Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

European Union entry

why don't we add the European Union entry like in the portuguese version? --Zimbricchio 21:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Beacuse it is not a country. If we were to add the European Union then we should go ahead an add Europe, Asia, Africa, America, etc. and other organizations such as CARICOM, NATO, etc. Joelito (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, a lot of other lists have the EU as a sort of placeholder to show where it is in the world. Such as List of countries by military expenditures, List of countries by GDP (nominal). I'm pretty sure there are others but I can't be bothered to look any more. Personally I'd be all for including it here. Including it would not mean including the various continents as well, just as it hasn't on those other lists. It differs from those entities in that it increasingly acts as a unified economic and (to a degree) political unit, at least for domestic issues. TastyCakes 21:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If the other economic and political organizations are not included then the EU should not be included. It is not a country. Joelito (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you talking like you're telling us rather than discussing? There are no organizations directly comparable to the EU. It is the largest, strongest and best defined supranational entity in the world, which is why it's included on all the other lists. Which other organizations do you think classify as similar that would have to be "let in" to the list? TastyCakes 21:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

None since this is a list of countries. Joelito (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't my question. If the EU were added to this list, what other organisations do you think would have to be added? TastyCakes 21:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My intention is to oppose/detract the addition of the EU. If the EU is added then all should be added or we would be promoting systematic bias toward larger, powerful entities while ignoring smaller and less powerful ones. Joelito (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I realize that, but which organizations are you talking about? The African Union? Because I'd have no problem adding that either - although it is a far more poorly defined political and economic unit which really shouldn't compare. Adding the EU to the list makes the list more useful - period. It doesn't screw up the ranking (since it wouldn't get one) and it doesn't clutter up the page. Why do you propose noone has had a problem with the EU being included on the other Wikipedia list as a placeholder? TastyCakes 21:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding what you said in the beginning CARICOM is a possibility, but NATO is just silly as it's a military alliance. Did you mean NAFTA? This is an economic unit (as is CARICOM for that matter) which makes it less suitable for its own entry in my eyes TastyCakes 21:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

ehm sorry I added it. asia and africa have no political meaning where european union has, it is just not classified as a political entity. --Zimbricchio 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The current list, without the EU, contains no double counting (well, except for World). You can always make a note at the top or bottom of the table for the EU population but I think we should leave it out of the table. The EU is not treated by any other country or international organization as equivalent to a country so my preferences is to leave it out of the table. Polaron | Talk 21:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I oppose adding the EU for the simple reason that it is not a country. Once all the European countries are dissolved and replaced by the EU then we can add the EU. Pure and simple the EU is not a nation. Hypernick1980 01:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if we're doing it like that I Support as it is useful information for the reader and is used on many other Wikipedia country rankings with no apparent problems. TastyCakes 06:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I also don't think it is a good idea to mix other things into the table, especially to confuse the EU alone as a country, however, I would support the idea of a separate table for regions, based on exactly the same data source, like this:

Region	Population July 2005 UN estimate	Percent
Africa	905,936,000	14.0%
Asia	3,905,415,000	60.4%
Europe	728,389,000	11.3%
Latin America and the Caribbean	561,346,000	8.7%
Northern America	330,608,000	5.1%
Oceania	33,056,000	0.5%
World	6,464,750,000	100.0%

There is no double counting. Is there any support for this separate table? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess such a table would be of use, but would you put it here? Or make a new article "List of Continents by population"? Also why does this article split up central america and north america? This seems confusing to me. TastyCakes 17:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

OPPOSED TO EU. Wikipedia is a user editted encyclopedia. An encyclopedia does not and would not list the EU or any other supranational entity. This is a reference for people to come and see a list of countries, having the EU there would only confuse people unknowledgeable about countries who came here looking to get such knowledge. And how truly useful is putting the EU as a point of reference? Anyone who wants to learn about the EU can go looking for it with ease. The argument is not so black and white on a page such as the "by GDP" list as much of the EU uses one common currency and is one common market (except for a few notable exceptions, which if anything weakens even it's entry into the GDP list). The exceptions politically are too numerous to warrant even a non-ranked entry in either the population or area pages. I could be wrong, but as far as I have seen this exchange about the EU goes round and round, but the people who tend to stay on and watch and update these lists (by area, by population, by GDP, etc) seem to be the ones who want the lists to reflect the title and to be what people come looking for.Malnova 01:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think many people are uninformed enough to think the EU is a country, but I could be wrong. Including the EU would be useful exactly because it is a point of reference - it is increasingly used as a comparison to the United States, China and so on as a global power. Yes people can go to the EU page to find its population (as they can with any country on the list), but the main point of this list is to allow people to compare populations against each other. Why do we have to be so anal about including only countries that it lowers the usefulness of the list? TastyCakes 02:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The average user who looks at the list would be more likely to ask "why is the EU in the list?" as opposed to why not. Everytime it has been editted in, new Users coming in start asking why. In answer to your question, "Why do we have to be so anal about including only countries..", I answer with a question, "Why do we have to be so anal about insisting on it's entry?" Insisting the EU be included because we are comparing populations and the EU is "kind of like a country" politically is anal in it's insistence of including "everything" country-like. If people who oppose the EU's entry here and in the "by area" were truly being so anal, they would also oppose it's entry into the "by GDP" list on principle; yet the EU's entry is there unopposed, at least last time I looked.Malnova 03:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered that there might be users who open this article with the sole purpose of finding out EU's population in comparison to some country? By not having EU in the list you are making finding this information more difficult for that user. This information would, however, not make it any more difficult for anyone. If something can be useful for someone, but does not harm anyone else in any way, I don't see why it should not be there. If someone really is ignorant enough not to know EU is not a country, he or she can go on and click the blue text "European Union" to check this. Quoting the article Country: "A country usually has its own government, administration and laws; and often a constitution, police, military, tax rules, and a population who are referred to as one another's countrymen". The EU does have its own government (in addition to national governments), has its own administration and laws, does not yet have a constitution (note that the article says "often"; all of the countries on the list do not have a constitution), does not have its own police as such (neither do some countries on the list), has a sort-of military (not all countries on the list have a military), does not have its own tax rules (neither do some countries on the list) and doesn't exactly have a population referred to each other's countrymen but there is a concept of a "european" person (all countries' citizens do not consider each other to be coutnrymen, either). Another thing; could you two please think of another adjective than "anal". :) --HJV 20:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If the EU is added then the African Union, CARICOM, NATO, the UN, NAFTA, ECOWAS, CEMAC, EAC, etc will need to be added. Joelito (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Contributers. I have been reading the arguments for and against the inclusion of the European Union as a seperate entry on the population lists with some interest. On the basis of this, i have a number of observations to make.

Firstly, it is true that the EU is not a country and on the basis of this it is appropiate to exclude it. However, the EU is included on a number of other wilkipedia pages which list countries - such as the many GDP pages etc - and, as a result of this, i believe that consistency should be maintained and the EU included on this list also.

Secondly, i would disagree with some of the authors on the grounds for exclusion. Granted, the EU is both an intergovernmental and supra-national organisation of twenty-five nations, but on many levels it is a state. The EU has an executive, legisative and judisical branch of government; it has what are legally a series of constitutional treaties (although the amalgomated version failed to be ratified); it has a "national anthem" and a national holiday ("europe day"); it has an independent legal system which is superior to that of its member states (approximatly 80% of the laws passed by the national parliments of the EU memberstates origionates in Brussels); it has an autonomous policy maker; it has a centralised government, a single "national" currency and a single EU "nationality" (the Maastricht treaty in 1992 created legal EU citizenship). On top of this, the EU has an independent foregin policy (typified recently in Iran and Palestine) which is substantially more significant in terms of influence than its memberstates. On the face of a comparision between the US and the EU on the basis of these facts, the EU seems equally federalist and undifferenciated from the US. As a result, i believe that the EU is effectively a "nation" and that, on the face of it, the distinction is rather acedemic.

