Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Disputed territories

How come China gets it's disputed territories added-up and listed, but Australia does not? 13,861,038 puts Australia at rank #2, that's even above America... Ahhh - now I think I understand why ... :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.137.129 (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think this is the place for this, but... "America" is not a country. Want proof of this? Search the word "America" here on wiki and see if one single country comes up... So your analogy does not work since this is a list of countries and not continents.(Notconnectedtome (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC))

You're right; this is not the place for this discussion which has taken place previously in numerous venues. You might take a look at this article and see that "America" is not used as a country name therein. The article does speak of "South America", "Central America", "Latin America", and "American Samoa". "United States" (which is, I guess, what you mean when you speak of "America" as country) is used as a country name in this article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To user: 88.110.xxx.xxx

Tibet shall not be listed because, unlike the Transnistria country, the Tibetan region currently has no independence (neither de jure nor de facto). In short, your Moldova analogy doesn't work. - 219.73.86.204 01:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Islands

"16 Indonesia 1,904,569 1.3% Largest and most populous country situated only on islands." Australia is larger and situated only on islands. What is meant by island? Arguably all land is islands.217.43.169.139 (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Australia is a continent and probably thusly considered no more an island than Africa. -130.227.90.20 (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hala'ib Triangle

Was is this counted by egypt and not by sudan while on the wikipedia maps it is shown as part of Sudan. The Honorable Kermanshahi 07:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Territories

Why are the territorys of countrys not added in? Good point! The UK should be much higher up in the rankings. Overseas areas of the United Kingdom are exactly that. They are part of the UK, their citizens have the same citizenship as the mainland and they must be included! YourPTR! 08:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't think that worked in Hong Kong. But there is an issue here, especially for American possessions vs Chinese Special Administrative Regions. Guam is much less independent than Hong Kong, so why does it appear separately on the list? Even Puerto Rico does not set its own foreign policy, and should have the same status as Hong Kong. 204.186.60.191 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, had to fix that title, it was bothering me. Perhaps the reason that Guam and Puerto Rico aren't included in the total territory for the U.S. is because many Americans don't want to think of the U.S. as the imperial power it is. Before anyone accuses me of anti-American bias or anything else outlandish, I'm an American myself; I'm just saying that if the shoe fits... Parsecboy 00:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Numbered

I tend to take the boldness rule a little too far, so I'm wondering if anyone's mad with the new numbers; I've left Taiwan, SADR and Palestine as nations, due to the fact that several sovereign states recognise them as such. Therequiembellishere 05:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

palastine isn't a country... yet. unkownGuy26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.0.195 (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation not needed

{{editprotected}} In the first entry, Russia, there is a {fact} template. This is unneeded because the link to Soviet Union has the same information. Reywas92^Talk_{How's my editing?} 17:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Also, I don't see the need for Indian reservations in United States. That is always accepted. For Tazania, the islands are unneeded here. I'm sure it s is universally accepted that Zanzibar is part of it. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk_{How's my editing?} 17:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The figure in the Soviet Union article is also unsourced and Wikipedia articles should not be used as primary sources. Regarding mentioning Indian reservations in the U.S. entry, there is a user who insists on explicitly mentioning it. It might be better to get his opinion first. (Please check the history). You do have a point with Tanzania as the inclusion of the listed islands as part of Tanzania is uncontroversial. --Polaron | Talk 01:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request. This page is controversial (obviously) and consensus is needed for any changes when full protection is applied. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link that backs up the claim on the size of the USSR: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553017/Union_of_Soviet_Socialist_Republics.html. It was not even remotely hard to find, now please remove the citation needed and include this citation in the main article. Thank you Mecil 14:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the link was provided in the talk page, I put it into the article, but I'm also a bit troubled by the number. I added together Russia and the former Soviets as they appear on this page and get 21,870,593. (It was cursory, and I may have missed something.) Anyone have some more data?Czrisher 17:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My educated guess is because the encarta number includes inland seas...and the Caspian Sea and Aral Sea are quite big...Mecil 19:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup, other things

I went ahead and fixed this talk page to match the article page name; I also merged the edit histories together, so everything is now contained nicely. I archived the a large portion of the talk page (it had never been done before and it was huge), and then I disabled the editprotected tag. I think that a separate table is a great idea, and I think it would be met with broad consensus. I suggest creating a temporary storing ground for the article and laying out what it might look like. If there is a consensus, then the page can be updated, and hopefully unprotected. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area/Temp: Use this page as an article sandbox.

I finally had some time, and I used the sandbox above to create a new page with regional orgs added. I simply copied the template from List_of_countries_by_population and changed the necessary words and figures. Let me know what you think and feel free to clean anything up that is necessary. Malnova 03:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think that this solution does not give to the EU the importance that it deserves. It is totally out of place in a table along with Mercosur and the Commonwealth... --giandrea 12:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In this case, let's add the 2nd table without the EU entry. Let's do that now, since this disagreement does not concern the other organizations. No reason why Malnova's effort should be put on hold in the Temp space. --Vsion 04:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

source for these numbers is not clear

The UN demographic yearbook listed as the source at the bottom of the article does not provide the numbers seen for the article.

