Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Serious changes needed
This is titled as a list of countries. If it's not a sovereign political state, it is not a country regardless of its cultural significance or what have you. Consider the 5 tropical territories of my own homeland, the USA.
- 1. Puerto Rico
- 2. American Virgin Islands
- 3. American Samoa
- 4. Northern Marianas
- 5. Guam
These are not countries. They are legally part of the USA. Although not "states," they are part of the country. They are directly subject to what Congress enacts unless Congress specifies that only states are covered, in which case the District of Columbia is excluded unless otherwise noted. They can not appoint there own diplomats. They must use the Federal Dollar. They do not and can not require Passports for those coming from other parts of the USA.
They are simply not countries, and should not be separately listed. The same goes for similar holdings of other countries that lack full provincial status within their respective countries. I refer to the remaining British colonies, the few French holdings in the Americas, and so on and so forth. (Note: Canada should still be listed in 2nd place. It is not still part of Britain as is popular belief in some circles. It's a separate sovereign state in the personal union of a figurehead monarch. It was proclaimed a separate country through the Statute of Westminster in 1931).
By the way, the USA is slightly larger than the PRC when all is said and done. Both countries claim about 200 miles (the maximum allowed by maritime treaties) of water beyond their coastlines, and I say "about" because treaties would be written in SI. America has more coast because it has a West Coast. Western China is landlocked. As for dry land, Alaska alone is larger than Taiwan and Hong Kong combined, and slightly larger than Manchuria if I read my globe right. Now, add Hawaii and the 5 territories. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- The U.S. Census Bureau does not include these territories in what it calls the "United States". This is pretty much the fundamental reason why dependent territories are listed separately: the national census authorities do not include them in their national tabulations. --Polaron | Talk 13:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- The Census is ultimately more about population and demographics than about area. More importantly, the CIA World Factbook does include them, not to mention the territorial waters surrounding them. For a list like this, the CIA World Factbook (whose data set is global, not national) would be more reliable than each country's respective census, at least in the sense of being more consistent. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- This list doesn't use national censuses, it uses a document from the United Nations Statistics Division. The notion that the CIA would be a reliable source is certainly amusing though. Night w (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. Even the CIA Factbook does not include the U.S. territories in its figure for the United States. --Polaron | Talk 14:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- According to Sources 8 and 9 cited by this Article, it does include territorial waters. Including the surrounding waters and excluding the territorial islands is quite strange indeed. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- The territorial waters of the U.S. are completely unrelated to U.S. territories. --Polaron | Talk 03:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- The US territories are not part of the US, though they do belong to it. They are legally and politically separate entities and so it makes sense for them to be listed separately. Bazonka (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- To Mysterious El Willstro: I am the poster responsible for most of the info you see in the China and US footnotes. I wish to shed some light to you as to why China is the 3rd largest country. China is actually the 2nd largest by LAND area. But including water space, Canada is larger than China. Prior to 1997, the CIA factbook lists China as 3rd largest country and the US as 4th. But starting that year, US started including coastal water spaces. Then 10 years later in 2008, it started to include territorial water spaces. At this point I got really pissed because the CIA DOES NOT include those areas for CHINA. (Interestingly, its current figures for China is all wrong; it list China's Land as 9.5 KM^2 whereas it should be 9.3. Please go compare the different years of the CIA factbook and you will see what I am talking about.) Basically, by including out-land waters, that is how CIA "boosted" US over China in terms of TOTAL area (please note: not LAND area since this can be calculated by satellite imaging). The proper method of defining territorial extent is LAND + INLAND WATER + INNER SEAS. Anything outside of land borders should not be included. This is how Encyclopedia Britannica computes and China comes out ahead. However, CIA may choose to define terrirotial extent differently. But to do so they should include similar figures for China but they obviously don't. Let me say this again, China's figure in the CIA factbook DOES NOT included coastal or territorial water space. BTW, territorial waters is 12 NM. Not 200. Also as to your argument of including the 5 additional territories, I would kindly suggest that you look into their sizes as they are miniscule and wouldn't impact our calculations in any meaningful way. One last thing, after USSR fell, US began "focusing" on China. It does not want to be seen as smaller than an Asian nation. That understandable and I believe you feel the same way. Here on wikipedia, facts can be presented for all to see and judge. Facts are not just from one source, for instance, the CIA. People who value knowledge, rightfully value the truth, and I believe you do too.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.115.215 (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, figure of 9,629,091 for the United States IS NOT the CIA world fact book figure. It the figure which use the standard method of LAND + INLAND WATER + INNER SEAS. If we take China figure of 9,640,011 (which the same method in fact) than yes China is larger. BUT, the total Unincorporated territories of US (which are include for some other countries) come out to over 11,000 square Kilometers, meaning the US just edges out China. No matter how you slice it the difference is not great... within a few thousand square kilometers, UNLESS you use the CIA world fact book figure here which in fact IS NOT being used. If you go by CIA than in fact the US is over 100,000 square kilometer larger than China. But this is not a space to discuss of World Fact Book!! 07:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProgressiveThinker (talk • contribs)
- Previous poster, I am not getting your point at all. The CIA figure for US is 9.8. Also, the territories of US that is not included is already listed above. Please see it. They are MINISCULE. They are so small, you can't see them on the map. The difference of size between US and China is NOT about land, it is about WATER. Please go check how much water space US has expanded from 1989 to present.
- Actually, figure of 9,629,091 for the United States IS NOT the CIA world fact book figure. It the figure which use the standard method of LAND + INLAND WATER + INNER SEAS. If we take China figure of 9,640,011 (which the same method in fact) than yes China is larger. BUT, the total Unincorporated territories of US (which are include for some other countries) come out to over 11,000 square Kilometers, meaning the US just edges out China. No matter how you slice it the difference is not great... within a few thousand square kilometers, UNLESS you use the CIA world fact book figure here which in fact IS NOT being used. If you go by CIA than in fact the US is over 100,000 square kilometer larger than China. But this is not a space to discuss of World Fact Book!! 07:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProgressiveThinker (talk • contribs)
- To Mysterious El Willstro: I am the poster responsible for most of the info you see in the China and US footnotes. I wish to shed some light to you as to why China is the 3rd largest country. China is actually the 2nd largest by LAND area. But including water space, Canada is larger than China. Prior to 1997, the CIA factbook lists China as 3rd largest country and the US as 4th. But starting that year, US started including coastal water spaces. Then 10 years later in 2008, it started to include territorial water spaces. At this point I got really pissed because the CIA DOES NOT include those areas for CHINA. (Interestingly, its current figures for China is all wrong; it list China's Land as 9.5 KM^2 whereas it should be 9.3. Please go compare the different years of the CIA factbook and you will see what I am talking about.) Basically, by including out-land waters, that is how CIA "boosted" US over China in terms of TOTAL area (please note: not LAND area since this can be calculated by satellite imaging). The proper method of defining territorial extent is LAND + INLAND WATER + INNER SEAS. Anything outside of land borders should not be included. This is how Encyclopedia Britannica computes and China comes out ahead. However, CIA may choose to define terrirotial extent differently. But to do so they should include similar figures for China but they obviously don't. Let me say this again, China's figure in the CIA factbook DOES NOT included coastal or territorial water space. BTW, territorial waters is 12 NM. Not 200. Also as to your argument of including the 5 additional territories, I would kindly suggest that you look into their sizes as they are miniscule and wouldn't impact our calculations in any meaningful way. One last thing, after USSR fell, US began "focusing" on China. It does not want to be seen as smaller than an Asian nation. That understandable and I believe you feel the same way. Here on wikipedia, facts can be presented for all to see and judge. Facts are not just from one source, for instance, the CIA. People who value knowledge, rightfully value the truth, and I believe you do too.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.115.215 (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- The US territories are not part of the US, though they do belong to it. They are legally and politically separate entities and so it makes sense for them to be listed separately. Bazonka (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- The territorial waters of the U.S. are completely unrelated to U.S. territories. --Polaron | Talk 03:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- According to Sources 8 and 9 cited by this Article, it does include territorial waters. Including the surrounding waters and excluding the territorial islands is quite strange indeed. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- The Census is ultimately more about population and demographics than about area. More importantly, the CIA World Factbook does include them, not to mention the territorial waters surrounding them. For a list like this, the CIA World Factbook (whose data set is global, not national) would be more reliable than each country's respective census, at least in the sense of being more consistent. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Land Area vs. Total Area / China vs. United States - an explanation
Most people don't understand the difference between Land Area and Total Area. This sections serves to explain this distinction between the two and how it affects the ranking of China and United States.
US (5 parts):
1. Land: 9,161,923 sq km
2. Inland waters: 204,083 sq km
3. Coastal waters: 109,362 sq km (this area was included in UN official figure used in main page)
4. Territorial waters: 195,213 sq km (this area was further included in CIA World Factbook)
please note:in this page and in law of sea Territorial waters not acount in area for all country
please explain:why any country have a coastal waters ???and other country only have a Inland waters in acount of area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.87.103 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
5. US Great Lakes: 156,049 sq km
Source: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/616563/United-States
Note: Only includes 50 states and DC. Also, Encyclopedia Britannica specifically excludes 3 and 4.