Thirdly, it has been argued that the EU does not repesent a "nation", as there is no single european nation. With this, i would argue firstly that with the Maastricht treaty, there is a legal EU citizen; and secondly, i would suggest that in the modern world, very few states repesent a single nation. The US, for example, repesents no nation - as US, or American citizens are simply migrants from other continents. As a result, i believe that to exclude the EU on the basis that it is not one "nation" is an outdated idea.

Fourthly, and as already pointed out, the EU is incomparable legally speaking. NATO etc and the other organisations already outlined are not considered nations and do not pocess the trappings of nationhood that the EU does. NATO etc do not include population figures on their respective websites, while the EU feels it necessary to do so. On top of this, the suggestion that Africa and Asia be included is absurd. The question at hand is to include the European Union, not the European continent. There are numerous european countries not included in the EU.

Finally, as already pointed out by another contributer, the EU should be included on the basis of practicallity. Few people will come to the wikipedia population list to check the populations of NATO, while many will come to check the EU (as i did).

On the basis of these arguments, i suggest that the EU should be included in the list. However, to reconcile the concerns of the critics, i believe that a listing with an star would be most appropiate, alluding to the concerns discussed here. I also agree with the contributer who suggested including a table of the populations of each continent, as i believe that this will also be of some use. KJM (20.06.06)

I am totally for inclusion of the EU in the list. Its statistic, people, and this is a very significative info. You don't compile this lists just for fun, it must mean something for the readers, and I think many readers would be interested in how many people are in the European Union. I am personally... --giandrea 23:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How is it that we follow the UN's recognised list of "countries" in compiling this list - and thus exclude the EU from the list - and yet we divide China and Taiwan contrary to the UN's accepted practice to include them seperately? Can anyone smell the wiff of american sponsored politics here?!?! If Taiwan is acceptable as a seperate country contrary to all definitions, except those of right-wing "democracising" americans, then why isnt the EU acceptable as a federalist superstate contrary to little more than a label?? Painfully-amused(22.07.2006)

Because wikipedia is full of people more concerned with being anal than making an article more useful. I tried to add the EU again and got reverted. I'm not going to mess with this page any more.. TastyCakes 19:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Support: In addition to what others have said like the fact that people don't go around with NATO passports or NATO dollars, I'd like to say that New Caledonia, Guam, Netherlands Antilles, etc. aren't really countries either. They are territories or "possessions" etc. of countries like France, USA, Netherlands. These "countries", for lack of a better word, often have less power over themselves than the EU. But they too are included because the information is useful. The EU has a government that is directly elected by the citizens of the EU. The fact that there are people trying to keep it out really seems silly to me. I was genuinely surprised to see that it wasn't listed. I really feel that this list will be incomplete until it includes the EU. AussieDingo1983 12:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Support: Just wanted to say the EU has been added to the list of countries in the CIA World Factbook "The evolution of the European Union (EU) from a regional economic agreement among six neighboring states in 1951 to today's supranational organization of 25 countries across the European continent stands as an unprecedented phenomenon in the annals of history. ... for such a large number of nation-states to cede some of their sovereignty to an overarching entity is truly unique.Although the EU is not a federation in the strict sense, it is far more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN, NAFTA, or Mercosur, and it has many of the attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, anthem, founding date, and currency, as well as an incipient common foreign and security policy in its dealings with other nations. In the future, many of these nation-like characteristics are likely to be expanded."

I added a note to the addition of the EU to the list: The EU is not generally considered a "country", but shows many features of a confederal state (like Switzerland is a conferal state), such as a central administration, a parliament, a superior judiciary, a single market, a single currency, EU citizenship and free settlement of its citizens across its territory. I am however not sure if it should be mentioned in the main article, or added as a footnote. BearPig 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Oppose: Fun how this goes round and round eh? Because the last two people who posted here said "support" does not a consensus make. The simple fact that the entry is so controversial and edit war provoking, would suggest not including it is the best way to go. I am not at all anti-EU. Someone mentioned that the EU is on the GDP list. I think this is valid entry because the EU's currency functions just as any other currency would in other countries. The situation is much murkier in other lists. Giandrea is quite fond and pro-EU as is obvious from his/her editting list. I am also fond of the EU and think it is an enviable institution in this recently divisive world. It is however, in the end, not a state, just as a dolphin is not a fish. Malnova 21:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Again, do we really want to start an edit war again, after 3 months? We have already agreed that the entry should stay in the list not ranked, for statistical purposes only. Yes, I'm personally pro-european, but the significance of the EU voice in the list is evident, and most of the people here agree with me. I will change back the article now, and perhaps ask for an RfC, even if most of the comments here are in favor of the inclusion... --giandrea 21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Support Apart from what other have said, do not forget that EU law is above national states law, including their respective Constitutions (which have to be changed if they contradict the EU law). Tell me of any international organization with such power. The fact is that the EU resembles more a country than to an international organization so clearly it should be in that list. Sdnegel 14:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I took a few minutes and counted the number of people who registered their name and gave a clear opinion. It was 5 opposed and 6 support. And this is only if you consider the first person to post in this topic, who really only asked why there isn't an entry, not necessarily saying he was in Support. And regardless, a simple majority is not a consensus. I also see you taken the war to the countries by area list, Giandrea. Touche. Malnova 10:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, look up the meaning of the world touché. Anyway yes, these last two days there was strangely a big amount of anti EU edits, removing it from many lists where it is included not ranked, for comparison. I am against this behavior and I think it is better to have it here, it doesn't harm anyone (except possibly the ego of someone). --giandrea 13:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Malnova, there is no consensus here on the EU entry. However, Malnova, would it be a compromise to leave the EU in (and no other additions) until this is sorted out? - Ctbolt 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So, this discussion has been going on for quite a while and we ended up with another revert war. I propose that we set up a Request for Comments and then decide what to do. Do you agree? --giandrea 00:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't need your lecture on the meaning of touche, Giandrea. I certainly knew it had an accent on the e, but I was not going to bother in using it, and as for the meaning it reads "The phrase touché is often used in popular culture and general conversation—for example, in an argument or debate. If one person presents an argument and another delivers a clever or apt response, the first person may respond with "touché" as a way of acknowledging a good response, often before they can think of a retort." I found the fact that you went back to "list of countries by area" and reverted to a EU entry as a rather apt response to my reverting your "list by population". Sure, I knew I stretched it a little bit, but not that much. I would humor you on your "request for comments", but you have previously characterized me as a "wall" which I am not, refer to dissenting opinion/edits as "vandalism" and claim consensus when there isn't any. I am not sure if I would want you representing the other half of the argument. I also find your statement that the EU's entry "doesn't harm anyone (except possibly the ego of someone)" rather rich, as you are basically a one topic (EU) editor and have previously stated that the EU should be on a similar list because, "As an (sic) European I think there are another 4 hundred and a half millions European citizens that would like to see it listed. [[1]]. If that's not ego what is? However, in the interest of settling this, I will stop reverting the EU if you take the cumbersome "qualifier" out of the introduction (not that I think you are the one who put it there). Agreed? Malnova 10:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So, what do you propose? No RfC? Do you want to keep an edit war forever? Don't you want to find a solution? --giandrea 11:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I was writing my suggestion for a "solution" but hadn't finished before you replied. Please read it above. Malnova 11:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The EU on this list is not relevant information. It would do more distraction than good to the average reader who is not aware of world politics. Please stop pretending that everyone in the known universe knows about the EU like the US.