For instance it lists the total area of China as 9,596,961km while the article shows 9,598,086. We should identify the source for each figure not found in the UN yearbook source and explicitly list these next to those particular entries rather than implying that the source agrees with all of the numbers listed.Zebulin 20:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The note for China specifically states that it is the sum of mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau. This was done because some editors insisted that Hong Kong and Macau should not be listed separately. Any other figure not from the Demographic Yearbook is listed with a footnote. --Polaron | Talk 00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Land Areas for Israel/Palestinian territories based on Gaza/West Bank info

Ok here's the deal, based on the article on the West Bank, the area is divided into three areas. The first is Palestinian-controlled, Palestinian-administered and is 17% of the West Bank, the second is Israeli-controlled, but Palestinian-administered and is 24% of the West Bank, and the third is Israeli-controlled, Israeli-administered and is 59% of the West Bank.

Understandably the first area (Palestinian-controlled, Palestinian-administered) should't be included in Israel's numbers and should be included in the Palestinian territories, which is how it is. Just as understandably, the third area (Israeli-controlled, Israeli-administered ) *should* be included as being part of Israel and not part of the Palestinian territories, this isn't the case though. The math (59% of the West Bank(5660 Km²)) for that addition to Israel (3340 Km²) comes out to 25,458 Km² including the Gholan Heights, and 24,110 Km² not including them. The Palestinian territories should be subtracted by (3340 Km²) as well. The first area is 962 Km², what to do with the remaining 1719 Km², the second area (Israeli-controlled, but Palestinian-administered), is a good question to the debate regarding it. It'd probably just be best to put an additional figure with both versions with an annotation as to why.

I would have edited this myself, but the article is locked. Hopefully this will be instituted shortly. Anti Career Wikians 05:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Paraguay > Norway

All the information I can find online says that Paraguay is bigger than Norway. So does this list. Take any map though,... It's just not possible. Especially including Spitsbergen. I don't believe it --82.32.140.59 23:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on your mention of Spitsbergen, I suspect your lack of belief might be due to the area distortions at high latitudes inherent in the Mercator projection (or similar projections). Try looking at a map based on an equal-area projection, such as this one. It's still difficult to judge the relative size of a compact country like Paraguay and a long, thin, heavily indented country like Norway, but it may help somewhat. -- Avenue 04:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth

As we're including notional totals for international organisations, I've included that for the 53 members of the Commonwealth. Good that we have a stable consensus on including such institutions, as if we were to remove the Commonwealth we would have to remove the EU as well. In fact, as a large number of Commonwealth member states are in personal union and share the same Head of State, this organisation has greater formal political unity than any 'unique-ish' ('sui generis') intergovernmental body. DSuser 18:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Hundred years ago. Lear 21 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Right now. Check it out: Commonwealth of Nations, Commonwealth Realm, Personal union. Means an awful lot more than 'sui generis'. Both or neither. DSuser 19:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Personal union means absolutely nothing in actual politics for the Commonwealth Realms, as the monarch has no political clout whatsoever, whereas the EU is highly relevant in its member states' politics. Also compare the CIA WFB on this. —Nightstallion 20:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware that we've begun to distinguish between political systems based on 'political clout'; that's about as sensible as allotting supreme power based on 'a watery bint handing out scimitars', and almost as amusing. Sharing a Head of State (whether Monarch or President) and being in personal union means a hell of lot more than having few treaties in common. The UK (and the other Commonwealth Realms) cannot change their Head of State without reference to the parliaments of all other Commonwealth Realms: makes the Treaty of Rome look a bit weak. Not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of constitutional law; oh, I forgot, the EU doesn't have one!

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 12:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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, and the treaties of the European Union *ARE* its constitutional law; 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 14:06, 31 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 09:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

British Indian Ocean Territory

The British overseas territory British Indian Ocean Territory with 60 km2 should be added, even if it is not listed in the UN Demographic Yearbook. It is a British colony, formed in 1965. I was going to make a reference note, but the post was removed before I managed to do so. Frankly, this territory belongs to the list more than for example Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, which are merely dependencies of another dependency (St. Helena). I do not want to remove these, though, I just want to make the list more complete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Ocean_Territory Antipoeten 01:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Regions with no permanent residents are not considered as countries. They are neither listed by the source for the list nor in List of countries. Allowing this will open the door to many other similar territories to be listed. --Polaron | Talk 02:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Some might still prefer for example this Spanish list, which includes 250 entities. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Países_por_superficieAntipoeten 02:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands

I tried to include these two external territories of Australia, but they were deleted. I think these territories should be included, because dependent territories and colonies of other countries (UK, USA, France, Netherlands) are included. Antipoeten 15:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-governing dependent territories are usually included in the list unless they are already included as part of the official figure of another territory. The list should not contain entries whose figures cover the same territories. --Polaron | Talk 15:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Polaron says that the area of these islands are already included in the figures of Australia. If this is the case, it should be added to the information about Australia. Now it just says that Lord Howe Island and Macquarie Island are included. However, I still think that Christmas I and Cocos I. should have entries of their own, as they have another status than f.ex. Lord Howe Island (part of New South Wales) and Macquarie Island (part of Tasmania). Christmas I. and Cocos I. do not belong to one of the Australian states or territories, they are so called external territories.Antipoeten 15:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the changes Polaron made to the page are sufficient to address this issue. Parsecboy 15:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

To your information, here is a list of the external territories of Australia. Of these, Cocos I., Christmas I. and Norfolk I. have a permanent population. I therefore think that Cocos I. and Christmas I. should be added, as well as Norfolk Island, which is already on the list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_and_territories_of_Australia#External Antipoeten 15:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Norfolk Island is not considered as part of "geographic Australia" by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Jervis Bay, Cocos, and Christmas Island are lumped together statistically as a ninth state/territory and are considered part of geographic Australia (since 1996). --Polaron | Talk 15:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. However, to adress the issue about the notes on Australia properly, one should probably add Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Coral Sea Islands Territory + Heard and McDonald Islands as territories that are included in the total area figure of Australia. (See the list of external territories above). By the way, where can I find a page which confirms that Jervis Bay, Cocos, and Christmas Island were "lumped together statistically as a ninth state/territory and are considered part of geographic Australia" in 1996? Antipoeten 16:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I found this one myself: http://144.53.252.30/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/32eb1b908521ad75ca2571220079feee!OpenDocument Quote:"For ASGC purposes, the ABS uses the definition of Australia as set out in section 17(a) of the "Acts Interpretation Act 1901" and as amended by the "Territories Law Reform Act, No. 104, 1992". Geographical Australia, since 1993, includes: New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, Northern Territory, Australian Capital Territory, Jervis Bay Territory, and the External Territories of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands."Antipoeten 19:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Mayotte

Mayotte should not be listed as a part of the Comoros. Even if the Comoros claim the area, it is de facto and de jure an overseas collectivity of France, and should have its own entry. I have now made this change, and changed the area of the Comoros respectively. Note also that the area figures of the Comoros are wrong in both the UN Demographic Yearbook and in many Wiki-sites about the country. I refer to the Spanish site, which is correct. References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayotte

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoras Antipoeten 22:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Saint Barthélemy/Saint Martin

The French island Saint Barthélemy were along with Saint Martin (Saint Martin refers to the French part of an island which is shared with the Netherlands: The Dutch part is called Sint Maarten) established as a French overseas collectivity in 2007, and should (along with Mayotte) be on the list. Their area should then be deducted from the area of Guadeloupe, since they were dependencies of Guadeloupe prior to 2007. I have now made this change and reduced the area of Guadeloupe respectively. References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Martin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Barthélemy Antipoeten 22:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong/Macao

Since Hong Kong and Macao are self-governing parts of China, it could be argued that they were listed individually. I will not do so, but I await a discussion on the matter.Antipoeten 23:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Tristan da Cunha

Tristan da Cunha and Ascension Island are listed as seperate territories here. These islands are dependencies of Saint Helena, and might well be listed. But if so, the figure of Tristan da Cunha does not make sense. Rather: It does not make sense listing the island of Tristan da Cunha alone, when this dependency is really an archipelago (Tristan da Cunha Islands) consisting of Tristan da Cunha main island, Gough Island, Inaccessible Island and Nightingale Islands. The main geographical source, Merriam-Webster´s Geographical Dictionary, claims that the total area of the islands is 135 km2. So does this site: http://geography.about.com/od/specificplacesofinterest/a/tristandacunha.htm I will therefore change the figure accordingly. Antipoeten 00:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

French overseas collectivities

I have to repeat, it makes no sense adding just three of the French overseas collectivities (French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna and Saint Pierre and Miquelon) as separate "countries" in this article, while the three other territories with the same status (Mayotte, Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy are omitted. Besides, Mayotte is a not part of the republic of the Comoros and should not be listed along with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_collectivity Antipoeten 14:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

