Jump to content

Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Update

We need to update this New data from CIA -Pedro 14:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For the Netherlands I have used template:popneth and template:popdateneth. They are used here and on four other pages. Next update will just require changing the number and date, each in one template (apart from possible changes in order in lists, and recomputation of population density).Patrick 15:49, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

Please do not include data from the link that is provided to "New data from CIA"[1]. There is consensus that these numbers do not seem to be accurate. --Jibran1 22:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

california?

I'm a little confused. why is california up there? as i recall the title is sovereign states and other territories by population. now california isn't soveregin, nor another territory. shouldn't it belong in largest subnational entities by population?

Date

Shouldn't there be a date on this. I mean are these like the correct population figures, this minute right now? Mintguy

Good point. Fixed. --mav

There are a number of items here that aren't countries. I'm fairly sure that a lot of them shouldn't be listed here: the French overseas departments (St. Pierre et Miquelon, French Guyana, Reunion, Polynesia); the assortment of UK island dependencies (St. Helena, Montserrat, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands)--I'm less sure about the Channel Islands, Man, and Wight; the US territories (Guam, American Somoa, the US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico); the Netherlands Antilles. (The entry that just says "Virgin Islands" is probably meant to be the US Virgin Islands, by elimination.)

Those are the easy cases--autonomous regions like Greenland, and the odd status of Macau and Hong Kong, are going to be harder. But nobody claims that Bermuda, Montserrat, St. Pierre et Miquelon are independent countries. Vicki Rosenzweig

Good question. The US Census and the CIA Factbook have rather loose definitions in this regard. Is there another more sane method then please point me to the list and I will redo the numbering by deleting the numbers by non-nations. Perhaps we can define a nation based on UN membership? But then we would have to exclude several nations... Hmm... --mav

Switzerland is not a UN member, so that would look ridiculous. Neither is Taiwan by the way, but that's a more debatable issue (I know...). Maybe the safest is to say "countries and dependent areas". Jeronimo
I'd start by eliminating the French overseas departments. Colonies, autonomous regions, and the like are trickier, and we might have to do them case-by-case. The only place Puerto Rico counts as a country is in international sports competition--where England, Scotland, and Wales are also separate countries. There are people who want it to be independent, but they don't claim it already is. I don't know whether Greenland or the Faeroe Islands are treated as countries. Taiwan is de facto independent.
Also, we should try to find out whether the population numbers for the country these territories are loosely part of include that territory: either to add them if they aren't already included (for places like French Guyana) or make sure the people of a territory aren't being listed both as population of dependent area and as part of population of separate nation. Vicki Rosenzweig

I propose something like this:

  • France xx,xxx,xxx
    • Mainland xx,xxx,xxx
    • Guadeloupe xx,xxx
    • Martinique xx,xxx
    • French Guyana xxx,xxx
    • etc.

In this way, we can still get the numbers for the "non-countries", since that is also interesting. Jeronimo

i quite like that idea. - fonzy

It looks like the other country lists don't include dependent areas. So as is, this list is useless when used with the others. I do very much like Jeronimo's suggestion though -- that way this list will be usable with the others and have additional interesting info on dependent areas. I will try to find time to do this during the weekend. --mav 12:18 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)

Me likes! Great job - that must have taken a while to do. --mav

No real problems, making it a table was easy (find-and-replace is a nice function), and some cut-n-paste work for the dependent areas. Was kinda surprised to not find all countries though, will look for these now. Jeronimo

Now that the table has noticable table cells, how about having the dependent areas in the same cell as their parent state (using < br > tags to make things line up)? --mav

Yeah, that would look a lot better. Will tend to it later, have to do some real work now... I'm also working on the other lists (put some data in the density page, working on the area) Jeronimo

I reformatted China's area to show you what I am thinking of. --mav

Looks OK, except for the dashes, they look ugly now. Also, maybe we need the total at the top or with some emphasis (bold, italic, whatever)? Jeronimo
Modify away. The hard spaces could go or even the dashes completely. My original though was to bold the total but that would unbalance the article. Italic font would be good. However, unless this list is to be resorted by total population of all areas under the control of any particular nation (not something I would like), I don't think it would be a good idea to move the total to the top of the cell list. It's fine at the bottom and this is a logical place to have it. --mav
Please check your figures for China. How can the total for China, Hong Kong and "Macau" (and check the spelling of Macao) be less than the population of China alone? --GUllman

The idea of adding together non-"American" territories into the population of the US seems odd. Are American Samoa and Guam, at least, ever included in the population of the US? -- Zoe

Another thing that could be done is the name of the article could be changed. Kingturtle 03:39 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

For the UK, the is a difference between "overseas territory of the UK" (eg Bermuda, chief of state: Queen ELIZABETH II) and "British crown dependency" (eg Jersey, chief of state: Duke of Normandy ELIZABETH II [2]). The first case is similar to oversea territory of France, US, Netherlands... The second case is more like the odd situations of Monaco (dependent of France for defence & foreign policy), Andorra (dependent of France and Spain for defence), Vatican (dependent of Italy for defence), Liechtenstein (dependent of Switzerland for defence)... Ann O'nyme 14:51, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Technically, Queen Elizabeth II is not Duke of Normandy. That Dukedom was under Salic law. See Talk:Salic_law for the explanation. --Jiang

My point here is that the state of Jersey is independent of the UK, although the UK is in charge of defence and foreign affairs. I also comment on the "Duke of Normandy" title on Talk:Salic_law. --Ann O'nyme 22:18, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We should have some consistency: If we put Jersey with UK, we should put Niue with NZ. --Ann O'nyme 02:25, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Cyprus

The Cyprus data appears to be for the entire island, which is currently de facto divided (into the internationally recognized Republic of Cyprus and the only-recognized-by-Turkey Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus). Since this isn't indicative of the population actually currently ruled by the government of Cyprus, is there separate data available? --Delirium 02:34, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC)

Updated Figures

I have updated all figures (including those in the first table) from CIA World Factbook 2003. The country articles of China, India and Romania have also been updated to reflect the new population and density - these are listed as Population (2003) in their country article rather than Population (2000). It would be good if more people would update the population in each country article to the new 2003 population from this article's table.

What has gone wrong that Guatemala is listed twice? Crusadeonilliteracy 15:24, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Surely there's a more reputable source than the famously inaccurate CIA World Factbook? Are the UN figures in the public domain? Ben Arnold 12:40, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

^ I agree! --Jibran1 07:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Updated List Ordered According to population

I've converted the list of countries and dependencies, ordered according to population using a simple sed script:

sed -r -e "s%^([0-9]+) (.+?) (.+?) (.+)$% <tr>\n <td>\1</td>\n <td>[[\2]]</td>\n <td align=\"right\">\3</td>\n <td>\4</td>\n </tr>%"

Some linked country names will probably be invalid, due to the simple conversion. For that I apologize. --Bigsmoke 02:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

European Union

How about adding the European Union? - Jerryseinfeld 21:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why? It's not a country
It and the African Union are listed (kinda) in List of countries by area
Still not a country so stop adding it.--68.85.27.47 15:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not add the OAS, CIS, NATO and all the other alliances while we are at it?--68.85.27.47 07:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The European Union is a political entity with its laws, currency and economics. As a citizen of the EU I think it should be included in this list. --Giandrea 21:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is it on here, the EU is not a country. (Hypernick1980 01:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

Why are protectorates grouped with their protecting country?