I Support the inclusion of the EU in the list. I could give many reasons (some of them have already been mentioned before), but in my opinion the most important is that this article is counting the population, and as all of you know, all Europeans are granted the European citizenship which is valid anywhere in the world because it's like having a double nationality. So, if everyone recognizes me as an European citizen, why am I not included in the list? Sdnegel 19:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose To put my argument its simplest form: The European Union is not a country. This is a fact; Regardless of it being a supranational entity, regardless of it being a great organization, regardless every single reason for the support of its inclusion: The EU isn't a country and shouldn't be included on a page called "List of countries by population". (Maybe changing the name of the page is in order?) As it stands, unless all EU members completely relinquish their sovereignty, it should not be included on this page. However, since my opinion wont stop the change anyway..I really don't care what is done to this page. Meh. Travis Cleveland 18:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I Support the inclusion of the EU in the list. I won't repeat arguments. The EU is a semi-country with legal citizenship. S. Solberg J. 19:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose A semi-country is not a country. And this less-than-half-a-country is a long, long, way from being a country. The European Union has no legal personality and fails most of the Montevideo Convention criteria for being a state: these are the most important legal points. There is no other state here which covers the same territory and population as any other country on the list, except the EU; to include it is not only double-counting but misleading and logically-flawed. It is not a country, does not claim to be a country and does not belong here. A significant majority in favour of inclusion is required to overcome these deeply-significant points; longevity matters not at all. DSuser 12:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose The nations that form the EU are their own sovereign countries, if you include the EU then you might as well include the UN or NATO. No other nation recognizes the EU as being a country at this time. It just simply does not fit in with the title of the list. Hypernick1980 08:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose As others have said, the EU is not a country and does not belong in a list titled "List of countries...". jnalley 01:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, although not strongly. I see the usefulness of adding the EU to the list, but if we are to accept the arguments that the EU be included as comparable in political form to a single country, then we should likewise exclude its member countries from the list, which, the argument seems to be, must conform their individual constitutions and courts to the higher European one. Otherwise, perhaps we should add individual states and provinces of other large federated countries. Many have populations greater than any EU country, such as: Uttar Paresh and Maharashta in India; Henan or Shandong in China; and even California would be one of the larger EU members. While it is not cut and dry, the list does say "country" and the EU is simply not recognized as a country. 74.56.160.208 06:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's add the EU when the editors are willing to remove the member states from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.128.55 (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Support UE is a semi-country, just read Lisbon Treaty. It has to be included in the list but with a note and no ranking. Comparing UE with other entities is useless as UE is a sui generis "organisation" and not a military, economic, politic one. It isn't really an international organisation. Uncle Scrooge (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pop. Clock

Should me or some1 else update the sources from the countries with population clocks? The Person Who Is Strange 14:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. No thanks. There is an opinion about them in the archive. I happen to agree. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured list

I think this list can easily be promoted to FL status. It just needs a bit of improvement. What suggestions do you make?

I suggest that country flags are included, and, of course, that the table is formatted in order to avoid double lines (I've made that). I also think we can create a section for maps. More suggestions are welcome. Mário 19:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made some changes in the article, if anyone disagrees, just say. But I really think it is better this way. Regards! Mário 18:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We should probably clean up/remove some of the links in the See also section. Also, I'm inclined to put the citations right next to the figures instead of in the Notes column. We might even think about removing the Notes column altogether. But I'm not sure what to do about the population clock links. Polaron | Talk 23:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, I also thought of that. I think citations should be included near the country name, at least, when they explain what geographic region is included in that figure. The clocks, given that the majority of the countries don't have one, should be removed, they make the list ugly. What should we do about them? That's a problem. This changes will allow us to remove the notes column. The notes and the see also sections should be cleaned up. What should we do then? Mário 23:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I broadly concur. It is worth considering putting in a percentage column. I expect we would end up with a load rounded-off at 0.1%, but it is an idea at least worthy of rejection. I was going to suggest moving the clock links to the Population clock article :-( I don't think it would be a great loss to lose them - as long as we are properly wikilinked to further sources of information in the see also section. I also agree with moving the citations next to the country name. In this list, where the note applies to a number it usually applies to the definition of the country (and all the numbers are right-aligned). I think the medium-variant fertility phrase needs expanding, indeed the whole methodology could do with a little explanation. Further points - the source for Bhutan is inconsistent with the article - maybe use a third source? The Channel Islands is unsourced. Nice flags btw. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I will put census authority figures for Jersey and Guernsey in the Notes section later. For Bhutan, both the CIA Factbook and the UN give similar figures. The Population Reference Bureau (prb.org) lists the Bhutan population as 970,000. World Gazetteer lists it as 796,000. For this case, my opinion is to go with the official government figure. Now for the methodology, the figures for 2005 are actually estimates based on the 2000 round (1998-2002) of census data using recent growth rates. The projection variants only come into play for 2010 and beyond. Although it might still be agood idea to at least mention a little bit about the assumptions used in the medium variant projection. Polaron | Talk 01:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

POPULATION OF PAKISTAN

the population stats given are wrong as according to cia the population of pakistan was 165,803,560 (July 2006 est.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madman 0014 (talk • contribs) .

They are however correct according to the U.N. World Population Prospects report. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just noting that the CIA figure includes population in territories disputed by India but UN figure does not. --Polaron | Talk 16:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

CYPRUS?

Does anybody know if the Cyprus figure includes both the Greek and Turkish portions of the island? An editor wants the Turkish portion included with Turkey's overall population. - DavidWBrooks 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer myself, the CIA figure for both the Greek and Turkish portions is lower than the UN figure, so I will assume the UN figure includes the whole island. - DavidWBrooks 16:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are correct. From comparing the estimates in the UN Demographic Yearbook (which states that the figure refers only to the areas controlled by the Republic of Cyprus) and the figures from the World Population Prospects, the figure listed by the WPP report is about 100,000 larger than the figure for the Greek controlled portion only. This conclusion is also consistent with geohive.com and citypopulation.de --Polaron | Talk 17:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

TRNC is not listed separately in the UN World Population Prospects Report and is also not commonly listed as a sovereign state. The UN figure includes both Greek and Turkish controlled territories. Being a largely unrecognized state, it is sufficient to indicate the figure for the TRNC in the Notes section. Also, for ease of list maintenance, it is better if UN figures are used when available. --Polaron | Talk 16:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Statistical Institute of Rep. of Cyprus counts only the population of the southern part of the island for which it is responsible and The Statistical Institute of TRNC counts only the population of the northern part of the island for which it is responsible, and population census are gathered at different years. So, in order to obtain the exact population of the island, the two populations must be given at different rows.

The official web page of The Statistical Institute of Rep. of Cyprus [ http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/4E24598BFC64594AC22570BD0035F021?OpenDocument&sub=1&e= ] shows a population of 749,200 (2004 Census). The official web page of The Statistical Institute of TRNC [ http://nufussayimi.devplan.org/population%20%20and%20housing%20%20census.pdf ] shows a population of 264712 (2006 April census) - the pop. of TRNC.

So, there is no way of obtaining 835000 from the numbers 749200 and 264172. I am a mathematician. Trust me. So, the population of the two regions (north and south) should be located at different rows of the table. Let someone correct it. NikosPolitis 06:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)NikosPolitis

The UN estimate is a de jure figure based on the 2001 census and a 2003 estimate. The figures don't have to add up because they are from different sources and time periods. It is sufficient to list the census figures separately as a footnote. Furthermore, the TRNC is only recognized by one country making its inclusion in this list dubious. TRNC does not have a top-level internet domain, and does not have an ISO-3166 code and is not widely recognized as a country by most international organizations as well. --Polaron | Talk 14:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The UN estimate is the one that is found like that: First, Southern Cyprus counts its population and then add up a small number to indicate the population of Northern Cyprus. But, The Rep. of Cyprus purposefully indicates a very low population for the Northern part (i.e. 835000 - 749200=85800). However, the population of Northern Cyprus counted with the ovservers from European Union and it is found to be 264712. See the difference: 264712 and 85800!!. Also for the recognition: The Republic of Cyprus was found in 1960 by Turks and Greeks. But then greek wanted to capture whole of island and then the Republic of Cyprus de facto devastated in 1974. Also, in the constitution of Rep. of. Cyprus it writes "The president and prime minister will be one from Turks and one from greeks exchangebly. Did you see any Turkish president or prime minister of Rep. of Cyprus since 1974? Ans: No. Because the Rep. of Cyprus was de facto ended in 1974." --NikosPolitis | Talk 14:55, 01 September 2006 (UTC)

The UN estimate (for the year 2005) is a de jure figure based on the 2001 census with a growth rate based on a 2003 official estimate. The TRNC 2006 census was a de facto count which apparently is about 80,000 larger than the de jure estimate. You can't add up figures with different counting methods and different years. As long as the official figure is made clear in the footnotes, that should be fine. That is what is done for some other countries where the official figure is not quite the same as the estimate. --Polaron | Talk 06:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Change name of article?