De facto states

What is country is not that obvious but if independent and recognised entities are meant then this list contains many other territories. So why can't the de facto independent states' areas be listed also? Alæxis_¿question? 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The only entries in the table are those considered by the UN as countries or country-equivalents (see ISO 3166-1). If an area is already included in another entry's figure, then it is excluded from the list. The table in its current form has no overlapping entries and encompasses all permanently inhabited areas of the world with native populations. You can add figures for these de facto independent areas in the footnotes (if not already there). --Polaron | Talk 19:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why is Taiwan there? Alæxis_¿question? 19:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it is in the ISO list of countries and is not included in the official figure for the PRC? --Polaron | Talk 19:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but UN refers to Taiwan as Taiwan, province of China (there also). So the only difference (from the UN point of view) between Taiwan and, say, Northern Cyprus, is that the former has got a two-letter ISO code. I don't think that it automatically follows from this that we should have one and exclude the other from the list. Including any entity here doesn't imply anything so I cannot see any harm adding unrecognised states would cause (it wouldn't even cause re-ranking). Alæxis_¿question? 19:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but the official area figure published by the PRC still excludes the area controlled by Taiwan. The Northern Cyprus area is already included in the official area figure for Cyprus so is excluded. The current list has no overlapping entries. --Polaron | Talk 19:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that area figures published by the PRC don't include Taiwan? I'd like to see that... Alæxis_¿question? 19:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See Footnote 37 in the UN Demogrpahic Yearbook, which is where the figure in the table comes from. [1] --Polaron | Talk 20:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the list published by UN, not PRC as you claimed, isn't it? Alæxis_¿question? 08:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Where do you think the UN gets it numbers? Also, we're talking about this list. Where do you think the numbers on this list are from? --Polaron | Talk 13:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It was you who wrote first about official PRC figures, not me. Alæxis_¿question? 13:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

---

But we are getting distracted. Cyprus and China consider TRNC and Taiwan as part of its territories respectively. UN and the majority of the other countries don't recognise either of these territories. What is the substantial difference between them so that one is included and one isn't? Why are we obliged to blindly copy the some UN list? Alæxis_¿question? 13:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned it above already. The China figure excludes Taiwan while the Cyprus figure includes the TRNC - in the same way that Puerto Rico is listed because the U.S.A. figure does not include it and Greenland is listed because it is not included in the Denmark figure. --Polaron | Talk 14:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So now you're talking about UN and not PRC figures )). Why should we blindly follow that particular UN list then? Alæxis_¿question? 06:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Which set of figures should we follow then without making a judgement about what gets included or not. The UN is consistent with the ISO list, which is pretty much what most international organizations use. I don't think there is a more widely accepted list of countries than the UN/ISO list. If you know of a more internationally accepted list of country area figures that have no overlapping entries, then replace the entire list with that then. --Polaron | Talk 14:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

UN doesn't recognise Taiwan as a country. Neither do most of other int'l organisations. I feel like it's the tenth time I'm writing about it. What about asking for rfc over this matter? Alæxis_¿question? 11:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That might be the best way to go. My only point is that since Taiwan is not included in the listed figure for China, excluding it would mean excluding a populated, self-governing area from the list completely. Note that this is not the case with other "unrecognized countries" since they are included in the listed figures for another entry. Please do get a wider opinion if you can. --Polaron | Talk 15:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of unrecognised countries

The dispute is whether to include (possibly without rank) the unrecognised de facto independent countries (considering that Taiwan is already in the list). See the previous thread for the discussion. Alæxis_¿question? 09:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

US figure

The CIA World Factbook shows the total area of the US as 9,826,630 sq km (including only the 50 states and D.C.), yet the figure here shows 9,629,091. The World Factbook entry was last updated 7 Sep 2007, while the UN figure is from 2004. What is causing the discrepancy? —divus 04:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the logic: Prior to the fall of soviet union, US didn't care for China therefore always listed China as 3rd largest. After USSR fell, US sets eyes upon China. It does not want to be regarded as smaller than China because the two countries are very close in size. So it made 2 major modifications. Mod 1: From 9.3M sq km to 9.6M sq km. And Mod 2: From 9.6M sq km to 9.8M sq km. Because China was always regarded as #3 by the world, US cannot outright make its claim validly. So through Mod 1, US successfully convinced people (that care) that China + taiwan is bigger than US, but not China by itself. After couple of years of no dispute, US is confident enough to make its full claim to the #3 spot. Thereby upgrading its ill-defined EXTRA-TERRITORIAL (not territorial) water space by another .2M sq km. Now, China + taiwan is also smaller than US. Bottom line, US is as big as it says it is. But if you simply look at satelite images, US is 9.3M sq km and China is 9.6M. Unless US incorporates Iraq, US is not bigger than china. Please note that from 1995 to 2008, US has grown by about .45M sq km. That's about the size of Spain. Go look at the map and tell me where "inland" can US find this much water space? Bull$hit is bull$shit. CIA is all about DISINFORMATION. And they are quite good at it.