The combined population of the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau and New Zealand is of no use or significance to anyone that I can imagine. They are not even counted in the same census. Why are countries grouped together like this? Yes, there're some constitutional links between the countries, but they are hardly relevant for a page about population.

Ben Arnold 01:28, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is something missing?

The main list is 193 countries, supposedly the 191 UN members plus Taiwan and the Vatican. But the list includes the Palestinian territories, which is not a (voting) UN member. Is another country missing from the list? Dreyfus 03:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aha! Two countries are numbered #140. Does someone have a script to fix this the quick way? Dreyfus 03:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The current list also have two redundant entry in #163. -- ChongDae 08:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

United Kingdom

In the population of the United Kingdom, you include Isle of Man; however, both the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man articles specifically say that Isle of Man is not part of the U.K. How can this be reconciled?

Adjusted Swiss Population

Source is bfs.admin.ch the swiss Federal Statistic Office. --212.254.248.201 01:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Swiss population was previously listed in this article as 7,318,638. 212.254.248.201 changed it to 7,399,100. I checked and found that this page says the population is 7,364,100, so I changed the article to use that number. Perhaps someone who can read the German language page linked to by 212.254.248.201 can explain the discrepancy in figures here. ~leif ☺ HELO 02:43, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Where are the numbers SUPPOSED to be from? -Sources for data

Looking over the history of this article, it seems people have been changing it more or less at random. Are the numbers supposed to be from the 2004 edition of the CIA Factbook? --Sdfisher 06:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The second table on the bottom was updated by me a few weeks ago using census.gov. The first table should be updated using the second table OneGuy 22:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How ca we tell if a particular island is included in the official population for the country or should be included separately?

Malaysia seems to be out of place

Does "west bank" include gaza? SpookyMulder 15:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, West Bank is West Bank and Gaza is Gaza. Something like "Palestinian territory" would include both OneGuy 22:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Should this list only include numbers from a census, or can it also include population estimates from official government websites? Some countries do not have a census very frequently (the last census for UAE seems to be from 11 years ago, 1995). Will it suffice to use population estimates on that country's official government website? --Jibran1 23:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

CIA Factbook

I believe the CIA Factbook is the data that is supposed to be used.

Don't see where you get supposed from, we shoul donly have the CIA fact(sic)book where there is no up to date info. IE if a census is published it is used. --130.36.87.102 14:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

^ I agree with the comment above mine. The numbers on the New data from CIA seem to be highly inaccurate, and not to mention inconsistent with other pages on the CIA World Fact book. For example, this page lists a July 2005 estimate of 3.44 million for the population of UAE. However, the New data lists a July 2005 estimate of 2,563,212 for the population of UAE.

EU?

On the page about the European Union, it is stated that the EU is the 3rd largest by population, and the link leads here, but here the EU isn't mentioned in the table. The same for the List of countries by GDP (PPP). It looks odd that those links lead to pages where the EU is not even mentioned. We should either include the EU in the lists, like in the List of countries by area (where the EU, being the 7th largest, is listed after the 6th largest but is not numbered as 7th, so it doesn't mess up the order of actual countries), or we should delete the links leading here from the EU article, since the EU isn't included in the country lists either by population or GDP. I think the first idea is better, since Wiki should include as much info as it's possible. Opinions? Alensha 15:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the EU info again. Alensha 13:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since when is the EU a country? Last I heard, and I travel there considerably, it is not one, contrary to the opinions and wishes of certain Europhiles? It is more ann alliance, it is not a country in the sense that the Suviet Union was. Even ask its member countries and their populations and you will be told the truth. Why continously include the EU?--Tomtom9041 00:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Why does the eu keep getting added? Where is the eu relevant in this tables. Should we include asean, nato, african union? Where does is stop?--Tombombadil 04:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

For statistical purposes I think, and because the EU page links here, and because it's always been here contrary to the opinions and wishes of certain Americanophiles... --Giandrea 22:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Just another EU'er who is trying desperatly to out do the US. The Eu is an organizatio. Like the OAS. Only it has its own money that some member countries use. For your argument we should include the British Commonwealth, the CIS and who knows who else. The EU is more an alliance or confederation. I lived in Europe, especially southern Europe, and their idea of the EU seems to differ from yours. You will find here that the EU is considered an organization not a country, no matter what certain Europhiles may believe.--Numerousfalx 23:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I just happen to live in southern europe, and from a long time... Noone is trying to out do noone. The EU is NOT a confederation, it is not even an organization. It's much closer to a state/nation by its definition and by the Maastricht treaty and the other treaties, even if it is not a state/country. Anyway the article has changed name, and the inclusion of the EU should not be questioned at least under the 'territory' classification.--giandrea 17:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

UK population update

Updated UK population to reflect changes i made to population at article United Kingdom --Benbread 21:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Definition of country

Country: a particular geographical region of indefinite boundary (usually serving some special purpose or distinguished by its people or culture or geography)

I will revert the latest changes by Adam Carr in about 20 hours or so. —Cantus…☎ 05:30, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

OK, so why doesn't this page include Tibet, Kurdistan, Quebec, East Turkestan, Elam, Aceh, Kosovo, West Papua, Somaliland, Puntland, Padania, Chechnia, North Cyprus and all the other self-proclaimed, aspirant, de facto and other "countries" in the world? Why for that matter doesn't it include Scotland, Bavaria, Zululand or Tatarstan, which have much better claims to be "countries" than Pitcairn Island? In my opinion this list should be confined to sovereign states, but I am happy to leave the various colonies etc in the list for purposes of comparison. (Although Guadeloupe, Martinique, Reunion and French Guiana (Cayenne) are not even colonies, they are departments of France If they are included then why is Calvados not included? Or Alabama or Surrey?). The numbering, however, should be confined to sovereign states. If Cantus reverts this (in 20 hours or not), I will re-revert. Adam 05:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

maybe because your examples are not apart from the "core-country"? Some insight might be gained from ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 and the official source for that. Tobias Conradi 22:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't really know what that means. The obvious solution to this is to avoid the ambiguous term "country" and rename the article List of states by population, and confine it to the 192 sovereign states in the world: then we'd only have to argue about whether Taiwan and North Cyprus are states or not. We could have a supplementary List of non-sovereign territories by population which would include places like Hong Kong and Puerto Rico. We would still have to exclude the French overseas departments, which are not non-sovereign territories but integral parts of France. Adam 01:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is correctly listed as a country by the CIA list [3] while in this list appeared as Puerto Rico(USA). Let's remember that Puerto Rico is recognized as a non sovereign country by the UN (country code 630) independently from it's current status as a commonwealth associated to the US. To copy a list and add information that is not included in the official document is POV. Please be careful when dealing with Taiwan and Puerto Rico among other countries with gray areasVertical12320:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a dispute between two versions. To see the other version: [4], to compare: [5]   — Instantnood 08:18, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I notice that the Welsh version of this article handles the problem much better, by grouping the non-sovereign territories under the relevant sovereign state: thus French Polynesia, Guadeloupe, Martinique etc are all grouped under France, with separate populations given and a grand total for the state and its dependencies. When I get time I might try something similar here. Adam 00:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No thanks. That was already attempted, and reverted (on the list by area). Please don't try it here. —Cantus…☎ 02:13, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Adam 02:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Why are protectorates grouped with their protecting country? above for one argument. I don't understand why there seems to be a movement to exclude dependencies and protectorates from lists of countries. I suppose it stems from the idea that somehow sovereignty is more concrete, that the grey areas disappear if we use sovereignty as the gague. But that's not true. Is the Republic of China sovereign? Is Northern Cyprus part of Turkey? What the story with Western Sahara?