Maybe we should change the name of this article to List of countries by population in 2005 or something like that, to reflect the fact that it is a snapshot in time according to a single source. All the folks who come in and update their country's number obviously aren't reading the introductory paragraph. - DavidWBrooks 15:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Maurreen 15:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Out of date

I think some of these figures are out of date - the UK article for example now states 60.2 million. France has 63.5 million on its article page (but strangley 61 044 684 on the reference). Mammal4 10:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the introductory paragraph? No, I didn't think so. Obviously we need to rename this article ... - DavidWBrooks 11:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops - I must confess I didn't read the opening paragraph I just skipped to the interesting bit, and I surely can't be the only one who does. Rename it if you want to, I'll just keep my nose out in future Mammal4 11:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Change the name of the article?

I only got one reponse last time (see above) so I 'll try once more - how about we move this article to List of countries by population in 2005, then leave it here with a change in the intro, taking out the UN mention - letting people update figures with whatever sourced information they can find? - DavidWBrooks 22:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not the proper way to change the name of an article. Please follow the procedure at Requested moves. Furthermore do you propose that we change the name every year? Joelito (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is - if it's a non-controversial, non-difficult move: ask on the talk page of the article, then move it, if that's the consensus (I'm an admin). You have a good point about subsequent years, though. But something should be done: I'm sure that many readers make the same mistake that all these bad editors do - skip over the date and jump to the numbers for the country they're interested in, misinterpreting it as recent data. - DavidWBrooks 22:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no point in ranking figures from different years and using different methods. If people want a centralized location for the latest population figures from whatever source, then don't rank them. Maybe just make an alphabetical list.

How about adding a column for the 2010 figures and people can make their own interpolations for the in-between years? --Polaron | Talk 22:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

2010? - DavidWBrooks 22:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because the publicly available UN figures are for 2005, 2010, 2015, etc. --Polaron | Talk 22:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that would work, if for no other reason than it would make the table unwieldy - too wide. - DavidWBrooks 00:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for name change

OK, here's the plan. Please vote support or oppose:

Move this article (with its Talk page) to List of countries by population, 2005. Leave this article here, with its current title, removing any UN-related stuff (and probably the map) and rewriting the lead as follows:

This is a list of sovereign states and other territories by population, using the most recently available official figures. Because such figures are not collected at the same time or with the same level of accuracy, the resulting rankings may be misleading.

• Support - I'm sure the intro of this article be rewritten over time, with a debate over whether to keep rankings, but this move will accomplish the main point: Making the article fit the title, which leads people to expect that it gives CURRENT population estimates. - DavidWBrooks 15:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons provided below. Joelito (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

There is the question of which list to link to and which list will be used as the basis for the rankings in country infoboxes. --Polaron | Talk 15:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

True - but is that a reason to keep the current setup, which is very misleading, judging from the many folks who make the same mistake - moving away from the UN rankings in this article. - DavidWBrooks 16:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, nobody else seems to care, one way or the other, so maybe I'll just do it! - DavidWBrooks 22:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please make sure to inform the people maintaining {{Infobox Country}} where the UN list would be located at. --Polaron | Talk 22:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I for one am opposed to this. People will try to change the population even if the title says 2005. Furthermore it will lead to people creating List of countries by population for 2000, 1990, 1983, etc Joelito (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Vital Error

I have checked several sources and they all say that the population of Bangladash is larger than that of Russia. Also, the population clocks indicate this as well.

That could be true now and perhaps even in 2005. It depends on the exact methodology of the estimate/projection. This list tries to harmonize the methodology so that figures are somewhat comparable. (Even then it's not strictly comparable). --Polaron | Talk 01:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Move made

OK, I made a copy of this article at List of countries by population in 2005, and removed reference to the UN material here, so folks can update each country's figure (as so many have tried to do). I hope this doesn't degenerate into a census slugfest. - DavidWBrooks 19:21, 6 September 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, Sahara and Palestina in the list? Sephia karta 22:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll bite: "Removed"? I don't see that they've ever been on the list, at least not for months. Am I missing something? - DavidWBrooks 00:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

They were on there back in April, I searched the talk pages for a reason for their removal but found none. I will re-add them if no reason is provided, is there a way to do it without having to renumber everything?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_population&oldid=48072733

Sephia karta 14:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how. One thing, though: Are you sure that the population of these areas aren't included as part of other places in the list (Transnistria as part of Moldova, etc.)? If that's the case, we would be double-counting people to include them, unless the population of the officials entries are reduced accordingly. Doing that would be tough - it's sometimes hard to figure out what is and isn't included in an official count - so perhaps you could add a footnote to each of these, indicating that their population may be included in other figures. - DavidWBrooks 15:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about that, I will add footnotes accordingly. Sephia karta 23:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Population Outdated

On the [population of the world page], most of the countries population are outdated. Some of them are 2005 est. and the others are 2004 est. I think that someone has to find the exact population (It really doesn't have to be) or adleast estimate the amount for 2006 est. Thank you. - acs4b 03:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead! - DavidWBrooks 09:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources for this article - UN used as default source only

In regards to this article, I've noticed a bias towards using UN figures for the countries in the list. For countries that don't keep track of their own populations, that's a fine default source to use - but for those countries that do keep track of their own populations, and provide ongiong estimates between census' with a population clock - shouldn't the estimate of the country in question be used in preference to the estimate provided by the UN? Presumably the figures the UN are using come from the imput of the country in question - via their census, if they don't, then how on Earth are the UN figures reliable?

I've read through here and there seems to be an issue with using a population clock - why? These population clocks do use an algorithm to calculate the population at any given time - but they are based on the most thorough research conducted by anyone into the population of a given country. For instance, the Australian population clock is maintained by the Australian government based on the results of the Australian Census, which is conducted every 5 years, and was conducted last month, August 2006. When the results of a new census come in, the population clock is immediately re-calibrated to reflect the new reality. The fact is, the population of any given country is fluid, and so relying on static figures is a mistake. Complaining that the page is going to be updated all the time is a silly complaint - so what? The population has changed in any given moment - so why shouldn't Wikipedia seek to reflect that?

So, just to confirm - I think that the figures provided by a government of a country, and their population clock, should be used if there, if they're not available then the UN source should be used as a default source. I notice all the population clocks linked to in the table - one thing it does provide is the ability for any Wikipedian dropping by to participate in and contribute to a changing table - something that should be encouraged at Wikipedia.jkm 06:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

china?

china does NOT have 5 billion people, and 5 billion people out of 6 billion people does NOT equal 20% 70.190.208.138

That was a vandalism edit (reverted at a later point) --Wiz126 02:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding the "Percentage of world population"

Adding the percentage of world population to each row is a cool idea, but totally impossible to maintain with static numbers. If someone wants to update the world population, they will need to recalculate 230 percentages and edit every line. To overcome this limitation, I've replaced each instance of the percentage figure with:

{{#expr: population of country / 6551855000 * 100 round 3}}%

• To update the world population, one needs to simply copy this text into a (UTF-8 supporting) external editor and replace all instances of 6551855000 with the new figure (without commas!)
• To update the population of just one country, the editor must make sure to change it in both places. (Again, in the expression, the commas must be left out.)