The US figure

Does the United States figure take into account the USMOI? -Henry W. Schmitt 05:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not. The figure reported by the UN Demographic Yearbook refers only to the 50 states and DC. --Polaron | Talk 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the US figure to use the data from the CIA fact book as that source has more detail and splits out the information into land, sea, and total areas. It's also a more recent source than the one currently being used. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion already as to why the CIA figures are unreliable for some countries. Please see the archive. I have ranked the US 3rd to reflect the actual ordering in the UN DYB and have noted the CIA figure in the Notes, similar to how alternative figures for other countries are listed. --Polaron | Talk 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd strongly recommend leaving at least a footnote that refers to the source conflict because a lack of even acknowledgement of the murky ranking is sure to invite revert wars or at least a lot of good faith switching of the rankings by those simply convinced a mistake must have been made.Zebulin 13:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm no expert in geography, and there seems to be a mild preference for the UN figures (although I don't consider them completely neutral either), so I'll leave it alone. I assume the discrepancy arises from differences in claims regarding territorial waters. It is possible that these have changed between 2004 and 2007, but I doubt anyone who is against the CIA figures will accept that possibility. (I'm no fan of the CIA, but I doubt they'd be so petty as to put lies in an on-line fact book.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that the CIA is required by law to accept at face value all current US government explicit positions on the status of territory your explanation would appear to make a lot of sense. The US may have previously left some territorial water claims vague for various reasons and now I suspect it has solidified it's stances resulting in some accomodation of the claims by the CIA in order to comply with the law.Zebulin 15:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE READ: Prior to the fall of soviet union, US didn't care for China therefore always listed China as 3rd largest. After USSR fell, US sets eyes upon China. It does not want to be regarded as smaller than China because the two countries are very close in size. So it made 2 major modifications. Mod 1: From 9.3M sq km to 9.6M sq km. And Mod 2: From 9.6M sq km to 9.8M sq km. Because China was always regarded as #3 by the world, US cannot outright make its claim validly. So through Mod 1, US successfully convinced people (that care) that China + taiwan is bigger than US, but not China by itself. After couple of years of no dispute, US is confident enough to make its full claim to the #3 spot. Thereby upgrading its ill-defined EXTRA-TERRITORIAL (not territorial) water space by another .2M sq km. Now, China + taiwan is also smaller than US. Bottom line, US is as big as it says it is. But if you simply look at satelite images, US is 9.3M sq km and China is 9.6M. Unless US incorporates Iraq, US is not bigger than china. Please note that from 1995 to 2008, US has grown by about .45M sq km. That's about the size of Spain. Go look at the map and tell me where "inland" can US find this much water space? Bull$hit is bull$shit. CIA is all about DISINFORMATION. And they are quite good at it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.23 (talk • contribs) 10:49, October 1, 2008

The CIA factbook is published by Americans who of course want their country to seem larger than it is and larger than China. If you look at the breakdown for the US in the factbook it shows 6.16 mil land and 0.66 water. Since the introduction of the article specifically states that territorial waters are not included, it seems clear to me that China is #3. I also think the UN figures should be quoted instead of the ones released by an American organization because of their obvious bias and self-interest.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.44.59 (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Layout / Serbia

There seems to be something wrong with the layout for Serbia. Can't seem to find what. Anyone have a clue? JurgenG 12:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be OK now, tnx JurgenG 06:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Antarctica

Perhaps we could go through the reasoning for why Antarctic claims/territories are not included? I couldn't find any discussion on the subject in the archive. -- Nidator 20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see,this article's intro says: This is a list of the countries of the world sorted by total area. The list ranks sovereign states, as well as self-governing dependent territories. and the Antarctica article says: As the only uninhabited continent, Antarctica has no government and belongs to no country. Various countries claim areas of it, although as a rule, no other countries recognize such claims. The area between 90°W and 150°W is the only part of Antarctica, indeed the only solid land on Earth, not claimed by any country., citing "Antarctica - The World Factbook".. -- Boracay Bill 23:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer! It is not that I wanted them on the list, just that I was interested in the reasoning. I assume that even if they weren't in Antarctica these areas would still not be included as they do not have any indigenous populations. Do you know if there exists an overview on the web over which countries recognise the different claims? I would assume that, for example, Norway and the UK have recognised each other's claims. Is it correct to say that the Antarctic Treaty freezes the national claims though? The relevant article says; "does not recognize, dispute, or establish territorial sovereignty claims and no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force". I'm not sure that is the same. -- Nidator 15:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this, but I note that the CIA World Factbook says: A number of countries have set up year-round research stations on Antarctica. Seven have made territorial claims, but not all countries recognize these claims. In order to form a legal framework for the activities of nations on the continent, an Antarctic Treaty was negotiated that neither denies nor gives recognition to existing territorial claims; signed in 1959, it entered into force in 1961. -- Boracay Bill 22:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

All time list

Is there a list of largest countries of all time? This would be a good page to have if there isn't. If there is, we need a link. I imagine Mongolia in 1290 would top the list, followed by the Soviet Union.