The Cooks are an interesting example of a grey area. They have a separate national identity from New Zealand, they have their own Prime Minister, and their own Queen's Representative. Admittedly they share a Governor-General with New Zealand, and New Zealand manages Foreign Affairs and Defence. But hey, until recently the United Kingdom managed New Zealand's court of last appeal... did that mean New Zealand wasn't sovereign? Canada shares a head of state with Australia, does that mean those two countries aren't sovereign?

The reality is that grey areas exist. Given that, I'd like to end up with a list of nations that's useful. To me, being a New Zealander, that means the list has to include every contiguous territory in the South Pacific. I want to be able to see Pitcairn in the list because Pitcairn isn't just the UK-in-Polynesia. After all they use New Zealand currency and that trial they had last year was held in Auckland. And they have a separate national identity.

The difference with Scotland, Wales, etc. is that they are contiguous and that there is a British nation (not to devalue Scots or Welsh nationalism here). There is no national connection between New Zealand and the Cooks, Niue or Tokelau, the connection is merely administrative. Nor are they contiguous territories. And at a purely technical level, the New Zealand Census doesn't cover any of the other countries in the Realm, so it isn't statistically correct to add numbers that came from different sources.

Ben Arnold 16:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I agre, there needs to be a listing of non-state populations for those who insist on including their pet Psuedo-states.--Tomtom9041 00:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

World vs Earth

Earth looks stupid in the table vs World, but, the Earth article is better written and more relevant to this article than World. Would [[Earth|World]] really be such a bad thing? SchmuckyTheCat 20:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[[Earth|the World]] would be even better. In fact, I think The World should redirect to Earth, not to World as it does today. -- uriber 22:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Mainland China"

It is necessary to put "Mainland" in parenthesis after "People's Republic of China" because the figure does not include TW, HK, and MO, the latter two of which are undisputably part of the PRC. As for "Mainland China" not being the official name of a political entity, that isnt really relevant since it is only being used in parenthesis after the official name of the political entity. Why exclude the reference to Mainland China while retaining the reference to Metropolitan France?--Jiang 10:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I see no need of this because the additional note already stated this. --Hunter 10:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
The footnote makes it clear that Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau are not included in the figure given for the PRC. "Mainland China" is not only not the name of a state or a political unit, it is also a politically loaded term (in a way that "Metropolitan France" is not) because of its origins in the Cold War and in the rival claims of the PRC and the ROC to be the sole government of China. As an English term it was coined by people who did not want to say "People's Republic of China," and its use is therefore POV as well as inappropriate for the other reasons stated. Adam 10:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I will fix the superscripts so they dont appear to be external links when they shouldnt.

"Metropolitan France" is not the name of a state or a political unit. "Mainland China" is not a politically loaded term. In fact, it is the most neutral term available since it makes no implication regarding the statuses of the PRC and ROC and the full extent of "China". I really don't know where you're pulling this from...

The term not only exists in English, but is used widely in Chinese. Using "People's Republic of China" while excluding HK, MO, and TW is POV. The People's Daily has no problem with the term. Why should we? --Jiang 23:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

In response to Jiang's edits:

  • There are two Chinese states, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. Those are the names which should be used.
  • In English "Taiwan" is widely used as an alternative to Republic of China, and that is noted. In this context "Taiwan" is a political term not a geographic one, so we do not need references to Quemoy and Matsu etc, anymore than the US needs a reference to Nantucket Island.
  • "Mainland China" in English is a loaded and POV term. Jiang says he prefers it because "it makes no implication regarding the statuses of the PRC and ROC," but that itself is a POV. It is not Wikipedia's job to avoid stating facts which people in either Chinese state, or their supporters, don't like to see stated.
  • "Mainland China" is also unnecessary. There is no ambiguity about what territories the two Chinese states administer, and there is a footnote to explain that the population figure for the PRC does not include the two SARs.

Adam 02:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

  • The names "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China" are already used. But "People's Republic of China" also refers to HK and MO, and arguably TW, while the figure provided does not
  • Then "Taiwan" should not be linked to in this instance as the link points to an article on Taiwan island. It is difficult to tell whether we're using "Taiwan" here as conventional short form for ROC, or as reference to Taiwan, Province of China(which excludes Quemoy and Matsu) or Taiwan island.
  • "Mainland China" in English is not a loaded and POV term. Please prove your statement. "Mainland China" in English is the most NPOV term available. Wikipedia naming convention endorses its use. Please gain consensus to change the naming conventions before unilaterally trying to defy them.
  • There is ambiguity in what we mean by "People's Republic of China". (And ambiguity also exists in that we did not explicitly state that numbers provided are only for territories controlled) The footnote should be replaced with a reference in parenthesis, as is already done for France. All the other footnotes refer to external sources... --Jiang 03:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan is Taiwan. China is China. There is no confusion stating the population of the PRC without any context at all that it does not include Taiwan. I'd suggest that if there is some confusion about the "mainland" to just delete the footnote altogether and remove HK and Macau from the list. The combined population of HK and Macau areprobably within the margin of error of the greater PRC. SchmuckyTheCat 02:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

