Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

check out the lastest version of World FACTBOOK

It shows for China: total: 9,596,961 sq km land: 9,569,901 sq km water: 27,060 sq km

great math. so much for WORLD FACTS lol...

Also, the new entry for Russia shows: total: 17,098,242 sq km land: 16,377,742 sq km water: 720,500 sq km

yet the 1994 edition showed: Total area km2: 17,075,200 Land area km2: 16,995,800

Can someone tell me how da hell did russia LOSE THAT MUCH LAND?? Did China invade?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc900 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Major Edit, Need Support

I just permanently move China ahead of US. I am sick of the lie that US and China are disputed. The fact is China has always been third largest. US needs to annex some other country if it wants to claim 3rd. My edit reflects the true extent of both empires. Excluding coastal and territorial waters, which the the standard way of calculation, China is 3rd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.226.99 (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

stop moving us ahead of china!

Its P over U. Don't you know how to alphabetize??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.226.99 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Positioning of EU & Antarctica etc.

An anon wants me to discuss this.l

At the moment this list starts off with a nice list of specific entities that are not included before the actual list. This is quite ridiculous. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to start this list with a list of entities that are not included in the list, before doing the list itself. It makes far more sense to put them after the list, and I made an edit to that effect. Is there any objection to this edit beyond the fact that I didn't put something on talk first (the objection in the edit summary)? Pfainuk talk 21:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"intro"

• Noteworthy entities that are not included Antarctica and the European Union

"Not included but noteworthy entities"

• Antarctica is the 5th largest continent and comprises some 14,200,000 km². The following countries have territorial claims in the continent: Argentina (969,000 km²), Australia (6,120,000 km²), Chile (1,250,000 km²), France (432,000 km²), New Zealand (450,000 km²), Norway (2,500,000 km²) and United Kingdom (1,395,000 km²), which to some extent overlap. The area from 90°W to 150°W (2,100,000 km²) is currently unclaimed territory. According to the Antarctic Treaty, national claims are frozen, and thus Antarctica is not strictly considered official property of these countries, though they do hold territorial claims to parts of it. These areas usually have no human inhabitants, excluding scientists. Areas of Antarctica are not included for the respective countries below.
• The European Union is a sui generis supranational union composed of 27 member states. The total area of the territories of the 27 member states is 4,422,773 km² , and would be ranked 7th if it were included (3.0% of world's total land area).

Agreed non listed entitles belong underneath the main table rather than above it, further attempts to move it to the top really should be undone until consensus is reached here on the talk page. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec with below) So far the only argument against these changes on this article has been that the previous consensus was otherwise. Nothing on the substance of the issue whatsoever. But this is not an argument. Consensus can change. If there is no argument of substance against the edit, why are people reverting? And as I say, it seems thoroughly bizarre to start a list with what is potentially a very long list of entities that are not included on that list. Pfainuk talk 12:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me again why the European Union deserves a mention on this article at all when others are left out? The EU is not a country, its not a territory. There is no real justification for including it on this page, but a compromise is to mention it in the list of entities not included but that list belongs underneath the main list.

Why is the European Union so important it deserves a mention whilst... Council of Europe , African Union and perhaps even the Commonwealth of nations are left off. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. This proposal is in conflict with the reached compromise regarding the entry of the EU. After long discussions on this topic the compromise was to include the EU's entry in the initial text of the article, but not in the actual table (even unnumbered). Please check the talk page discussions for verification. - Should this discussion lead to another order of the article, I would strongly suggest to merge all entries into one table again, where the former "special" entries would be listed unnumbered. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, would you please check this discussion archive first, before you reopen old questions ... Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area/EU discussion. Cheers. MikeZ (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see full consensus reached in that discussion and it did take place a long time ago. I agree the information may be useful but so would seeing data on the African Union or Council of Europe. The European Union being treated as a special case is rather offensive when others are left off. Again i would like those pushing for the European Union to remain on this list to consider creating a new article for international organsations that the EU and other organsations could be included on to show all the data such as population / land / density etc. That article list could then be linked in the intro of all these country articles and the issue of the EU inclusion would no longer be needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, you keep on reverting this edit, but have yet to come up with a good reason why the edit should not be made. You say there is no new consensus. But as yet there is no argument against the edit. And if no argument against the edit is forthcoming, then we can reasonably assume a new consensus. A consensus 18 months ago is not a good reason to keep on reverting, particularly when attached to no argument other than the existence of that consensus.

The EU cannot go on the list with the current inclusion criteria because it does not meet those criteria, so the notion of putting it in without a change to the inclusion criteria is a non-starter. A change to the inclusion criteria could have large and unintended consequences, not limited to the issue of the EU. Pfainuk talk 12:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Pfainuk, although i think the "world" should continue to be included in the tables as unranked like it is now rather than pushed into the notes or somewhere else on the page. The "world" should be the only non country or territory included. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with MikiZ entirely. The discussion that lead to the current version has been very deeply, long and included more than 10 established editors. The statistical inclusion of the EU in several non Wikipedia lists like the IMF, CIA WorldfactBook and many more is the base of the inclusion or special mentioning at Wikipedia. There is no need for a revision of this longstanding compromise. Lear 21 (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well i fail to see the European Union included on the IMF list of "countries". When it comes to the European Union on the CIA world fact book i notice it is right at the BOTTOM of the list. People on here simply seek for it to be included at the bottom rather than above the table itself. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No-one here is arguing that it should be removed altogether. What we want is not to have to wade through a potentially very long list of entities not included in the list before we actually get to the list.

As I keep on saying, consensus can change. So far, the only objection to the edit on this list is the fact that it has been discussed before. Policy says that that doesn't matter. The consensus made in the past does not have to remain the same for all time. If there is no objection other than the fact that this edit may involve a change in consensus, I think we can fairly consider consensus to have changed. Pfainuk talk 18:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree that a consensus can change. But, clearly that's not the case here. Currently, there are two editors in favor for a new structure of the article and two against it. That's hardly a new consensus, isn't it?

As for the actual issue at hand: The EU is too much important to be left out at the very end of the article. That's why the current consensus was based on keeping the EU's entry at the INITIAL section of the article. That was not my favorite solution, as I would like to include the EU into the very list (unnumbered) - I content myself with the standing compromise, but I will definitively do not agree to put the entry to the very end of the list. That would need a larger discussion and a broader vote on your proposal to create a new consensus first.

As for your argument of a potential long list at the top of the article: I fail to see this list to get any longer. The only two entries are for the Antarctica and the EU. Both entries are included because of there specific unique characteristics, Antarctica being a continent of its own, and the EU being the only existing multi-national organization that fulfills several criteria of a country already (for verification and arguments (legislation, parliament, currency,...) please refer to the discussion archive). This is why the Council of Europe, African Union and the Commonwealth of nations are not included, because those organizations clearly fail to fulfilling the criteria of a country to the degree the EU does. So, there is really no risk of a "potentially very long list of entities". BTW, the List of sovereign states is exactly composed in the same structure as the standing compromise of this list. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The council of Europe also has a parliamentary assembly and there is the European Court of Human Rights which is more important than the EU court. I agree that no international organisation has gone as far towards status as a sovereign state as the European Union but how are we to decide where the fair cut off point is? Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries#Characteristics of the EU Gave some valid examples. The fact remains the European Union at present is not a country and not a territory. Antartica is a clear exception because parts of it are claimed by many countries.

I would rather the EU not be included on this list at all because we do not allow things actually described as "countries" on like Scotland so i dont see why the EU need be listed either. But if it is included i dont see why it should take prime position above the actual list. I still think it should just be mentioned in the introduction saying this list does not include trade blocs and international organisations like the European Union. Then link to trade bloc where there is a template showing population, land area etc of the EU, AU, and other international organisations. I would also prefer to see a new article created with a table for all of the information about the different trade blocs etc so its sortable. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You say: "[t]hat would need a larger discussion and a broader vote on your proposal to create a new consensus first." That's not part of any policy. Policy doesn't even require me to get a basic talk page consensus unless someone objects: if no-one objects, the change sticks - silence implies consent. And if the only objections are procedural rather than substantial, it seems fair to assume that the substance has consensus. Comment by Pfainuk talk 15:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC) continues below

As said before, my main objection is that the EU is too much important to be left out at the very end of the article. That's substantial. Because we disagree in that point, the procedural argument did come into play. MikeZ (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, but that was the first point of substantial objection, and I was responding to the quote in my post. I would strongly disagree with the notion that any entity that does not meet the inclusion criteria for this list (sovereign countries and dependent territories) is more important, in the context of this list, than any entity that does. In the context of this list, the Vatican, an entity that meets the inclusion criteria for this list, is more important than the EU, an entity that does not meet the inclusion criteria for this list. Pfainuk talk 12:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

On the list of sovereign states, I've already started up exactly the same discussion there.

So the EU has country-like characteristics. So what? It's hardly the only entity that is neither a sovereign country nor a dependent territory that has country-like characteristics. Louisiana has country-like characteristics. Indeed, unlike the EU, Louisiana is officially considered a "sovereign state" (see Section 26 of the Louisiana State Constitution). If the reason we're including entities there is that they have country-like characteristics, then I assume we're going to be adding all 50 US states and then going on to Countries of the UK, Chinese SARs and whatever else people feel like.

So Antarctica is a continent. Again, so what? Africa is a continent. South America is a continent. We list the continents by area here. Antarctica has dependent territories on it (they may be barely inhabited and not de facto controlled by the states concerned, but they exist).

But this is defined as a list of "sovereign countries" and "dependent territories". If you can find me a reliable source (say, an EU treaty) that defines the EU as a single sovereign country or as a single dependent territory then I will accept it in the list (though in that case I would expect the EU member states to be removed). If not then it does not belong in this list.

But since we're not actually asking for these to be taken off the article altogether, the question really is, what role does listing the EU and Antarctica (and any other entity that ends up included) have that is so urgent that means that it is vital for their listings to take priority over the list of entities that are actually listed? Pfainuk talk 15:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The EU is a whole, whole lot more state-like then the AU, for example, or any other supra-national entity. It really should be shown in the list, unnumbered and a little 'lighter' i suppose. I still like the idea of having it italicized. But really failing that, after the article is the most absurd place to put it, its a modifier of the data below and should be presented before the information it modifies, its not a qualifier like a footnote or asterisk would be. -M^ask? 08:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

How, exactly, does it modify the data below? What it is is a potentially limitless list of entities explicitly not included in the list, given precedence over the entities that are included in the list. It should be placed after the list.

The state-like characteristics of the EU and Antarctica are irrelevant unless it can be demonstrated that the they are either sovereign countries or a dependent territories. If not, they do not belong on this list. Pfainuk talk 11:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

EU, is a suigeneris, entity, by definition one of it's kind. An explaination is warant in the definition, of what this list containes. In antartica, various parts are claimed, by various countries, the claims are frozen not suspended, that too is one of it's kind situation. Also, you don't seem, to realize, that this configuration, is a compromise, so that, it doesn't get included, in the list it self. Of course you can propose that they get included in the list, if it bothers you that much.--217.112.186.123 (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We've heard all of this before. How exactly is the definition of what the list contains improved or even changed by what could potentially be an endless list of entities not included in the list? Why should such entities be considered more important than the entities in the list? As I say, whether the EU has state-like characteristics or not is irrelevant, unless it can be demonstrated that it is either a sovereign country or a dependent territory.

You present this as a choice of two options, but these are not the only two options available. Listing whatever entities are not included in the list after the list is a valid option. Indeed, given that the current solution gives the EU and Antarctica - entities not included in the list - precedence over all of the entities that are in the list for no apparent reason, in the context of this list it would make far more sense for them to go below the list - giving precedence to the sovereign countries and dependent territories that actually listed. Another option that would make sense would be to remove the EU and Antarctica entirely, leaving this list to the entities that actually meet the inclusion criteria. Pfainuk talk 19:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am getting rather tired of the back and forward with some people continuing to add the european union to above the list when there is no consensus for doing so. I have added the African Union and im sure there are others that have the right to be upthere. Please do not remove the African Union with out explaining HOW it is less important than the European Union? They either ALL belong above this list, or none of them. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you wrongly claim that there is no consensus for the EU entry in the initial section. As stated before, the standing compromise is exactely to include the EU's entry in the initial text of the article, but not in the actual table - and I fail to see a change towards a new consensus here.

BTW, your statement "some people continue to add the european union to above the list" is rather funny. No one wants to add the EU entry to above the list, as the standing compromise resulted in this very structure. Rather, there are attempts to restore the article back to the agreed form after non-consensus edits that resulted in removing the EU entry from the initial section. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You can check the archives for previous discussion. AU, is just an international organization, like the UN, there is councencus on that. And, no, the EU is not just an international organization, it's sui generis. Theres councencus on that too. Let me explain it differently, a bunch of editors want the EU in the list(italised and unranked), an other bunch what it out completely, dada, it gets in the intro as a compromise. We could start arguing, that it's real place is in the list it self.--217.112.186.123 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but there are two sides that continue to revert edits and im getting tired of seeing it. There is currently NO consensus for the EUs inclusion, i do not care what was decided over a year ago, even though the dicussion pages i have seen left no general consensus. Again please explain to me why the African Union is so unworthy of a mention but the European Union is? You could start arguing the EU has a place in this list but you would fail. The European Union is not a country and it is not an outlying territory, both of which get mentioned in the introduction and title. Again i have seen no reason why the EU should be included except for it was a consensus some time ago. Well i am sorry but the African Union is equally entitled to be on that list of "things not on the list". I am going to undo the revert, i suggest we do not get into an WP:Edit war so until someone explains to me why the African Union can not be on the list, it belongs on there like the European Union BritishWatcher (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The simple fact remains that the EU is not a country. The obvious conclusion is that it does not belong on this list, no matter how sui generis it may or may not be. It might be best if we decide to axe the entries that are not countries or outlying territories, that information is covered in List of geographic bodies by area. If we do decide to keep them, we'll have to list every supranational organization, not just the EU. As for the AU specifically, it's following the same path towards integration the EU did; that the AU is not as developed as the EU is not a valid reason to not include it here (not to mention the healthy dose of systemic bias). The Union of South American Nations and the Central American Integration System could also probably be included as well, as they fill a similar position in South and Central America, respectively. The entry for Antarctica could be turned into a footnote with <ref group> to set it off from the inline citations (the footnote about the US Great Lakes should be in the same ref group). Parsecboy (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the fact they are listed separately on List of geographic bodies by area you mentioned which is linked in the introduction means none of these really need to be listed here or on the other list. What i really do find offensive is the way certain people dismiss the African Unions inclusion but think the European Union has some God given right to be mentioned here when the name and intro clearly explains why it doesnt. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The advanced degree of state-like, country-like, nation-like characteristics within the political and economical structures of the European Union make it a unique case among all organizations. This special status is reflected by several external lists, statistics and institutions. The special definition of the EU status here is therefore justified. This discussion had already involved many highly respected editors and lead to a comprise entry of the EU in several Wikipedia articles and lists. There are no new arguments neither a new situation has appeared. The established version with EU at the top of the list needs to be kept therefore.