China (6 parts):
1. Land: 9,326,410 sq km
2. Inland waters: approx. 270,550 sq km
3. Coastal waters: No official figure
4. Territorial waters: No official figure
5. Aksai Chin: 37,250 sq km (this is valid inclusion for China via Line of Actual Control.)
6. Trans-Karakoram Tract: 5,800 sq km (this is valid inclusion for China via Pakistani cession.)
Source from CIA Factbook and Wikipedia.
Note: Only includes Mainland China. This means Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan are all NOT included.
Water space notes: It is difficult to deduce China's actual water space. For instance, CIA Factbook includes coastal and territorial waters for US, however, it is uncertain whether the same has been done for China. Given that China's coastline is 14,500 km long, which is not much shorter than the US, it is not likely for China's total water space to be that low in comparision to US'. Furthermore, China's CIA Factbook figure has never been modified since it's inception in 1989. While US water space had been added to on numerous occasions.
See: http://www.theodora.com/wfb/
Note that after adding coastal waters in 1997, US began listing itself as the third largest country. Thus from 1989-1996, CIA Factbook listed China as third largest.
This sums up the difference b/w China and US in terms of size, both total and land. It is rather complex. The purpose of this posting is to inform future contributors as to the reason why the ranking is disputed. Specifically, why CIA World Factbook figure and those that mirror it, cannot be regarded as a definitive source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.110.29 (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I thought the great lakes were shared by USA and Canada, is their a definite water border? It's not just Encyclopaedia Britannica that list china as third biggest, the Dorling Kindersley encyclopaedia also says it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.100.20 (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Great Lakes is shared. The Britannica figure only includes the US share of great lakes I believe. Keep in mind, prior to 1998 all sources listed China as 3rd largest but the US/CIA is changing that. Since the Factbook is free, most people use it as a definitive source now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.229.89 (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I thought the great lakes were shared by USA and Canada, is their a definite water border? It's not just Encyclopaedia Britannica that list china as third biggest, the Dorling Kindersley encyclopaedia also says it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.100.20 (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Svalbard and Jan Mayen
Should Svalbard and Jan Mayen have their own entry in this list? And if so, why together? They are used in the ISO as a separate listing due to geography, but other places which are like this, like Christmas Island and Reunion do not have their own list entries. Even if one wants to list Svalbard due to its international status, including Jan Mayen in that seems silly. I think their area should just be included in the entry for Norway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- This list uses a single source, from the United Nations Statistics Division. So it's just a reflection of what's in that document. Night w (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha and the Pitcairn Islands
I added the area of the uninhabited islands to the figures: there is no reason at all to exclude them if they are not excluded in the figures of other countries. I listed Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha together: they form one territory. Please note the following things as well:
- Akrotiri and Dhekelia is a British territory, there is no reason at all to include its surface in that of Cyprus.
- After the decision of the international court about Kosovo, this Wikipedia seems to have decided (only the "country" infobox left!) to treat Kosovo as an independent country, finally. There is no reason at all to include its surface in that of Serbia (very serious error).
- I see no reason why the "almost uninhabited" territories, such as the French Southern and Antarctic Lands (140 inhabitants) or South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (30), should not be included as well. Completely uninhabited territories, such as the Coral Sea Islands or Clipperton Island, could be excluded, inhabited territories not.
Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Since we're speaking here about things outside of the topic suggested by the section header, I'll put in my two cents worth. It seems to me pretty meaningless to compare area figures taken from widely divergent sources taken from different points in time, based of differing presumptions about what "area of ..." should include and exclude, and bridging times of political redefinitions of where the boundaries of some particular countries lie. Re level of inhabitation, I don't understand what that consideration might or might not have to do with area.
- The lead sentence of the article says, "This is a list of the sovereign states and dependent territories of the world, sorted by total area, including all entities on the ISO standard ISO 3166-1." The rest of the lead explains some things which don't fit with that lead sentence. The table which follows is a hodgepodge of information which varies week by week, driven by competing editorial POVs. Such is Wikipedia.
- It's early in my timezone. I need another cup of coffee before I look further at my watchlist. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- It may well be clear that I'm the one who doesn't understand either why inhabitation or not apparently has something to do with mentioning a territory here or not. And of course am I working to make this list as neutral and consistent as possible: it are exactly the anomalies that I am talking about. Excuse my English, it is rather late in my time zone as well. Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- @Belgianman, regarding your comment on Kosovo, I do not think it is correct to say that Wikipedia has decided to treat it as an independent country. The Kosovo article which you linked to as your evidence only describes it as a disputed territory. And the ICJ decision was about the legality of the declaration of independence, not the legality of the independence itself - a subtle but important difference (IMO Serbia asked the wrong question of the court) - so there are still large question marks over Kosovo's statehood. As about two thirds of UN nations still recognise Kosovo as part of Serbia, I think that this article has got it just right - certainly not a "very serious error". Bazonka (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, let's wait until a majority of countries have recognized it then. What do you think about Akrotiri and Dhekelia and the almost uninhabited territories? Belgian man (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- @Belgianman, regarding your comment on Kosovo, I do not think it is correct to say that Wikipedia has decided to treat it as an independent country. The Kosovo article which you linked to as your evidence only describes it as a disputed territory. And the ICJ decision was about the legality of the declaration of independence, not the legality of the independence itself - a subtle but important difference (IMO Serbia asked the wrong question of the court) - so there are still large question marks over Kosovo's statehood. As about two thirds of UN nations still recognise Kosovo as part of Serbia, I think that this article has got it just right - certainly not a "very serious error". Bazonka (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- It may well be clear that I'm the one who doesn't understand either why inhabitation or not apparently has something to do with mentioning a territory here or not. And of course am I working to make this list as neutral and consistent as possible: it are exactly the anomalies that I am talking about. Excuse my English, it is rather late in my time zone as well. Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Knights of Malta?
SMOM, the soveriegn order of the knights of malta, is largely recognized as an independant sovereign nation by most of the world. I don't, however, see it on this list. I was curious as to whether it would be smaller or larger than the vatican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.127.238 (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is a sovereign organisation, not a sovereign nation, so it should not be in the list. However. if it were to be included it would come below the Vatican because it has zero territory. (The properties that it owns are legally part of Italy.) Bazonka (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Iran is more bigger
1 648 195 km2 without Iran caspian sea territories(about 15% of caspian sea about 50 to 60000km2)
in total iran total area about 1700000km2 not 1628000
you are lieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.16.77.62 (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
forthermore iran sea territories in south of iran isnt count:
about 75000 to 120000 km2 Coastal waters insist of:iran persian gulf territories and iranian sea(lier name:oman sea)
but:iran total area and territories:
1. Land and Inland waters: 1,648,195 sq km
2. Coastal waters:about 125,000 to 170,000 sq km
(exactly mount of area isnt announce)
in total:about 1,775,000 to 1,820,000
3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.80.9.16 (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The Netherlands Antilles...
...were dissolved on 10 October 2010 so please remove them from the list. 195.114.155.92 (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
And add the new countries of Curacao and Sint Maarten, and update the area of the Netherlands wich I´m guessing should now include the three new municipalities of Saba, Bonaire and Saint Eustatius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.13.205 (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. This still has to be done. You may well do it yourself. Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
New Zealand
I suggest adding a commentary: "Largest sovereign country situated entirely on the islands".195.114.155.92 (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- What does that mean? It is not the largest island nation by any means. Bazonka (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant Madagascar, not New Zealand. 93.183.233.156 (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Madagascar is still not the largest island nation. Bazonka (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK, Indonesia93.183.232.195 (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Depending on which school of geography you belong to, it'd actually be either Australia or Greenland. Given the controversies, it's probably best to leave such a statement out. Nightw 16:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK, Indonesia93.183.232.195 (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Madagascar is still not the largest island nation. Bazonka (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant Madagascar, not New Zealand. 93.183.233.156 (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Includes Islands...
Throughout the list random entries appear saying that suchandsuch island is included, for example it says Zanzibar is included in Tanzania. Is this really necessary? I can understand if an exclusion is stated, or if the islands status as part of the country is ambiguous (such as in Australia). However, random islands that are simply parts of countries shouldn't be listed unless there is a good reason to, such as a territorial dispute.