We have included many semi-autonomous and dependent entities on this list. We lose information by combining HK and MO with mainland China. What is wrong with including "Mainland" in parenthesis after PRC to indicade that HK and MO are not included in the figure? --Jiang 03:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobody expects the statistic on China to include Taiwan. This article "merelys state the de facto situation", we do not need to be reminded of the two countries fifty year old gripes every time the name China gets used. SchmuckyTheCat 03:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Plenty of people will expect that the statistic on China to include HK and MO, which it doesnt. The de facto situation is that the People's Republic of China includes HK and MO. Almost no one disputes this. --Jiang 04:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That's why there was a footnote which someone has deleted. Adam 04:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That't why there was a reference to "Mainland China" which someone has deleted. The superscripts look like external links and the footnotes are all on external references. Why not give France the same treatment? --Jiang 05:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for Wikipedia's inadequate footnoting system. I agree that France could also be given a footnote, but I don't know if the figure given for "France" includes the DOMs and TOMs or not. Adam 05:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Mainland China is far from a politically-charged term. It is even used in the laws of Hong Kong, when it is necessary to mark the differences. Nobody would have consider Quemoy and Matsu as part of Taiwan, unless "Taiwan" is used in place of "Republic of China". — Instantnood 18:25, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • If a term is used in law, then it immediately looses all implications of it being "politically nuetral", because law in itself is a political-social construct. I maintain my stance on the usage of the phrase "Mainland China", and I agree with most points raised by Adam. "Mainland China" is a geopolitical term, and not merely a geographical one. Some of us seem to have problems differentiating between the NPOV policy in wikipedia, and the choice of using "nuetral" words in society.
  • If there is an insistance that "Mainland China" should be used over the "PRC" because it includes HK, MO, and arguably Taiwan, then the term "ROC" cannot be used either for the same reason that it also arguably includes the entirety of greater China plus Mongolia.
  • If there is a need to indicate that the term PRC in this regard excludes the two SARS, then surely a footnote detailing this omission is much clearer than simply using the term "Mainland China" without footnotes.
  • This is a list of countries. There is simply no country, nor even a political entity, called "Mainland China". I believe I have repeated this countless times.--Huaiwei 16:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
There is neither any country called "metropolitan France". Why cannot we compromise with putting "mainland" and "metropolitan" in brackets, and keep the footnotes at the same time? It usually happens that in statistics something are excluded or included, that does not correspond entirely to countries. A better alternative would be changing the titles of all lists of countries by something to "list of countries and territories by..". — Instantnood 06:23, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Metroppolitan France is long-standing geographical term which has no political connotations. "Mainland China" is a political term, derived from the conflict in the 1950s between the PRC and the ROC as to which one of them was the legitimate government of China. Even as a geographical term it makes no sense, since it includes Hainan which is not part of the Chinese mainland. The reality today is that there are two sovereign Chinese states, or perhaps one Chinese and one Taiwanese state, and there is no ambiguity about what territories they administer. There is thus no need and no justification for the use a redundant and politically coloured term like Mainland China. All that is needed in this article (which is not an article about Chinese history or politics), are simple references to the PRC and the ROC, with a footnote to say that the PRC figure does not include the two SARs. Adam 06:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I am actually getting increasingly tired and wary of Instantnood's constant comparison of the Chinese situation with that of France. Where lies the similarities? In addition, we do not see "Metropolitan France" being used in this listing, nor in the vast majority of statistical tables around the World. How does this compare to the usage of "Mainland China" in this list and in statistical tables in other sources?--Huaiwei 16:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
May I quote somebody else's words that the definition of "mainland China" in real situation is little disputed. It is only contested (by some people) on Wikipedia. Nobody is saying or implying "mainland China" or any other "mainland/metropolitan/continental something" are countries (or sovereign States). Whenever it is necessary to differentiate a major part of a country with the rest of the same country, a term is necessary. In this case, when the figure for population covers only mainland China, readers have to be informed what are included and excluded in this figure. — Instantnood 18:13, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
And that, may I point out, is obviously a POV on your part which you refuse to acknowledge, and holds a tendency in believing that your POV is reflective of all-encompassing and accurate thinking. You continue to insist that no one is making any implications over the status of "Mainland China", simply because you consistently and vehemently refuse to acknowledge the possibility for alternative interpretations. We all know it is neccessary to present facts as accurately as possible and to do the said differentiation as you say above, as we similarly acknowledge. But any explainations on why the currect setup of having a footnote will not do, when it does the exactly same thing as you think it should in any other format?--Huaiwei 18:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I have never opposed keeping the footnote. Please kindly don't make any unneccessary accusation or wild guess on other people's position. As a matter of fact I do agree a short footnote is necessary to tell people what are included or excluded by the term "mainland China". — Instantnood 18:34, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
You just demonstrated how words can be interpreted in multiple ways. For example, when I wrote the above, I wrote knowing you wanted the term "PRC" replaced by "Mainland China". By no means would I have predicted or suspected that you would somehow interpret it as an implication that I assume you are demanding that footnotes be deleted. Needless to say, I am similarly amused by your "kind request" asking for my avoidance in making "unneccessary accusation or wild guess", because I do not neccesarily see them as such. If I were to be as narrow minded, I would be throwing your interpretations completely out of the window. Meanwhile, my questions remain unanswered.--Huaiwei 18:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
" when I wrote the above, I wrote knowing you wanted the term "PRC" replaced by "Mainland China" "
I requested to keep "[[mainland China|mainland]]" in brackets. I have not ever said I wanted to replace "PRC" with "mainland China" on this list. I sincerely apologise if any of my words made you misunderstood. — Instantnood 19:20, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
So I assumed wrong, made erroneous interpretations, and I admit my error. I do wonder, thou, if you are able to similarly accept and admit any mistakes or shortcomings on your part in all similar situations?--Huaiwei 19:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • If I may: as a form of convention, all entries on this list should use the official name for the place. Any explanatory text necessary should be in footnotes. France, China, all of them. SchmuckyTheCat 19:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
The best way, IMHO, would be keeping both the words in brackets and the footnotes. — Instantnood 02:07, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
As I already said, I concur with Adam. It is not neccesary to have both. A footnote will serve its purpose well enough, and create less clutter in the table.--Huaiwei 06:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding my new edits

I did not merge West Bank and Gaza Strip into Palestinian Territories, because the data for West Bank is from 2004 and for Gaza Strip 2005. That's the only reason. We could still merge the two with a footnote, but it wouldn't look right to merge dissimilar data. —Cantus…☎ 06:24, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Åland

Should Åland's figure be presented on this list? Is it included in Finland's? — Instantnood 18:35, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Rankings

Can it be two-column - one for ranking of sovereign states, and the other for all countries listed? — Instantnood 12:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest no, because then you lose the ability to directly compare to other countries. —Cantus…☎ 18:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Please take a look at this version [6]. :-D — Instantnood 07:16, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't like it. —Cantus…☎ 09:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Ugly, unnecessary SchmuckyTheCat 14:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why would we need that when they are deemed uncomparable?--Huaiwei 14:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate a little bit on why " they are deemed uncomparable "? Thanks. — Instantnood 06:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
(response to Cantus' comment at 18:46, June 3) Not ranking the non-sovereign territories is in fact creating troubles. On the country infoboxes of these countries, some are saying "not ranked", while some are using a ranking by considering them as sovereign states (e.g. Foo with a population of 780,011 is said to be ranked as 156th). — Instantnood 10:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Fatal error in the population

Spain has not 40 milions in 2005, this number is from 2000. You can consultate www.ine.es the web oficial page of the National Stadistical Institute and the population of Spain is 44 milions, exactly 43.975.375 inhabitants. Is more credible this number that the CIA's number, because is from a national web, and Spain is traditionally a very advanced country in census and other stadisticals. Ah, for the USA's people, Spain is in Europe, not in Iberoamerica.

It is much easier to fix errors rather than to get all sarcastico about them. Adam 04:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Somalia

Is it right to put Somalia on the list when its last census was in 1975? Especially since most of the other countries are updated? Even with the war and instability, Somalia should have more than 8 million people. It is one of the fastest growing countries in the world and has one of the highest fertility rates.

Somalia should have around 15-20 million people, with a much larger urban population before the war, since the cities have grown since then.

The 8 million figure is a 2005 CIA estimate based on the 1975 census, ie it is the CIA's estimate of the current population. Adam 05:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spurious accuracy?

The figures on this page are all quoted to the exact number of people, which is way above the level of accuracy of the data employed. Even for developed countries there are significant problems in estimating populations, given the uncertainty over numbers of illegal immigrants etc; for undeveloped countries it's not unheard of for population estimates to be revised by tens of millions. I would suggest rounding the data to no more than three decimal places. Any comments? Enchanter

We should use the figures available from the various national censuses etc, and include a general caveat along the lines you suggest. Adam 9 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)

I've now changed everything to 4dp (well above the underlying accuracy of most of these figures). Bear in mind that the figures are population estimates, not raw census figures, and as such would generally include approximate adjustment for undercounting in censuses etc.

Please stop rounding the population figures; there's no reason for not being accurate in the estimation given by the sources. Respect the sources and the visitors wishing to see faithful information. —Cantus…☎ 09:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Of course the figures aren't precise, but the detailed figures should be more accurate than your rounded figures, which you are moving away from the best estimate available. Osomec 18:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Naming countries

Where countries are not well known by the official titles, it's helpful to include the more commonly used name, so I've included Taiwan by the name of Republic of China. Cantus, I'm curious to know why you object to this and have reverted it previously - Taiwan is overwhelmingly the name used in English by pretty much everyone (including the Taiwanese, which now even have it on their passports, and the mainland Chinese), so there doesn't seem to me to be any serious objection to calling it Taiwan.