(@BritishWatcher: You are not seriously comparing the AU with the EU ??? Do you???) all the best Lear 21 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully accept that the European Union has gone further than any other international organsation, however who are we to decide which entity is more worthy than another. That is why i find the objection to the African union being included by people who strongly support the EUs inclusion rather offensive. Again i am sorry but there are places defined as country which we do not include on this list, we cant include those that are "state-like", "country-like" or "nation-like". List of geographic bodies by area is where the European Union information can be found, and that is linked in the introduction. i would even support a mention of the EU, something like "International organisations like the European union can be found at List of geographic bodies by area". But it doesnt belong here. BritishWatcher (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose, to put it in the list, italicized and unranked. Important for statistical comparisons, because of it's country like, characteristics, a lot of readers would want this info. AU and USAN just don't compare with the EU.--217.112.186.123 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the idea of including anything in this list that is not a country or territory. There are places actually defined as countries which we leave off this list because they are not sovereign states and if we start making silly exceptions then those other countries have justification for being included. I agree the information is useful to some, but so would reading info on the African Union and other entities, which is why there is a specific article at List of geographic bodies by area. "country like, characteristics," do not justify its inclusion, i am sorry. BritishWatcher (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If it cannot be demonstrated that the EU is a sovereign country or a dependent territory, the EU does not belong on this list. Full stop. The fact that the EU has gone further in integration that other international bodies is irrelevant, unless it has taken the step of becoming a single sovereign country. In which case we must include it and remove the 27 member states. We have no evidence that this is the case.

For the purposes of this list only the inclusion criteria (and not such vague criteria as having "country-like characteristics") are relevant. Lots of places have country-like characteristics. In terms of international organisations, the AU, Caricom, Unasur, ASEAN and ECOWAS could all be argued to have country-like characteristics. But it doesn't stop there - the constituent parts of just about every federal state on the planet have country-like characteristics. Fifty states of the US. Sixteen Länder of Germany. Three regions of Belgium. Ten provinces of Canada. Six states of Australia. Thirteen states of Malaysia. Twenty-eight states of India. All have country-like characteristics in some form or another.

The only way the article has of discriminating between such entities is the inclusion criteria - and none of these entities - including the EU and Antarctica - meet them. Otherwise, if this list-before-the-list is a list of entities with country-like characteristics that do not otherwise belong in the article then it is potentially longer than the rest of the article.

Now, I'm not arguing - as would make perfect sense - for the entities on that list to be removed altogether. But the only substantial reason so far given that it has to go before the main list is that it modifies the list in some entirely non-specific way. No-one seems willing to explain exactly how the contents of the list would have to be different if the EU and Antarctica were placed below it instead of above it, given that neither entity meets the inclusion criteria for the list in either case. I for one can see no earthly reason why any entity currently on the list would have to be removed, or any entity not on the list would have to be added, given this move, and I certainly cannot accept any argument that says the opposite unless someone explains this. Pfainuk talk 12:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The bit that really gets me is they are so quick to remove the African Union because its "not relevant" but dont seem to understand that others have the same concern when it comes to the European Union. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. The only way we can define the word "relevance" on this article is by applying the inclusion criteria (sovereign countries and dependent territories), so "lack of relevance" presumably means that the entity does not meet the inclusion criteria. None of these three entities (the EU, AU and Antarctica) meet the inclusion criteria. They, along with all of the other entities that don't meet the inclusion criteria (such as those that I listed above), are all either equally relevant or equally irrelevant. Pfainuk talk 13:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support the current version by Polaron which seems like a good compromise. Having a separate list undernearth the main list for those international organisations, i still dont see that the EU etc belong on this article at all but it seems like a fair way to resolve the dispute. I wont understand if this is objected to by those who support the EUs inclusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll go for this version. Pfainuk talk 17:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The EU entry is not included in the list, like Pfainuk assumes, it remains outside the list. The inclusion and special mentioning is based on external sources and acknowledgements like the CIA Worldfactbook and many others (This is now the 3. repetition of the argument). These external statistics mention the EU only and do not include other state-like entities, that is meant by relevance.

One thing that I usually never do in any discussion about EU/European content is following statement. Since my first edits about these issues the only editors who constantly delete, diminish and vandalize EU related content come from one country, the UK. I have met or read about more than 50 of them during the last 3 years. These editors display almost no EU related knowledge and still feel being able to judge the issues. I congratulate BritishWatcher and Pfainuk being a stereotypical, aggressive anti-European deletionists at Wikipedia like many others before, be proud of it. But please spare your hate and ignorance for the tabloid sections in your country without spreading it here in an encyclopedia.

Thanks for your attention. Lear 21 (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I will kindly remind you that personal attacks are unwelcomed in Wikipedia. Joelito (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Lear to use the CIA world factbook as justification for its inclusion on this list forgets the fact that the European Union is included right at the bottom of the list, which is where we wanted to place the note. Also just for the record and to explain the reason why i have been opposed to the EUs entry or mention at the top has nothing to do with my feelings on the European Union. I am 100% pro Britains membership of the European Union, which is not a popular position to hold here in the United Kingdom. My main concern has been that if the EU is treated as an exception then other places which are actually defined as countries will be allowed on this list and other lists as well which is something i am strongly against. I also do find it offensive that we should treat the European Union in a special way and simply dismiss other organisations like the African Union. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you have entirely failed to answer the substance of my points.

First, as BW notes, the CIA World Factbook follows a format pretty similar to the one I want - the EU is placed below all of the sovereign states and dependent territories. My proposed edit moves us closer to the CIA's conventions, not further away.

Second, I think that the fact that my political views are almost diametrically opposed to those that you ascribe to me demonstrates that my arguments are not based on my POV, but rather on the article and Wikipedia.

Third, it is not my assumption that the EU is currently in the main list: perhaps you ought to reread some of my comments. You may have been confused by my responses to those insisting that the EU belongs in the main list, or by the fact that this article has two lists in it. In your version, the first of these lists consists of Antarctica and the EU, and has no stated inclusion criteria whatsoever. The second includes the sovereign countries and dependent territories of the world ranked by area, as expected from the lead of the article. I contend that the list of entities that fail the inclusion criteria stated in the article should not go above the list of entities that pass the inclusion criteria.

My argument is not that the EU does not have a different nature to other organisations. It is that the only way we can possibly decide whether an entity is relevant to this article or not is through the criteria stated in the article. The only criteria the article gives are sovereign countries and dependent territories. Entities that meet the inclusion criteria are more relevant to the article than entities that do not. There is a stated distinction between sovereign countries and dependent territories, but we have no basis to distinguish entities that are not sovereign countries or dependent territories - entities such as the EU and Antarctica - from other entities that are not sovereign countries or dependent territories such as the African Union or Büsingen am Hochrhein. Pfainuk talk 20:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

@Pfainuk: All your arguments are acceptable. But this is not reflecting the compromise that was achieved in the past. Several editors including myself have argued very long and thoroughly for the complete and unranked inclusion of the EU entry like this one [1]. At the time and in reality it has proofed unstable, so the special mentioning at the top of the list appeared as a stable compromise. This has´nt been questioned for around a year, which is pretty stable. @BritishWatcher: Comparing the AU with EU is comparing Matchbox cars with Jumbojets. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Lear, consensus can change. Previous consensus is important, but should not be used to stifle current debate. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You could say the same thing about comparing the European Union to a sovereign state or territory. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As Parsecboy says, consensus can change. The fact that the former consensus may be long-standing does not change this. I am genuinely interested in hearing arguments as to how the EU-Antarctica list modifies the main list (several people have argued this, but no-one has elaborated). Note that I'm not arguing for the EU to be removed altogether (though I do not think this would be an entirely bad outcome) - only for it to be moved from above the main list to below it.

The inclusion criteria stated in this article do not distinguish the EU from the AU (since both fail). Thus in the context of this list the differences between them are insignificant. In the same way, because Matchbox cars and jumbo jets are not distinguished by the inclusion criteria of this list, the differences between them are insignificant for our purposes. OTOH, the inclusion criteria do distinguish the EU from (for example) Liechtenstein: as a sovereign country, Liechtenstein meets the inclusion criteria, and is infinitely more relevant to the list than any entity that does not. How does it make sense to list the less relevant entities before going on to the more relevant ones?

On the article you reference, given that defence is almost entirely a matter for the member states it seems strange to include an EU figure at all. Does the EU as a body (as opposed to the member states individually) even have a defence budget? Military of the European Union suggests not - and this would hardly be surprising since several EU members are constitutionally neutral. I can understand NATO being in there because an attack on one NATO member is - under certain conditions - construed as an attack on every member of the alliance. But the EU does not have such an rule. I won't be headed over there now to change it right now, but it does seem very strange. Pfainuk talk 17:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I feel I should add that that other list's inclusion criteria are so vague that just about any entity with a verifiable defence budget could be included - unlike this list's criteria. If the CIA was judged authoritative, it would risk POV because the CIA relies on US recognition (so, Kosovo is included while Abkhazia isn't). I can see why NATO is included (though I don't think it necessarily should be), but with such vague inclusion criteria there's no way of properly judging what should go in and what shouldn't. Pfainuk talk 18:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have just semi-protected the article for 1 week, since 217.112.xxx.xxx refuses to stop edit-warring and enter this discussion. I have already blocked 3 IPs used by this editor, to no avail. Parsecboy (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats bullshit, you just use your admin privileges, in your advantage in a content dispute.--217.112.186.13 (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I did it to stop you from edit-warring and force you to the talk page. There is an ongoing discussion that shows no indication that it will not be productive; you need to take part in it, or leave the page completely. Parsecboy (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur here Parsecboy, there are things that need to be discussed (that don't involve my embarassing misspelling in the revert), and consensus may indeed have changed, but i have reverted to the original form while we discuss here. Bold, Revert, Discuss as it goes :) The points in the compromise, as i saw it, and will lay out a bit to explain my modifier/qualifier bit, is that there's an argument to have the entry in the list, and even though we decided not to put it in, placing the note above it allows the user to take note of where it fits in should they desire to, rather then a small note at the end. -M^ask? 06:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Dont break the rules and what admin powers Parsecboy has wouldnt matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

EU inclusion

This is the discussion that lead to the compromise version of the Eu inclusion and special mentioning. The situation and its arguments have not changed. 3 editors on this current discussion have clearly argued for the status quo while 3 editors have argued against. Nothing has changed either. The established version therefore remains valid. Lear 21 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I know about the debate, and I think I've heard most arguments many times. It would make sense to list the EU. From what I've seen, the media has become used to treating the EU as a country when it comes to ranking e.g. geographical size, population and GDP in the world. - SSJ ☎ 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. —Nightstallion 10:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the EU in the list per SSJ and other comments above. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Users may wish to review Lear's contributions for a textbook case of votestacking (selectively canvassing editors expected to hold a certain opinion) and campaigning (canvassing editors with non-neutral messages). Mike Z has also campaigned on this issue, though the editors he canvassed came from both sides of the previous discussion. Pfainuk talk 12:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no guideline that forbids people from contacting other users. People with serious and informed messages shouldn't be branded as 'biased'. The current solution in this article is an okay compromise, in my opinion. Is anyone here againt mentioning the EU at all in this article? - SSJ ☎ 12:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The message concerned was: "Maybe you want to support this: EU inclusion in lists. Would be much appreciated. Even a short comment helps to keep the longterm established version."

WP:CANVASS defines "biased" - the word used for campaigning messages - as "the use of non-neutral tone, wording, or intent". I don't think it could be credibly argued that the message concerned passes this test.

Several people in this discussion, I think, would prefer to have the EU not mentioned at all, but I think all are willing to compromise on that point. The question is whether the apparently limitless list of entities that fail the inclusion criteria for the list should come before the list of entities that pass the inclusion criteria (as Lear and Mike contend) or after it (as I and others contend). Pfainuk talk 12:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As Pfainuk pointed out, WP:CANVASS expressly forbids canvassing certain groups of editors with biased notices in an attempt to vote stack. Given that the genie has been let out of the bottle, so to speak, it is likely in the best interest of this discussion to disregard the opinions expressed by the editors Lear has canvassed. This discussion is going on 2 weeks old now, and it's unlikely they would have found it on their own. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Whilst i agree with the above comments on Canvassing, i am just curious about one of the things SSJ said. "From what I've seen, the media has become used to treating the EU as a country". I am sorry but i have never seen the media treat the European union in such a way, perhaps we could get a few examples? As i have said before i am not anti EU, i strongly support the union however if we include entities that are clearly not countries, it is hard to justify the exclusion of actual countries which are not sovereign states. The EU is not a country, its not a territory and its not a sovereign state there for it clearly does not belong on this list. It seems so simple to me :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong to contact editors who already contributed to past discussions with the same content. As user Parsecboy pointed out: Consensus can change, it surely can, but it hasn´t. Neither new arguments have come up, nor a significant number of new editors showed up. There are 3 to 3 editors for each of the arguments, plus the established editors who argued for an inclusion previously and re-post their opinion now again. Nothing has changed. The longterm established version is going to be kept. Lear 21 (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

However, there is something wrong with canvassing editors with biased notices from only your side of the discussion. MikeZ posted notices on the talk pages of those who disagreed with him as well, and his notices were neutrally worded. That's the big difference. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I consider there is something wrong with user:Polaron not being reminded from users like Parsecboy while reverting a longstanding compromise version without leaving any edit summaries. Does anybody detect a biased attitude from an administrator here? Lear 21 (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Where has Polaron not used an edit summary? The most recent edit in which Polaron did not use an edit summary I could find was this, which has nothing to do with this dispute. Also, note that edit summaries are not required, they are just encouraged. Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but this whole conversation seems pretty silly to me and a waste of time for all parties involved. A message should not have to be sent to every single person that has edited this article some time ago because of a change, theres a big difference to not informing people of a new consensus and trying to stack a vote by only informing those you know will back your side in the argument.