Besides islands, a couple of other areas are seemingly randomly listed to (see the entry on Yemen). These should also go (possible exception for French overseas departments). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done a lot of the cleaning up. I left islands there if they were not integral, if their status as integral is disputed, or if they are disputed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Very good work! Belgian man (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Shailshukla, 21 December 2010
{{edit semi-protected}} Arunachal Pradesh is always integral part of India. China's claim for Arunachal Pradesh is base less. As far as Kashmir is concern, I agree that it is a disputed territory b/w India & Pakistan, but not Arunachal Pradesh. Look at here & here for references
So please remove Arunachal Pradesh & China(in bold) from following lines
Smaller figure excludes Indian Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh which are claimed by Pakistan and China respectively. Larger figure includes 120,849 km2 (46,660 sq mi) of disputed territories with Pakistan and China.[7]
Shailshukla (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Whilst China may not be actively pursuing control of Arunachal Pradesh, it certainly still claims it. The two references that you gave do not in any way indicate that the Chinese claim is baseless. Bazonka (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources. Chzz ► 22:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Not done
Percents
Vatican with 0.44 km² and set to <0.00001% of the total world area. That is somehow wrong, since already Tuvalu with 12km² is under that 0.00001%. Vatican should have <0.000001%, if it really is necessary to put there smaller than hundreths of percents. 82.141.72.152 (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- If Tuvalu's area is smaller than 0.00001% of the total land area, than it is correct to state that Vatican City's area is smaller than 0.00001% of the total area is well. I agree with you, however, that these figures are a bit useless (only interesting for the biggest countries). Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Area of Bangladesh and its Ranking
The area of Bangladesh should be 147,570 sq.Kilometer which is greater than the Area of Nepal so Nepal should be ranked at 94 and Bangladesh should be at 93 position — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulachhan (talk • contribs) 22:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, I corrected it. Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Source
I think we should use the source chosen for each country article individually. Belgian man (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then this article would become an inconsistent mish-mash. Not good. Bazonka (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
China has grown larger
(and yes, that title is a humorous reference)
- January 12, 2011, Tajikistan agrees to give land to China, Washington Post
- 13 January 2011, Tajikistan cedes land to China, BBC News Asia-Pacific
Tajikistan has ceded ~1000 square km to China following the signing of a border deal. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 02:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes but China loses 632 km2 with the flooding of the three gorges dam area Three Gorges Dam:-p ProgressiveThinker (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
what exact km2?1000 or 1142 or 142?????????? why reson tajikestan selling to china??????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan666 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Objection to the transfer of part of the territory of Tajikistan to China: http://parset.com/News/ShowNews.aspx?Code=264577
Read reactions to transfer part of China Tajikistan soil: http://parset.com/News/ShowNews.aspx?Code=256517 tajikestan people say:China must to give the following Khotan and Kashghr historic cities that are in Persian language to tajikestan.
Tajikistan border dispute with China continue:
http://parset.com/News/ShowNews.aspx?Code=267682#
Constantine Sryvzhkyn one of the leading experts according to the Kazakh political continuity boundary claims of some Chinese circles than the Central Asian States has said: Even today in some of China's history books for schools that are prepared and printed, 510 thousand square kilometers of territory of Kazakhstan as its territory was considered. After considering signing and ratification documents and the border between Beijing's Central Asian states, one can conclude that this level has been officially resolved, but the sensitivities of some communities in the region and China's political exploitation of these issues in future will be possible.
in persian:کنستانتین سریوژکین یکی از کارشناسان برجسته سیاسی قزاق نیز با توجه به تداوم ادعاهای مرزی برخی از دوایر چینی نسبت به کشورهای آسیای مرکزی گفته است: حتی امروز در برخی از کتابهای تاریخ که برای مدارس چین تهیه و چاپ میشوند، 510 هزار کیلومتر مربع از قلمرو قزاقستان به عنوان خاک این کشور قلمداد شده است. پس با توجه به انعقاد و تصویب اسناد مرزی میان پکن و کشورهای آسیای مرکزی، میتوان نتیجه گرفت که این موضوع در سطح رسمی حل و فصل شده است، ولی حساسیتهای موجود در جوامع برخی از کشورهای منطقه و چین بهرهبرداری سیاسی از این مباحث در آینده را امکانپذیر خواهد کرد. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.93.54 (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Ukraine
Please change the Notes section on Ukraine from "Largest country wholly in Europe." to something like "Largest European country (except Russia's Europe territory)" as, IMO, the phrase "Largest country wholly in Europe" doesn't make you think "Largest (trully) European country" right away. Magicoast (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is Russia not truely European? Tread carefully!
- But really, wholly in Europe is an accurate summary. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- It works for me, too. No need to change it. Bazonka (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Russia is not truely European, it spans two continents. Open a map:)
- Well, logically wholly in Europe and Largest European is the same, but makes a little bit of different impact in terms of impression. That was what I was striking at.
- 19:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- It works for me, too. No need to change it. Bazonka (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Republic of China
Why does the Republic of China (Taiwan) get its own section, when other sates with limited recognition, even the more recognised Kosovo, don't? Additionally, is the ROC included in the larger PRC figure? It's not stated. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is CLEARLY stated in PRC's notes that taiwan is NOT included.
France (2)
Should the overseas territories be included in the France figure? It seems they already are based on the text. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Only Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion (from March 1 Mayotte as well) should be included as they are, being overseas regions, fully part of French territory (they are not more independent than Corsica), all the others not, as they have their own government, in some cases their own currency as well, etc. That means that the situation is okay for now, indeed. (Although I would include the French Southern and Antarctic Lands in the list, but that's an other discussion.) Greetings, Gertjan R 12:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah yes, I misread something. Including the French Southern and Antarctic lands sounds good, although probably excluding the antarctic part. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, I would exclude the Antarctic part myself as well. But if we include the French Southern and Antarctic Lands, we should include the British Indian Ocean Territory and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands as well (being overseas territories featuring a small, not necessarily permanent population and lacking an own government). What do you and the others think about that? Greetings, Gertjan R 15:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- BIOT and South Georgia are not parts of the UK, but are overseas territories. Therefore, it is correct for them to be listed separately from the main UK entry. In my opinion, as Antarctic claims are not fully internationally recognised, they should only be mentioned in notes. Bazonka (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes of course, mentioning BIOT and SGSSI separately was what I meant. I'll add them right now. Greetings, Gertjan R 12:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- BIOT and South Georgia are not parts of the UK, but are overseas territories. Therefore, it is correct for them to be listed separately from the main UK entry. In my opinion, as Antarctic claims are not fully internationally recognised, they should only be mentioned in notes. Bazonka (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, I would exclude the Antarctic part myself as well. But if we include the French Southern and Antarctic Lands, we should include the British Indian Ocean Territory and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands as well (being overseas territories featuring a small, not necessarily permanent population and lacking an own government). What do you and the others think about that? Greetings, Gertjan R 15:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah yes, I misread something. Including the French Southern and Antarctic lands sounds good, although probably excluding the antarctic part. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Territories not included in the list
Inhabited:
- Akrotiri and Dhekelia
- Åland Islands
- Christmas Island
- Cocos (Keeling) Islands
- Mayotte (this one certainly should be included separately and not with Comoros!)
- Johnston Atoll
- Midway Atoll
- Wake Island
Uninhabited:
- Ashmore and Cartier Islands
- Baker Island
- Bouvet Island
- Clipperton Island
- Heard Island and McDonald Islands
- Howland Island
- Jarvis Island
- Kingman Reef
- Coral Sea Islands
- Navassa Island
Gertjan R 13:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Generally agree with additions, quick notes/queries:
- Akrotiri and Dhekelia apparently included in Cyprus area, probably also wrong
- Aland may not have to be listed separately, as it is Integral, albeit with a unique internationally guaranteed autonomy. No unique ISO, probably best not to include (Svalbard strange odd one out on this, similar to Aland in respects but with ISO code including Jan Mayen. Eh.)
- Cocos and Christmas apparently included in Australia entry.
- Mayotte should be out of Comoros, but will soon be part of France anyway, matter of weeks probably.
- Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. Mayotte is in fact the only clear case, all the others are difficult ones so I am not saying that they must be on the list, only making a little overview. What do the others think about adding or including separately one or more of these territories or not? Gertjan R 20:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
caspian sea territory
caspian sea territory caspian sea is big lake in world and is locked region that this area should acount in near countries insist of :kazakestan turkamenstan iran azerbaijan and russia after final agreement in 5 countries this area(about 420000 square km)(probably in 2011 or 2012)this area should added to this countries. approxmaitely:kaz29percent russia19 aze17 iran17 turkemn18 http://www.dermfa.ir/pdf/Iranian-Journal/2.dr.mousavi(final).pdf thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan666 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
please explain
in law of sea territorial waters not include in area for each country
but please explain what defrence among Inland waters Coastal waters and Territorial waters????????????
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.87.103 (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
iran is bigger
iran Border Police Commander: 170 hectares(1.7 sq km2) of our country's accession to the border where the difference was
http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8912040081 (this news in 22 feb2011) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.93.54 (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Tajikistan border dispute with China continue
Objection to the transfer of part of the territory of Tajikistan to China: http://parset.com/News/ShowNews.aspx?Code=264577
Read reactions to transfer part of China Tajikistan soil: http://parset.com/News/ShowNews.aspx?Code=256517 tajikestan people say:China must to give the following Khotan and Kashghr historic cities that are in Persian language to tajikestan.
Tajikistan border dispute with China continue:
http://parset.com/News/ShowNews.aspx?Code=267682#
Constantine Sryvzhkyn one of the leading experts according to the Kazakh political continuity boundary claims of some Chinese circles than the Central Asian States has said: Even today in some of China's history books for schools that are prepared and printed, 510 thousand square kilometers of territory of Kazakhstan as its territory was considered. After considering signing and ratification documents and the border between Beijing's Central Asian states, one can conclude that this level has been officially resolved, but the sensitivities of some communities in the region and China's political exploitation of these issues in future will be possible.
in persian:کنستانتین سریوژکین یکی از کارشناسان برجسته سیاسی قزاق نیز با توجه به تداوم ادعاهای مرزی برخی از دوایر چینی نسبت به کشورهای آسیای مرکزی گفته است: حتی امروز در برخی از کتابهای تاریخ که برای مدارس چین تهیه و چاپ میشوند، 510 هزار کیلومتر مربع از قلمرو قزاقستان به عنوان خاک این کشور قلمداد شده است. پس با توجه به انعقاد و تصویب اسناد مرزی میان پکن و کشورهای آسیای مرکزی، میتوان نتیجه گرفت که این موضوع در سطح رسمی حل و فصل شده است، ولی حساسیتهای موجود در جوامع برخی از کشورهای منطقه و چین بهرهبرداری سیاسی از این مباحث در آینده را امکانپذیر خواهد کرد. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.93.54 (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Facebook page to protest the protesters delivered "Tajikistan's territory" to China :
In online social networks and blogs users Tajik Shdydalhny reactions to some of the delivery protocol approved "the territory of Tajikistan" has been to China.