I hope this helps. If this is not maintainable either, the percentages will have to be left out of the page altogether. -- Renesis (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

World

Is it really necessary to include the obvious fact that the world's population makes up 100% of the world's population? Isn't this self-evident? Littleghostboo[ talk ] 08:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be pedantic - really pedantic, the population of the world is not exactly 100% of the human population (Although I realise this is not the point you are making - but perhaps the world percentage could reflect the population of the world as a % of the population of humanity). Currently, that would still round to 100% - because the number of off world humans is only 2 or 3 or up to 7 or 8 at any one time - but, as we evolve - and eventually establish ourselves outside the confines of the world - that percentage will inevitably drop. In future - it will be very interesting to know what percentage of humanity resides on the home world as opposed to the percentage of humanity who reside elsewhere in the cosmos. Even after hundreds of years, because of the harsh environment of space, it is predicted that the off world percentage will still be less than 1% of all humanity. 155.143.221.252 16:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Enlightening :) Baristarim 13:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm predicting a future percentage of 0% of humanity in space. We're gonna die on this rock... I need a drink. TastyCakes 16:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

European Union entry as an additional comparative information

I believe that we might include to the European Union on top of the entry of USA, but, without assigning position to it (with a hyphen -), for which USA would preserve the third position since EU is not a "classic" state but a supranational entity of new creation. It would be an comparative information like EU in List of countries by GDP (PPP) or List of countries and outlying territories by total area. It is an new suggestion on an already debated topic.

I propose that a Wikipedia administrator should open a voting on the incorporation or not of the EU instead of one initiating a new chain of discussion without agreing clearly on the final formula. Thank you. Regards from Europe, Barcelona. SERGIO.

OK, we can set a vote, but for now the entry should remain because it's established and clearly stated that it is not a country but a supranational entity with many characteristics of a state. --giandrea 13:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't remain. There was no consensus for adding it. Joelito (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happens, the description/explanation needs to be shortened significantly. It starts to read like a page about the EU itself, instead of a list of countries by population. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.136.186.132 (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Pop clock

Why do we need dodgy population clocks for countries whose populations are already sourced? :) Baristarim 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing that populations are static from one census to another - and immediately just jump to oa new level after the release of the census results? Don't be ridiculous, the population clocks are based on the census data and are generally maintained by the government of the nation in question. Their estimate of their own population is surely the most trusted source to rely on when assessing a country's population at any given moment? When new census data comes out, the clocks are simply reset to whatever their true value should be, but that does not mean that in the intervening years the numbers they provide are worthless - they're the best estimate. jkm 17:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

For a counterargument, see the archive. I agree that we should not be using population clocks when there are relatively recent official estimates available, for the reasons expressed there. -- Avenue (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

International Organizations

The Commonwealth of Nations, the African Union, and a few other internation organizations were recently added to the list. They're not official entries, instead following after the spirit of the European Union in being unranked and italicized. However, I'm not sure they really belong here.

In some ways, this is a rehash of the above debate over the inclusion of the EU. However, that discussion only indirectly addressed the inclusion of other organizations.

The paragraph explaining the EU's relevance was very useful in establishing that it should appear on the list. It pointed out that the EU has important properties of a state, including "a central administration, a parliament, a superior judiciary, a single market, a single currency, EU citizenship and free settlement of its citizens across its territory." How many of these criteria are true for the Commonwealth of Nations or the other international organizations?

My concern is that there has to be a line drawn somewhere. See International organization for a short list of international organizations that could conceivably appear on the list. What makes those that are on the list so special? At some point, the inclusion of additional entities will clutter the list to such an extent that it is practically useless.

I'm happy with the EU appearing on the list. Are these other organizations similar enough to the EU (and to a traditional state) to merit their inclusion? More generally, what is the basis for including or excluding an arbitrary international organization?

Smith.dan 05:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In the absense of any discussion to the contrary, I've removed that additional international organizations. I have no desire to continue an edit war, but I'm making a best attempt at matching why I've taken as the consensus from above. As I understand the long preceding discussion, most people see the EU as a special case that belongs on the list, while they agree that other international organizations (like the Commonwealth of Nations) do not meet the criteria to be an exception.

If you'd like to see an international organization appear on the list, please defend that choice here by describing the criteria that make this organization an exception. (Your criteria should not be broad enough to include dozens of other organizations as well.)

Smith.dan 21:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

has anyone else noted how the entire page has been erased by some hooligan and replaced with "fudge"?

De facto states

In order to prevent double counting, is this article actually doing things like excluding the populations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from the population of Georgia? That's totally absurd. Any map or list you'll ever find will include those territories' populations in a count of the population of Georgia. john k 20:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit late but: it got its population figure from the Georgia page where these populations were already not included and it is not all irrational, given that these people do not currently live in Georgia controlled territory. De facto control on the ground is the most sensible sollution to these problems, also e.g. Kashmir. sephia karta 15:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

England

How come the page for England says it is 24 th in world population but the list has Burma at 24th and England is not on the list? JoelGuelph 13:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

England is not a sovereign state - it's included here under the United Kingdom. There is however some evidence that it is a country - a constituent country. In the context of this list, the ranking on the England page is hypothetical, or provided for comparison. It is also possibly part of a recent spate of pov edits on that page. The issue should probably be raised on that article's talk page. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 13:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism reaches new heights!

Was this population list pinched from…

http://en.allexperts.com/e/l/li/list_of_countries_by_population.htm

…by any chance, and then the author conveniently added the “TRNC” with the 265k figure taken from the most recent “TRNC” census which the UN did not observe/approve?

Bravo!

Regards, Marios Polycarpou.

It's the other way around - that page is copied from here, as explained in its footnote: "This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia" -- zzuuzz^(talk) 14:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sealand

Sealand should be added, since it is, as far as I know, it's own state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.170.96 (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC). With a population of nil?

Norfolk Island

I think Norfolk island should be added to the list, i was going to do it myself but i thought it be better if i ask here before i do any change —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Niceferret1 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Hong Kong, Macau and overseas territories are not countries

Hong Kong and Macau are just Special Administrative Regions of People's Republic of China. Since their population is already included in China's I suggest to leave them in the table as they are but not rank them. Same business with overseas territories: if their population is already included in population of their metropolitan country (France), I wouldn't rank them. Better option would be probably to reduce population of France only for it's european territory (Metropolitan France) though. --kokpit | talk 22:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

European inclusion in the list

Sorry if I open a new topic, but the old one was rather old, and was getting too long to read and reply comfortably. So, you want to keep the EU in the list and remove the initial blurb that describes that the EU is not a proper country, but it is important to include it here for statistical purposes. I think it could be ok for me, but can you explain me why you wanted to remove the blurb? --giandrea 12:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

An explanation that takes up almost half of the intro explaining the "importance" of the EU's inclusion for "statistical purposes" seems to only highlight that the EU's entry is incongrous. An unranked listing is enough (more than enough, but I'll accept the compromise) Malnova 12:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't accept the compromise. It is not a country. Joelito (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So what is to be done? I can't see this issue going away until a compromise is reached either way and documented here. - Ctbolt 06:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to discussion. You can't just say I won't accept the compromise. I think that at this point we should find a solution, only between people willing to discuss. --giandrea 13:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The only discussion needed is an explanation of how the EU is a country. When that is proven then it can be included in "List of countries..." Joelito (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Giandrea, you can't simply insisst, "there MUST be a compromise". Your position is far from compromising. You insist on the entry of an entity that is clearly not a country, and will not compromise on this issue for the good of the list. Seeing your edits here, the evidence is obvious: You are NOT here for the good of this list, you ARE here to get the EU included on this list (and others). You have campaigned to change the names of similar lists to take out the word "countries", written in "explanatory" notes, etc. all for one purpose: including the EU. Malnova 20:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You guys can be so pedantic... "I won't accept the compromise. It's not a country." Why do you care? It isn't given a number and it's obvious to anyone using the list who isn't totally retarded that it's there for comparison purposes only. It makes the list more useful. Does anyone deny this? So answer me this: why do you want to make this list less useful just to be anal about whether or not the article's title perfectly describes its contents? This whole argument annoys the hell out of me. I have to stop visiting this talk page... TastyCakes 23:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You could make an argument that if the EU is there for comparison purposes only then you could also include the 50 United States, the Canadian Provinces and Territories, and Australian States. Of course just listed for comparison purposes and unranked. After all lets see California would be one of the 35 largest countries if it was a country. All of the above mentioned entities all have their own heads of state, legislative bodies, flags, anthems, laws, court systems. Just a thought Hypernick1980 05:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup: stray reference