Enchanter 23:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

In the UK hardly anyone knows that Taiwan and the Republic of China are the same thing. This is an English language encyclopedia, and only a tiny fraction of the English speaking population is interested in this dispute. Taiwan is virtually always used in the media. Osomec 18:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Seems sensible to me. Astrotrain 18:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Continent populations

An anonymous user has changed the populations of the continents, the footnote (2) still claims the information comes from the Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat. If the new number are more accurate, the source should be changed. (And if the new numbers remain unsourced, they should be reverted.)

Continent Populations

Hello, just a quick observation, which someone else touched on:

The populaiton for North America is listed as ~330,000,000, but a quick viewing of the major nations that comprise North America (USA ~300,000,000, Canada ~33,000,000 and Mexico ~110,000,000) shows that the number is off significantly. Apparently, only the US and Canada are counted among the nations of North America, as opposed to all of the country from Canada down to Panama.

The UN info used for the continent totals apparently splits North America into "Northern America" and "Latin America/Caribbean". This seems to explain to error.

Malaysia

As mentioned in the footnote, I have updated the Malaysia listing with information from the Department of Statistics, Malaysia from this page http://www.statistics.gov.my/. As also has been mentioned the metholody used to calculate that figure is described here http://www.statistics.gov.my/English/frameset_popclock.php?file=malaysia

There appears to be a number listings, e.g. Spain, Chile, NZ where the CIA Worldfact Book figure is replaced with the official figure so I feel this update is in line with the previous practice. I'm aware this creates some unbalance and makes maintaining the table much more difficult but IMHO it would be the best practice. There has been little discussion as far as I can tell so I would recommend the following system be adopted (for now anyway). 60.234.141.76 22:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Recommendation for source of population numbers

Whenever possible, except as outlined below, the official number/estimate provided by the government department in charge of determining such statistics should be used in preference to numbers taken from the CIA World factbook. All numbers from official government departments should include a date and a link to this number if possible or if not should mention the specific source of the number.

In these specific instances, the CIA World factbook number should take preference:

1) No information is available or will be provided by government department on how this number is derived

2) Strong evidence (should be discussed in the talkpage) that the metholodgy used is seriously flawed. This may include statistical errors, ignoring certain segments of the population and ignoring significant numbers of widely reported deaths.

In either case, whichever number is not in the main table (CIA World factbook or official figure) should be listed in the footnote. 60.234.141.76 22:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

AIDS in Brazil

The article incorrectly states that Brazil is in a epidemic of AIDS. This is by no means true. In fact, brazilian AIDS control program is considered a world model. I'm removing this. --Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho 02:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The following articles confirm what you say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_death_rate

Macedonia

Is the Macedonian population the value for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or for the region Macedonia which contains areas of different countries? I was just wondering because the link is to the region, not the country. Strato 05:31, 16 October 2005 (GMT)

Stop using population clocks?

I'd like to propose that we cease to use population clocks as the basis for population statistics in this article, because:

  • Population clocks are constantly updating. We could conceivably be editing the page every few seconds to keep track of them.
  • Population clocks are inaccurate. Typically a population clock is nothing more than a linear interpolation between an estimate and a projection. Statistics organisations provide them as a gimmick, rather than a serious statistical measure. In contrast, published periodic estimates are likely to be the product of good quality statistical analysis.
  • Population clocks are unverifiable. One of the hopes for Wikipedia is that our articles can be fact-checked by other Wikipedia users and become an authoritative source. Published periodic estimates can be cited and checked even after they become historic.

Ben Arnold 02:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

As I didn't get any responses here, I've raised this issue on the Village pump. I'd like to reach a consensus before I go crazy and change the entire page. So please post your comments there. Ben Arnold 23:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Why Arab World?

Why is there a category named "arab world" in the list. The list is supposed to contain only countries and other territories with a political basis, if I get it right. I would agree to using the term "arab league", as it actually is something worthy to list, but this Arab world category is wrong, would there be categories fro "Indochina" or other regions like that?

BrorMartin

Flag icons

I agree with BrotherM. that "Arab World" is too vague a concept to be listed in a statistical ranking, and should be replaced with the corresponding international organization Arab League, as it is much easier to precisely define and delimit an international organization than a "cultural sphere". I also think that these international organizations should have their flag icons in the list! Whoever made the flags of sovereign states, could you please do the same for the IGOs? Cheers. --Big Adamsky 14:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Re-adjust Peru

According to the Peru 2005 Census, the country has a population of 26,152,265, which is lower than the 2002 estimate shown on this page. Someone should change the position of Peru on the table. Source: INEI Thanks. --Tuomas [[User_talk:StarbucksFreak|<sup>hello]] 18:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Columns; making it easier to copy & paste to a spreadsheet

I recommend that we move any explanatory references relating to population figures to a separate column to facilitate copying and pasting this data to a spreadsheet.

For example:

Rank Country Population Notes
— World 6,446,131,400
1 People's Republic of China 1,306,313,812 3

etc., etc.

Captain Zyrain 03:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, but wouldn't it be even better if we had "date" and "source" columns? Then we wouldn't need half the footnotes. The "source" column could be a short name of the statistics agency linked to the relevant page on their website. Ben Arnold 21:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

(This would also fix the layout inconsistency between this page and the list of countries by population page)

Data updating

All data updaters: can we please settle on data for the past June 31 of July 1, since this is the data used in most calculations and for statistical information. Please?? —Cantus…☎ 06:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Christmas Island

According to the Christmas Island page the CIA World Factbook is wrong so I'm changing it back. Richard Cane 05:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

CIA FACTBOOK NUMBERS ARE AMONG THE MOST INACCURATE

I use population data for work, and I can assure you that the population numbers on CIA Factbook are highly inaccurate. This depends on several factors, especially the estimated growth rate of the population wich is revised randomly or very late, and often has no similarrity from the growth rate estimated by UN bodiea like IMF and World Bank.

Brazil: It has already ppointed out that the population in 2000 was 3,3% lower than what previously estimated. This is a typical example of CIA Factbook prjections which don't keep pace whith the rapidly falling growth rate of most Developing Countries.

As a result, and while thaking the contributors for their efforts and hard work, some data in this List are very inaccurate. Among them:

Indonesia: 242 milion. The actual population, check on UN or Indonesian statistics, is about 218-220 (10% difference is huge!)

D.R. of Congo: over 60 milion??!! LAncet yearly uptates a report on the number oof additional death caused by civil war which staerted in 1997. They sadly reached 3.7 milion. This has not been taken into account. The actual population of ongo might be never aprecisely calculated, but based on old UN and national accounts and to the falling growth rate but its much closer to 50 than to 60.

egypt: 77 milion. This is incorrect, as Egypt keeps regular censuses with UN help and its population data are always under the full scrutiny of demographers whho have used it as a case study for decades. Last UN and Egyptian data point to 70 milion, again, 10% less.

I also have doubts about Nigeria and Bangladesh (no way that Bangladesh population has reched that of Pakistan. POakistan has always shown a higher population in the Ninities and Bangladesh growth rate has been falling steadily and is currently significantly lower than that of Pakistan.

I stop here. Let's say 80-85% of the dta seem pretty accurate, but some deveoping country information is not accurate. Actually, ad somebody who has worked with demographic data for a decade, I would just fire the guys of CIa Factbook who are supposed to give especcially reliable information (it's the Central Intelligence Agency, man) and keep numbers that would make a university student miserably fail his examination!!