Facebook in social networking (Facebook) about ten thousand users Tajykstany they use, a special art gallery called "I delivered a part of China, Tajikistan to disagree!" Founded.
in persian:صفحه معترضان فیسبوک در اعتراض به تحویل “قلمرو تاجیکستان” به چین
در شبکههای اجتماعی اینترنتی و وبلاگهای کاربران تاجیک واکنشهای شدیدالحنی نسبت به تصویب پروتکل تحویل پارهای از “قلمرو تاجیکستان” به چین صورت گرفته است.
در شبکه اجتماعی فیس بوک (Facebook) که حدود ده هزار کاربر تاجیکستانی از آن استفاده میکنند، صحفه ویژهای با نام “من با تحویل قسمتی از تاجیکستان به چین مخالفم!” تأسیس شده است. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.93.54 (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Unfounded and false claims by the China on soil neighboring countries in Central Asia
All the claims regarding the ownership of China's border with Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan will be discussed while the ancient cities of Khotan and Kashghr to 200 years ago was owned by Iran(speak persian language) and now in China is located in Sin Kyang !!!!!
The neighbors claimed While the soil the territories of Tibet Inner Mongolia and Sin Kyang are domestic non-Chinese residents with ancestry (other than the Han race) are the majority of Indian and Tibetan and Mongol descent are leaving on time is about 4 million km squares (about 40 percent of the total territory of China) and constitute a kind of enclosed lands are not really native land claims on Chinese soil !!!!!!! neighboring countries for local people is intolerable.
Look at history with the Soviet collapse could have one of the important issues of national security of Central Asia affect the existence of disputed border areas with China was. Beijing also considering providing suitable space following the Soviet collapse that in principle there border problems with China did not accept, to quickly begin negotiations with these countries seek to resolve their border issues emerged. China's purpose in the first half of 1992 proceeded to the second round consultations with Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan on. But because the Central Asian countries no documents were provided to the border with China, conducted consultations and negotiations fails. Ultimately concluded that Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan jointly with China to begin negotiations. This purpose in September 1992 in Belarus capital Minsk, the first working group meeting was held jointly with China. Later in the negotiations between China and these countries as the second round was followed several documents on border areas was signed discussed. The first Central Asian country of Kazakhstan Kazakhstan is faster than other regional countries could largely border issues with China to solve. In April 1994, and Beijing ahead Mvafqtnamhay about two countries signed a border with the exception that two regions discussed, issues remain about 1740 km in length were agreed. Later in the negotiations and sign a separate document in 1997 and ratified it in 1999 by the Parliament of Kazakhstan, the two discussed border area called the head and Chgn Chldy ABA Total area 944 square kilometers was divided up as 407 square kilometers (40 percent) was provided to China and Kazakhstan provide 537 square kilometers remained. Negotiations between Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek and Beijing began in 1992 and in 1996 the two countries failed to agree on their common boundary lines to determine the length was 1000 km. Negotiations over the two sides discussed areas of the cervix and Khan Bydyl Kyrgyzstan Tngry had lasted several years and finally in 1999 an area of 2840 square kilometers Bydyl disputed area, 900 square kilometers (30 percent) and 450 Khan Tngry square kilometers in area, 161 square kilometers (more than 30 percent) was provided to China. Subject assignment part of China's border areas to discuss joining the opposition of former Kyrgyz President Askar Qayf political use was measured, and even in 2002 protests led to clashes between police and those in the south were killed and injured a number of overlay. After the 2005 color revolution also some politicians called for a review of its border agreement with China that were considering the possibility sensitive issue and were impressed two-party relations with Beijing in June 2006 Qrbanbyk Baqyaf deposed Kyrgyz president official visit to China, a joint declaration signed with his Chinese counterpart and the two sides accepted that the existing border issues between Beijing and Bishkek fully been resolved and the documents signed by non Reload this field will be. But still some politicians and social figures divisions Kyrgyz border with China and considered unfair to focus public attention on this issue and public support of their political objectives and programs they use. Do border dispute is over? Such seems to pass into the document and mark the border between Tajikistan and China, Beijing was able to disputes over the border and exchange with more than a century tsarist Russia, Soviet Union, and ultimately Russia and Central Asian countries had formally terminated does. However, China's efforts to resolve border problems through political and diplomatic, not only achieved good results, but at the same time managed to make it important to establish and develop an appropriate basis for good relations with Central Asian countries are also. Issue with loss of border problems between China and the region, indeed to expand the presence of underlying political, economic, and security in Central Asia to China over the past will provide. But as noted pave the way for China will always, because in some countries in the region and their impression of China is the topic areas discussed in the settlement is not fair when considering the ambiguous landscape changes political and security of Central Asia, this region in future relations with China can affect the. Russian media, the material suggests that some segments of society with their China cross-border problem in Moscow and other former Soviet states consider it unfair.
http://parset.com/News/ShowNews.aspx?Code=267682 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.93.54 (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Greenland
Greenland is listed separate from Denmark. But the entries for the UK and the Kingdom of Netherlands includes the constituent countries. Someone care to explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.163.36 (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Greenland is separate from Denmark because it is not part of Denmark - it is a separate legal entity, albeit one that is owned by Denmark. England, Scotland, Wales and NI are all part of the UK, and so are listed in the UK entry. I don't know what you mean regarding the Netherlands - Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are listed separately from the main Netherlands entry. Bazonka (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Greenland is a constituent country of the Kingdom of Denmark just as Scotland, England, Wales & NI are constituent countries within the Kingdom of Great Britain. The Danish entry does give a figure and a provisional rank for the Kingdom as a whole, could the British entry not list the member states similarly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.216.22 (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Greenland was Independent in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.93.54 (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The independence of Greenland is a similar kind as the Scottish indepency towards England. E.g.: Greenland has two representatives in the Danish parliament, but if a person from Greenland lives in Denmark he/she might vote and be elected to a seat won in the European-Danish constituency. The currency of Greenland is the DKR and the foreign policy of Greenland is controlled by the Danish government in Copenhagen. Negotiations regarding Greenlands territorial rights at the North Pole is driven by Denmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.105.125.68 (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
EU just expanded its territory
On 1 March 2011 the EU expanded its teritory by 374 km2. Mayotte became the fifth French overseas department, which is now technically part of the EU. Do we need to update the EU figure or are overseas territories excluded anyway? It doesn't say in the article. --spitzl (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Can you provide a source? I found sources saying it was part of the EU, but not a region of France. Lots of articles to update due to this. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to this article in German (see infobox), Mayotte is becoming the 101. French department and at the same time part of the EU in 2011. It all seems quite complicated. Clear is that in the beginning of March 2011 Mayotte changed its status from an overseas collectivity to an overseas department, which paves the way for a full (future) integration to French and EU law. According to Mayotte they are planning to adopt the standard French civil code, and reforming the judiciary, educational, social and fiscal systems, over a period of about 20 years. In my understanding this means that most EU law does not currently apply to the coutnry. Do you have other sources, which indicate that they "joined" the EU earlier? Yes, they are using the Euro since 2002 but also Kosovo is using the Euro without being part of the EU.--spitzl (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to the European External Action Service "In 2008, the general council asked for the territory to be given the status of département/région d'outre mer under Article 73 of the French Constitution. Its elected representatives are also keen to have Mayotte recognised as an EU outermost region." So it seems that at least in 2008 Mayotte was not yet part of the EU.--spitzl (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not searching for sources now, but I did earlier and found a couple that noted it was newly part of the EU. Whether that makes it a department of France I don't know, Gibraltar is in the EU without being part of a member state. I think as soon as it's officially a department it can go in, regardless of its stage in legal development. Just need a source stating it is. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to Blue-Haired Lawyer (see this discussion) Mayotte is not part of the EU. --spitzl (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not searching for sources now, but I did earlier and found a couple that noted it was newly part of the EU. Whether that makes it a department of France I don't know, Gibraltar is in the EU without being part of a member state. I think as soon as it's officially a department it can go in, regardless of its stage in legal development. Just need a source stating it is. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to the European External Action Service "In 2008, the general council asked for the territory to be given the status of département/région d'outre mer under Article 73 of the French Constitution. Its elected representatives are also keen to have Mayotte recognised as an EU outermost region." So it seems that at least in 2008 Mayotte was not yet part of the EU.--spitzl (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to this article in German (see infobox), Mayotte is becoming the 101. French department and at the same time part of the EU in 2011. It all seems quite complicated. Clear is that in the beginning of March 2011 Mayotte changed its status from an overseas collectivity to an overseas department, which paves the way for a full (future) integration to French and EU law. According to Mayotte they are planning to adopt the standard French civil code, and reforming the judiciary, educational, social and fiscal systems, over a period of about 20 years. In my understanding this means that most EU law does not currently apply to the coutnry. Do you have other sources, which indicate that they "joined" the EU earlier? Yes, they are using the Euro since 2002 but also Kosovo is using the Euro without being part of the EU.--spitzl (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Great Lakes are inland waters
I believe that the discrepancy between US figures goes to whether the Great Lakes are considered inland waters or territorial waters (12 nm territorial waters). Considering that being the issue, can we decide whether or not the Great Lakes are inland waters or not? I think they are since they are definitely enclosed by land between two countries. Once we solve that, if the Great Lakes are included, we can solve the US/China issue as I do believe it would give the US outright larger numbers than China PR.