Sorry but there has been alot of debate recently in several locations on definitions of "countries" and use of the word in titles. The agreement was that the titles and inclusion criteria should be as clear as possible, which is why things that DONT fit in with the critera should not be included. I think you are wasting your time Lear, by pushing this issue further you risk having the EU removed from this article completly, rather than its inclusion at the bottom like at present. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

__EDIT CONFLICT SOMEWHERE, I'M NOT SURE WHERE:__

When I said "serious and informed messages", I referred to what's written on this talk page. When I'm saying that the EU is often "treated as a country", I mean that the EU is often compared to the US, China, Russia. Google search for "in the EU" gets 11,3 million hits. In politics and economomic policy, the EU is often treated as an equal; not because journalists are stupid, but because the EU system and the various types of integration are visible and factual. In many ways, the EU is country-like. Why would the EU "not be a territory"? One wouldn't say that "I live in Nato", but it's perfectly common to say that "now I'm in the EU". Citizenship of the European Union exists. The euro exists. Common border partrols exist. A common parliament exists. The CIA has an article on the EU, which is usually only for nation states. And so on... This discussion could take forever, with no result. You can read this consensus FAQ. To be realistic, the EU will neither be removed from this article or placed into the main table, as long as we operate with the principle of consensus. A compromise is needed. Is the current compromise okay, or is it a good idea to take the good old "what is the EU" debate all over again? - SSJ ☎ 15:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am ok with the EU and other unions like the african union remaining in the bottom table below the main one. I strongly reject attempts to place the EU in the main list because it is not a country, it is not a territory and it is not a sovereign state. Being "country-like" does not justify inclusion. Also on the CIA you mention, they include the EU right at the bottom of the list, which is where we have been trying to keep the note. Underneath the main list. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec with below) This is perhaps one of the effects of Lear's messages, which aside being non-neutral were also a tad misleading. It referred to "EU inclusion in lists". The change I want would not change whether the EU is mentioned in the article (it still would be), nor whether the EU is included in the list (it still wouldn't be).

The only thing that is relevant to the discussion of whether the EU belongs in the list is the inclusion criteria given in the article, and whether the EU meets them. If it can be demonstrated through a reliable source (such as an EU treaty) that the EU is a sovereign country or a dependent territory, then it should be added and the 27 member states removed. The euro, the common border controls, the common parliament, the citizenship and media comparisons between the EU and other bodies are all irrelevant. This is not a list of entities that maintain border controls, a list of entities with a common currency, a list of entities that have common parliaments, a list of entities that have common citizenship, or a list of entities that the media have compared with sovereign countries. It is not a list of geopolitical entities, as Lear suggests below. This is a list of sovereign countries and dependent territories. Any other criterion is irrelevant.

That said, adding the EU to the list and removing it from the article are both notions that are not being seriously discussed. It's not whether the EU should be included in the article, it's where. The question that I have asked over and over, and have not yet seen a decent response to is, given that the EU does not meet the inclusion criteria for this list, why should it - and the rest of the potential list of entities not included on the main list (a list that is potentially almost limitless) - get precedence over those entities that do meet the inclusion criteria? Pfainuk talk 15:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

@BritishWatcher: The fine but important difference is, that the EU entry is technically NOT part of the list. But it has a special mentioning because it is relevant, state-like and like Ssolbergj pointed out, the media and several other statistical institutions are treating the EU as geopolitical entity. Lear 21 (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The CIA world factbook mentions the EU but places it at the bottom of the list, which is where we have wanted the note to be. As i have said before being "country-like" does not justify inclusion on this list.. We actually leave off places defined as countries. I fail to see how the EU is more relevant than the AU which you have been opposed to including. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As long you compare the EU with the AU you can not expect to be taken seriously. I suggest you read European Union, I´m sure you haven´t clicked it once. Sleep one night, re-read again European Union. Do this for around one year, maybe you learn something. The knowledge you display now is about 20 years behind the EU reality of today. Lear 21 (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

@Lear: Come one, don't be sarcastic. BW doesn't seem like a troll, from what I've seen. But I agree; the AU is on a different planet when it comes to relevance and the level of integration. - SSJ ☎ 15:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have read the European Union article on several occasions. I fully accept the EU has gone further than any other international organisation. My problem is the EU is not a country, its not a territory and its not a sovereign state there for it can not be included on the list as we ban actual countries because they dont meet the criteria set. That means the EU is as relevant as the African Union and the information is just as useful to readers. Like i say i dont mind the EU being included at the bottom in a new table aslong as we dont just treat the EU as a special case whilst ignoring other international organisations which i consider unfair. But until agreement is reached we need to stop the edit wars BritishWatcher (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We have no basis for judging the relevance of entities in the context of this list other than by using the inclusion criteria stated in the article. Since neither the EU nor the AU is a sovereign country nor a dependent territory, both fail these criteria. We have no way of distinguishing them further based on the article: thus they are both equally relevant and equally irrelevant.

All entities that fail the criteria set out in the article are less relevant to the list than those that pass. Why list the entities that are less relevant to the list first? Pfainuk talk 15:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The concept of territory and sovereign state you try to uphold is not reflected in reality. The EU is souvereign in many terms. Even parts of the UK claim souvereignity. Scotland having its own football team is only a popular example. There are several cases on this list you could start a deep analysis on souvereignity with different outcomes. AGAIN: The EU remains outside the list !!! But is MENTIONED because it is relevant. The funny thing is, by scanning the talk page, that almost no other entries claim to be listed here or on other lists. Why ?? Because other entries fail to include the degree of souvereignity and the relevance of status. Until the new editors have reached a new consensus, the established version will remain. Lear 21 (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a sovereign state. Its parliament has supreme sovereignty over ALL issues. It can pass a single bill withdrawing the UK from the European Union, from NATO or suspending devolution. Also understand that Scotland has its own football team because the British Football associations have a special agreement with FIFA which is written in their statutes that allow us to play as individual members of FIFA. That has nothing to do with sovereignty. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Special agreement with FIFA? How about a Special mentioning of the EU at Wikipedia, then? Lear 21 (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Special agreement with fifa because we gave them lots of money and also as the home of Football and the countries that actually make the rules for the game they had to let us join their little club on our terms. Anyway this has nothing to do with sovereignty. The EU is not a sovereign state and nor is Scotland, which does not get listed on its own in this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Uh, no, Scotland does not claim sovereignty. Given how ignorant you assume BW and I are, I find this failure in understanding surprising. FWIW on FIFA, the only way they could get the UK into FIFA was by allowing four teams (and other concessions). At the time, all four were among the best in the world, and FIFA's status was undermined by their non-membership.

If you can find a reliable source, such as an EU treaty, to prove that the EU claims to be a sovereign country or dependent territory, you are quite welcome to do so.

The point remains that the EU - and Antarctica - are no more relevant in the context of this article than the AU, as I say, because relevance of entities in the context of this article is defined in terms of the inclusion criteria for the list (since the article is a stand-alone list).

On the point of scanning the talk page, I find it difficult to assume you missed the discussion on England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (given that it takes up probably half of this talk page) but I suppose I must. The fact remains that the only way we can judge "relevance of status" is through the criteria given in the article. The criteria do not draw any distinction entities that fail the criteria. Therefore we cannot draw any distinction between them. Pfainuk talk 16:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

@BW: But it was SPECIAL, right? The EU entry is not listed it is mentioned! Plus: We, the editors decide what is posted and included at Wikipedia. As the majority now and in the past have argued for the Special mentioning, the entry will remain. Plus: Here is a little money for you, spend it wisely. Lear 21 (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It is special and its treated as such in FIFA statutes which is why England, Scotland Wales and northern Irleand are listed individually on FIFA lists on wikipedia. But there is no such justification for them to be listed individually on this article, or the European union. And if you want to bribe me i want alot more money than that =) BritishWatcher (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

Guys, let's stop with the edit-warring, it's totally non-productive. Since we seem to be at an impasse, perhaps the best solution would be to file an RFC to draw in some previously uninvolved editors. Does that seem reasonable to everyone? Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, it might be helpful to again spell out the arguments from both sides: Polaron, Pfainuk, and BritishWatcher want the EU moved to the bottom in a separate table, and the majority of the Antarctica info turned into a footnote, while MikeZ and Lear want it to remain as it was before the discussion started (i.e., in the text of the introduction). If I've mischaracterized anything, feel free to correct me.

Personally, I don't have a problem with either of the two options; my only objection is to having the EU (or any other non-sovereign state) actually in the list, or directly above the list in the same section (i.e., this). Parsecboy (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems about right, i support its inclusion in a new table underneath as a compromise and as long as it includes other entities such as the african union so we dont discriminate. However i stand by the position that the European Union really has no place on this article at all because it is not a country, not a sovereign state and not a territory. So removing it completly from the list is also a possible option and worthy of a mention. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the complete integration of the EU as an unranked entry in the list. It would provide consistency with most of the other lists in Wikipedia. A special mentioning like the longstanding compromise version is possible as well. Unlike the given summary the users Lear 21, Nightstallion, Eurocopter, Ssolbergj, MikeZ, AKMask and an unregistered user from Belgium have articulated support on this talk page for these versions. User Polaron on the other side has not articulated support for any version and can´t be considered therefore. Lear 21 (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The comments from Ssolbergj, Nightstallion, and Eurocopter are a direct result of your disruptive canvassing and should be ignored for the purposes of determining consensus. Parsecboy (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing disruptive about contacting friendly users. Every post here has been individually decided. Instead, disruptive editing of user Polaron can be detected. Lear 21 (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read through WP:CANVASS, specifically the section about vote stacking, noting the line "an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion". Vote stacking is a type of inappropriate canvassing, and "is generally considered to be disruptive". Parsecboy (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record i think you will find the vast majority of lists on wikipedia do not include the European Union. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Provided the statement of the RFC is neutral (as required by WP:RFC), I'll go for it.

Personally, I do not insist on a separate table, nor that any other specific entity be included - only that the EU (and any other similar entity to be included) be placed in a section below the main list rather than above it. This should be justified by inclusion criteria written for that section, and any other entity that meets these criteria should also be included. Pfainuk talk 18:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've filed an RfC, the text below the banner is what is in the RfC other editors will see on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography page. If it is not accurate in any way, feel free to change it. The RFCBot should place it on the correct page shortly. Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC: EU and others—before or after the main table?

There is a dispute over where entities that do not meet the criteria for inclusion for the main table should be placed. There has been a long-standing consensus to list the EU and others in the lead section of text. However, consensus can change, and one group favors placing those entities below the list. This RfC is an attempt to gauge the opinions of a wider group of editors, to see if in fact consensus has changed.

---

The EU entry and the special exclusion criteria/cases should be listed Before the main table. This reflects a longstanding compromise and has been discussed over a long period involving several editors in the past. Two versions are possible: A mentioning of the EU and others cases at the introduction´s end or right above the table. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The position in the intro, is a compromise, between being listed unranked, or not mentioned at all. This is not just if it should be positioned above or below. --217.112.177.174 (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

---

The European Union is not a country, sovereign state or territory, there for it does not fit in with the criteria for inclusion on this article AT ALL. Removing it completly from the list should be one of the options available for comment on rather than just where it belongs. It should be pointed out that places actually defined as countries are excluded from this list and do not get a mention above the main list or even below it. Also it should be noted that those who seek to include the European Union seem to object to the inclusion of other entities such as the African Union. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The list of entities that do not meet the inclusion criteria for the main list should not be given precedence over the main list itself. It should be placed after the main list, not before. It is the list of entities that pass the inclusion criteria that is more relevant to the article (relevence being defined by the inclusion criteria) than the list of special cases that fail the inclusion criteria - so it is the list of sovereign countries and dependent territories that should come first. Pfainuk talk 19:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider:

“ This is a list of the sovereign countries of the world sorted by total area. ”

and

Rank	Country / Territory	Area (km²)[a]	% of Total	Notes
—	World	148,939,063	100%	Total land coverage (29.2% of Earth's surface)

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The world is included because it is like a totals row. Most lists start or end by saying the total amount of something in the actual table. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the world should be in the main list either: it should be included as a footnote or left for the list of geographic bodies by area. There should be nothing on the main list that is neither a sovereign country nor a dependent territory. Pfainuk talk 11:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A seperate list would defeat the purpose. The point is where the EU is compared to, say, China, or Indonesia, not in relation to the world or antartica. The inclusion above the list is a compromise for exactly that reason. It allows the reader to take it into consideration. If the reader is using the EU in a manner it's particularly state-like (for example, using this list by area to rank area they would be able to travel without a passport, for example) they have that information up-front, but without it in the list proper. -M^ask? 10:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether the separate list is at the top or the bottom of the article, the separate list is a separate list. The reader is able to use the EU figure whether it is at the top of the list or the bottom. But if it's at the bottom, the reader who's not interested in the EU does not have to wade through a potentially almost limitless list of entities that are not included on the main list before he finally gets what he is looking for.

The area of the EU is not equivalent to the area in which citizens do not require passports to travel, so your reader is going to get the wrong answer. The EU-regulated area without border checks excludes five EU member states, but includes four non-members (plus two de facto). The area that EU citizens can travel within on an ID card (rather than a passport) includes all member states of the EU, but also includes eight non-members. This illustrates some of the difficulty in treating the EU as if it were a single country. Pfainuk talk 11:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of adding it in the list unranked. The EU is a case of it's won, strictly speaking, it should be in no list at all, neither of countries, or international organizations, because it's sui generis, but this would be silly. No one claims that the EU is a country, this is why it would be unranked and it's component states would be listed normally. The article becomes what it's editors whant it to become, if you really whant, we can rename the article in too "List of countries, outlying territories and a sui generis entity by total area".--217.112.177.174 (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets put it this way, the perfect country list that you vision with the EU as extra, what title should it have?--217.112.177.174 (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The title of the section that I would want would be Entities not included. I would then give a new set of inclusion criteria for entities that do not meet the inclusion criteria for the main list, and those entities that meet these new criteria would be listed there. Pfainuk talk 11:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I object to the rewording of this RFC by the anon. It was changed so that it puts the anon's arguments in (essentially, so that it says something close to what the anon says under Lear's message). I have reverted this change. Note also that the EU is not the only entity involved in the discussion - Antarctica features in the previous version as well (though in this case I support the current solution of putting it in a footnote). Pfainuk talk 13:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"If it is not accurate in any way, feel free to change it."? The wording is misleading, this is not if they have to get above or below, the initial dispute was, in the list, or not in the list. The resulting compromise was above, in the intro, you can't ignore this. You attempt to influence people that will get here.--217.112.178.25 (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the RFC until we settle this.--217.112.178.25 (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing misleading in the summary of the dispute, nor should the link be removed. The subject of the previous debate is largely irrelevant; we're not talking about removing the EU or placing it in the list. This discussion is only about whether the EU should remain in the text above the list, which is the old version, or if it should be below the list in either a separate table, footnote, or something else. The only information about the previous debate that is really necessary for this discussion is that it resulted in the consensus to place the EU in the text above the table. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The RFC doesn't seem to be working, and on other articles Lear and 217.112 seem to have stopped discussing this at all (which makes it ironic that Lear reverted today here on the grounds of "undiscussed edit by Polaron"). In the last two weeks, the only response to it has been to point out that the world was included - and (quite rightly) it was promptly removed.