216.57.220.63 15:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See "List of largest empires"

--189.156.185.112 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

percent total area and total area

I think we are mixing some figures here. The percent land area appears to be calculated by comparison with the figure for total land area of the world. Unfortunately the total areas are not land areas for most if not all of the countries. Rather figures for total area seems to include substantial water area that seems to be excluded from the world land area total. For some countries such as Canada this makes an enormous difference.Zebulin 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your right! The percentage now is this:

% =	country's total area (land + water) world's total land

That makes countries like Canada appear to have more land than they actually do. The percentage should be changed to either this:

% =	country's total land world's total land

or this:

% =	country's total area (land + water) world's total area (land + water)

DWMD w (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Square Miles

I don't suppose the data could also be given in Imperial units as well? Not everybody knows metric and to someone such as myself who wasn't taught it the square kilometre listings are gibberish. Thank you for your consideration. Canadian Bobby 21:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Even though I'm an American by citizenship (The U.S. being one of the only three countries which have not completed Metrication to the Metric system), I don't think this is a good idea, as the figures are sourced from a publication which lists area in square kilometers. -- Boracay Bill 01:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be a big deal. Most/all of the country pages list their size in both metric and imperial units, so it seems pedantic to insist on having only metric units on this page. There are plenty of sources for the same data in imperial units. By the way, my username notwithstanding, I'm an American, too. Canadian Bobby 06:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

listing both for a single country is one thing but the table will look far too busy with both listed here.Zebulin 21:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How familiar are you with large values of square miles? Do you really have a feel for how big 100,000 square miles is, for example? I think this list is most helpful by being able to compare one country to another. (I, too, am an American—however, as a scientist, I'm as comfortable with kilometers as miles.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can grasp what 100,000 square miles is. However, when I see 100,000 square kilometers, I don't know what that is equivalent to. I would have to do it on a calculator. However, I really shouldn't have to do it on a calculator since the data could just as easily be listed in imperial units. Canadian Bobby 05:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, which has begun encyclopedias in languages such as Gothic (http://got.wikipedia.org) and Crimean Tatar (http://crh.wikipedia.org), to not include square mileage, just because it would look to 'busy'. I don't understand Gothic, but presumably somebody does, and Wikipedia accommodates them. There are millions of people to whom area in miles would have more meaning than area in kilometers. Stats in square miles should be added. MrPMonday (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think that this is a good idea, but would note here that {{convert|100000|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}} renders as follows: 100,000 km² (39,000 sq mi).

If that were done, though, the first few table entries might look like this:

Rank	Country / Territory	Area[a]	% of Total	Notes
—	World	148,939,063 km2 (57,505,694 sq mi)	100%	Total land coverage (29.2% of Earth's surface)
1	Russia	17,098,242 km2 (6,601,668 sq mi)	11.5%	Largest country in the world.
2	Canada	9,984,670 km2 (3,855,100 sq mi)	6.7%	Largest country in the Western Hemisphere. Longest coastline.
3 / 4 (disputed)	People's Republic of China	9,598,094 km2 (3,705,845 sq mi)1 9,640,821 km2 (3,722,342 sq mi)2	6.4% 6.5%	Largest all-Asian country, second largest Asian country (after Asian part of Russia). Total of separate UN figures for mainland China (9,596,961) and the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong (1,104 km²) and Macau (29 km²). Both values exclude the disputed territories of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu which the Republic of China (Taiwan) has continued to govern after the PRC replaced it on the mainland. 1 Includes Tibet. Excludes other disputed territories. 2 Includes PRC-administered area (Aksai Chin and Trans-Karakoram Tract, both territories claimed by India but exclude Arunachal Pradesh which is administered by India), Taiwan is not included
3 / 4 (disputed)	United States	9,629,091 km2 (3,717,813 sq mi)	6.5%	Includes only the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The total area is listed as 9,826,630 km² by the CIA World Factbook. The total area is listed as 9,522,055 km² by the Encyclopædia Britannica. Second-largest country in Western Hemisphere Note: The CIA World factbook has made numerous major changes to the figures reported for the U.S. territorial extent. From the initial publishing of the CIA Factbook in 1989 through 1996, its total area was listed as 9,372,610 km². The listed total area changed to 9,629,091 km² in 1997, to 9,631,418 km² in 2004, to 9,631,420 km² in 2006, and to 9,826,630 km² in 2007.

{{convert}} does provide some flexibility in formatting its output and it would be possible to either enhance {{convert}} to provide some additional flexibility or make a special-purpose template to work similarly {{convert}} but to format the output specially for this table. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Is your concern, Boracay, that converting to miles would be problematic since the source has been quoted for square km? If so, I don't think this is a problem, because what were really quoting from the sources is the size of the land masses; mathematical conversions from miles to kilometers won't make the data unreliable. Adding mileage would help a lot of people understand what the data means, making it more accessible. MrPMonday (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the square miles would be both a benefit to many readers and not be a problem concerning the sourcing of material. We should make this happen.LedRush (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Responding to MrPMonday, I'm ambivalent about it. Doing this in every one of the 200+ table entries adds quite a bit of clutter, and saying km² contributes a bit of confusion in entries with notes identified by superscripted numbers (in the example above, I made no attempt to address this). OTOH, WP:MOS#Conversions says "Conversions to and from metric and imperial/US units should generally be provided.", with two specific exceptions which do not apply here. My inclination would be to go with the MOS guidance, perhaps after bringing the case of clutter in large tables up on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style to check consensus about table clutter. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wholesale deletions of contennt

What in the world is going on with this article? I happen to have it on my watchlist, and a recent change to the Pakistan entry in the table caused it to pop up. Looking at that Pakistan entry, I see superscripted ¹ and ² items which apparently do not relate to any associated footnotes. Geez. I am tempted to go on a rampage deleting material which is not supported by properly cited supporting sources. -- Boracay Bill 12:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Unranked EU entry

The introduction of the unranked EU entry in Wikipedia lists has been thoroughly discussed Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries.