Senior Trend (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Table Areas and item Notes
I've redone this as a new section rather than as a comment on the preceding section.
I would put that differently -- rather than the focus being on deciding minutae about inland waterways,the focus ought to be on deciding clear criteria for determining what figures to place in the Area field of table entries. The table has a footnote which says that figures from this source are used unless otherwise specified. IMO, those figures should be used unless there is clear reason to use some other figure, and the reasons for using any other figures should be clearly explained on a case-by-case basis.
- For the US, The table uses the figure from that source, and explains in the Notes field that some other sources give differing figures based on different presumptions about what to include or to exclude in their definition of US Territory.
- For the PRC, the table gives two figures
- The figure from the source specified in the footnote;
- Another figure (9,640,011), the source of which was not obvious to me, which does not appear to be explained in the Notes field, but which seems to have been explained when that figure was added in this January 2010 edit.
- It seems to me that the Area field should use the figure from the source specified in the footnote unless there are clear and clearly explained reasons not rejected by consensus here for using some other figure. Reasons for using other figures might be, for example, redrawing of territorial boundaries subsequent to the publication of the footnoted source.
- The second figure for the PRC seems to come from a presumption that territorial disputes between the PRC and India will be resolved in favor of the PRC. It doesn't seem to me that such a presumption should be accepted as sufficient reason for placing that figure in the Area field of the PRC entry.
- Also, explaining complicated cases such as the entries for the PRC, the US, and some others in the Notes field clutters the table. I would suggest the addition of a Notes section to the article, with complicated explanations done there and referenced in the Notes field, using <Ref group=.... Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Wtmitchell. We should stick to the main source unless there is consensus to do otherwise. (This would also apply to the entries for India and Pakistan, at least.) Trying to keep the Notes field brief, and relegating more extensive explanations to the Notes section, is also a good idea. --Avenue (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I've started work on this and referenced this talk page xsection from an {{under construction}} hatnote in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC) I've done a number of entries, and I see that the location of the note link attached to the area figure is a problem. What I intend to do, barring objection or better ideas is, after I've worked my way through the table items, to go back through it and convert the two area columns into a single column giving both km2 and sqmi figures.
France -- the first entry with a substantive conflict with the UN data. The UN figure is 551,500 km2, the table said 632,759 km2 -- a difference of 81,259 km2. The Notes field says that France includes a total of 88,794 km2 of overseas territories which the UN lists separately, and also cites a non-UN source in support of an assertion that the French Republic covers 674,843 km2. I can't make any sense out of those figures, and I've skipped this item for now. The assertion in the Notes field that France is the largest country within the European Union and largest West European country doesn't seem to accord with including the 83,534 km2 area of French Guiana (in AfricaSouth America) in the Area figure for France. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Could we just add the overseas dependency figures to the metropolitan figure? I think the French Republic figure includes the overseas communities. French Guina (in South America) is part of the EU, so that's probably included. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to wait for more comment for a day or so, but my inclination is to be guided by a pretty strict interpretation of WP policies. Quoting WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Also, WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."
- This article relies heavily on the UN source for most items (those individual items where WP editors don't disagree with figures from that source) and, for most items with alternative figures (e.g., Switzerland, Netherlands, Denmark and others similar to France's case), mentions alternative figures in a Note. Some items need to be looked at again. Pitcairn Island is an example -- the UN source seemingly only considers inhabited lands (I infer that from note 116 for the entry there for Kiribati, which is not listed here) and says 5 km2 for Pitcairn Island alone, not 47 km2 for Pitcairn plus three uninhabited islands (37.3 km2 of the 47 km2 being for uninhabited Henderson Island).
- Incidentally, I looked at combining the separate km2 and sq mi area columns, and couldn't find a format which I thought was an improvement. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be a little bit absurd to follow the UN slavishly, even when it is quite clear that their list includes this anomaly for the Pitcairn Islands? The point is that there is not any argument not to include inhabited islands in the Pitcairn Islands' case, whereas they do are included in each other entry. And of course, France's overseas regions/departments should be included in the figure for Metropolitan France, they are part of France as integrally as Corsica or Paris. No discussion about that. Greetings, Gertjan R 17:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have a France-specific POV about how this should be presented. However it is presented, the import of the figures should be clear. The easiest road to clarity, I think, is to present all figures from one source. If that can't be done and we can present all but a few figures from one source (that's the situation here, I think), the figures not agreeing with the default source need to be identifiable and the rational behind the difference needs to be made clear. I've now redone the France entry with this in mind.
- I've still got a bit more work to do here (Pitcairn islands and some others, mainly) -- I hope to get it done today or tomorrow. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be a little bit absurd to follow the UN slavishly, even when it is quite clear that their list includes this anomaly for the Pitcairn Islands? The point is that there is not any argument not to include inhabited islands in the Pitcairn Islands' case, whereas they do are included in each other entry. And of course, France's overseas regions/departments should be included in the figure for Metropolitan France, they are part of France as integrally as Corsica or Paris. No discussion about that. Greetings, Gertjan R 17:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Could we just add the overseas dependency figures to the metropolitan figure? I think the French Republic figure includes the overseas communities. French Guina (in South America) is part of the EU, so that's probably included. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I've finished the reformatting work I set out to do on this article to the point that I think the {{under construction}} tag can be removed. If there's nothing brought up to stop that, either I will remove the tag in a day or so or someone else can do that.
I have a suggestion for further reformatting, however. If a style convention for this article is adopted that the Notes field must contain only one or more Refs to footnoted Notes section entries, with multiple such Refs placed on separate lines, the two Area columns could be combined. If that were done, notes indicating use of area figures from a source other than the UN source could be placed in the Area column instead of being identified by special formatting. It would not take much additional work to do this. This could produce a table looking like the following (only entries 1-4 and 43 shown):
| Rank | Country | Area[Note 1] | % of Total | Notes |
| 1 |  Russia |
17,098,242 km2 (6,601,668 sq mi) | 11.5% | [Note 2] |
| 2 |  Canada |
9,984,670 km2 (3,855,100 sq mi) | 6.7% | [Note 3] |
| 3 / 4 [Note 4] |
 People's Republic of China |
9,596,961 km2 (3,705,407 sq mi) | 6.4% | [Note 5] |
| 3 / 4 [Note 4] |
 United States |
9,629,091 km2 (3,717,813 sq mi) | 6.5% | [Note 6] |
| 43 |  France |
640,294 km2 (247,219 sq mi)[Note 8] | 0.43% | [Note 9] |
Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Combining the areas is a good idea. I'm not so sure about the notes column, result in a excessive number of footnotes wouldn't it? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- For comparison with the above:
| Rank | Country | Area[Note 10] | % of Total | Notes |
| 1 | Russia |
17,098,242 km2 (6,601,668 sq mi) | 11.5% | The largest country in the world. |
| 2 | Canada |
9,984,670 km2 (3,855,100 sq mi) | 6.7% | The largest country in North America and the Western Hemisphere. |
- Making all Notes into footnotes in the Notes section would add 50+ footnotes there (I think I counted 57). Having full-text notes in the Notes column increases the column width such that (on my 1024 pixel-width monitor -- probably a common width) the Area column wraps to two lines for each of the 235 table entries vs. one line with the Notes footnoted. Also, lengthy Notes take less vertical space footnoted than if presented as text in the Notes column. It's a tradeoff. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think that making all Notes text into footnotes would be an improvement, but I also think that it's too big a step to take without positive expression of agreement. Accordingly, I've removed the {{under construction}} template. While this reformatting was underway here, I realized that the List of countries and outlying territories by land area article is very similar, and I placed a notice about the work underway here over there. I haven't seen any response to that and have not done any reformatting there similar to what I've done here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Why South Korea expanded its territory ????????
South Korea 99,828 increase to 100,210 km2 ?????????why?
it seem offical of korea want to increase korea area more than 100000km2 so express this incorrect numbers
are you have other idea????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.83.34 (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- That makes no sense. Can you explain what you mean using the English language please. Bazonka (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Well geography of South Korea is limited .
a few years ago but that the official sources mentioned were 99,360 and 99,828 today, the Korean sources said they have more time, ie 100 210
What does this mean? well? South Korea just Neighbor north Korea and the other sides is surrounded by the sea and by the ocean. so how increased extent of South Korea during these years continuously ?
There are a lot of doubt:
1 - Do (water borderline) boundaries move?
2 - Do small sections of the border with North Korea during the contract transferred to South Korea? Unlikely because not announced anything?
3 - Does ownership of the island or islands reached South Korea?
4 - Does the ocean and sea backward and extent of South Korea has been much ??????!!!!
None of this is
not rational Meanwhile the gradual increase?
