40% of the continent, and the fact that almost 80% of the population lives in the 25%, with Moscow being the largest city in Europe, so i do not think there is any need to list the fact that it has 75% of its territory in Asia.

But i do believe, Turkey's explanation needs to stay. 103.58.92.10 (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

103.58.92.10 (talk), I understand your explanation of Europe being a social construct. But whether it's a "real" continent or a socially constructed one isn't really important to this question. It's still generally considered a continent, or at least a recognized region, either way, with more-or-less agreed-upon borders. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to Russia as a transcontinental country, which straddles eastern Europe and northern Asia. See the Russia and Europe articles for citations. If you wish to define Russia as being entirely European, you should do so first at one of those articles, and if the changes are accepted, we can make the necessary adjustments here. Otherwise, we should not have content here that contradicts the main articles. --IamNotU (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]