The most significant arguments for it´s inclusion in lists are:

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.

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

c) The significant degree of integrated policies leads to the necessity of the inclusion for comparative reasons. Because of the sui generis status, the 27 member states will remain as single entry and the EU becomes unranked.

d) Note that the inclusion of the EU is granted to its advanced 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.

Lear 21 (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So because the EU is special it gets to be in all country lists despite not actually being a country. Despite huge unresolved obstacles (which are not currently being tackled) to it ever becoming a country we will give it honorary country status while dismissing all other special non country entities qualifications out of hand. I don't think consensus works that way. However special it may be until it is an actual country it will need broad consensus to be included in the various country lists. If you don't want it constantly removed it's presence should not be disruptive and it should be clear that it does not technically qualify to be on the list and of course there should not be a large group of editors that are intent on excluding it from that list. Getting an exception to a rule is a privilege, not a right, sometimes granted to special cases. I strongly recommend returning the EU to it's original place outside the list rather than within it. It's presence should reflect more of an editorial note than an implication that it is a defacto country awaiting the ironing out of some trivial details before it joins the ranks of the sovereign states.Zebulin (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the problem in including the EU and "other special non country entities" in this list, as long as they are unranked (i.e., don't change the ordinal rank of countries themselves). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Also consider this. Every case that is made for including the EU in a list as a sovereign state is inherently a case for removing all EU members from that list as no longer being countries or as being special cases which have some sovereign state properties but which nonetheless are no longer fully members of the set of soverign states. If the EU has a sui generis status that has somehow given it some of the sovereignty of the member states then those member states must have somehow permanently surrendered some of their sovereignty and have themselves become "sui generis" of sorts by no longer enjoying the sovereignty that defines a country as a member of these lists. If the EU is a special case automatically deserving status as a country then it's member states are now special cases automatically disqualified as members of lists of countries. You cannot be a sovereign state that is part of a sovereign state.

It gets worse of course. Texas is a part of the US. It is not a sovereign state. However it is a very special non sovereign entity. It has country like characteristics: Common market, common policies, common institutions, bodies, agencies, common Texan legislation, a single budget financing projects in all member counties. Its own budget to fund common programmes such as the Texas departments of agriculture, research and education. A common fund for trans-state infrastructure projects and for regional development. Elections every 2 years and a texan legislature as well as a Texan court of justice, common currency (dollar), Texas Independence Day (March 2) (holiday), Texas Licenseplate , Texas-Anthem and even Texas-Citizenship. Somehow country like characteristics don't seem quite so special anymore.

The best place for it is outside the list itself in the introductory text. The IMF lists the EU separately from countries (it also lists the western hemisphere and the G8 among other non sovereign states) The CIA does not list the EU in the lists but rather above the lists or as an editorial comment outside the lists. From the CIA factbook "Thus, inclusion of basic intelligence on the EU has been deemed appropriate as a new, separate entity in The World Factbook. However, because of the EU's special status, this description is placed after the regular country entries." Zebulin (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Including all other special non country entities in the list would simply be a matter of crowding. It would however be superior to just singling out the EU for special treatment because we think it's just special enough.Zebulin (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read rationale in the CIA World Fact Book: Preliminary statement on EU entry Lear 21 (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Check out their list of areas [2]. I guess the EU is exactly as special as the Atlantic ocean. If you cite their area list as a guide we will need to include several large bodies of water as well.Zebulin (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Arguments a)-d) remain. AND: the rationale of the CIA World Fact Book: Preliminary statement on EU entry remains as well. Lear 21 (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If by "remain" you mean rigorously refuted then yes I agree arguments a)-d) remain.Zebulin (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Your argument that the EU member states have became sui generis sovereign countries is correct. But the conclusion that in this case they have to be removed as well is wrong. In your perspective 2 glasses both half filled with wine are not worth to considered as full and should´nt be drunk. The opposite is accurate. One half-sovereign-supranational state and many not-anymore-fully-sovereign countries have to be mentioned both. Plus: Your quote:"Getting an exception to a rule is a privilege, not a right, sometimes granted to special cases." This is very obvious a special and well argued case. By very many editors. Lear 21 (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Lear, we've discussed this repeatedly. There was a consensus to list the EU in the notes section, not in the actual table. There is no consensus to do otherwise. Stop edit-warring, or you will be reported for disruptive editing. Are you here for the good of this page, or are you here to push a POV? If it's the former, then stop reverting and start discussing. If the latter, perhaps you should find another website to frequent.