Here's a question: bearing in mind that neither the option of including the EU as an entry on the list nor the option of removing it from the article altogether are on the table, what specific arguments are there that the EU should be placed above the list rather than below it?

It's been argued that it modifies the list, but no-one has ever tried to explain how the list would be different, in theory or in practice, with the EU noted below it instead of above. The main thrust of the argument for "above" is that a previous consensus was reached - but this is not, in and of itself, a reasonable objection to change.

It should be below the list because it fails the inclusion criteria, and because entities that fail the inclusion criteria for the list shouldn't be given precedence over those that pass them - it implies that they are more significant. Plus, if the EU can go in the lead, why can't other entities? Pfainuk talk 19:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC) (I've made a small edit - replacing "should" with "shouldn't". I believe everyone knew what I meant, but I'm noting it here for form's sake, because Anaxial and Bazonka responded before I noticed the error Pfainuk talk 23:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

The EU is, as the article currently states, sui generis, so there really are no other comparable entities. The EU has far more traits in common with a sovereign state than, say, the African Union does, and there is no reason to treat the two as being similar. Having said that, the EU is clearly not a sovereign state, so it does not belong in the list. It seems perfectly reasonable to include it as a comment in (or just below) the opening paragraph, but if it's going to be included in table form, as at present, personally, I'd put it at the bottom. But it's really not that big a deal, is it? Anaxial (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Anaxial. The bottom is best, but I don't really care if it's at the top or omitted entirely. Bazonka (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Pfainuk talk 19:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Lear's last message on this talk page was on 8 January (2½ weeks ago), and 217.112's was on the 9th. On the other list they're reverting on, neither has edited the talk page since 28 December (4 weeks ago). Based on these facts, and this edit summary - which came after Parsecboy's threat to get this protected - Lear and 217 appears to be filibustering. No arguments are made against the edit, only a claim of previous consensus. This is becoming silly. If you aren't willing to argue for your position, don't revert to it - that's just disruptive. Pfainuk talk 19:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussions which lead to the special mentioning of the EU entry in several lists can be found here: Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area/EU discussion and here Talk:List of countries by population/Archive 2. Because no new arguments have come across and neither a new situation has appeared it doesn´t seem to make sense to repeat the whole rationale again. The compromise deriving from previous discussions needs to be kept therefore. Lear 21 (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have mistaken what this discussion is about. This is not a debate on whether or not to include the EU, but where to include the EU. The old discussions were about something different, and hold no real relevance in this discussion, as we are talking about different, albeit related, things. As such, they should not be conflated. Parsecboy (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As I noted above, inclusion in the list and removal from the article aren't on the table here. Whether the EU should be above or below the main list was not discussed in the previous discussions you cite. Pfainuk talk 17:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussions are relevant in a very important consequence. It ended with a compromise version which was stable for more than a year with a version including the EU entry OUTSIDE the list but with a special mentioning in the introduction. User: Parsecboy was part of those discussions and the final compromise! Lear 21 (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The old discussion did not cover the issue of whether the entry should be above or below the main list, which is the important distinction. Yes, I am well aware that I participated in the old discussion. You'll note that that I haven't actually expressed an opinion as to whether the EU and other entries should be above or below (mainly because I don't think it's that big of a deal, and I don't really care which one is decided); I've mainly been trying to keep the discussion on track and within the bounds of policies and guidelines, and attempting to prevent edit-warring. Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I have do disagree, as I believe you are mistaken on this claim. The old consensus did indeed cover the placement of the entry - please see my statement below Pfainuk's first reply. Thanks, MikeZ (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussion did not discuss whether the EU should be placed before or after the list. And in any case a previous consensus, whatever it is, is open to change. If the only argument against the edit is that it doesn't do exactly what the previous consensus said, then there is no reason not to do the edit. As I asked earlier, what specific arguments are there that the EU should be placed above the main list rather than below it? If there are none, then stop filibustering and let us carry on improving the encyclopaedia. Pfainuk talk 20:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As said above, the claim that it was not discussed whether the EU entry should be placed before or after the list is plain wrong. The compromise reached after long discussion regarding the entry of the EU was to include the EU's entry in the initial text of the article, but not in the actual table (even unnumbered). Please check the old talk page discussions for verification. - initial text implies the placement before the main part of the article, i.e. the actual list. - Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, there was no discussion about where exactly to place it. It just so happened that, when I was trying to stop the edit-warring by Lear 21, that was the location I had used as a test for a possible way out. I suppose in that sense the current location is my fault. --Polaron | Talk 14:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Polaron, I was referring to the original compromise (pls see the talk archive) regarding the placement of the EU entry. This was long before this current discussion. The old compromise explicitly stated that the EU should no be included in the list, but in the initial section. This standing compromise was violated by Pfainuk's move of the EU entry to the very end, and later by deleting the EU information completely out of the article (don't know if that was done by Pfainuk or BritishWatcher, need to check). MikeZ (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I was actually talking about the the old discussion. Because Lear 21 kept on insisting on putting the EU in the main table without consensus, I had tried various things to see what would stick. One of these things was to add a note about the EU outside the main table. When I first did that, I placed it on the top of the list. Lear 21 reverted to his version several more times before he stopped after a few people kept asking on the Talk page what his complaint was for that version. I note again, there was no discussion about where to place the EU note. It just so happened that the top was where I placed it first and that version sort of stuck. --Polaron | Talk 19:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have never removed the EU from this article entirely, so far as I remember. My proposal is and always has been to move the EU to after the main list of sovereign states. Guidelines encourage editors to be WP:BOLD, and when reverted I brought the issue to talk. There's nothing wrong with that. Pfainuk talk 15:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact of old consensus does not prevent consensus from changing, so this argument is pretty irrelevant. You've argued before that the EU is too important to be left to after the list. I don't accept that. How is it more important - in the context of a list of sovereign states and dependent territories ranked by area - than Russia, the USA, Bolivia, Norway and other entities that actually meet the inclusion criteria for the list? Pfainuk talk 10:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You keep on arguing that a new consensus could change - and nobody is saying otherwise. But we clearly do not have a new consensus here in the first place. Hence, only the established consensus holds. I don't think that you really mean that this epic discussion around the same old arguments over and over again and NOT reaching a new consensus should be the basis for any change to the article. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason I keep on saying that consensus can change is because people keep arguing that edit can't be made because it is not strictly in line with the previous consensus. Indeed, that is the only argument against the edit that has been sustained beyond a single (generally vague) response.

But it is not a meaningful argument against change, particularly when the issue concerned was not discussed in the discussion leading to that consensus (as in this case). Effectively, the only sustained argument against this edit is "I say no". That's not an argument, it's a filibuster. Where actual arguments have been made, I have invited editors to expand on them, but they have declined to do so - meaning that after seven weeks I still have no clear idea why you object to the edit.

If I know why you object to it, I can respond, and we can try to come to some compromise that we can both accept - that's how this is supposed to work. But while I don't know what the issue is that's not possible. Pfainuk talk 14:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, i have yet to hear a single reason WHY the European Union note is required to be ABOVE the main list and yet there are valid reasons for it being placed under the main list and whilst i know nobody is calling for the EU to be removed from this article all together there are FAR more valid reasons for its removal than it stayin above or below the list which is why placing it at the bottom is a valid compromise. I think this should also be placed in context, its not like one morning somebody woke up and decided they wanted to just move the EU for no reason. Over the past few months efforts have been made to improve country lists which have led to actual countries being removed from lists all together and not mentioned. This should be taken into account when debating where an entity that every sensible person would accept is not a country, sovereign state or dependent territory. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and the sockmaster has been blocked indefinitely. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Permanent unranked inclusion of the EU entry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note 2 The lack of full sovereignty will be reflected by its unranked inclusion to avoid future misconceptions about the nature of the EU as a state.

Lear 21 (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply in the same format:

1. The EU can just as easily be compared where it's currently located, in the text.
2. Exactly, the EU is not a country. The lists should only rank the entries at List of Countries.
3. See above.
4. Totally irrelevant. Wikipedia is not self-referencing. Also, every Wikipedia is different; we aren't obliged to do anything just because another wiki does.
5. Also totally irrelevant. What editors do at other articles, even in just this Wiki has no effect on this article.

There has never been, and will likely never be any consensus for this. Please stop pushing for this; it's a useless waste of time for all of us. Parsecboy (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

For comparison purposes, anything can be included. A clear line must be drawn. We don;t normally include the UK consitituent countries in List of U.S. states even though they are of similar nature socio-politically and many people are interested in comparing various aspects of them. Several regional organizations other than the EU are treated similarly as the EU, i.e. the organizations are members of UN institutions, have seats at various trade meetings, etc. This aspect is not unique to the EU. Statistical lists always treat the EU as a special case and not part of the main list. This includes the CIA World Factbook, the BBC country/territory lists, the IMF, etc. What we are doing is reflecting general global usage. The EU entry is not included in many more Wikipedia lists of countries. There are over a hundred such lists and a vast majority of them don't include the EU. The argument that it is already included on some lists is invalid. Also, EU inclusion has always been controversial. It has only been stably included in the GDP lists. --Polaron | Talk 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I would note that the BBC actually treats the EU as an international organisation, the EU is not included on the UN membership list, and in any case this list's inclusion criteria do not mention any of those arguments made above. Personally, I think it could be quite interesting to compare the areas and populations of US states, UK countries and suchlike with the countries of the world, but that doesn't mean they should go on the list. There has to be a limit, otherwise it just becomes absurd. Pfainuk talk 19:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

39 other territories which are not members of the UN are included in this list. And these are even ranked ! From now on You and others should provide a complete rationale why to exclude the EU entry. As long as the EU exercises sovereignty in fields like legislation, military, foreign policy, currency, citizenship, border control, infrastructure, a budget of 100 billion Euros a year the EU will be an unranked entry. Consider the EU as an self governing territory of the 27 member states. As such it is equally comparable to Greenland, Falklands islands, Guam, gibraltar and many others. It will remain unranked to document its unique status. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Membership in the UN is not a prerequisite for this list. Whether the EU is sovereign over currency issues or not is totally irrelevant to this article. This is a list of countries, sorted by the amount of territory they hold/claim. If there are entities that do not meet that single and very simple criteria, then they too should be removed.

If you are announcing your intention to edit-war against a longstanding consensus to enforce your position, I see no alternative to reporting you at WP:AN/I (and that goes for everyone here; edit-warring over this issue will not go without consequences). Respect consensus and drop this, please. Parsecboy (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Stronly oppose the above suggestion of including the European Union unranked in the list. It should remain on at the bottom of the list in the notes section. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The CIA lists the EU as a fully ranked entry [2]. I guess that is a clear cut credible source. Is somebody still ignoring the reality ? No? Fine. I will add the EU entry tomorrow again based on this source. all the best. Lear 21 (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The CIA factbook also includes the Indian Ocean. Shall we include that as well? Parsecboy (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The recognition of the EU in several global institutions, the media in general and many statistical bureaus is credible. What is not credible and sincerely harmful to an encyclopedia is the fact of neglecting evidences and sources. Be prepared that this boring discussion will go on every day for the next years. The involved anti-EU entry advocates are a threat to an encyclopedia based on sources and dedicated to inform humanity. The denial of most other Wiki languages is also a clear evidence of chauvinism and violates Wikipedia guidelines. This is not a surprise because specifically editors from the UK have built up a distinctive reputation in deleting, diminishing and vandalizing EU related content at engl. Wikipedia. Lear 21 (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

A thread concerning Lear's behavior/attitude in regards to this dispute has been posted at AN/I here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolving this

I'd like to make some suggestions as to how the current content dispute can be resolved - some compromise is clearly necessary and I think we need to get this sorted. It's difficult to do this without knowing exactly what the problem with my solution is, but to my mind, the following may be reasonable solutions:

• A reduced mention of the EU, similar to that of Antarctica currently:

Also not included in the list are uninhabited dependent territories, including various countries' claims to parts of the continent of Antarctica (14.4 million km² total area), and entities such as the European Union (4,324,782 km² total area) that have some degree of sovereignty but do not consider themselves to be sovereign countries or dependent territories..

• Removal of all parts of the lead to below the article, except for a summary of the inclusion criteria - an edit Lear made to the population list. The lead would be:

This is a list of the sovereign states and dependent territories of the world sorted by total area, as defined in the Notes section below. Dependent territories are listed in italics.

and the footnotes would read:

The figures represent total areas, covering land and inland water bodies (lakes, reservoirs, rivers). Marine internal waters (coastal waters), territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zones are not included. Various countries' claims to parts of the continent of Antarctica (14.4 million km² total area) as well as uninhabited dependent territories are also not included in the list. The total land area of the world is 148,939,063 km² (about 29% of the Earth's surface area).

• For a graphical version of this list, see List of countries by area (graphical).
• For lists including first-level administrative divisions, see List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area.
• The European Union is a sui generis supranational union. It covers a total area of 4,324,782  km² and would be ranked 7th if it were included (3.0% of world's total land area). For a list including other entities, see List of geographic bodies by area.

References:

I think this has gone on for rather too long - let's get it sorted. Pfainuk talk 19:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree a resolution is needed and i support the above suggestions. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There being no objection, I have applied one of my proposals to the list. If it sticks for 72 hours or so, I'll roll it out over the other lists where we've had this discussion. If you can't live with it, please let me know what the objection is and we can try and come up with something that you can live with. Pfainuk talk 22:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree - Same arguments as stated above and in the talk archives for several times now! - There are people out here that actually have to work for their living. MikeZ (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What specifically is wrong with the new version? It still mentions the EU in the lead. --Polaron | Talk 13:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Easy, the old compromise was all about the ranking of the EU "if it were a country". This information is now missing in the lead. MikeZ (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, with neither discussion nor reversion in the last seven weeks, it seems to me to be fair to call the current version the consensus version.