As the table displays now (2007-04-23, 21:51 UTC), there is a stray footnote attached to the text "ta]" that appears just above the table, referencing something about Eurostat. I wasn't sure quite how it should be cleaned up, though. Lincmad 21:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

European Union is not a country

While this may seem obvious to some of us, I think at least a footnote to this respect is in order. Also, in a list of countries we could begin to include all sorts of organizations like 'NATO' or 'OPEC'. EU is an organization and not a country, so if it is shown in a list of 'countries' I think a clarifying footnote is at least expected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.33.35 (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2007

There used to be a note, but someone wanted to remove it. You can find it in an old version I guess. --giandrea 10:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be on this list but some pro-EU users keep pushing for it. Joelito (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know - the World is not a country either, but we include that in the list. Obviously because it is an exceptional case. The EU is also an exceptional case, which other multi-national bodies have elected parliaments spanning the various countries in question? I can't think of any apart from the EU.jkm 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And it should be on the list but some anti-EU users keep pushing to remove it I suppose? I am personally uninvolved in this tussle, but do please consider the fact that NPOV isnt about cencership either.--Huaiwei 17:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What? Did you just compare the world to EU?!?! putting it there is an exceptional form of stupidity. a lot of users every now and then asks the question why the hell it is there. EU people are living in the past because they know they are not worth squat to the whole world as small useless states

• you sound like a jealous person with an inferiority complex, perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.179.9 (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhh...jkm, the "world" bit is the "grand total" for the population. I should hope you're not that blindly POV/ignorant, so stop with the red herrings. We all know the EU is no more an exception than the AU/Mercosur/whatever else intergovernmental orgs, and does not belong on the countries table. Parsecboy 22:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is EU on this list? One used misinterpreted the WORLD as an entry, it only means its THE SUM OF ALL. The EU is completely pointless here and many people who are not familiar with world affairs would think EU is a country Remove the EU please

Obviously the EU is not a country. I removed it from the list of countries. Please remove it if someone spams it back in. Uris 19:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be a consensus here that the EU is not in fact a country. Wise 00:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Although it is not a country, it is common for compilers of statistics to include statistics for the EU as if it were a country. Before reaching a decision, one should consider what the CIA has to say:

Although the EU is not a federation in the strict sense, it is far more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN, NAFTA, or Mercosur, and it has many of the attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, anthem, founding date, and currency, as well as an incipient common foreign and security policy in its dealings with other nations. In the future, many of these nation-like characteristics are likely to be expanded. Thus, inclusion of basic intelligence on the EU has been deemed appropriate as a new, separate entity in The World Factbook.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html--Boson 20:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is that NAFTA has a founding date, and there's a flag on that page (don't remember if it is official or not). The EU sort of has a currency, but sort of doesn't. Afterall, the UK doesn't use the Euro... should it still be included in the numbers for the EU if one basis for it being different than NAFTA is that members use an EU currency? Perhaps we should change the name of the page to "List of countries and federations by population" and that would make listing the EU make a little more sense. Or maybe just make a note about it like on List of countries by area. Uris 00:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The introduction of the EU--Boson 20:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC) entry is based on following arguments:

a) Country like entity: Common market, common policies, common institutions, bodies, agencies, election every 5 years and a European parliament as well as a EU court of justice, common currency Euro, EU-Day (holiday), EU-Licenseplate ,-Anthem, EU-Citizenship, one voice in WTO

b) already ranked in several other media and statistics like CIA WorldFactBook, IMF data sheet, Wikipedia List of countries by GDP (PPP) etc.

c) many other entries are included unranked with unclear state or country definition like the Overseas territories, Vatican and others. EU is not per se an exception.

d) Note that the inclusion of the EU is granted to its sui generis status and can not advocate the inclusion of Opec, Nato, African Union and others. The degree of a state like entity and its characteristics make this a singular case.

e) Because of the sui generis status, the 27 member states will remain as single entry and the EU becomes unranked. Lear 21 01:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

'Sui generis' just means 'different' (literally 'not generic'). That can mean it is different in an even-less-like-a-country way. Or it can mean 'different but still nothing like a country' (which is the correct use in this case). The EU is not on our List of countries. The EU has no legal personality, no ability to make international agreements and no constitution (please see Montevideo Convention to confirm that the EU is not a state). If the EU goes in then the Commonwealth goes in as well; in fact as a large number of Commonwealth member states are in personal union with each other, with the same person as Head of State, the Commonwealth is more clearly a candidate for this list than the EU. Happy to go either way, but we need to be consistent: both or neither. DSuser 19:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The literal meaning of sui generis is more like "of its own kind" (in a class of its own), in this case indicating that it cannot, strictly speaking, be classified as belonging uniquely to another relevant category, such as federal states or groups of independent countries". Similar considerations apply to the United Kingdom: unlike the EU it is a sovereign unitary state. but it is not, strictly speaking, a single country; Scotland is a country but is not a sovereign state. Texas has a measure of sovereignty but is not a country (and is not a sovereign state in international law). Etc. etc. So whether to include a particular entity here is a judgment call based on what is expedient, not an open-and-shut case where all countries and only countries are included in this list. If anyone has problems with the use of the word "country", we could always change the title of the article.--Boson 20:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Commonwealth is absolutely different from the EU. The EU has many of the characteristics usually associated with a country, and has been described as being "half-way between a supranational organisation and a country" by dozens of scientific publications; the Commonwealth is a loose intergovernmental associations of 50+ states, of which less than a third happen to share a monarch, who is of absolutely no consequence in actual politics. I would accept claims to include ASEAN or the African Union, but including the Commonwealth to edge out the EU is a blatant and clear violation of WP:POINT. —Nightstallion 20:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's misanalysis on your part. Sharing a joint head of state in personal union with a range of other countries is quite clearly more important than having a few treaties in common. Demonstrating the weakness of a position by comparison with the effects of applying that position consistently is not just a valid form of argument, but possibly one of the most important forms of argument: citing Wikipedia policy against that device begins to look like an attempt to silence debate.

The EU has no legal personality, no right to enter into foreign agreements (a critical distinction in international law), and fails on at least two if not three of the vitally-important Montevideo Convention criteria. The European Union is slightly more like a country than the African Union, but so far from being an actual country that arguing otherwise becomes a little ridiculous. The point is we need to be consistent, and there is nowhere near enough validity in the claim that the EU is 'half a country' to include it on the many Lists of Countries. Even if it were half a country (which it is not) it would still be a very, very long way from being an actual country. It's all or nothing, I'm afraid: all international organisations or none. DSuser 12:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's a misanalysis on your part. Sharing a head of state is absolutely irrelevant in actual politics for all of those states. The "few treaties" they have in common account for the fact that the 27 member states share a substantial part (more than two thirds) of their effective legislation; the EU or its Commission have quasi-legal personality in a large number of bodies, and both the legal personality and the right to enter treaties are going to be implemented before 2009. Claiming that the EU is "slightly more like a country" than the AU exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of the respective structures of both organisations. Claiming that we should include "all international organisations or none" is a straw man argument, as there are vast differences between the existing international organisations, from almost-countries like the EU to paper tigers like CEN-SAD. —Nightstallion 14:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing the Numbers

If you are going to change the numbers displayed, that's fine - but make sure when you do this that you provide a source for your change, an official source from the country in question being the preference - otherwise you will likely find your change is reversed until such a source is displayed. jkm 08:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