Al this said, thanks to everybody for the contributions to Wikipedia.

Tarek 10-01-2006

EU

Thought we settled the EU debate, why does it keep appearing. The EU is not now, at current times, a country or self governing territory.--Tomtom9041 17:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's keep it out, please. - Randwicked Alex B 04:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
And I just removed both the eu and the African Union.--68.85.27.47 15:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
There are an awful lot of places listed that are not "countries". THe first entry is "World", for goodness sake. I think it makes sense to include the major political and economic blocs, particularly the EU. In many ways, the EU is a federated country (customs union; free movement of goods, services, workers, capital; legislative body; "supreme" court...) despite what the member states say to their electorates. -- ALoan (Talk) 08:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently we think not, neither the AU, EU, AOS, Nato et al, are countries.--68.85.27.47 15:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with ALoan. The European Union is a single economic entity, where its citizens can travel freely inside its borders, with a parliament creating laws and a juridical system of its own. If it is not a state by definition, it is very similar to a state by common sense! I think that the EU should be listed here, at least for statistical purposes! And yes, I'm an EU citizen, living here and travelling very frequently, and I don't understand the behaviour of some people trying to underestimate the power of the EU while all the member states must adhere to its laws and decisions. I think it's a bit of ignorance on the other side of the ocean... --Giandrea 00:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As a person who is a citizen of countries on both sides of the big ble pond and that the EU has become a legend in its own mind. If what you think is true then why did not the constitution pass by referendum only by an insulated parliament. The EU is an alliance, no better than NATO/OTAN, etc. I am the citizen of an EU country but I am not an EU citizen and I will never be one.--Tomtom9041 22:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that your ideas and facts about the EU are a bit confused... The EU constitution has nothing to do with this article, and just for the sake of information, if one country refuses to pass the EU constitution, it doesn't mean that the country refuses generally the EU and it's values; The things are unrelated. I think you are biased, I don't know if you really are an European citizen, but I don't care. The EU is not an alliance, it is a binding union, but for more information, you can read the very good article about the EU. I'm getting information about resolving disputes now. --Giandrea 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The EU is not a country, when it becomes one it will be included on this list.--68.85.27.47 22:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

EU removed again, EU is an organization not a country. If Eu is a country then why aren't the AU, OAS, ASEAN et al included?--Numerousfalx 23:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

i dont see the issue with including the EU. The comparisions made between the EU, NATO and the AU are completely incorrect and would only be made by an american ignorant of the european situation. The EU is not a single country "united under god", granted but anyone who lives and works in the EU or has even the vaguest understanding of EU law, would realise that the EU is more akin to the federalist US than to intergovernmental organisations such as NATO etc. EU citizens (which, according to the 1992 Maastricht treaty, legally includes the 457million europeans living within the 25 memberstates for the information of our american friend who believes that EU citizenship is optional) enjoy all the rights and responsibilities that US citizens do in the US. Intergovernmental organisations, such as the UN, the AU, NATO or any other instution have no such rights and responsibilities that extend beyond the government to the people living within states. As a result, it is merely the arrogence of the americans - surpassed by the EU in terms of economic signicance and population - to suggest that the EU is not effectively a state worthy of inclusion on this list. beyond this, however, there are two other practicle arguments. Firslty, the EU is included in many other lists in wikipedia, and has been ranked in the CIA world fact book itself on numerous occasions and for many measurments (GDP etc). Secondly, Wikipedia is here to provide information. By the very virtue that this debate is being had there is obviously a desire from readers to find the population of the EU on this list - which, by the way, is available on numerous other wikipedia pages, such as on the EU page itself. As a result, our american friends should put their politics and egos aside and include the EU.

KJM (16.07.2006)

Inaccuracies

I think the many inaccuracies of this list have already been exposed time and again by several Wikipedians. The CIA Factbook is just a very poor reference for country populations. I suggest we use the Population Reference Bureau (PRB) figures instead. Their yearly world population datasheet is an excellent reference. Check here for the July 2005 datasheet. Do other Wikipedians agree with replacing the current CIA list with the PRB list? Hardouin 16:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, anything leading to more precise results is welcome! --Giandrea 00:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree since as mentioned below (proposal repeat) the PRB data is copyrighted and given the amount of data we are using, I doubt it will be legal. Nil Einne 14:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

De facto countries

As many self-governing enities are listed here, and as Taiwan is listed here even though that government doesn't even officially claim that Taiwan is independant from China, merely that they are China, I think it's only right to also list de facto independant countries like Abkhazia, South-Ossetia, Karabakh, Transdnistria, North-Cyprus and Somaliland.

Actually I did just that, I used the population data from the respective wikipedia pages.

Restoring some sanity

This has turned into a big edit war / pissing contest about whether the EU is a country or not. I submit that whether the EU is a country or not is not relevant. (There's nothing sacred about the list that means only countries should be included, as I've demonstrated by changing its name.) What we have to ask ourselves is: is including the EU in a list of territories split by population helpful information for our readers? If it is, it should be included (like the lead-in to the list, says 'for the purposes of comparison'). If not, it shouldn't. I think it's helpful, verifiable information and should be included. What do you think? --Nick Boalch ?!? 11:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As I already said before, I totally agree. It is informative.--Giandrea 20:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No it is not--68.85.27.47 11:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Giandrea, please explain how the EU should be on this list and not other organizatiions such as NATO, ASEAN, OAS, etc. Last I heard, the EU is not a country, nor do the member nations/countries refer to it as one. Including Mine, the Netherlands. Last I heard thar EU was an organization like the UN. If so then why are not the UN and the Commonwealth and CIS included? This seems to me to be a petty attempt a one uppance to our American cousins and an attempt to impose a certain view or agenda on the EU. Seeing how the OAS has over 840 millions of people and the Commonwealth has 1.35 billion, I think that this will rapidly escalate to silliness and some will get their feelings hurt. --Tombombadil 11:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Tombombadil? The Netherlands?? Last time I looked Pennsylvania was more in the neighborhood of the US. Are Numerousfalx and 68.85.27.47 also so confused about this :-)? What…? you don’t know? 212.102.225.147 13:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
EU is not a country, but it's not an organization either; it's more than that. It's an union of countries agreeing to collaborate on political, juridical and economic matters. All the various treaties signed by the EU countries, from Maastricht to Shengen, are the proof that it's not just an organization. You and me, we have the right to vote the European Parliament. Tell me about another organization with a parliament elected with an universal suffrage. The statistical relevance of the EU in this list is clear, it's to have a comparison with the other political entities. It's not here to say "We are bigger than you" to our American cousins (???)... this is not an argument! --giandrea 17:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This should follow the precedent developed at such articles as List of countries by GDP (PPP) and List of countries by GDP (nominal). On these articles, the European Union is included, but not ranked, which I believe should be the consensus here. The EU is the closest international organization to being a country, with the Eurozone (most of the EU) having a common currency and monetary policy. It's not a country in my opinion, but I can see the case for it's inclusion, whereas I couldn't see it for NATO, WTO, etc.--naryathegreat | (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The EU has a common currency and an open market within it's border, so it's entry into a list of countries by GDP is not nearly as contentious as it's listing here or in other similar lists. Malnova 22:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

The back-and-forth over this is beginning to get silly now. Please sort out a Wikipedia:Consensus here about whether the EU is to be included in the list rather than edit warring over the article. I have protected the page to enforce a cooling-down period, and will unprotect in 12 hours. --Nick Boalch ?!? 13:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria

I added Transnistria, unranked.