No reader is going to find himself unable to look at the figure given and work out where the EU would fit in the list. The task is trivial. But even if a reader isn't able to do so, the information is provided in the footnote and I see absolutely no reason to disrupt the flow of the sentence to add it. The EU is not more important than the sovereign countries in the list, and should not - must not - be treated as though it was. Pfainuk talk 16:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

There are a number (>0) of occurances of 'defintion', which I understand to be a misspelling of the word 'definition'. I have tried to edit it (using Firefox 3), but can't seem to do so - something wrong with the browser since I can't position the cursor at the position of the mispelling. Would someone mind correcting it? Feel free to remove this once it's corrected. Thanks Davidmaxwaterman (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I've fixed the two that I found. Are there any others? Thanks for pointing it out. Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Question!!!

Can someone tell me where you got this info in note 4???

^ From the initial publishing of the CIA World Factbook in 1989 through 1996, the total area of the US was listed as 9,372,610 km² (land + inland water only). The listed total area changed to 9,629,091 km² in 1997 (Great Lakes area and coastal waters added), to 9,631,418 km² in 2004, to 9,631,420 km² in 2006, and to 9,826,630 km² in 2007 (territorial waters added). See Countries of the World: 20 Years of World Facts, geographic.org, http://www.theodora.com/wfb/abc_world_fact_book.html, retrieved on 2008-08-17 for details.

How do you know 9.37 did not already include the great lakes???

See this table from the 2009 Statistical Abstract of the United States. Note how the total area channges from 1980, 1990, and 2000. See also Note 1 in that table. --Polaron | Talk 21:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

another question

actually 2 questions:

1. does China's water number include, territorial and coastal waters? What bothers me is this. Look at the CIA factbook, you see russia only has approx. 80,000 water space. you'd expect russia's coastal and territorial water to be much greater and US. So form this, perhaps, china's figure does not include coastal and territorial waters.

2. How did you ever find this pdf table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.23 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

HUGE Issue With US numbers

This pages contradicts itself. First it states, "Marine internal waters (coastal waters), territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zones are not included."

Then in note 4 it states "From the initial publishing of the CIA World Factbook in 1989 through 1996, the total area of the US was listed as 9,372,610 km² (land + inland water only). The listed total area changed to 9,629,091 km² in 1997 (Great Lakes area and coastal waters added), to 9,631,418 km² in 2004, to 9,631,420 km² in 2006, and to 9,826,630 km² in 2007 (territorial waters added). See Countries of the World: 20 Years of World Facts."

You listed 2 number for china. You should list 2 numbers for US as well. 9.37 - 9.62. The US number (9.62M) does include coastal waters. The inland water only US figure should be only 9.37M sq km, making US smaller than China definitively. See your own link: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0001.pdf

Wikipedia is suppose to be UNBAISED!!! But you are still baised in favor in US. I believe Britannica numbers should be used because on there pages, it states: "Includes inland water area of 78,797 sq mi (204,083 sq km) and Great Lakes water area of 60,251 sq mi (156,049 sq km); excludes coastal water area of 42,225 sq mi (109,362 sq km) and territorial water area of 75,372 sq mi (195,213 sq km)." This number should be used since is matches with you statement ""Marine internal waters (coastal waters), territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zones are not included."

Or you can write this instead: ""Marine internal waters (coastal waters), territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zones are not included. (except for the US, which does include coastal waters)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.23 (talk • contribs)

Don't use CIA World Factbook it's American of course they are going to say it's bigger than it is!! National Books should not mislead their people like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.245.23 (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The CIA World Fact Book is an established reliable source. If you think otherwise, please take it up at the reliability noticeboard. Parsecboy (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Units

Why are there no American units? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas.tan (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Because of WP:UNITS! - It's an international list, and therefore it does not contain yards, spans, cubits, ells, fathoms, hands, feet, or other rather amusing Imperial units. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

But is there a reason to not use {{convert}} to provide both? Parsecboy (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW WP:UNITS actually provides that "[c]onversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should generally be provided". Metric units should be the primary units, but the MOS does actually instruct us to provide a conversion - which makes sense, given how many of our potential readers will be unfamiliar with the metric units. I'm sure you wouldn't want a list of US States by area to deal only in square miles.

My only objection would be if adding a conversion template meant that the list was is no longer sortable. But I don't believe it does if you set it up right. Pfainuk talk 17:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This list is NOT about US states, and exactly how many of the potentials users are actually unfamiliar with metric units, I may ask you? - WP:UNITS says as well "Articles on scientific topics where there is consensus among the contributors not to convert the metric units" ... but just go ahead as you please, as you did in the past regarding consensus ... MikeZ (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael, if you ever take an article to FAC (or in this case, FLC), they always ask for units to be in both metric and Imperial. I don't see what the problem is here, as long as the table remains sortable. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that you quote a section of the MOS that tells us to include conversions unless there's consensus against them - that is, pretty much the opposite of what you imply it says. But unless you consider any topic that involves units to be scientific (which is clearly not the spirit of the guideline), this is not a scientific topic. Scientific articles are things like Physical Constant. Pfainuk talk 16:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Countries where the metric system is official are shown in red.

Well, I'll leave it up to you to explain why geography is not a scientific field of research. - But, just go ahead. Personally, I see very limited added value, but I don't want to block any change for the better for our many readers in Myanmar, Liberia, and the United States compared to the rest of the world. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That map is a bit of a red herring. How many of our readers are from Burkina Faso, and how many are from the US? Parsecboy :  Chat  15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I would remind you that these three countries between them account for a large majority of native English speakers (indeed, the United States does that alone), and that this is the English-language Wikipedia. And also that the majority of the remainder live in the UK, a country where kilometres and square kilometres are not exactly widely used (despite official metrication). Pfainuk talk 16:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, this is the English-language Wikipedia. However, it's not the exclusive Wikipedia for native-English speakers, so I fail to see how the number of native speakers is relevant. The only valid question is what portion of our readers are really not familiar with the metric system. Shouldn't we call for a poll? ;-) - Cheers guys, MikeZ (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, we don't need to, because this is not the sort of matter that gets decided from article to article. In order to get consistency, we have the MOS - and specifically, WP:UNITS.

In an article with international scope, the MOS tells us to use metric units primarily and to convert to imperial units - with common sense exceptions where a lack of conversions has consensus. This article does not meet either criterion. It does not meet any of the three common sense exceptions to the rule and there is no consensus not to include conversions.

The reason this rule is in place is because 83% of English native speakers - our core audience - live in countries where metric units are not commonly used in day-to-day life, and 65% live in countries where it is not the official system of units. Why should we marginalise these people by forcing units on them that they are likely to find difficult? Pfainuk talk 12:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I was able to add conversions while keeping the table sortable, and have done so. Per the MOS please do not remove them without consensus - note that even if this is considered a scientific topic, it says that conversions should be used unless consensus is otherwise, not the other way around. Pfainuk talk 16:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I already stated two times before that I wouldn't really object to have the conversions included, I just think it's a complete waste of table space and edit effort. And thanks for defining two classes of Wikipedia users - native English speaker as "core audience" and the others. Interesting point of view of yours. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't pick that up from your messages - the impression I got was that you opposed it pretty strongly, given the sarcastic comments. A text-based medium does not always transmit these things very clearly.

Clearly, we have hundreds different language editions of Wikipedia, and each caters primarily to its own native language audience. While non-native speakers have a valuable role to play here, and may find this version of Wikipedia more useful than the version in their own native language, we don't generally take the needs of non-native speakers into account when actually writing the thing. We don't simplify our English, for example, to account for those whose English might not be very good, and we expect users to use English on talk pages even where they would find another language easier. I wouldn't expect Wikipedias in German and French to put square miles in their equivalents to this list because practically all of their native speakers - and by extension a large proportion of their audiences - use metric units exclusively. But on en.wiki there is, and in my book that trumps the potential æsthetic issues.

Since you have accepted the conversions, I do not intend to continue this discussion further. Thanks, Pfainuk talk 21:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Outlying territories and countries together ?

Why are these two areas are put together in one list and are presented independendly? Most of the Outlying territories belong to one mother country. This is really strange. KJohansson (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For exactly the same reasons as discussed at Talk:List of countries by population. And I would support putting the sovereign states in bold here as well. Pfainuk talk 16:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Still even in bold letters (which was an improvement), the territories are not souvereign countries. Why should they be treated as one ? It doesn´t make sense. KJohansson (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Simple answer, they aren't. This article makes it abundantly clear that the list includes both sovereign states and dependent territories - the fact is noted several times before the list even begins. There are good statistical reasons to do so, given that dependent territories are not part of the sovereign states concerned. It distinguishes the dependent territories from the sovereign states and announces how it does so. All of this was also true on the population list, and was explained to you repeatedly at that talk page - and the consensus to keep them there on that article was very clear. Unless you have new arguments, I do not see that there is anything to discuss here. Pfainuk talk 22:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The several official pages (Foreign Ministry of USA & UK) provide evidence, that the territories are part of the souvereign mother states. Ther is no doubt about that, you are wrong. It is not logic to present these territories on equal terms here. The methods which lead to the strange intermingling are very dubious. The list should be renamed or the territories should have no rank, they are not countries. KJohansson (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. Puerto Rico belongs to the USA - it is not part of the USA. Bermuda belongs to the UK - it is not part of the UK. These territories and dependencies may be sovereign territory of the "mother state", but they are not part of that mother state - they are politically separate. (On the other hand, French Guiana is legally part of France, and so it is included under the figure for France.) Bazonka (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. But there is one thing I don't understand: why are Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands not listed separately from Australia, while all other inhabited "real" dependent territories of the world are (including Norfolk Island)? Belgian man (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is the way the Australian Bureau of Statistics defines "geographic Australia". See this and this for example. --Polaron | Talk 14:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it strange that we follow that source. CIA World Factbook, for example, lists them separately, and the areas have for example their own internet domain (typical characteristic). Why would we follow the Australian Government about this if we didn't follow the East Timor Government about their country's area? Belgian man (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Figure discrepancies over the same definition are one thing. Different definitions are another. I don't think there is that issue with Timor-Leste. If you want, you can put the official figure in the notes column. The difference is between 14,919 and 14,874. --Polaron | Talk 15:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Our way of working with East Timor is perfect to me, it was just a simple example :) Belgian man (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is Greenland not part of Denmark? The countries of Denmark, Greenland and the Daroe Islands represent the kingdom of Denmark. Quebec is recognized by canadians as a country within Canada which handles its own pension system, taxes and has a high degree of autonomy from the other provinces. The same is true for countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland represent the UK. The US states also have a degree of autonomy. This article I feel is very ambiguous.137.195.250.2 (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

CHANGE title of page

the title of this page should be changed to " List of countries and outlying territories by total area from largest to smallest." this will significantly increasing its hits on google search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.226.99 (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a popularity contest Bazonka (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Against - as the table incorporates flexible sorting. MikeZ (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Tristan da Cunha and Ascension Island

Why do we list Tristan da Cunha and Ascension Island separately? They maybe have a rather autonomous political statute, but aren't they simply parts of the Saint Helena territory? Belgian man (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Dependencies are listed separately from the country that "owns" them. Tristan da Cunha and Ascension Island are dependencies of St Helena, so it's consistent from that point of view. But St Helena is itself a dependency of the UK, so it's an unusual situation. Bazonka (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I propose to list Tristan da Cunha with its total area of 201/207 km²: why wouldn't we include Tristan da Cunha uninhabited islands if we do include uninhabited islands with each other country or territory? Belgian man (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo

Kosovo is listed in the World Fact Book but not in this list. It should be included. --Tubesship (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not accept the notion that any list compiled based on a single government's POV should be considered NPOV. Pfainuk talk 15:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The area of Kosovo is described in the notes of the Serbia entry. Bazonka (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you added Kosovo then it would only be fair for South Ossetia and Abkhazia to be in the list as well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.224.93 (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

They already are - in the notes of the Georgia entry. Bazonka (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

India figure includes disputed territory

This even includes territory it doesn't have any control over, this shouldnt be the case and goes against wiki's NPOV policy Khokhar (talk) 06:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying that it definitely is or isn't part of India is POV - but the article states that the territory is disputed; it's not taking either side, therefore it's NPOV. Bazonka (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Svalbard

Can we get a consensus on Svalbard? Norwegian sovereignty is undisputed since 1925, and it is a full part of the Kingdom of Norway. It has limited self-government over a number of matters, but is not considered a dependency by anyone. It has an allocated Top Level Internet Domain and an ISO code, but these are technical issues which do not pertain to its political status. The figure excluding them seems to have come about as a result of a congruent UN Statistical Division exclusion, which has been transposed here.

If these facts are undisputed then I'll make an edit. If they are disputed, I'll leave the status quo, pending discussion. I wanted to establish consensus on this before making an edit. Jan Majen is not so important (at 49km^2 and uninhabited) as it does not affect Norway's ranking in this list but all the above arguments apply equally to this territory as far as I can tell. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If the table completelt followed the UN Demographic Yearbook, then separating Svalbard would be more consistent. However, there is already the case of China where the figures of Macau and Hong Kong have been added so there is precedent for what you're proposing. However, there have been recent edits that appear to want to split out Hong Kong so that would make splitting out Svalbard problematic. We should probably decide first one way or another whether or not to include or split out areas of special sovereignty and apply it consistently for all. --Polaron | Talk 12:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau

While Polaron has been attempting to exclude Hong Kong and Macau from the list, I would like to point out that a lot of organisations give Hong Kong and Macau their own entries in the rankings. (Examples: Human Development Index, Corruption Perceptions Index, Index of Economic Freedom and many many other rankings included in Template:Lists of countries)

Hong Kong and Macau are special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement. The first paragraph of this article (i.e. List of countries and outlying territories by total area) clearly states that this kind of entities should be "listed separately from their sovereign state". I don't see any justifiable reason why Hong Kong and Macau should be particularly excluded, while Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Faroe Islands and Åland Islands have their own entries on the list.

Furthermore, due to historical reasons and the principle of "One country, two systems", these two territories are indeed quite different from their sovereign state. In term of economic systems, Hong Kong and Macau adopt capitalist policy, while China adopts communist policy. In terms of legal systems, Hong Kong uses the Common Law system, Macau uses the Civil Law system, and China uses the Socialist Law system. (I can give you more and more examples.) I believe that these differences are significant enough that Hong Kong, Macau, China and Taiwan should have separate entries on the list. In some situations, this may also allow the readers to see how the different systems lead to the different rankings.