THE EUROPEAN UNION is the most POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD because it has the highest GDP nominal

a bigger population than the United States!!! I love being European!!! EU RULES THE WORLD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.115.66 (talk)

You are a troll, you vandalized this page and my personal talk page several times, removing the EU and posting lame comments. I will have your IP banned. --giandrea 14:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading lead sentence

The lead sentence says that the list uses the most recently available "official figures". This is misleading, because most of the figures seem to be based on projections or estimates at a couple of websites. Please clarify.--Vsion 03:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Federal Republic of Germany

As germans call germany "Bundesrepublik" instead of "Deutschland" in as much cases as they call it "Deutschland" i suggest to use the one and only correct name in this list and any other lists. "Federal Republic of Germany" - anything else is historical nonsense as there was no country called "Germany"/"Deutschland" ever in any moment of history

List of Regional Organisations

If we're going to start with the ones that are currently there - what about some more regional organisations? NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation), OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe), SCO (Shanghai Co-Operation Organisation), ARF (ASEAN Regional Forum), APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Co-Operation), WEU (Western European Union), CICA (Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia), the euro area etc. etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_organization, one can see all of them here. As we're only talking about regional organisations some of these won't qualify, the Commonwealth, La Francophonie, OPEC, OECD, Organisation of the Islamic Conference etc. But there are still very many regional organisations that aren't currently represented on the list on the main page here. Someone with a bit of time on their hands needs to go through and put all these other regional organisations on here.jkm 06:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SAARC.JPG

Image:SAARC.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Improper pipe & ranking

I removed the Palestine pipe of Palestinian National Authority, as that refers to a related but different topic. Neither is that entity a recognised or even declared state, which is why I removed the ranking. Please explain why/if you disagree. Tewfik^Talk 00:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've used the name used by the UN, which is the entity being referred to in the UN World Population Prospects list. The ranked entries in this list are consistent with the UN list. --Polaron | Talk 00:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the UN document in question and I have two observations. First, I searched the document and the term "Palestine" did not come up. The term used is "Occupied Palestinian Territories." (If you think I have missed something, please point out the page number.) Second, at the front of the document is a "Note" that says the following: "The designations employed in this report and the material presented in it do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The term “country” as used in the text of this report also refers, as appropriate, to territories or areas." Since the UN is not necessarily referring to the territory in question as a "country", this document cannot be used as a source for referring to it as a "country" either. I suppose that if the title of the article was changed to refer to "countries and other territories", it would be a different story, but that would create serious issues as to which other territories should be included, which should be numbered, etc. The current approach (the one in Tewfik's version, to which I reverted) seems reasonable -- keep the reference to "countries" in the title but include certain non-country territories, without numbers. 6SJ7 01:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It is already listed as "Palestinian territories". If you want to add "occupied", that is fine too. List of countries includes it so why not this one? We should strive for internal consistency in Wikipedia's lists. --Polaron | Talk 02:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see now that I made a slight error, but it was based on a reasonable interpretation of your edit summaries. At 00:24 you reverted Tewfik, which changed the name of the entity back to "Palestine." Tewfik changed this at 00:30 and you edited three minutes later, and based on that edit summary I thought that you had reverted back to "Palestine." This was incorrect, as you changed it to "Palestinian territories" -- a phrase that has its own problems and has been controversial on Wikipedia, but is the term used in the UN document that is the source of the information. I'll reserve judgment on whether it is acceptable. It's certainly better than having "Palestine" on a list of countries. The numbering also seems wrong, but now I see that there are a number of non-countries numbered on this list, so the whole numbering system is really meaningless anyway. 6SJ7 03:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

EU in lists

DSuser and I have drafted a complete analysis of why it would be a good or a bad idea to include the EU in lists of countries in some form (either directly in the list or as a special note outside the list). We'd kindly invite all editors who are interested in the EU and/or lists of countries to take a look at Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries, read all of the arguments presented and then state their opinion on what a sensible compromise might look like. Thanks! —Nightstallion 09:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

World population

This article lists the world's population at around 7,6 billion. I've never heard it would be that much, and the article World population says 6,6 billion in July 2007. Entheta 02:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

European Union is inside wich doubled the population of its member nations. I'll remove it because the list is about countries and not loose unions or associations. Otherwise MERCOSUR or SAARC could be added too. Some islands should be deleted as well. They are not countries. -- Stan _talk 11:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

World population:6 615 000 000 (opr.princeton.edu/popclock/) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.110.14.188 (talk) 13:08, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Should the African Union be included as well?

I'm aware that it may be controversial, looking at debates over the European Union.

7FlushSetzer 03:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, the argument for including the EU is that stated by the CIA: that it has already acquired many of the attributes of a country (and is likely to acquire more in the foreseeable future). I don't think this argument can be applied to the African Union. If other unions actually implement a common market, introduce direct elections to a common parliament, have free movement of capital and labour, without discrimination between citizens of the union, etc., then they would be eligible for similar treatment.--Boson 07:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Separate table for country groupings on this page?

As a compromise solution to prevent edit warring about this table, would it be a good idea to include, on this page, a separate table for some "country groupings", including the EU and a few others? The title of the table should be such that it includes only groupings with a reasonable degree of integration. One possibility would be to merge List of regional organizations by population. Edit warriors might then transfer their attentions to discussing which organization to include in that table, based on whatever title we chose to give it, so we should perhaps avoid words like "regional".

If deemed necesary, the title of this article could also be changed to indicate that being a single sovereign state under international law is not a necessary condition for inclusion on this page.--Boson 07:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer a seperate table for this "country goups" which would make the list more clear. Right now it is confusing for many people and the article's name states clearly "list of countries". The argumentation that the EU is "special" would open opportunities to insert all kind of regional assosiations. It would be also fine with me to create a new article for them.(for example: "List of regions by population"). Some islands are part of other countries and should also be listed in a different table to avoid the impression that they are sovereign nations. -- Stan _talk 13:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I still say if you insist that if the is included for comparison purposes, then you could include unranked the 50 United States, Canadian Provinces, Australian States, etc. After all California has a higher population then Canada. States and Provinces have their own heads of states, courts, legislative bodies, flags, anthems, laws, and more. So obviously they are half-a-country like the EU Hypernick1980 05:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Population Density

If anyone would like to, and if it would fit in the chart, it would help my curiosity greatly if the list also included the population density in persons per square kilometers. --Trakon 19:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

See List of countries by population density. --Polaron | Talk 19:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Outdated

I'd like to updated the excessively outdated and grossly incorrect figures for Serbia and Montenegro almost 400,000 people missing), but I fear to unbalance it. What should I do? --PaxEquilibrium 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I've got no UN or official estimate, but still, this is terribly incorrect and outdated. --PaxEquilibrium 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Innacurate

This should not have US and Puerto Rico as different entities. The title of the article is list of countries, puerto rico is not a country. Nor are many of the items in this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.89.125 (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Population in Somalia?

Why the population of Somalia is very much lower in the list than it really is? I mean that is there some political reason why the whole populatin isnt in this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.197.64.15 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus

These territories should be added as de facto independent states as long as territories with the same status, such as Transnistria and Somaliland, are included.Antipoeten 08:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Arab League

The Arab League is neither a country nor has it established state-like structures. Therefore it will be removed from the list. A similarity to the EU has been suggested, but lacks any evidence or citation. Lear 21 14:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What makes the EU so special and where do you draw the line between "state-like" structures and loose associations and what criterias do you apply ? Where is the evidence or citation that the EU is so special ? -- Stan _talk 12:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Read rationale in the CIA World Fact Book: Preliminary statement on EU entry Lear 21 (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Maintain unranked EU entry!