Edit war still continuing

Given that contributors to this article have continued to show themselves unable to sort out a consensus on this talk page, instead preferring to war on the article's content, I am once again protecting the article. This time it will remain protected indefinitely until I see firm evidence that a consensus has been sorted out here. I see two issues:

Please discuss these below, preferably in a civil fashion. When a consensus has been worked out I will unprotect the article. --Nick Boalch ?!? 11:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As you may know I'm in favour of the inclusion of the EU in the list for many reasons, but the first that cames to mind is "why not?". It's a relevant value for statistical purposes, it's not ranked in the list, and even if it might not be considered a country, it's still a democratically elected body (as in elected by its citizens). --giandrea 18:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The population of the EU could, concievably, be useful to a person, but if you put every "useful" population on this list, the end result loses its purpose. The way I see it, if the EU is included on this list, then EU member states should not be included. (Just as "New Jersey" is not included, as it's residents are already counted in the United States population) As for the title, how about "List of nation-states by population" or "List of self-governing entities by population"?Conrino 17:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually the EU is a self-governing entity, with a democratically elected parliament. It's not a nation-state, but it has its own currency and citizenship. It's an entity with a special status. --giandrea 09:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What you say is true, but my point is that the member countries of the EU exercise more authority than the EU over their respective citizens, and therefore deserve representation on this list. In theory, by the time we are done with this list, all the numbers listed should add up to something that is at least close to the total world population. Everyone should be counted at least once (with a few exceptions), but no one should be counted twice. In addition the list of countries does not inculde the European Union. It is my understanding that this list is the generally accepted consensus within wikipedia as to what constitutes a country, and I believe that we should follow this precedent. Maybe we could include a list of continents for reference rather than the European Union?Conrino 17:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

  • (1) When one speaks of "territory" and "borders", it is relevant to note that members of countries that belong to the European Union are subject to border controls as described in the Schengen Agreement, in particular (from the Wiki article) A country is permitted by the article 2.2 of the agreement to reinstate border controls for a short period if it is deemed in the interest of national security. This occurred in Portugal during the 2004 European Football Championship and in France for the ceremonies marking the 60th anniversary of D-Day. It was used again by France shortly after the London bombings in July of 2005. This is also mentioned in a BBC article [7]. (The United Kingdom and Ireland are not members of the Schengen Agreement). These facts indicate the state of citizenship in the EU, which can still strongly differentiate (negatively or positively) among the member countries, in contrast to the "transparency" of the Euro, which is truly "borderless" within the European Union (with the exception of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom).
  • (2) Regarding the sarcastic comment that "I’m also still looking for that Vatican City team.", the User: 212.102.225.147 seems to confuse the notions of "eligibility" versus "willingness to participate". The Vatican City is eligible to participate in the United Nations, but has chosen not to do so.
  • (3) I used the Olympics as an example because I can guess that teams of ambassadors and professional diplomats have expended much time on the delicate subjects of who may participate, who will boycott and for what reason, who will march into the Opening Ceremonies in what order and under what title, how flags should be treated, and so forth -- very sensitive topics, all related to the definition of a "country". I can guess that the amount of memos, letters, and talks over just the past 50 years would easily dwarf this little discussion on the Wikipedia. The consensus among the participants at the Olympics seems to be that the European Union is not eligible to participate, but member countries are able to do so individually.
  • (4) Finally, the consensus seems to be that this article is a "list of countries by population", the EU is not a country, and therefore, the EU does not belong on this particular list. The EU certainly belongs on other lists -- for example, since the Euro currency comes up in this debate so often, one could create a List of currencies by population, just as there is a List of languages by number of native speakers.

-4.228.213.63 23:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Slight addendum The Vatican is eligible to apply for membership in the UN, but the Security Council would vote to admit them, and since they recognize the Republic of China, the People's Republic of China may not allow them entry by veto. -Justin (koavf), talk 23:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it this is merely a list of all states recognised by the UN plus all territorial entities that in some way approach souvereignity. Thus, we include all territories with home rule. I see absolutely no problem with including the EU, and I think that whatever people's minds about the EU's status, consistency is much less important than completeness. Why does it bother people to have additional entries in the list? They can simply ignore those entries, can't they? They aren't ranked!

=If only it was so easy. As has been stated here and other places repeatedly, if you start letting other "territories" in, people start editing in whatever they feel like and soon you have a meaningless list. Look at what some people have added to this page before, California, the Arab World etc. A list like that would never be "complete" would it? Malnova 22:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess you may be right. Still, things like the Arab World aren't well defined, because no institution exists with that name. You'd have to take the Arab Union, which would be fine with me. I guess I just wouldn't mind seing the AU, Mercusor, ASEAN listed there for comparison, and for that matter, all 50 something of the American States. And the constituent Emirates of the UAE. It would put things more into perspective. But I wouldn't mind leaving them out either. You know what, why not have two lists?

When the War is over please change the Russian population

When the War is over please change the Russian nummber to this 142,800,000

My Source is this http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/01/24/populationdecrease.shtml

Thank You

(Deng 01:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

And please also change the Maltese population to 402,668. Source: NSO Demographic Review (December) 2004 [8]

Proposal repeat

I will repeat my proposal of where figures should be sourced...

Whenever possible, except as outlined below, the official number/estimate provided by the government department in charge of determining such statistics should be used in preference to numbers taken from the CIA World factbook. All numbers from official government departments should include a date and a link to this number if possible or if not should mention the specific source of the number. The date of the statistic should be as close to the middle of the year as possible.
In these specific instances, the CIA World factbook number should take preference:
1) No information is available or will be provided by government department on how this number is derived
2) Strong evidence (should be discussed in the talkpage) that the metholodgy used is seriously flawed. This may include statistical errors, ignoring certain segments of the population and ignoring significant numbers of widely reported deaths.
In either case, whichever number is not in the main table (CIA World factbook or official figure) should be listed in the footnote.

I am open to the idea of using other more reliable sources as our secondary reference but still feel we should use official figures whenever possible. However the population reference bueraue as mentioned above seems an unsuitable source to me. Their figures seem good but their article is copyrighted and given the amount of data we will be taking from them, I doubt it would be legal. Nil Einne 14:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

DRC

The number stated here for DRC is nearly 30 million more than what the UN has, and the "5" footnote that I hoped would explain it is broken. - BanyanTree 16:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Figured it out. The last census, which is the number I was looking at, was in 1984. Sorry for storming on this page. - BanyanTree 16:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Abkhazia, Karabakh, South-Ossetia, Somaliland, Transnistria, Southern Cyprus

Ok, what happened to these republics entries? On what grounds were these de facto independent countries removed, despite the enduring presence of Taiwan and Sahara? In fact, regardless of whether only UN recognised states and dependant countries are to be included, the fact that Abkhazia constitutes a republic is internationally recognised, thus if departments of France (French Guyana) are included then so should Abkhazia, recognised by Georgia as an autonomous republic.

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

This has a population figure in the table and is ranked, but I don't think it is a soverign county - it is apparently a government in exile that controls part of Western Sahara. Since Transnistria, another disputed territory, is listed but not ranked, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic should not be ranked either. In addition I suspect that the figure is for Western Sahara and not just the area the Sahrawi controls (the figure given is significantly higher than the population listed on both the Western Sahara and Sahrawi Arab D.R. pages) - after all, if it indeed came from a UN source, why would it give figures for a portion of Western Sahara which itself is disputed? If no one objects I will unrank the figure and rename it Western Sahara. DisgruntledWaterlooStudent 02:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How about using a UN source for all the figures?