Only one possibility remains that the dried sea
But given the status of South Korean coast about 1000 square kilometers increased during these few years is reasonable? what reference have been measures area? my english language isnt good so you like edit incorrect words (but only words not content!!!!) thanks so much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.103.246 (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Our land reclamation article says that over 1,500 km² of coastal wetlands had been reclaimed by South Korea as of 2006, which seems reasonably consistent with the increases in total land area you mention above. The Netherlands is only country listed there as having reclaimed more land. --Avenue (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- The cited source supporting the new figure is in Korean. The google translation of that here is pretty garbled, but it's pretty clear that it's talking about increases in the size of Yeouido island, an island in the stretch of the Han River which passes through Seoul. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, Yeouido seems to be given simply as a point of comparison. (Apparently it's a common one - see Yeouido#As a meme.) The source presents a grab bag of statistics from the Ministry of Land's 2009 annual report. The main one of interest here is that the land area of South Korea increased by roughly 70 km² in one year, which they express as being 24 times the size of Yeouido (8.4 km²). They mention land reclamation as a reason. --Avenue (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
proposal to further modify China and US entries
I am the original contributor that has brought attention to the wikipedia community the difference between US and China territories. Specifically, I provided links to old cia factbook figures showing how the US grew. I must say that I like the new formatting of the page. I also agree that the "assumed" territories of China (aksai chin, etc) should not be included in the calculation. but I still feel "not right" about placing either China or US ahead of each other. I propose that we put the two countries in that same row, no lines in between. As of right now, it still looks like US is ahead of China, but we both know this is hardly the truth when plain and simple China controls more territories in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.232.112 (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't like the idea of having no line at all between the US and China rows, because I think it would make it hard to see which country "note 5" (for instance) refers to. A weaker line (e.g. dashed) would be better, or perhaps no line for just the first column. I don't see the "truth" as being the issue this hinges on; it is more about how to best reflect the fact that different sources order the two countries differently. --Avenue (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I tried out having no line between them for just the first column, which I think looks good (see diff). But it screws up sorting badly, at least the way I did it, so I've reverted my edit. --Avenue (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Aksai Chin
Aksai Chin is omitted for China but included for india. Is this right? I believe Aksai Chin should be subtracted for india as well. Are we supporting India over China here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.232.112 (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- We are reflecting the figures given for both countries in the main source we have chosen. The note for India (note 9) seems brief to point of inaccuracy. It should probably mention that much of Jammu and Kashmir is currently controlled by China and Pakistan, including at least approximate areas for the different regions if possible. --Avenue (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
someone help me with notes 4 5 and 6
My writing is terrible. it doesn't sound professional. I have tried editing notes 4, 5, 6 to sound the best and concise as I can but to no avail. Can someone whose a better writer help me shorten these notes but at the same time retain their substance? any help appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.232.112 (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Information about states with limited recognition
Hi Chipmunkdavis,
Please notice that the information about states with limited recognition were arranged in end-Text notes (see Notes 15, 23, 24, 25 and 31 for Somaliland, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Abkhazia and South Ossetia & Northern Cyprus). I also support this arrangement because by inputting only the essential geographical descriptions in in-Text notes (e.g. Kazakhstan as the largest landlocked country in the world) we can keep the article neat and simple, if we put all the political stuff in, it will look messy and uninteresting to some people.
Another kind reminder to you, for the sake of the quality of Wiki articles please use your Reverting or Undid function cautiously. You may disagree with me on the issue of in-Text/end-Text Notes but by Reverting my edits you basically treated all my contributions as spams. I did correct an obvious mistake in Note 31 (changing the weired 
United Nations UN buffer zone to UN buffer zone).
Cheers,
2sc945 (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- In that case I would wish to bring those out of the footnotes. The fact that a country may not control a sizable area of what it claims will have a great impact on its total area. It would not be WP:NPOV to simply give them the whole area without mentioning de facto states, and I feel squirreling that information into footnotes reduces any impact the information may have.
- In regards to revert, it does not treat the edits like spam. If I was using the rollback function, then I would, but as I was simply reverting with a summary, it wasn't spam. I reverted per WP:BRD, it is rare that one should revert someone who reverts you. Feel free to fix the cyprus one again. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I can see your point. I totally agree with you that Wiki articles should be written with a WP:NPOV, but I would also like to see Wiki articles to treat everyone fairly. In this case, it's clearly not. What I am going to do next is that I will raise a new discussion about this issue, but in the meantime, I will still put the info about the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Transnistria back in the footnotes as a respect to the majority. I will leave the Morocco footnote unchanged and obviously I will fix that Cyprus one again. Thanks. 2sc945 (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Issue about the listing of states with limited recognition
Hi all,
I noticed that the Republic of China (Taiwan) has been listed in this article as a fully recognised independent state, the same as the other 192 UN member states and the Vatican City State (UN non-member state). I know ROC is a rich country but that doesn't make them a fully recognised state, it's unfair that they can enjoy an independent entry in this list while all the other eight states with limited recognition, namely Abkhazia, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Sahrawi Republic, Somaliland, South Ossetia and Transnistria cannot. It's also unfair to the People's Republic of China (China) that their total area has been subtracted while all the other sovereign states with similar problems can still keep their 'official figure'.
I noticed that Palestine also has its own entry on this list, but they were listed as the Palestinian territories in Italic, which makes them look like a dependent territory rather than a state with limited recognition.
My suggestion for solving this problem is that either we list Taiwan and Palestinian territories within the countries they are recognised as part of with areas given in the footnotes or we list all 10 states with limited recognition on the list in bold and Italic. In the meantime, I will just list the ROC and Palestine in bold and Italic.
Cheers,
2sc945 (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would agree with listing all 10 states in bold (to distinguish from dependencies).
- A standard for what can be included in the notes section is needed. From what I can tell we have
- Notes on relative size (largest in X or smallest in X)
- Sometimes notes on status (British Overseas Territories, New Caledonia, etc.)
- Clarifications on area exclusions/inclusions (territorial disputes, de facto countries, etc.)
- These are mixed between text in article and footnotes. I think that 1 and 3 are needed in the text, and all the others cut out. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed that Polaron just did a rewording to emphasize the inclusion criterion for this article. However, I am afraid that there would be more controversies if we use the ISO 3166-1 system. By using that system, we should change Republic of China (Taiwan) to Taiwan, Province of China, Palestine to Occupied Palestinian territories and Macedonia to The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, not doubt Wiki users from those countries will be extremely upset if we do that and an edit war is likely to happen.
- As for the Congos, the reason for my previous edit was to keep every country on that list in their simple names. There are two universally accepted ways to distinguish the Congos, one is Congo-Brazzaville & Congo-Kinshsa, another one is Congo & DR Congo. The former is somewhat less formal, so I think I will stick to the latter. Cheers, 2sc945 (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- The reason both Congo's had their full name was to prevent all confusion. This list isn't using short/simple names, it is using the names of the relevant wikipages, which are Republic of the Congo, and Democratic Republic of the Congo.
- As for Polaron's edit, I think what we should do is use the ISO then make exceptions where appropriate, with exceptions that need to be posted on this talkpage. So I think our exceptions should be the three you have posted above (Republic of China (Tawinan), Palestine, Macedonia), and the other states of limited recognition. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would just say, use pure ISO to determine inclusion but refer to those entities includes by the names we use for our articles - which is what we do now. If we deviate from ISO 3166-1, then we get into a world of controversy with a number of entities that people want to see added on whatever basis (generally "for comparison"). ISO 3166-1 does at least provide a clear dividing line between those that belong and those that do not - something that we absolutely require here - plus IIRC it's what much of the data is based on. Using the names provided by the articles effectively moves any controversy from this page to the articles concerned, which is where such discussions belong anyway.
- The only exceptions to this should be on the naming front, based on WP:IAR: for example, obviously we would refer to Georgia and not Georgia (country), and equally obviously we would name Ireland based on the rules provided by the MOS for Ireland-related articles. Pfainuk talk 11:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'd object strongly to calling the PRC "China", and we don't do this elsewhere even on ISO-based lists. Style guides and naming conventions should be allowed for. I don't think there's a justification for double bolding here; there are better ways to mark controversial cases. I also just corrected some recent overlinking. Nightw 12:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Pfainuk's point is to use the ISO 3166 to determine which entities to include as separate entries in the table while using the Wikipedia article name as the name to use. This will prevent any naming debates from happening here such as China vs PRC. This principle is what has been in place for the most part. --Polaron | Talk 13:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- As an inclusion criteria, it's fine. As a naming criteria, it's far from fine. Bolivia, Plurinational State of? Needless disambiguation that is likely to confuse readers (as though there's another Bolivia). Taiwan, Province of China? Quite obviously pointy. And the only reason Brazzaville gets the name "Congo" is because it got in first. Nightw 18:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree - this is essentially what I am arguing. ISO 3166-1 should be used, but only as an inclusion criterion. For naming we should ignore the ISO 3166-1 name and use the name of the Wikipedia article on the subject. Bolivia's article is at Bolivia, so I argue that we should call it "Bolivia". The Congo-Brazzaville article is at Republic of the Congo, so I argue that we should call it "Republic of the Congo".
