Talk:List of countries by population in 1900

Morocco

Morocco was only partitioned between France and Spain in 1912, so why is it split up here if this is representing 1900? john k (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Morocco was four million during the roman area. Morocco was eight million in 1900, without including part of the kingdom that were separated since. So technically Morocco was nearly ten million in 1900.I added some sources (2 & 3) to underpine this statement.

Inaccuracies

This is a stupid list. Most modern countries didn't exist in 1900 and, for example, Taiwan was a fully incorporated part of Japan. A classic case of presentism, projecting modern constructions into a past where they didn't exist. It would be better to list the British Empire as a single large country, because that is what it was in 1900, forget about the "core" country, deal with the facts as they were on the ground at the time. The definition was different then, don't use today's definitions ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.156.32.124 (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

There are several inaccuracies on this list, the most obvious being that Chile is listed twice! Once in the 40th rank, the other in the 54th rank. Also the list which this is based on, "List of countries by population in 1907", hasn't changed accurately in some cases or at all. Was there no population growth in the world between 1900 and 1907? This article feels like a fake jumble of numbers in some cases... (similar to the article "list of countries by population in 2000") Slaja (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There is also an issue with numbers out of sequence - the rankings jumps from 20 - The Philippines (they were actually at war with the United States and did not consider themselves to be a territory of the United States in 1900, Emilio Aguinaldo was President) to 23 - Southern Nigeria. Are 2 nations or territories missing or is the numbering off? Also, is "Germany" just the German nation or does it include the entire German Empire (incl. Kamerun, German East Africa, Togoland, German South-West Africa, and various Pacific Islands? Jtyroler (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Further discrepancies: (1) Romania is ranked higher than Persia, although its population was smaller (if the numbers are correct). (2) The nation ranked 27th is not present. Bfx0 (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

the figure for Germany should be meant as only Germany and not the entire German colonial empire. im not sure if this list is following this standard but it should. 99.45.130.77 (talk) 09:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

India

To put United Kingdom within brackets next to India is inaccurate because although the British were at the time occupying two-thirds of India, the other third was not under their occupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.160.167 (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It might be a little bit misleading but for statistical purposes it needs to be counted as all Being part of the UK. This is mainly due to the fact that all of India was eventually brought under The control of the UK by 1937. But to be fair Greater India is the 2nd most populous county on the list. Greater India includes Pakistan and a few others. Even today in 2014 if Greater India was still around it would rank in the top 5.it would rank in the top 5 of this list. Also the British and French alliance would rank well over 1 billion people and possibly 2 billion people because it includes India and most of Africa. Also the Contingius USA would be in the Top 5 if it was a separate Country in 2014. but for the most part India is considered to be part of the empire of the UK 99.45.130.77 (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not true that all South Asia was under the control of the British by 1937. The princely states still existed, and their population together was very large. Interlingua 14:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

RUSSIA

Why Russia? Have be USSR--თეკა (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The USSR didn't exist yet in 1900. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The figure for Russia is misleading. The modern Russian flag is displayed, so the inference is that modern-day Russia had 132m people in 1900. I'm 90% sure that is wrong. The population figure is more likely that of the Russian Empire. So that would include what we would now call the former Soviet States, Finland, parts of Poland as well as modern-day Russia. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Russian flag in 1900 was the same flag that Russia uses now. john k (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The population figure for Russia Proper has to be wrong becasue to population for the whole empire is only a couple of million more in people. 99.45.130.77 (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The population figure for Russia is wrong again, someone just changed it back again, its only supposed to be a estimated 67,500,000 people for the area that is Russia. someone inclded the areas of what was to become the Soviet Union, including separte countries of Kazazhistan, and several others, although the area that is given in this estimate does not include Finland, and finland is a separte country on this list its still in acurately saying that russia is well over 100 million people but it should not be that large. also some one removed all of the Total empire pop figures from the list which would have included 2 unranked Russia figures, 1 for the total which includes Poland and Finland, and then a smaller empire figure that supposed to be unranked which is the figure currently used. Also i just dont see why some ne got rid of the un ranked empire figures, there were about 13 empire figures in total , there was British, french, Russian , american, japanese and a few others. 99.45.130.77 (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Boer Republics

In the list the Transvaal has '(UK)' next to it which is inaccurate because at the beginning of 1900 (which this list represents) The Transvaal Republic was still independent of the British Empire, though they were at war and they would be defeated soon afterward. Also, even more erroneous, the Orange Free State is listed as the "Orange River Colony" even though it also was still independent of British rule at the beginning of the year 1900 (although it was occupied later that year and officially incorporated in 1902.) Invmog (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree. We should switch to "South African Republic" and "Orange Free State," and remove references to them being part of the British Empire. john k (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

actually at the end of 1900 the BOAR Republics were still independent as well. in fact in 1902 was when the british conquered them. then in 1910 they were annexed and became part of South Africa. 99.45.130.77 (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Australia