The unranked EU entry should be maintained and regularly reinserted when deleted without discussion. The following rationale has been provided by numerous editors and is backed by external sources and acknowledgments.

a) Country like characteristics: Common market, common policies, common institutions, bodies, agencies, common EU legislation, a single budget financing projects in all member states. Its own budget to fund common programmes such as the European Union's programmes in agriculture, research and education. A common fund for trans-country infrastructure projects and for regional development. Election every 5 years and a European parliament as well as a EU court of justice, common currency Euro, EU-Day (holiday), EU-Licenseplate , EU-Anthem, EU-Citizenship, Schengen agreement, one representation of all 27 member states in WTO, Permanent G8 participant, Permanent UN observer. Common Policy Examples in the city of Berlin: The EU is financing infrastructure, education, social projects etc. In official press conferences and gatherings the national flag stands next to the EU flag.Image of the German Federal Chancellery with 2 standard flags (Germany / EU flag)

b) already ranked in several other media and statistics like CIA World Fact Book: Preliminary statement on EU entry, IMF data sheet, Wikipedia List of countries by GDP (PPP) etc.

c) many other entries are included unranked with unclear state or country definition like the Overseas territories, Vatican, Hongkong and others. EU is not per se an exception.

d) Note that the inclusion of the EU is granted to its sui generis status and can not advocate the inclusion of Opec, Nato, African Union, UN, Commonwealth, Arab League, Mercosur, NAFTA, ASEAN and others. The degree of a state-like-entity and its characteristics make this a singular case.

e) Because of the sui generis status, the 27 member states will remain as single entry and the EU becomes unranked.

f) Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries

Lear 21 (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. I don't like it at the top. I agree with the above, but my main reason is one which is an indisputable rationale: a number of very reliable sources rank it as though a country (e.g. CIA world fact book). - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 23:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook lists many entities that are not countries. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 01:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

World Population Figure

The World figure, from the UN, is a projection made in 2006 - a bit old now. It is also considerably higher than the US Census Bureau's projection, which is approximately 8,106,619,000. I have created a template which estimates world-population based on the US census bureau's figures, and could be used in the table --JimWae (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

european union figures should be included.

if you include the world, it only makes sense to include the EU, since it is comparable to the US in many important economic and demographic ways... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.26 (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Except for the most important way in that the EU in not a country while the US is. IF (and that is a mighty big if) and when the EU becomes a country (de facto and de jure) it will be included on the list. AND we will remove all the members from the like just like the US member states. --Tomtom9041 (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This argument has been had dozens of times on this page. Please don't start again. TastyCakes (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How about doing what they did on the GDP page, so where the EU would fit in, but don't assign it a # - World 1. People's Republic of China 2. India - European Union 3. United States of America 4. Indonesia

Mr. Met 13 (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I really don't see a reason NOT to put it in as long as you don't actualy consider it inside the ranking. Carthradge (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I support this, a lot of people seem to be totally misinformed about the EU. The EU is a sui generis entity, if you dumbly search to make it stick with a pre-existant country form, you will logically and definitely fail, for that there is no precedent.

It should not be added as a "country" to avoid hurting some... sensibilities. But it definitely belong to the list as a not-ranked data, because the European Union is not the Mercosur, African Union or anything. The EU have executive, judiciary, and legislative powers in an original form and even if they don't feel it, as today it cover the daily life of it citizens to a very large extent. For example, the EU citizens elect a parliament producing a common legislation, and this european legislation prevail on the national laws ; the EU also have a Court of Justice, which is the ultimate judiciary juridiction and can break any national judgement infringing the community law, meaning that in spite of what it looks like, the european citizens are ultimately ruled by the same laws. There is plenty of examples. Please let me know when any non-country organization got that sort of power over their member states which usually only states have. :) -Orravan —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

Kosovo

According to German WP the estimated population of Kosovo is 2,126,708 [2], making the country the 141st in population order. --Camptown (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is Serbia listed including Kosovo's population? China is listed *without* Taiwan's population, and Taiwan's status as a country is less accepted than Kosovo's. Serbia's population (by subtraction of the two numbers) would be about 7.73M. Skalskal (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

German WP, whatever that is, is very smart. They got their information from the Statistical office of Kosova. The SOK is one of the most professional Government office run by international and Kosovar experts. Those numbers are no lie. Kosova2008 (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Kosova2008

UN source

Requesting a link (I can't find it) to the latest UN estimates, Please. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's reference 1 in the article. --Polaron | Talk 17:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Population clocks

Doesn't really make sense to me why we're using population clocks as sources. They're not official figures, only predictions, and possibly wrong predictions. Wouldn't it be better to just use the official stated numbers, thus only having to update it once a year?Sbw01f (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So I take it you think that everyone is born and dies on just 1 day each year? What tosh! Wikipedia is a live encyclopedia, and the population clocks being used are those provided officially by the statistical agencies of the country involved! They are reset to whatever number is found after any given Census, and between each Census they provide the best estimate of what the population would be at that time given observed trends. They are far more accurate than outdated figures that may be approaching being a year out of date!202.139.104.226 (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that they're only based on estimates, not official counts. Also, I noticed some of the clocks don't even calculate immigration, meaning their estimates are indisputably incorrect. Sbw01f (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So no answer? Is anyone going to argue that clocks that don't take immigration into account should be kept over official figures? If so why? Another question is why do you use UN estimates, which (correct me if I'm wrong) are for the year 2005, when there are much more uptodate statistics available from places like the CIA factbook? Sbw01f (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The UN estimates are for mid-2007. The CIA Factbook is quite often off for the less developed countries. --Polaron | Talk 13:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding population clocks, I'd be happy to see those figures removed. Comparing countries is one of the main uses of a list like this, and population clock figures make this awkward because they are generally updated at different times. They also make it difficult to confirm that the figure we show reflects the cited source, because the source has usually changed by the time anyone wants to check. -- Avenue (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting that populations remain static? And need to remain static for up to a year before they should be updated? That, my friend, is sheer nonsense!202.139.104.226 (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that population clocks are provided by a perfect oracle? Is shouting "Nonsense!" the best argument you can come up with? Do you really want to trade silly rhetorical questions? Come on, let's get serious.

Maybe in an ideal world, lists like this would incorporate programs to automatically update all the figures according to well-founded and consistent projection models. Well, this isn't an ideal world. We don't have such programs; we don't have such models.

While updating one country's population figure may make that one figure slightly more accurate, making intermittent, piecemeal updates of figures for random countries destroys comparability between countries. It also makes it much harder to check that the figures came from the cited sources.

At the least, anyone changing figures based on a regularly updated population clock should date the source with sufficient accuracy that their edit can be checked. More generally, we need to decide if a list like this should aim for consistency and comparability across countries, or if incremental updates at random times that myopically improve a single figure (but ruin comparisons) are preferred. -- Avenue (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with time-stamping any change with when it was taken - absolutely no problem with that, that is good practice and the format of the table allows for that. In terms of comparability, I would prefer my encyclopedia to be accurate (Isn't that the point of an encyclodpedia - to be accurate, and isn't that one of the greatest qualities of Wikipedia - that it can be up-to-date and accurate before many other sources precisely because contributors are willing to go and find (from a reputable source - and I don't know how you can argue a country's own Statistical Office is not a reputable source - if they're not, why on Earth should we trust any sort of supra-national organisation to be any more accurate?), than comparable - are you saying we should hold up all figures because in a place like Zimbabwe, the only decent comparison that can be made is on figures from 2002 or whenever? And countless other instances around the world like that!202.139.104.226 (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Where are you finding the UN estimates made in 2007? The link in references goes here [3] which says 2006. Anyways, I'm removing Russia's population clock and replacing it with UN figures, since they're one of the ones that don't calculate migration (and no one seems to argue that those should stay). I'll look for others that have the same problem. Sbw01f (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The publication was compiled in 2006 but the estimate listed in Table A.1 is for July 1, 2007. The figures start at p. 57 of the pdf file you linked to. --Polaron | Talk 14:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

China REALLY did change their formula

• var BasePopulation=1321290000
• var PersonPerSecond=0.2159436834

go to http://www.cpirc.org.cn/index.asp and view source code

--JimWae (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)