For the sake of discussion, we could also make the argument that every US state should be included in this list. Alaska is larger than all but 18 states (and by states, I mean sovereign countries, not US states). If we're going to include quasi-state entities on this list, where does it end? Who gets to decide what the cut-off point is? Instead of finding a definite, objective line in a murky haze, let's instead use a simple criteria. Is the proposed entry listed at List of Countries? No? Oh, we're sorry, little Tommy isn't tall enough for this ride. Come back next year when he's grown a little more. Parsecboy (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with this compromise. The EU is included, but diffentiated from the other entries; fine by me. —Nightstallion 13:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm also fine with the compromise in general, but you need to realize that Tommy is actually tall enough for this ride, per your criteria. He's listed last. Also note that there are already several non-country entities in this list. At the bottom of the list I see several territories and colonies, for example. A quick tip-off is the fact that there are 232 entities listed. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Lear put the EU on that list, and it's been continuously reverted. So no, "Tommy" is not tall enough for this ride. Parsecboy (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

All those "extra" entries you refer to are also listed in List of countries. --Polaron | Talk 17:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. The European Union (AKA Tommy) is also listed in List of countries. (Also note that the two lists actually do have some significant differences.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: The stated arguments a)-d) remain significant, relevant and have been gathered and approved by more than 13 users. Read CIA World Fact Book: Preliminary statement on EU entry, and realize why an inclusion makes sense. Lear 21 (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ben check the Annex_to_the_list_of_countries which is actually linked to at the start of the List of countries article "In the Annex to the list of countries, an outline is given on the entities not included in this list" and that the entire purpose of the annex appeared to be to describe the consensus for that article. It would appear that the EU doesn't belong on that list by that criteria. I would maintain however that the EU can be included in other lists on an article by article basis depending on how the list is actually defined.Zebulin (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

the problem here is the rigidity of some users while the definition of country is not. we could discuss about the UK entry, wich is a union of countries. above all World is not a valid entry as well. one can motivate saying that it's there for reference, and so could be EU. putting entries of organizations like NATO instead would be quite anomalous. --Zimbricchio (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

See also countrysize

Hello,

I added a link to Countrysize in the See Also section. It was very quickly deleted and I now understand that it was spam. The site is just an alternative way of presenting the data that's on this page which is intended to give people a better idea of scale.

If any editor is interested you can have a look at the site at countrysize.com. Hope you like it, and maybe one day it will get an entry on its own merits ;-)

thanks,

Simem (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Map data

Hi, If you update the data for any reason, could you please check if the map is still up to date? It's just a case of looking for the country you've changed on the map, and checking it is still coloured properly based on the new figures. If it's not up to date, you can either update it yourself on commons, or let me know on my talk page, and I'll do it. Thanks. Briefplan (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

#2 spot

The number two spot is listed with a Chinese flag. Should be Canadian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.65.18 (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're seeing that. I see it perfectly fine with the Canadian flag where it should be. Try refreshing your browser cache and look again. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

population density

This page is great, but it would be even greater if it included a population density (persons/km^2) for each country, as of 2000 or whatever. SystemBuilder (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Countries by population density - Briefplan (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

Kosovo has indepandence on 17. February --Boris 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

The source used for the size of all countries is good and valid, but the interpretation of it seems to be original research. For some countries, all territories are included while that isn't the case for others. To focus on some of the best known countries (I presume), the French overseas territories are not included when counting the size of France. In contrast, the "overseas territories" of the US (Alaska, Hawa'i) or Spain (Canary Islands, Balearic Islands) are included. This looks a bit strange, and the selection of when to included and when not to include certain areas look very arbitrary, not to say faulty. I'm sure there are many similar cases in other countries, I just use France, Spain and the US to illustrate the case. JdeJ (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the primary source more closely, you'll see that there is absolutely no interpretation at all. For France, in footnote #66, you'll see the line "Excluding Overseas Departments, namely French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Reunion, shown separately." For Spain, in #87, it states "Including the Balearic and Canary Islands, and Alhucemas, Ceuta, Chafarinas, Melilla and Penon de Vélez de la Gomera." We are merely taking what the source states, and importing it to this article. I will be removing the OR tag on the article, as there are no grounds for keeping it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you were quite right to remove the tag based on the argument above. However, I still find it very strange and wonder what the rational for this is. Sticking to the case I already mentioned, why should Hawai'i and the Canary Islands be included in the US and Spain respectively while other criterias are applied to France? The whole thing seems a bit strange.JdeJ (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit strange, but I suppose they have their logic. I'm not sure why they exclude the French overseas departments, which have the same status in France that Alaska and Hawaii do in the US. Also, it's strange that the exclusion of the French territories, as well as the inclusion of the Spanish overseas territories, both are mentioned in footnotes. With the US, nothing is mentioned, be it Alaska and Hawaii, or US territories like Guam, American Samoa, and so forth. Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

are you talking about Colombia??? is different... besides, San Andres Islas is not a disputed territory with Nicaragua anymore, the Haya court decided that these territories can't be disputed, and are colombian territory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.78.232.205 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)