Australia did not exist as a political unit in 1900 - should we list each colony (New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia) separately? john k (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The list really is not based around politics its based around known land regions and geopolitical constructs. Take for instance the need to discern between the Contiguous USA and the US colonial Empire. But to be fare no one really knows how many people Philippines had so even in the 1907 version of this page its still quoted as 8 million people. What this means is there would be two figures for Australia back then there would be The main part of it including Tasmania. and then there would be colonies of Australia like Coco's island and other islands that are colonies of Australia. But as fare as Australia goes it would only be aloud to be what is now the capital region and all of the mainland of Australia. but for purely Statistical Purposes Northern Australia Territory is always considered a part of Australia irregardless of weather or not it ever becomes a state in the real world. This compares to having a figure for the United states as ranking 4th on the list that would also include 3 future states that were not yet states and they were Oklahoma ,Arizona and New Mexico. But the states of Alaska and Hawaii are treated as external territories for statistical purposes. So if colonies of Australia are on this list then they will be treated as separate countries with there own individual rank. 99.45.130.77 (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If Newfoundland is treated as separate from Canada, then the six Australian colonies (New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia) should be listed separately. They only became one country on 1st January 1901. In 1900, the Northern Territory was administered by South Australia, so it could be on the list twice: combined with S.A., and separate from S.A. GilesMartin1945 (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Independent since 1878 ('Principality of Bulgaria' as of 1900 - becomes 'Tsardom' in 1908) so I think should be shown as a separate and single country.

Of course it should be shown separately. The list is only meant to rank each individual country or dependency separate. so even if Bulgaria was still part of Turkey it would still need to be shown separately and get its own population rank. and the Ottoman Empire is un ranked. and each country in the ottoman empire gets to have a rank on the list. all these non- independent countries like Finland and Norway, Ukraine theres too many to list here but back in 1900 there was only about 50 something countries that were independent. 99.45.130.77 (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I like this list i think that its nearly perfect

the list is great its nearly perfect i cant seem to find any flaws in it and i checked all the population numbers of all the nations and dependent territories and im not really seeing any mistakes. but i do have one fundamental question that im trying to ask and that is this. this is a list of Countries by population in 1900. im searching for Countries by land area in 1900 and i cant seem to find it. my question is this When will the land area of countries in 1900 list be published? 99.45.130.77 (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Spanish colonial empire

The un-ranked figure for the Spanish colonial empire is missing from the list. Can someone please add it so the list can become more complete? 99.45.130.77 (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

How come the un-ranked figure for spanish empire still has not been added to the list? its been half a year since i started this topic. 99.45.130.77 (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The combined population of Spain's various colonial territories at the time is minute in comparison to its metropolitan population and, in my opinion, not worth a separate entry. Combining the Spanish possessions listed, the total population of the Spanish 'Empire' in 1900 is a mere 240,000. Even the combined remnants of the British Empire today have more than that. Plus it wouldn't affect Spain's ranking on the list whatsoever and would still be some 11 million shy of the next biggest entity on the list, the Ottoman Empire. 2A00:23C1:C601:8C00:9D4E:39E4:C449:B999 (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Canarias

Canarias is not a Country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.230.146.66 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

non-sense, it is supposed to be difined as a separate country or area. are you sugesting that the Canary islands are a part of Spain proper? 99.45.130.77 (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Question on the Entente Cordiale

Should the Entente Cordiale be an entity on this list? Though talks were ongoing between 1901-1904, it did not come into existance until April 1904 (shifting it into the realm of the List of countries by population in 1907). Jlr3001 (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Without objection, I'm going to remove the Entente Cordiale from the list due to it not existing until 1904. Jlr3001 (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Tavolara

Should Tavolara really be on this list? It is a micronation. Having it here is like having Sealand on a list of countries in 2020. Kornatice (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no point in having Tavalora on this list. DystopianArk (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The use of multiple sources

There is great inaccuracies and miconceptions and miconceptions in this page. I don't get why for some specific countries a different source is used while the population is listed in the first site. Isn't it at leat a better idea to site both numbers with those of the main site (the reference number 1) used here as the base for ranking. As an exemple a different refernce is used for morocco wich gives it 7 000 000 population. While the site in reference number 1 has already gave it an estimation of 3 900 000 ( huge difference but somehow this is just ignored. Same thing for greece it is listed as 2 500 000 while it is 4 962 000 In the first reference Cordially Fyhgfthj (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Merging different cells

Would it be possible to merge the different countries toghether like in List of countries by population in 1939 with the subdivisions and constitutions? I'd do it myself but I can't figure it out

Periodicpro18 (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This is annoying

Whenever I click on some subdivision belonging to a more powerful country let’s say I click on Cuba (which belonged to the United States at the time) it redirects me to the United States page it’s annoying I want to take a look at Cuba or a subdivision that belongs to a more powerful country not read the page of the country it belongs to I know I can just search the subdivision up but it feels annoying to get redirected whenever I click on a subdivision — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:3A69:2E00:9C3B:FF92:7B40:ABC9 (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)