In particular, I think Hong Kong and Macau should have their own entries on the List of countries and dependencies by population density. Hong Kong and Macau are among the most densely populated places in the world. It is important to highlight this fact. Once again, I would like to emphasize that many many organisations give Hong Kong and Macau their own entries in the rankings. - Alan (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hong kong and Macau are not strictly dependent territories but rather areas of special sovereignty. Also, Åland Islands is not a dependent territory and is not listed separately. The only inconsistency at the moment is Svalbard. It's not a problem to separate them as long as the figures are also removed from the China figure to eliminate double counting, and the rest of the list renumbered. However, we should apply this rule consistently. The discussion above concerning Svalbard is exactly the opposite of what you're trying to achieve. We need first to decide whether areas of special sovereignty should be uniformly included in their parent country or listed separately. --Polaron | Talk 16:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The dependent territories article mentions that Hong Kong and Macau "are not dependent territories in the strict sense of the meaning, but have in some way a similar position." Is there a reliable source of reference for this assertion? The two entities are not dependent territories in the strict sense. So, are they dependent territories in some sense? From what we see, the organisations that rank the Human Development Index, the Corruption Perceptions Index and the Index of Economic Freedom do handle Hong Kong and Macau as if they are dependent territories. From what I see, there are different views on whether Hong Kong and Macau are actually dependent territories. But this doesn't matter. What we all agree on is that Hong Kong and Macau have many of the typical characteristics of dependent territories. As I have mentioned above, these two entities have their own unique situations, and it would be more informative to give them their own entries on the list -- regardless of whether they are dependent territories by definition. I don't know enough about Svalbard. But from my limited knowledge, Hong Kong and Svalbard are not really comparable. - Alan (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just make sure you do the split properly if you really want to split them out. But be prepared to argue with people who will insist that Hong Kong and Macau are integral parts of China. Discussion of this topic has happened before and it might be useful for you to look at the archives. --Polaron | Talk 17:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In what way are they 'integral'? Is there any argument for that? Umofomo (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to challenge China's sovereignty over Hong Kong and Macau. A lot of ranking organisations give separate figures for Hong Kong and Macau for statistical purpose. This is a long-established practice, and is nothing political at all. The "One country, two systems" policy was originally proposed by China. This already shows that China itself was also aware of the unique situations of Hong Kong and Macau. - Alan (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd support this, provided you're also prepared to add all other entities represented on ISO 3166-1 that aren't represented (including Åland, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and so on) and change the inclusion criteria to reflect this change. I am not happy with the inclusion of HK and Macao without the others. Pfainuk talk 17:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree we cant start making exceptions for one or two places, its simply not fair on other locations which also have their own special circumstances, it should be none of them or them all. In the case of Hong Kong and Macau perhaps a compromise would be to reword the notes section for China and clearly list Hong Kong / Macau's size. At the moment the notes there are pretty unclear. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands got no permanent population settled there. Umofomo (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like all of us agree that Hong Kong and Macau should be included in the list with their own entries. We all notice that no matter these two entities fit into all the definitions of "dependent territories" or not, they are very different from their sovereign state, due to the "One country, two systems" policy. I don't think people will be very interested in spending a lot of time quarreling over wordings like "integral part of China". All the readers have to know is that China has sovereignty over Hong Kong and Macau.

While everybody agrees on the inclusion of Hong Kong and Macau, there might be a need to clarify the inclusion criteria. It might be a good idea to use ISO 3166-1. For some disputable countries like Western Sahara, we can simply add a footnote to inform the readers that the country is on the List of states with limited recognition. Also, instead of using politically charged terms like "Taiwan, Province of China", follow the instructions stated in the already established Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). This should solve the problem. - Alan (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course - we should follow Wikipedia article names throughout (applying common sense to cases such as Georgia (country)). But we should take the entries for the ISO list. On the Western Sahara case in particular, we should use the aera of the entire territory with no flag, IMO. Pfainuk talk 17:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Good. Looks like we have some consensus. Let me try to summarise what we have agreed on so far. For articles of this sort (e.g. those listed in Template:Lists of countries), we will include all the entities that are included in the ISO 3166-1 standard. For statistical purposes, as long as an entity is included in the ISO 3166-1, we will include that entity in our article, no matter the entity in question is a sovereign state, a dependent territory, an integral part of another country, a state with limited recognition or anything else. This is the so-called "inclusion criterion". No exceptions. The name and flag of a country/entity shall follow the main article about the country/entity. If there are special guidelines in any "manual of style" page or "naming convention" page, follow those guidelines. In the case of any dispute over names or flags to be used, bring that up on the talk page. Anyway, the main point is that we will follow the ISO 3166-1 standard for articles of this sort. - Alan (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. Bazonka (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I too would agree, though I would note that when I proposed something similar before, people argued for exceptions where:

• A list is based on a single source (such lists generally use their sources' inclusion criteria)
• Context clearly suggests that some other configuration is more logical (such as dealing with sports federations, where national sports teams and federations do not always follow these boundaries)

Obviously, this list - like the population and population density lists - does not meet either exception. Pfainuk talk 22:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Add my agreement—Having clear, consensus-supported item inclusion criteria is a good thing&#153;. I would also suggest that a consensus on this be visibly established in an appropriately-headed separate section of this talk page.

I would suggest that a concise statement of the consensus-supported item inclusion criteria be placed in a sticky section at/near the head of this talk page. Similarly, I would suggest that a default consensus-supported primary source of data (currently this) be specified in a sticky section at/near the head of this talk page, and that consensus-supported data sourcing criteria be developed and stated there (e.g., data from the specified primary source is used if available, optionally followed by alternative data supported by cited sources of comparable quality and reliability to the primary source; with alternatively-sourced data inclusion to be explained in the Notes column.). Finally, it might be a good idea to place inline comments pointing to the aforementioned sticky talk page sections at the head of the article and/or above the table(s) in the article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Good. I believe that we have reached our conclusions on this matter. Let's jump to the next sub-section and discuss about Boracay Bill's suggestion of adding a sticky at the top of the talk page to inform editors about the inclusion criteria and the sources of reference. - Alan (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding a sticky on the talk page

I would suggest that a concise statement of the consensus-supported item inclusion criteria be placed in a sticky section at/near the head of this talk page. Similarly, I would suggest that a default consensus-supported primary source of data (currently this) be specified in a sticky section at/near the head of this talk page, and that consensus-supported data sourcing criteria be developed and stated there (e.g., data from the specified primary source is used if available, optionally followed by alternative data supported by cited sources of comparable quality and reliability to the primary source; with alternatively-sourced data inclusion to be explained in the Notes column.). Finally, it might be a good idea to place inline comments pointing to the aforementioned sticky talk page sections at the head of the article and/or above the table(s) in the article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely a need to document our consensus in the previous sub-section in a organised, systematic fashion. Perhaps some of us could start making a new template to be added to the talk pages of all the articles of this kind. The template should clearly states the inclusion criteria and the sources of reference for an article. I would also suggest that the consensus that we have reached in the previous sub-section should be clearly documented in some kind of "manual of style" or "naming convention", so as to avoid unnecessary disputes (i.e. quarreling) in the future. - Alan (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we came to a similar conclusion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries earlier this year, with the caveats that I noted above. We just never actually ended up implementing it.

WP:SAL says that all stand-alone lists should start with "a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria". The articles on population, area and population density all have such a section, and I have changed them to explicitly reference ISO 3166-1, so on these lists there should be no doubt as to the inclusion criteria.

I don't think any of the three articles actually rigorously follow the ISO at the moment - it's not just Hong Kong and Macao that were excluded before, but are included on the ISO standard. Since all three lists can easily be sorted alphabetically, we ought to go through checking the lists against the ISO standard and altering them so that they fit.

The population/density lists don't really need to include entries that aren't permanently inhabited (these are currently excluded by the inclusion criteria given in the articles) and we should, in some form, note the existence of the unrecognised states. At the moment we generally do this by making a note in an extra column - see how this list deals with Kosovo - and they don't need separate entries. Pfainuk talk 09:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Pitcairn Islands

We show Pitcairn Islands at position 231, based on 5 sq km. But that figure includes only one of the four islands. The total land area is 44.7 sq km, which would put it at position 224, between Saint Martin and Norfolk Island. Is there a good reason why we ignore the bulk of the area and pretend it doesn't exist, relegating it to a note? The fact that only 1 of the 4 islands is inhabited would not be the reason, surely? -- JackofOz (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We're just reflecting what the UN source (here) has. Parsecboy (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a valid basis. The UN list is population-focussed. Only 1 of the 4 Pitcairn Islands is inhabited, so it would make no sense to take the 3 uninhabited ones into consideration in a list such as that. But our list is area-based, by definition, and has nothing to do with population. Surely the total land area of the 4 Pitcairn Islands is what we should show here, and that should in turn determine the ranking. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It would make more sense to use the whole area, not just for the populated island. It seems to me that we'll need a source for the 44.7km² figure. Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are three cites, not for 44.7 but 47 sq km. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We'd probably need a source from the relevant census authority that tabulates statistics for the Pitcairn Islands. If tertiary sources are all we have, it's probably better to leave the total figure as a note. --Polaron | Talk 13:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I still think that's quite misleading, but I'll wait to see what other editors think before taking whatever my next step is. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JackofOz. The vast majority of I-Kiribati islands are uninhabited, but they're still totalled. It'd be very inconsistent to not include the uninhabited areas. Also, the main article on Pitcairn Islands (which doesn't source its claim) states 47 sq km... Rennell435 (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be inconsistent for us not to consistently present information from the supporting source which we cite. If there are other reliable sources out there which contradict and/or clarify that information, info from those sources might be presented as well along with supporting cites. see WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALANCE, etc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Title

Is there any particular reason why the title of this page is 'List of countries and outlying territories'? Can't it simply be 'List of countries'? Umofomo (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Because it also lists outlying territories. Bazonka (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Since most outlying territories listed are countries (I am not saying all because I think Réunion, French Guiana, etc., are in a similar position with Hawaii and Alaska and should not be listed separately), it's redundant to emphasise 'outlying territories'. Umofomo (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That's incorrect. None of the outlying territories listed are countries - they are dependent territories or similar: eg. Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, St Martin, Tokelau, etc. (French Guiana, Hawaii etc are not listed separately.) Bazonka (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

China's actual size

China is actually 9758801 km2, many countries refuse to except this, such is disputed. So i hope you as the reader will know the precise area not a made up area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superhero1 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Lists of countries

Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Unreadable

This list has become unreadable. The sections at the right have become too blown up. Lear 21 (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? It looks fine to me. Bazonka (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

how many hits?

does any one know how many hits this page gets per month? is this more popular or is the cia factbook?

Look at the Page View Statistics on the article's History tab. I don't know how you'd know how popular the CIA Factbook is though. Bazonka (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nauru problem

The listings for Nauru and Gibraltar both claim smallest airport. Also the Nauru listing says it is the third smallest country but there are six countries below it on this very list. Which is it, guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.87.65 (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The listing uses the word "country" to mean sovereign state, and "territory" to mean dependency. It's extremely ambiguous terminology, but whatever. The italicised entries are dependent territories, so they don't count as "countries" in the sovereign sense. Rennell435 (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

sq. mi.

Why is square miles listed? > 95.4% of the world uses the metric system. It clutters the list and adds no information of any value, except for the minuscule minority to which it is adjusted for. Perhaps, using the current logic, we should include the Burmese units of measurement. It should be removed, this is not an CIA Factbook list, it is a wiki. 216.99.54.62 (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember that this is the English-language version of Wikipedia, and whilst all are welcome to use it, its primary audience is the English speaking world. The English-speaking nations of the UK and especially the US still use the imperial system. So if square miles were to be removed, then we would be depriving many of the article's readers of useful information. If you don't like it, you can ignore it. Burmese units of measurement would be useful in the Burmese-language version of Wikipedia, but not here. Bazonka (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Metrication has been legally enacted in the UK, therefore, it does not apply. If you study the primary audience of the English Wikipedia I think you will find that citizens of the US make up slightly less then 50%, thus they are a minority audience. However small the Burmese use of the English Wikipedia is it is also a minority. Therefore once again I must state; using the current logic, we should include the Burmese units of measurement. A entry on this website should not cater to minorities, but rather the majority, this is how it is most effective. It should be removed. 216.99.54.62 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Imperial units are still very commonly used in the English-speaking world. The fact that the UK has legally enacted metrication is irrelevant (and not entirely true either) - square miles are still very widely used. If you don't like them, you don't have to use them. If you do like them, you can. Bazonka (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I am an American and currently in my junior year as a chemistry major, so i am very fluent in the metric system and i must say even i have problem with it sometimes. It is hard for us Americans who were raised on our system. So please, stop being a metric nazi, this is wikipedia for ALL english users.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk • contribs) 11:16, December 26, 2009

China's number

Why is China's area calculated with Taiwan, but without Hong Kong and Macau? Hong Kong and Macau are undesputedly part of China, while Taiwan is de-facto a separate country. It seems like it would make the most sense to include all of them. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

United Nations figures are used in this table. And according to the UN, Taiwan is part of China (although in reality it is disputed and de facto independent). Macao and Hong Kong on the other hand, whilst definitely Chinese, are really territories belonging to China (compare UK and US equivalents Gibraltar and Puerto Rico) but are not actually part of China (like Northern Ireland and Alaska). Bazonka (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The UN figure does not include Taiwan. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Taiwan is included as its being excluded is explicitly stated in the Notes column. --Polaron | Talk 20:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Claims on Antarctica

Why even mention them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.199.177.197 (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This would become awkward when dealing Argentina and Chile. Both countries consider their Antarctic claims to be integral parts of their national territory in the same way as Valparaíso or Rosario are parts of those countries' national territory. If you go to Chile, every map you'll see that shows Chile's borders will include Chile's Antarctic claim as part of Chile. Same goes for Argentina (I think it's actually the law there). We couldn't mention either country without clarifying that the number we give as total area doesn't include these claims. And for reasons of neutrality, we can't reasonably mention Chile and Argentina without mentioning the other five Antarctic claims as appropriate.

That, and it's a useful clarification, and is good for neutrality in any case. It would not be neutral to suggest that, say, the Australian Antarctic Territory is not part of Australia any more than it would be neutral to say that the Australian Antarctic Territory is part of Australia. Pfainuk talk 22:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

But the fact is, that even though some nations claim territories on Antarctica as theirs, the territories are, legally and officially, not a part of any of those nations who claim them. Everyone can "claim" something, but that doesn't make it theirs. And that is the case here. Antarctica is not a part of any country, even though some would like it to be. Doesn't belong to Australia, Chile, Norway, Argentina or anyone else. I just find it odd, that some places it says: "if the claims on Antarctica were included, XXX(country in question) would be 8th(or something) on the list". It doesn't make any sense to say that, because: OF COURSE THE CLAIMS ON ANTARCTICA ARE NOT INCLUDED! why would they eveR!? At most, it could say that the country has made claims on Antarctica, but it shouldn't say that the country could ever move up the list if the claims were included... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.199.177.197 (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You say: even though some nations claim territories on Antarctica as theirs, the territories are, legally and officially, not a part of any of those nations who claim them. This is not accurate from all points of view.