- As an inclusion criteria, it's fine. As a naming criteria, it's far from fine. Bolivia, Plurinational State of? Needless disambiguation that is likely to confuse readers (as though there's another Bolivia). Taiwan, Province of China? Quite obviously pointy. And the only reason Brazzaville gets the name "Congo" is because it got in first. Nightw 18:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Pfainuk's point is to use the ISO 3166 to determine which entities to include as separate entries in the table while using the Wikipedia article name as the name to use. This will prevent any naming debates from happening here such as China vs PRC. This principle is what has been in place for the most part. --Polaron | Talk 13:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- The only exceptions to this simple rule would be in cases where either consensus or common sense calls for some other naming - the two obvious examples being Republic of Ireland (where consensus calls for "Ireland") and Georgia (country) (where common sense calls for Georgia). Pfainuk talk 22:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed that Night w has just changed the entry for Palestine from State of Palestine to the Palestinian territories. I don't really understand why should we change that. State of Palestine is the formal article about a "State" with limited recognition called Palestine while the article Palestinian territories is an informal article about the same region or area of concern but with less political views. Compare to the former, the latter has no country flag, has no country map, has no basic country info, has less history and has much less general info compared to the former. It just has a map showing where West Bank and Gaza Strip are.
- On the other hand, the article State of Palestine has everything, it was written in the same format as other countries, it's informative and it isn't biased. In that article, the area of the state is 6,020 km2 (West Bank: 5,660 km2, Gaza Strip: 360 km2) which includes the Occupied Palestinian territories only, its population and economy statistics and rankings are all based on the Palestinian territories.
- I believe Palestine and Taiwan are comparable, they are in the same boat. For Taiwan, their formal article is the Republic of China. The article Taiwan is more about the "Island" rather than the "State". The same thing here, the article Palestinian territories is more about the "Territories" rather than the "State".
- As I said before, Palestinian territories in Italic makes them look like a dependent territory rather than a state with limited recognition. If we use formal articles for each of the other 234 entries of states, states with limited recognition and dependent territories then why shouldn't we use the formal article for Palestine. If we have to use Palestinian territories as the entry for whatever reason then I believe we should change the entry for Republic of China to Taiwan for the same reason.
- I reverted because the State of Palestine has not defined its borders, so the value would be "nil" or "not applicable". The Palestinian territories are a completely different thing. You're mixing the subjects of naming devices and measurement and assuming they're compatible because their components sometimes share the same name. Taiwan, for example (since you bring it up), is one out many islands making up the ROC, so the figures will obviously be different. There's no congruity between the two when the subject is surface area.
- In any case, you've overlooked the resolution above: the inclusion criteria is ISO 3166-1. Since the ISO doesn't recognise the State of Palestine and it's area isn't the same as the Palestinian territories, then it just isn't included. Nightw 18:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Then I have to say you are very wrong and very biased in this matter. As per the discussion above, all parties have agreed on the resolution that we should use the ISO purely to determine the inclusion but refer to those political entities included by the names we use for our articles. Sure, the ISO doesn't recognise the State of Palestine, but do they recognise the Republic of China? Aren't they calling them "Taiwan, Province of China"? The State of Palestine has not defined its borders but it has since come into existence in the Palestinian territories, that's why they are on the list of states with limited recognition. One thing we shouldn't do is to apply double standards in our listing, the formal article for Palestine is the State of Palestine and it should be only one we stick to. I'm sorry, mate. 2sc945 (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're now accusing me of bias, have I got that right? The figures for the two polities aren't the same, and implying that they are when the source does not is original research. Lastly, please read up on edit warring (i.e., repeating edits without consensus), and stick to the talk page. Nightw 05:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Then I have to say you are very wrong and very biased in this matter. As per the discussion above, all parties have agreed on the resolution that we should use the ISO purely to determine the inclusion but refer to those political entities included by the names we use for our articles. Sure, the ISO doesn't recognise the State of Palestine, but do they recognise the Republic of China? Aren't they calling them "Taiwan, Province of China"? The State of Palestine has not defined its borders but it has since come into existence in the Palestinian territories, that's why they are on the list of states with limited recognition. One thing we shouldn't do is to apply double standards in our listing, the formal article for Palestine is the State of Palestine and it should be only one we stick to. I'm sorry, mate. 2sc945 (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
France
When are the figures for France going to include Mayotte which became part of France on 31 march 2011? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.210.12 (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
China and Tadjikistan
Should this be included in the Chinese and Tadjikistan numbers? China got about 1000km² from Tadjikistan to settle a border dispute between the countries in januari 2011.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12180567 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.210.12 (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
yes it is true but it is Colonial because about 50000 sq km of china belong to TAJIKESTAN THE GREAT
Colonialism the end look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tashkurgan_Tajik_Autonomous_County TAJIKESTAN Reclaim land from china certainly
thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.115.174 (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Tashkurgan Tajik Autonomous County the total area is about 52,400 km²
Old works obtained there show that the inhabitants of the race people Tashkvrgan east Iran. They are Tajiks and Farsi and Lhjhhay Srykly and Vkhy / Vkhany speak. According to Census 1369 SB / 1990, about 60% of the population of 27,800 people Tajykhay China Tashkvrgan city and continues to form the city's population
Most people are Muslims Tashkvrgan Tajik and Tajik Persian language talk.
TAJIKESTAN Reclaim land from china certainly
thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.115.174 (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
States with limited recognition
Republic of China is a state with limited recognition and is included in the list. But why the other partially recognized/unrecognized states, such as Republic of Kosovo, Somaliland, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Transnistria are not on the list? What difference do they have from the Republic of China? They are all sovereign states, with Kosovo recognized by lots of countries, Abkhazia and South Ossetia by four, and Northern Cyprus by one. --Seksen (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The Greenland description
I'm going to change it from "constituent country" to "autonomous province".
From the Danish Government's website:
"The Kingdom of Denmark also has 2 autonomous provinces – the Faroe Islands and Greenland."
Link: http://www.denmark.dk/en/menu/About-Denmark/Denmark-In-Brief
In the Greenland Home Rule Act from 1978, Greenland is referred to as a "community";
"Greenland is a distinct community within the Kingdom of Denmark."
The act was also a decision made in conformity with the Greenland >Provincial< Council.
In the ACT ON GREENLAND SELF-GOVERNMENT from 2008, Greenland is referred to as a "people";
"Recognizing that the people of Greenland is a people pursuant to international law with the right of self-determination, the Act is based on a wish to foster equality and mutual respect in the partnership between Denmark and Greenland."
Never was Greenland referred to as a country in any of the two acts, but it is referred to as an "autonomous province" by the Danish Government, and thereby the Kingdom of Denmark, which Greenland is a part of. Org.aidepikiw (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- For consistency, this article should use the same description as that given in the Greenland article. Currently that says "autonomous country" - if you don't like it then the best place to discuss would be Talk:Greenland. Bazonka (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Sudan has split
Changes need to be made --92.48.112.74 (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Well done - quick work ! MarcusCole12 (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, saying it in this talk page won't do much in the article. I don't know if the Sudan's were there separately when the "Well done" above was written, but right now there is only one Sudan on the list. 82.141.94.80 (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- People keep adding it without a citation giving evidence of its size. User:Polaron then removes it because there's no citation. Both of these approaches are wrong. Since the country definitely exists it should be listed (otherwise we'll end up in an endless cycle of re-adding and removing), but a citation needed tag should be added until a proper source is found. Bazonka (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, List of countries and outlying territories by land area has total area splitted as 1,885,000 and 620,000, but those figures should probably be here. Though they might also be non-cited. 82.141.94.80 (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I updated Sudan using the CIA, which also placed it at 16th. However the CIA area for South Sudan is higher than the BBC's, and would shift it. I haven't changed it though, as I don't think the CIA is any more reliable than the BBC. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, what about the List of countries and outlying territories by land area? As I said before, it has the total area of former Sudan splitted as land area as whole. In List of countries by percentage of water area is said that former Sudan had a water percentage of 5.18, so the outright split is not right. I have mentioned tha also in its talk page. 85.217.40.33 (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Total land area of Earth
This article has the figure 148,940,000 km². But in List of islands by area, summing up continents and 7 largest islands gives 152,728,751 km², almost 3.8 million km² more. I don't know if the continent figures are right in that article, but something is not right. 82.141.72.135 (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, for one thing, the figures in this article won't include Antarctica. There's also, as noted in various places, disputes over whether to count coastal waters and various other things that could account for some of the difference. 50.72.223.210 (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, Antarctica is not on the list, but that wasn't the point at all. If Antarctica is also missing from "total" land area figure, then it obviously is not the right figure. But just this article should have the "total" area, which should be the biggest. Now it is the wrong way, and as such does not make sense. 85.217.43.40 (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
China's numbers?
I just figured out the answer hence I deleted my original question.
Italics
Various territories like Greenland are listed in italics. They seem to be generally territories that are semi-autonomous and detached, such that they might technically belong to another country on the list, but it would be misleading to just include them in that country's count. This is all well and good, but shouldn't the article actually say that somewhere? As far as I can see, nowhere does it explain what the italics actually mean. 50.72.223.210 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
British Indian Ocean Territory
This territory has "no indigenous population" according to CIA World Factbook. Therefore I believe it does not meet the stated criteria for inclusion on this list. Its sole population consists of military and related contractors.