The UN has a publication called World Population Prospects. The latest revision (2004) has population figures for most countries for mid-2005 (and other five year intervals). It might be a good idea to use those figures so as the list would be easier to maintain. The report is in the public domain and also provides details with the primary data sources, methodologies, and assumptions used. Is this something worth looking into or is there some flaw I'm not aware of in this UN publication? Polaron 17:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the list using UN figures. Polaron 03:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that UN Figures should be used and that we should use nations that the UN considers to be sovergn nations, and the list of countries located in Wikipedia to decide what qualifies as a country on this list. (Hypernick1980 03:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC))

Re [9] - Does the new figure for France includes the DOMs/TOMs or metropolitan France only? — Instantnood 18:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The figure is only for metropolitan France. Most of the other overseas departments and territories are listed separately in the current UN-based table. Polaron 18:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. A footnote is perhaps necessary. :-) — Instantnood 18:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The population of Alaska and Hawaii are not subtracted from that of the United States. Let's treat France with the same respect, as the DOM-TOM are fully integrated parts of the French Republic. These people carry French passports and speak French. These places are not colonies, and they are not sovereign. --81.51.135.124 21:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd differentiate the DOM (also called "DROM") and the TOM (called "COM" and "POM" since 2003). The first ones, as you said, have exactly the same status as the other French departements. The UN differentiates them because of its rigid anti-colonialist stance, but there is actually less reason to do it than to part Alaska and Hawaii from the US, or the Canaries from Spain.
But the COM and POM have slightly different statuses. They're not sovereign, their citizens can vote in the French elections (unlike the Puerto Ricans, for instance), but they're partially autonomous. Notice that Corsica is a specific-status COM, but isn't distinguished from the rest of France by the UN or any other body.
I'm not going to edit the page, but I think the most accurate way would be to do like the EU officialy does it : add Corsica and the DOM (Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion, Guyane) to mainland France, and treat the other COM (Mayotte, St-Pierre-et-Miquelon, Wallis-et-Futuna, TAAF) and POM (Polynésie, Nouvelle-Calédonie) apart. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.208.70.134 (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Updating numbers from non-UN sources?

May I update the figure for Israel (as I did for the list of countries by poppulation) or are the UN numbers a binding policy?

Penedo 07:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the List of countries by population(?!). The great thing about this article is that it is a consistent snapshot at a single (recent) period of time, and all numbers are sourced and easily verifiable. The problem with updates is that they are usually based on different methods of estimation and different interpretations. I think it best to stick to just one interpretation. The UN seems as good a source as any (and better than most). -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
What is the significance of the population clocks in the notes column then if they aren't sources? - ҉Randwicked҉ 12:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
They appear to be useful additional sources of information, not references for the article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
What is the policy of adding corrections. For example Ireland's figure are higher as a result of their recent census. ant_ie 20:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
All figures are estimates for a common point in time (mid-2005). If the listed figure is wildly off, I suggest adding a footnote. For reference the 2006 estimate by the UN for Ireland is 4,210,000 (about 0.6% lower than the preliminary 2006 census figure). --Polaron | Talk 21:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Population Statistics @ http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/population/

Note in re: Palestinian Territories

The prefix "Occupied" has been removed for factual, rather than political reasons. In the wake of the Israeli withdrawl from Gaza and selected parts of the West Bank, certain parts of the territories are Palestinian-administered and are not, in fact, occupied by any outside authority (regardless of whatever external pressures they might otherwise face). The cited population figure includes residents of such areas and, as such, it is inappropriate and inaccurate to refer to all such territories as occupied. (As to the appropriateness of the term "occupation," that concept is so intrinsically loaded with POV issues - from all sides - that I won't even try to discuss them here.)

CIA World Factbook

Why not to use figures from the CIA World Factbook? The ones in this article are now two years old. CIA World Factbook also contains more minor countries that UN's list does not. Matveims 00:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the Talk archive, many people have indicated that the CIA Factbook overestimates the population of less developed countries. The methodology and assumptions used are also not available. In terms of updates, there is 2006 UN data but is subscription only meaning it is not public domain. Only the 5-year intervals are public domain. Polaron | Talk 18:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Here are the extra entries in the CIA Factbook list:
  • World (not ranked in UN list)
  • EU (not in UN list)
  • Taiwan (not in UN list but has been added in the current list here)
  • West Bank and Gaza (listed together as Palestinian territory in UN list)
  • Jersey and Guernsey (listed together as Channel Islands in UN list)
  • Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands (included in the figure for Australia -- individual figures listed in footnote)
  • Svalbard (included in the figure for Norway -- individual figure listed in footnote)
  • Mayotte (included in the figure for Comoros)
Makes sense. Thanks Matveims 03:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought I would leave a brief note concerning the CIA Factbook. As many of you know, the CIA has compiled the information for use by every other gov't agency. The US State Dept. also maintains statistics. They update their statistics once a year (some every six months). The CIA Factbook is updated weekly for the names of gov't officials, and every two weeks for all the other information. (TS Brumwell 17:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

WHAT THE HELL IS AUSTRALIA DOING AT No.5 ????????????????????????????????? SHOULD BE 50 at least —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.189.53 (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro independent

Montenegro voted independence on May 21, so preparations should be made to include it in the list separately. Why revert to older version, if it is a done deal? Nije bitno... 14:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not yet official and the new government has not been recognized yet by the United Nations. In the meantime, you can add a footnote indicating what the estimated separate populations are. Polaron | Talk 14:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why I used CIA World Factbook.

I used CIA factbook for Bangladesh as its facts seem to be more closer to the Bangladesh government's estimates. I am Bangladeshi myself and know first hand.

According to Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, the population projection for 2005 is 139.1 million (140.9 million for 2006). The UN estimate is closer than the CIA estimate. I think UN data is more accurate in this case. Polaron | Talk 21:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

2006 data from UN Common Database

Here is a link to a copy of the 2006 UN data for reference. Data was obtained from Series 13660 of the United Nations Common Database. The data in the link was retrieved on 2006-04-12. Note that the original data table is behind a subscription wall so may not be public domain. Polaron | Talk 19:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comoros and Mayotte

While scanning through the list, I noticed a footnote for the Comoros which stated that the population figure given for that country also included the population of the French overseas territory of Mayotte. Since this is a list of countries and not geographic regions (e.g. Comoros archipelago, Europe, etc) then why is Mayotte included? Also, doesn't the inclusion of Mayotte in the listing for the Comoros promote the claim by the Comoros over Mayotte? If this is so then a section of this article does not conform to a neutral point of view. 72.27.59.26 05:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The figure and definition for Comoros were taken directly from the UN World Population Prospects Report. Polaron | Talk 05:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Jersey and Guernsey

For some reason, Jersey and Guernsey were listed together as "Channel Islands". I see no way this is appropriate - they are administratively separate. I separated them, using the population figures found in their articles (rounded to the nearest thousand). john k 22:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that all of the British Dependencies and terretories should be included in the full total for the United Kingdom as the French terretories are for the French Republic. I fhtis is not Possible then i suggest that the Channel Islands should be separated into Jersey and Guernsey.--79.69.254.12 (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population/Archive_1&oldid=1136936275"