From the perspective of the countries concerned, the segments of Antarctica that they claim legally and offically belong to them. Under Argentine Law, the Argentine Antarctica is legally and officially part of Argentina. If you asked the Argentine government how large their country was, the figure they would give would include Argentine Antarctica. Under Chilean Law, the commune of Antártica is legally and officially part of Chile - and just like Argentina, the Chilean government would cite the land area of Chile including the sector of Argentina they claim. Under British Law (and as recognised by Australia, New Zealand and possibly others), the British Antarctic Territory is legally and officially a British Overseas Territory with equivalent status to Bermuda or the Cayman Islands.

Because of WP:NPOV, we need to give allow for the different perspectives on this matter in this article. You may not accept that any part of Antarctica legally and officially belongs to any state, but the governments of the countries that claim segments of Antarctica would disagree. The reason we use the word "claim" is because of this disagreement. The status of these territories is disputed, and so by using the word "claim" we allow for the possibility that (say) the Ross Dependency is New Zealand territory without stating outright that it is. Pfainuk talk 07:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And as I said, it's fine to mention that some claim this and that, whatever. But it doesn't make any sense to mention how big it would be(or how high on the list) if the claims were included, because the inclusion of those are not legal, nor official(by "the-rest-of-the-world-standards"), which is why such an inclusion would never happen. Every country could claim areas on Antarctica, even the same areas, even all of Antarctica, doesn't make it theirs though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.199.177.197 (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see why we shouldn't mention the size of the claimed Antarctic territories (or any other disputed territories for that matter) in the Notes column. These areas are excluded from the Area columns so we're not implying that the claims have any legitimacy, but if your opinion is that they are legitimate claims, then the information you need is there. This is a neutral point of view as it favours neither one argument nor the other. It seems, Mr Unsigned IP User, that you're trying to push your POV that the claims are invalid. A biased POV is against Wikipedia policy; we must give both sides to every dispute, and that's what's been done. Bazonka (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(I never said that that we shouldn't mention the size of the claimed Antarctic territories... maybe that's why you fail to see it)

"we're not implying that the claims have any legitimacy" - But you kind of are.

Under Denmark, it was said that if Greenland and Faroe Islands were included, it would be this and this big, and would be higher on the list.

Under Norway, it was said that if Svalbard and Jan Mayen were included, it would bet this and this big, and would be higher on the list.

Under XXX(Antarctic claimers), it was said that if the Antarctic claims were included, it would be this and this big, and would be higher on the list.

You see, the Antarctic claims were presented the exact same way as the actual legitimate outlying territories of some nations, which could lead someone to believe that the situation was the same (which it is not).

"if your opinion is that they are legitimate claims, then the information you need is there" - well, done my way, as explained above(and as (I think) it is now), the information would be there too... so, bad argument.

By skimming it, it looks like all of them are now corrected though. = the Antarctic claims are still presented, the areas of those are too, but it is not implied that those claims/areas could interfere and change the ranking-list.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PAGE. Separation of outlying territories, and other errors.

The page is called List of countries and outlying territories by total area, but it doesn't show a list of countries and outlying territories by total area, because dependent territories are listed separately from their sovereign states, for statistical purposes. :S

Well, if that wasn't stupid enough, what makes it even more stupid, is that the separation is not complete. For an example, the islands of Greenland and Faroe Islands (outlying territories within the Kingdom of Denmark), and the islands of Svalbard and Jan Mayen (outlying territories of the Kingdom of Norway) are separated from their sovereign nations, respectively Denmark and Norway - while islands and other outlying territories of a wide range of other countries are NOT separated from its sovereign nations, including all Mexican islands, many Australian islands, and the overseas departments of French Guiana and Guadeloupe. Also, Cyprus includes Northern Cyprus, a "country" recognized by no one but Turkey. And Moldova includes the "country" of Transnistria, which also, remains internationally unrecognized. Just to name a few of the many contradictions on this page.

Another thing is that all separated dependencies are listed in a column called "country". I know they are set off in italics, and that it says (top page) that italics represent dependent territories (...) listed separately from their sovereign states, but it still seems a bit slovenly. What isn't "just a bit slovenly", but pure and simple nonsense, is that in the Greenland Notes, it says A country within the Kingdom of Denmark. Good note, just fine, except that Greenland is NOT a country! I changed the Greenland Notes, and added some new information too, but for some unknown reason, it all got deleted. Those are, however, minor edits (minor from a technical point of view - huge in a factual error point of view), which can be changed quickly (if it aint deleted again) - but the separation problem, is a problem of larger (technical) scale.

At least, I'd like an explanation why some outlying territories are included, while others aren't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Org.aidepikiw (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Given Greenland's size, it's understandable to list it separately. Some countries include many tiny, sometimes hundreds, of islands and it's not practical to list every one of those. Spellcast (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It should still be included in Denmark's total area, because the page says that it's the total area of countries AND outlying territories. And still, your argument is just stupid. Why should Denmark be robbed for their outlying territories while others shouldn't - because their's are not big enough?! :S

The main reason is that Greenland is politically separate from the rest of Denmark - same as the Faroe Islands. I think Svalbard and Jan Mayen are politically no different from the rest of Norway, so these perhaps shouldn't be listed separately, but that's how the UN do it and the UN Demographic Yearbook is the primary source of this data. Bazonka (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Greenland and Faroe Islands are not politically separate from the rest of Denmark.

Has anyone proposed yet that perhaps the source used is not the most appropriate one? After all, population is the primary subject addressed therein, and there seems to be a huge amount of contradictions and problems. (And I'm not really referring to those Org.aidepikiw has just mentioned...mostly jibberish). Rennell435 (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No it's not...

The best way of doing IMO is to use an established external standard, because it takes the decision about whether an entity is of suitable status to be included out of the hands of the editors and thus saves the arguments in cases where a judgement call is needed. In this case, the standard being applied is ISO 3166-1, the ISO's list of countries. If the ISO list French Guiana separately from France, or Greenland separately from Denmark, while including Hawaii in the US, then so should we. Pfainuk talk 18:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This list on wiki does list Greenland separately from Denmark, but it doesn't list French Guiana separately from France. It's complete nonsense. The headline of this whole page is "List of countries AND OUTLYING territories by TOTAL AREA", but the list just doesn't show that. Doesn't show the TOTAL area. :S Sure, it does show the total area for SOME countries. But other countries are just getting cut into pieces...

Ok, I see this is going nowhere. Let's just say that all the others can have all their territories, showing the actual total area of their countries and outlying territories; as the page says it will - while splitting Denmark into atoms, NOT showing it's actual total area.. fine, fine, but I've changed the Greenland note to something better, don't change it back, cuz it's fine how it is now. You get your will...

See this Danish Government website: [3] in which the three "atoms" of Denmark are called "countries". We're not cutting a country into pieces, we're showing three separate (but related) countries separately. Greenland and the Faroes are politically very different from French Guiana - they belong to Denmark, but are not strictly part of it (although part of the Kingdom of Denmark), whereas French Guiana is as much a part of France as Paris and Corsica are. The only subdivisions that I don't think should be on this list are Jan Mayen and Svalbard which are an integral part of Norway. (PS Don't forget to sign your posts in future.) Bazonka (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

what's wrong with this Greenland note: "A dependent overseas territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Greenland is, by area, the world's largest island that is not a continent, as well as the least densely populated dependency in the world." and this Faroe Island note: "A dependent overseas territory within the Kingdom of Denmark." ?? Cuz right now, that's the only thing I want to change, but some idiot keeps deleting everything everyone else ad. Org.aidepikiw (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Your text seems OK to me. Bazonka (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Rennell435 deleted my contribution without showing on the talk page and without respect for the fact that my changes was agreed on, on the talk page.

Quoting Rennell435: "Greenland's govt. is not dependent. Home rule, baby."

My answer is: "A dependent territory, dependent area or dependency is a territory that does not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a State", i.e. Greenland IS dependent, and NOT independent. Which is why I'm going to change his stupid changes.... ffs! Do I really have to come back to check for this shit every day!?!?

I don't think this is the right article for these kinds of arguments, and I don't see why there would be an edit controversy over it on this page. I do think we should stick to the widely agreed-upon term "country" to describe Greenland, as that's what's used in the base articles related to the subject. If you want to dispute that terminology, I'd suggest arguing your point on the talk pages of one of these articles: Greenland, Kingdom of Denmark, Constituent country. Night w (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Greenland is a "dependent overseas territory within the Kingdom of Denmark", so why not just call it that. And I have added some informative facts about it too, so don't go delete it again please :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by Org.aidepikiw (talk • contribs) 15:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where you're quoting from. A Google search revealed nothing. I don't really care what you call it, but it has been debated on other pages, and my vote would be to stick with the consensus. Night w (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The changes aren't stupid. As has been said, the topic has been discussed elsewhere and country was agreed upon. It's merely keeping consistent with other articles. Rennell435 (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This page says:

"For statistical purposes, "dependent territories" are listed separately from their sovereign states and are set off in italics".

It isn't called "dependent countries", it's called "dependent territories"! SO LET'S CALL IT THAT!?

If it's called dependent territories on this page, let it be persistent on this page! Don't call it thousands of different things, stick to one terminology!

AND STOP DELETING PERFECTLY REASONABLE FACTS!!! What's wrong with you? Seriously!? You don't tell me what the problem is, you just delete it wihtout saying a word. Please tell me, what's wrong with this:

"A dependent overseas territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Greenland is, by area, the world's largest island that is not a continent, the world's largest dependent territory, as well as the least densely populated dependency in the world. Greenland also contains the world's largest national park with an area of 972,000 square kilometers, making the park larger than 163 of the world's countries."  ????????????

Cause I don't see it??

...Not cool, man. I'm sorry Wikipedia wasn't what you hoped it was... It's a collaborative effort, and you need to get others in agreement with you before you start making changes. It's also not that big of a deal... try not to get so worked up about these things. If you really feel strongly about it, argue your point...and then—if other editors agree with you—then make the changes. You're not going to get anywhere abusing other editors. Sorry, dude. Rennell435 (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well done Org. I think you've just lost any moral high-ground. Bazonka (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing your prior comments is bad enough; please don't go deleting other editors' comments. Reasons have been given for every time your edits were reverted. We don't stick to one terminology, because each case is different. In this case, as editor Bazonka pointed out, we are using the terminology that the Danish govt uses, and which has been agreed upon in other Wikipedia talk pages, as editor Night w pointed out. As for all the other facts you added, it appears they were removed because it was deemed as unnecessary information—it was far more detail than is attached for any of the other states. Rennell435 (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sealand is a country.

I think it should be added to the list, but it keeps getting deleted. It's legit, aside from the fact that nobody else really recognizes it as a country. If the Principality of Denmark and Hong Kong can be there then I honestly don't see a reason the Principality of Sealand can't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popciel (talk • contribs) 19:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you for real? You're seriously comparing Denmark's legitimacy with Sealand's? Sealand is a joke country and has absolutely no place on this list. Bazonka (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

you're a joke

Hilarity! Rennell435 (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it has no place on this list. And Denmark is not and never has been a principality (it is a kingdom). Pfainuk talk 18:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Kashmiri territories

I think there's an issue regarding the rankings of India and Pakistan. Pakistan is ranked excluding the parts of Kashmir it administers, but India is ranked with its part included--without even a numerical differentiation listed as with Pakistan's figure. Rennell435 (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

need revert

someone deleted the upper value of China. please revert this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.226.99 (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

According to my calculations

If we are going to use 3,717,813 sq. mi. for the US, and the world is 57,510,000 sq mi, 3,717,813/57,510,000 = 6.4646% which rounds up to 6.5%, so why is 6.4% still there? Also, just wondering, what is the logic behind having PRC listed before the USA even though the Chinese area (3,705,407–3,721,904) averages to below to US area, or 6.4-6.5%. Cheers, Carowinds (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

PRC before USA --Le Canari (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Land area

Can we create an article or simply add a column with land area figures ? --Le Canari (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

US owns the moon

The United States owns the moon, our flag is on it and only Americans have been on it... please add the moons total square miles to the US's total. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There is of course a good chance that Americans did not land on the moon and that it was all a cover up.

Scooter20 (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's absurd. No country owns the moon. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the charts adds up the countries who lay claims to antartica and they do not own it either, obviously i do not think the US owns the moon. I was merely using that example to show how idiotic is it to add anartica claims to the chart.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs)

They're official territorial claims... I don't see the absurdity. A lot of states claim territory that they don't actually own, including the United States. The moon is subject to the Outer Space Treaty, which places it under no state's jurisdiction. The Antarctic Treaty stipulated that its prior claimants did not have to renounce their claims. Unlike Antarctic, the Moon's surface has never been officially claimed as part of any state's territory. Night w (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

None of the countries have Antarctic claims added to their figures. It says for those countries, "claims on Antarctica are excluded" and is stated in the lead. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 04:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If the US owns the moon, then it must own all the best cheese. But I've tasted American cheese and it's not good. Ergo, the USA does not own the moon. Bazonka (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Correct, technically Italy owns the moon...But the US controls Italy so...ergo We control and own the Moon. DWood 20:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs)

The USSR went to space first, does it mean they own all of space? India discoverd water on the moon, does India own all water on the moon? No, point proven90.202.63.68 (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo

Kosovo should be listed separately as well. For the argument that is not fully recognized by all member states or its not in U.N., there are other country's or territories that are in similar position and are listed. Can someone please edit the page and list Kosovo in separate area to the Serbia, I think you should leave the Serbia column alone but still add Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.188.54 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo is not listed on ISO 3166-1, and thus fails the inclusion criteria for this list. Its existence is properly noted beside the entry for Serbia. Pfainuk talk 16:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Since when does WP use UN membership as prerequisite for statehood? Kosovo needs to be a separate category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.180.234 (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Iran

The area for Iran is different to what is listed under its entry: Iran.Which one is correct? 1,628,750 or 1,648,195? --Najand (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither one is truly considered correct because different sources give different data. The 1,648,195 is from the CIA and 1,628,750 is from the UN. But since the article is based on UN figures the 1,628,750 figure is used for consistency. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. That makes sense. Thanks. --Najand (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

you are lie !!why usa area is increase from 9,370,000 to about 9,600,000 with this reason:big lakes and water line but iran area decrease ???have UN reason for this decrease???????i forecast a politic reason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.140.252 (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Iran area: 1. Land: about 1636000 sq km(please explain what reason difrence in un and cia statistics????????) 2. Inland waters:about 12000sq km 3. Coastal waters: ???? sq km 4. Territorial waters:about 164000 to 168000 sq km 5. iran caspian sea share:about 40000 to 60000 sq km( Is not known exactly) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.87.103 (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Israel?