88.183.203.26 (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, it doesn't meet inclusion criteria. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- The criteria is to exclude uninhabited dependent territories. There is no definition of inhabitants. BIOT is definitely inhabited (albeit by non-native military personnel), so why should it be removed? Bazonka (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- By that definition, the antarctic territories should also be included, inhabited as they are by non-native scientific personnel. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- The criteria is to exclude uninhabited dependent territories. There is no definition of inhabitants. BIOT is definitely inhabited (albeit by non-native military personnel), so why should it be removed? Bazonka (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Area
The total area of all the entities listed is 136,128,013. With Antarctica it would be well over 150,000,000. The figure of 148,800,000 for the total land area is wrong. Npi2000 (talk) 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is a list of total areas, not just land areas. --Lasunncty (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Territory of Wake Island
If places such as the BIOT are to be included than wake island must be included as well since it has a population in a similiar manner as the British Indian Ocean Territory.XavierGreen (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. This is being taken care of in the merger. --Lasunncty (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Ecuador
BBC has a total area of 272,045 sq km (105,037 sq miles) [1]. CIA has a total area of 283,561 sq km (109,483 sq miles) [2]. Where does the figure of 256,369 / 98,985 come from? Smarkflea (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- The source for nearly all of the areas in this list, including Ecuador's, is the United Nations Demographic Yearbook [3]. Bazonka (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Changes for Consistency
To be consistent with the page List of countries by population I would suggest the following changes
Should be listed seperately
Réunion (France)
Guadeloupe (France)
Martinique (France)
French Guiana (France)
Mayotte (France)
Åland Islands (Finland)
BES Islands (Netherlands)
Christmas Island (Australia)
Cocos (Keeling) Islands (Australia)
Should be removed as they have no permanent population other than military or scientific personnel.
French Southern and Antarctic Lands
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
British Indian Ocean Territory
Sapient Homo (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think it'd be better if that list followed this one, especially in regards to the French and Finnish territories above. Unpopulated areas have areas, and so while irrelevant in the population list they are relevant here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- The list should follow it's stated inclusion critierion, i.e. ISO 3166-1, which does IIRC split off some French territories. We might not see it as very consistent, but it's a useful international standard and as such probably better than coming up with something on our own. (As you note, the population list has a slightly different rule anyway.) Pfainuk talk 09:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Either add all dependencies and overseas territories whether inhabited or uninhabited as seperate entities or add them to the parent country. Don't do half and half. Sapient Homo (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- For the population list, I tend to think of uninhabited territories as excluded altogether rather than added into a "parent country", but in practice it makes no difference (an uninhabited territory, by definition, having zero permanent inhabitants). They are excluded to avoid having a long list of zeroes at the bottom of the list, and the rule is specified in the lede for that list.
- On this list, we do (or should) include all entities on ISO 3166-1, regardless of whether they are inhabited or not. While uninhabited territories have no population, they do have land area and thus are relevant to this list. ISO 3166-1 will not match everyone's view of ideal criteria for a list such as this - it doesn't match mine - but it is a good reliable source that draws a clear in-or-out line, thus making it clear that we are avoiding original research. Pfainuk talk 10:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- We should bear in mind the differences in legal status between some of these territories. Some of the French ones are legally part of France (e.g. French Guiana), and so logically they should be listed with France, although with a comment explaining the areas of the different parts. Other territories belong to, and are controlled by, another country, but are legally separate from it (e.g. BIOT is a British territory, but is not part of the UK) - these should be kept separate. Population is an irrelevance in an article about geographic area (although clearly of importance to the population article), and therefore I feel that all territories should be listed, including those that are uninhabited. This is a legacy of the UN source that we use, which is primarily a table of population statistics. For example, its entry for Switzerland excludes state forests from the area statistics, presumably because these are unpopulated and not covered by the Swiss census. This is clearly a nonsensical exclusion when reporting the country's area. Bazonka (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- On this list, we do (or should) include all entities on ISO 3166-1, regardless of whether they are inhabited or not. While uninhabited territories have no population, they do have land area and thus are relevant to this list. ISO 3166-1 will not match everyone's view of ideal criteria for a list such as this - it doesn't match mine - but it is a good reliable source that draws a clear in-or-out line, thus making it clear that we are avoiding original research. Pfainuk talk 10:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- It appears the remnants of the Netherlands Antilles (Sint Eustatius, Saba, Bonaire) are not listed anywhere. They need to be part of Netherlands or a separate entry or maybe three entries. Randall Bart Talk 05:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This page will probably eventually have to be merged into List of countries by area and I've been working on the inconsistencies and POV problems generated by the sources used. On User:Night w/Sandbox/Workpage 2 I've used the UN document as the main source, but with other sources used to fill in the issues that Bazonka raises (with Switzerland, for example). The only problem is that I can't seem to find a matching source for the other columns (land, water, % water) that uses the same method of calculation. The CIA uses a different method for U.S. territories; they include coastal waters in the totals (but they don't do this for foreign territories). Does anyone know any UN documents publishing land, water and % water? Nightw 12:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Largest country in Europe?
86.143.211.54 (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)According to the article France is larger than the Ukraine because the figure includes overseas territories in the Republic of France. (Ukraine is listed as the largest country wholly within Europe.) This is inconsistent with the treatment of the Kingdom of Denmark, which, if all its territorie are included, is by far the largest European country. Was the article edited by a republican, or is there some other logic at work here? Similarly, figures for the UK do not include British Overseas Territories, although one of those is the British Antartic Territory, parts of which are claimed by Argentina and Chile.
- The difference is that some of the French territories (e.g. French Guiana and Martinique) are part of France. They are as much a part of France as Corsica, Brittany and Paris. On the other hand, Greenland and the British Overseas Territiories have a different status: they belong to Denmark and the UK, but they are not part of those countries. They are therefore listed separately in this article. Also note that the Antarctic claims are largely unrecognised and are not included here, except as footnotes. Bazonka (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, Greenland is part of Denmark, so the IP has quite a good point. I'd say they're right. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not really. Greenland is a self-governing constituent country within the Kingdom of Denmark, but it's not part of Denmark proper. We could debate both sides of this argument till the cows came home, but there's no point because Greenland is in North America. It is therefore still correct to state that Ukraine is the largest country entirely in Europe. Bazonka (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Autonomy doesn't make something not part of a country. I'm not worried about Ukraine so much as France being the largest West European country. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you exclude its overseas departments, France is still larger than Spain, the next largest country in Western Europe. So yes, I think it is fine to refer to it as the largest Western European country (as long as we don't refer to it as wholly European). Similarly, Russia is the largest Eastern European country, even though most of it is in Asia, because its European part is larger than Ukraine.
- Regarding Greenland (despite me saying that there was no point in discussing it...), it is not part of Denmark the country, instead it is a separate country within the larger Kingdom of Denmark. (The Faroe Islands are the third country within the kingdom.) It's an unusual set-up, but I think you are confusing the country with the kingdom. Bazonka (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding French Guiana, a good analogy might be Hawaii, which is far away from the mainland U.S., but is still an integral part of it. Then there's Guam, which is closely tied to the U.S., but is not part of the core...Smarkflea (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- The official title of Denmark is the Kingdom of Denmark. It is one country, and a unitary one. It could be compared to the devolved powers in the UK, however obviously Greenland and the Faroes have far far more autonomy than any part of the UK. An unusual set up it is, but legally they form one state (as opposed to the BOTs or Guam). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding French Guiana, a good analogy might be Hawaii, which is far away from the mainland U.S., but is still an integral part of it. Then there's Guam, which is closely tied to the U.S., but is not part of the core...Smarkflea (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Autonomy doesn't make something not part of a country. I'm not worried about Ukraine so much as France being the largest West European country. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not really. Greenland is a self-governing constituent country within the Kingdom of Denmark, but it's not part of Denmark proper. We could debate both sides of this argument till the cows came home, but there's no point because Greenland is in North America. It is therefore still correct to state that Ukraine is the largest country entirely in Europe. Bazonka (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, Greenland is part of Denmark, so the IP has quite a good point. I'd say they're right. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=Note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}} template (see the help page).
- ^ a b See: Note 39 of "Demographic Yearbook—Table 3: Population by sex, rate of population increase, surface area and density" (PDF). UN Stat. Retrieved 2010-01-31.
- ^ "Encyclopedia Britannica - China - Geography Note". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2010-01-31.
- ^ "World Factbook - United States" (Document). CIA.
{{cite document}}: Unknown parameter|accessdate=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|url=ignored (help). - ^ "Countries of the World: 21 Years of World Facts". geographic.org. Retrieved 2008-08-17.
The CIA has updated the total area of United States a number of times since initial publication of the World Factbook. From 1989 through 1996, the total area of US was listed as 9,372,610 km2 (3,618,780 sq mi) (land are plus inland water only). The listed total area changed to 9,629,091 km2 (3,717,813 sq mi) in 1997 (With the Great Lakes areas and the coastal waters added), to 9,631,418 km2 (3,718,711 sq mi) in 2004, to 9,631,420 km2 (3,718,710 sq mi) in 2006, and to 9,826,630 km2 (3,794,080 sq mi) in 2007 (territorial waters added). Note: From 1989 to 1996, China was listed as the world's third-largest country by total area according to the CIA World Factbook. The United States replaced China in 1997 after additional water spaces were added. - ^ "Encyclopedia Britannica - United States - Geography Note". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
- ^ Subdivisions, surface area and population of the French Republic, National Institute for Statistice and Economic Studies, accessed 11 March, 2011.