1967 borders?

derp? TFighterPilot (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

France

France?Is not 632 000,i know it's less then Ucraine.78.90.139.102 (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mainland France is smaller than Ukraine, but don't forget that French Guyana in South America is legally part of France. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible Inaccuracy

I am pretty sure the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is smaller than the Czech Republic, and that Ireland is bigger than Panama. --Owl 2 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Contiguous area in the United States is lower than Brazil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.38.94 (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldnt the above fact be added to the article ? (the fact that brazil is larger than the contiguous United States) ??Since the article has numerous size comparisons and statetements like " largest of xxx continent largest of xxx hemisphere" and so and so on If no one disputes this i will add it myself in 2-3 days.--189.115.129.185 (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The contiguous part of the USA may be smaller than Brazil, but the USA isn't. It includes 2 non-contiguous (geographically apart) states (Alaska and Hawaii) and 5 non-state territorial realms (Puerto Rico, American Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, and Guam). The contiguous area plus all 7 other areas (2 states and 5 territories) combined are actually larger than Brazil or even China. Technically, I omitted several Pacific islands held by the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service, which are not inhabited by humans. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sweden needs to be in place nr. 55, right? I would change it myself but the article is semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solkig (talk • contribs) 09:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Principality of Sealand

It actually is a country. Please stop undoing the changes when it is added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.204.234 (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a recognised sovereign state and doesn't qualify for inclusion in the list. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't matter if it was anyway. It's not listed on the source we use. Night w (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It is De Facto recognised by a few country's. Plus, recognision of a country by other country's is not neccasary to be a country. just as long as you have a few square meters in land that is not claimed by another land, poststamps, citizens, coins etc etc. So its not up to you to decide wheter its a country or not.

It's true that the ISO standard used as a source for this article doesn't mention Sealand, but that is only because it's an incomplete source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.200.59 (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a number of measures of what does and does not constitute a country. Sealand satisfies none of them. The 'de facto' recognition is the opinion of the guy behind Sealand, whose opinion is obviosuly slightly skewed. raseaC^{talk to me} 19:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete or not, it's the source we're using. If you want to propose a different, authoratative source, that's a different story. If not, end of discussion. Night w (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

China is more bigger.

China's for official dispocision is bigger than eu, you want to take advantage of this bad because Chinese territory annexed practically counting the beats in size from one form or another to the U.S., so therefore let him guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.228.145.118 (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pardon? Bazonka (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

no china isnt bigger but even less. tibet sinkiang and inner monogolia are Autonomous region and native people isnt han(chinese)!!!!!!!!!(about 4000000 square km) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.87.103 (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent surge in China VS US reverts

I am the editor responsible for most of the info you see in the China and US notes and footnotes. Recently, there has been a lot of reverts of my edits which I think are purely motivated by political reasons i.e. hate China/support US. I would like to discuss this with those making the reverts. 68.36.226.99 (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2010.

Please sign the end of your comments with four tildes (~~~~), so other that editors may identify you. In addition, please assume good faith in other editors. Openly announcing your beliefs about another editor will never help matters. That said, if what you are doing is simply sorting the two entries in question, then there is nothing wrong with that. I'd advise other editors to check over the archived discussions on this talk page. When two or more figures conflict with one another, we sort them in alphabetical order: in this case, C (or P) before U. That's how it's been for years. Night w (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The changes made to the United States and China are not motivated by political reasons. If you look to the numbers, you shall see that the US is in fact larger than China.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html Look at the Area - Comparative sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.214.143 (talk • contribs) 17:37, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

CIA Factbook publishes things from CIA's standpoint, which is VERY political. For instance, from 1989-1996 China was listed as "slightly larger than the US." Please refer to the footnotes I have provided on the main page for details. It is called "21 years of World Factbook." And this issue has been settled YEARS ago. CIA Factbook is in fact published by the CIA. A political entity. Hence, we used the UN figures. Although the UN figures are also bias since it includes coastal water for US and not for China. However, the CIA further includes Territorial waters for US which is 12 nautical miles times length of coastline. Of course it doesn't include that for China. The only fair source in my opinion is Britannica. They at least calculate both areas on equal terms, namely: Land + inland waters + inner seas. And China slightly larger.

Let me simplify this for you, according to CIA Factbook:
US = Land + inland water + inner seas + coastal waters + territorial water
China = Land + inland waters + inner seas
Of course US will come out on top according to CIA.

Simplest way is to keep it alphabetical. This page is crying out for some sort of protection. Bazonka (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Include coastal and territorial waters of China, and the USA would still be slightly larger. China has fewer offshore territories (Taiwan; Offshore full province: Hainon) than the USA (Puerto Rico, American Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, Guam; Non-contiguous full states: Alaska and Hawaii). It also has less coastal waters due to the fact that western China is landlocked. The USA, on the other hand, has a West Coast in addition to an East Coast. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Most people rely too heavily on CIA Factbook. Sure there is a lot of facts in it but when it comes to the "enemies" of US, almost all info regarding them are way off one way or the other. And this includes total area, proved reserves, military expediture, etc etc. CIA LieBook if you ask me. Jc900 (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2010.

Oh, the CIA? There's a neutral source for you. Bazonka, did you request protection? There does seem to be a surge in IP reverts. Night w (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that one month of semi protection would help to reduce the edit war. Bazonka (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you over the reliability of the CIA World Factbook, however, I do not heavily rely on it and provide another source. I have copied and pasted sections of articles from Encarta Reference Library below. Encarta states its sources for individual figures at the bottom of its statistic pages which give the same information as the article itself. The first sentence of the sources section is as follows: Area data are from the statistical bureaus of individual countries. Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The United States of America is a federal republic on the continent of North America. It has an area of 9,826,630 sq km (3,794,083 sq mi) and is the third largest country in the world after Russia and Canada. Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The total area of China is 9,571,300 sq km (3,695,500 sq mi) including inland waters. Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Please note that with all of this I have included the copyright information that Encarta adds whenever one copys and pasts information from an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.214.143 (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there are several definitions, which vary. Depending on the definition used China may be bigger, or the US may be bigger. We cite all available sources, and note they differ.

I'm inclined to agree with alphabetical ordering: it's what we get when we sort the table, anyway. Which is why I've been watching the slow edit war here with some amusement, instead of heading off to WP:RFPP... TFOWR 15:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

the encarta figures are similar to factbook figures. Any figure that lists US as 9.8 million sqkm is including territorial waters for US and none for china. I implore you to compare the various years of cia factbook to see how much US water space has expanded. Also, go take a look at china's figure; it has NEVER changed since the inception of the factbook.

UN figures include coastal waters, which already bais. But this is the compromise we struck on this article: include coastal waters for US but also include the disputed territories under china control for china.

Everytime you put US ahead undermines this compromise.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.157.112 (talk • contribs)

At the moment, the article states that China is 3rd or 4th. It states that the USA is 3rd or 4th. Both countries are listed as being 3rd/4th. The recent edits have not done anything to change that - the only thing they've changed is the ordering in a table on an online encyclopaedia. I appreciate that China and the US might care which state has a greater land area, but I sincerely doubt they care about the ordering in a table. A table that says that both states are either 3rd or 4th, depending on definition used. TFOWR 17:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove Vatican City?

Remove the Vatican, it's a city not a countries, also it's more part of Italy since if you are born there you become a Italian citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.137.22 (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an independent state. Feel free to do some research. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Vatican is quite obviously a country with His Holiness Pope Bennedict XVI as sovereign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.208.208 (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

European Union

Why is the EU not listed ? Its a defacto state. There are several entries here which are not countries as well. The overseas territories for example. The EU should be properly integrated because it has statistical relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.129.36 (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The EU does not figure on ISO 3166-1, the inclusion criterion for this list. Pfainuk talk 14:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the EU is not needed in this list and does not meet the criteria. To be honest i do not know why anyone that wants the EU displayed is complaining. It currently gets mentioned (with its total area) very clearly in the introduction. Some would question its right to be mentioned at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The EU is now recognized as a state under international law. The European Union has a legal personality and can therefore act and be treated as a state. This is the case since Dec. 2009 when the Lisbon Treaty came into force. The EU is represented in G8 and G20 and is defacto acting like a state (unlike 100 entries here on the list). Therefore the EU should be an entry in this list. Regards GlobalContinent (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A blog is insufficient to demonstrate your contention, as per your comments at Talk:List of countries by population. Representation at the G8 and G20 is not a determining feature of statehood. Pfainuk talk 14:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. WP:SPS says, in part:

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

The blog at issue is http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ and the author of the cited piece is Daniel Hannan. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What's being claimed is that the EU is a single sovereign and independent state. This is an exceptional claim that requires an exceptional source (for example, a treaty or other document signed by the governments of all member states). The opinion of Daniel Hannan is not an exceptional source. Pfainuk talk 16:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding it to the list would also require us to remove the details of all of the member states, otherwise we'll be double-counting. Not going to happen. Bazonka (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The author Hannan is a well known journalist, the source is part of the Telegraph. Hannan is also known as ultra-national-British (hardcore-anti-EU). If this man writes about a sovereign EU, something has changed (Lisbon Treaty). In any case, the list here is a list and not a law school. As mentioned in another Forum the EU has become to big and relevant to leave it out. Regards GlobalContinent (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What he isn't is the exceptional source I said we needed. His view is insufficient for us to overturn our inclusion criterion, which adheres to the prevailing wisdom that it is the member states, and not the EU, that form the sovereign states in this part of the world. Better to include the member states, as per our inclusion criterion, than to remove them all and list the EU instead. Pfainuk talk 22:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hannan is certainly only an illustration to the defacto reality. Exceptional sources ? How about the G8 inventors ? They obviously see no contradiction by including classic nations and the EU. The same with UN and WTO, no contradiction. You seem to argue on a strict minor (ISO code?) level while the reality has superseded this nitpicking. Where is the problem in including the EU unnumbered ? I just discovered, that country articles even use the EU in their top maps as a wider territory. This an amateur list and not a Harvard seminar on international law. By the way, may I ask you are intending to represent when talking about we ? (Not that I´m interested, but it appears you talking for others) Regards GlobalContinent (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Hannan's view makes no difference to if the EU belongs on this list or not. The title says list of countries and outlying territories, the European Union is neither of these things. We exclude certain entities known as countries, there for the case for including a non country is very controversial. That is why it is very important we follow a strict code on what can and can not be included. If we did not follow the strict code, we would to argue with many different editors about the inclusion of exclusion of certain things. This EU thing has been gone through extensively in the past as you can see from the past archives. The "we" thing probably refers to current consensus agreed before on this talk page or it could mean "we" as responsible editors must follow rules on things like sources, and Dan Hannan is not one when it comes to things relating to this list.

As a supporter of the European Union, personally id have no real problem seeing it in the list to provide readers with more information (something they get in the introduction already anyway) as long as its status was clear. However there are certain entities described as countries that i strongly oppose be included on this and other lists. Its hard to see how it can be justified to include a non country/territory, whilst excluding things described by reliable sources as countries. There for i support following the strict criteria for inclusion. The European Union or Eurozone is included on a list like about GDP, where reliable sources for those pages actually provide data for the EU/Eurozone justifying their presence. It is not needed here. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. Bazonka (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

All fine, Britishwatcher. But let me ask a question. Obviously at some point during the creation of this page the decision was made to include outlying territories, which are not countries. Obviously a special interpretation of a "territory/country" is already the foundation. I don´t see no circumstance why the exceptional status of the EU should not be reason enough to grant an inclusion (other than Anti-EU-Propaganda). Another question, because previous discussions are mentioned: Is everybody really aware of what the Lisbon Treaty (Dec 2009) implicates ? A legal personality and even diplomatic services have been added. I also can´t see what other territories argue to get an inclusion, the EU is exceptionally advanced and sovereign and therefore can be included. It should be no problem at all to get an unnumbered entry, sorry. (Same with the population statistics) GlobalContinent (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The UN also has legal personality and a diplomatic service (most of the organisation) - and the UN also gets a look in at the G8 and G20. Does that make the UN "sovereign" in your view?

Whichever, the Lisbon Treaty has not changed the fact that the EU does not feature on ISO 3166-1, which is our inclusion criterion. Including one entity that doesn't feature on our inclusion criteria rather implies that we (the editors of this article, or anyone else who comes along and asks) can include other entities not on our inclusion criteria such as US states and Canadian provinces. The latter are a good case in point: they also have legal personality and some have diplomatic relations with outside states. But remain within Canada.

All are in exactly the same position with respect to this list. They don't belong because they don't meet our inclusion criterion, ISO 3166-1. Including one would imply that we can include any of them, undermining the list. Pfainuk talk 06:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop Pfainuk, you making it worse every time you start writing. You already tried to sell "territories" as fully independent or sovereign, which is ridiculous. Now you try to compare the UN with EU which (don´t take it personal) is bluntly dumb. Please read the EU article to improve your reputation. Honestly (when considering Pfainuk) I come to the conclusion that an EU entry here, has become very necessary, because of previous unawareness or (sorry) ignorance, or (sorry again) Anti-EU-Propaganda. So if nobody objects the new agreement should be: the inclusion of the EU on an unnumbered base. The justification base can easily include all defacto state features; currency, parliament, legal personality, citizenship. Pfainuk I hope you don´t take to personal, but it is your immature argumentation, which I always was skeptical when reading Wikipedia. Now that I´m an editor as well, on the exact level like you and anybody else, I have the responsibility to improve the lists here (and in population). Regards GlobalContinent (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. Regardless of your going on about "don´t take it personal", that is a personal attack, which is considered unacceptable behaviour on Wikipedia.

"So if nobody objects the new agreement should be..."? Too late for that. You've already had four editors giving reasoned objections, many of which you have answered only with insults. Your position has been considered, and we have, it seems to me, reaffirmed the consensus against making an exception to the inclusion criteria in this case. I suggest there is little benefit in continuing this discussion.

But for the record, I have never claimed that dependent territories were sovereign, nor made any claim that could reasonably be inferred to suggest that. Your suggestion that I have is false. Pfainuk talk 22:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Aw, screw this. You are indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer Lear21 and I claim my five pounds. Pfainuk talk 22:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)