Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Fixed ranking column

Dunno what you're talking about on "all of the numbers have nothing to their right, and all of the countries are unnumbered", AuH2ORepublican; this is what I see here:

Besides, where from are you pulling this rule that "only generally recognized sovereign states should be numbered on the list"? Why make this a political football? The article's title and column heading clearly state: countries and dependencies. So all countries and dependencies count, of course. Nothing there about being sovereign and what not. — Guarapiranga (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I assume that AuH2ORepublican meant the gap between the two tables. As for numbering, have you read the introduction to the "Sovereign states and dependencies by population" section? "All dependent territories or constituent countries that are parts of sovereign states are shown in italics and not assigned a numbered rank. In addition, sovereign states with limited recognition are not assigned a number rank." (emphasis added) Taiwan, for example, is not assigned a number yet your version gives it the number "56". In fact you've assigned numbers to 46 entries that shouldn't be numbered. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: Or perhaps they should, and the whole "who recognises who" discussion can be parked elsewhere but on a simple population table.
As for the gap, it's easy enough to eliminate it as indicated, though not recommended, here: Help:Sorting#Static_column. — Guarapiranga (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what you saw, but, on my iPhone, I saw a single column with 240 rows that consisted of the numbers 1 to 240, with no columns to the right, and after those 240 one-column rows then there were 240 additional rows with all but one of the columns in the aricle prior to your edits (with the numbering missing).
In any event, the point of the numbering is to be able to say, for example, that Kiribati is the 177th most populous among the generally recognized sovereign states of the world. While dependendent territories and states with limited recognition are listed in the article, the text of the article makes clear that such entries are included without a number so as to preerve the ability to rank generally recognized sovereign states. If dependent territories such as Guam, Macau or French Polynesia, or states with limited recognition such as Kosovo, Northern Cyprus or Abkhazia, were given numbered ranks, Kiribati would be ranked 192 instead of 177, and someone informed of that fact may mistakenly believe that it is the third least populated sovereign state in the world (given that there are 194 generally recognized sovereign states). That would exert pressure on editors to exclude dependent territories and states with limited recognition altogether from articles that list countries (all it would take is a change in the title of such articles), which would result in the loss of important information that enrichens the content in Wikipedia. You will find that almost all article that rank countries similarly reserve numbering for generally recognized sovereign states--for example, articles ranking countries by GDP include the EU as an entry, as some organizations present consolidated GDP data for the EU, but such articles do not assign a numbered rank to the EU--which makes numbering more nuanced than simply generating a number for each row. That's the consensus that has developed in just about every article that lists countries by a particular measure, and my vote is to preserve such consensus. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@AuH2ORepublican: Except… the article's title (and table heading) say "list of countries and dependencies", not "list of sovereign states". I see no confusion there. In fact, the confusion is precisely on not numbering all listed countries and dependencies (I was truly confused by that, hence why I changed it; I genuinely thought that was just resulting from new countries or dependencies being added in, and no one bothering to renumber all 240 of them). But… no biggie. To me it's wrong to announce a list of all countries and dependencies, and then pick and choose the ones to number. The arbitrariness and geopolitical footballing is blatantly obvious (and the analogy with continental subtotals on other tables is evidently false). — Guarapiranga (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Do you not see the screenshot I posted above? That's what I see on my computer screen, and what Help:Sorting#Static_column says everyone should see. Now, if what's described there, juxtaposing tables with the inline style, is not working, then that's bigger fish to fry, as either the template or the template description is wrong. — Guarapiranga (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Guarapiranga: On an iPhone or on an iPad you get what is described by someone else above: a single column with 240 rows that consists of the numbers 1 to 240, with no columns to the right, and after those there are 240 additional rows with all the other columns. In a desktop computer, you get the picture you have shown, unless you shrink the window. But if you shrink the window horizontally, the same divided result comes up. The sorting system just does not work on all platforms, so it is in fact useless.
Regarding numbering of all or not, this has been discussed several times. The current consensus is to only number sovereign states, so if you want to change that, you will have to get consensus. --T*U (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Can someone explain explain why Israel, a sovereign state with limited recognition, is numbered? Is there some special definition of "limited recognition"? Palestine, a sovereign state according to List of sovereign states has presumably been excluded because it has "limited recognition". Their recognition totals are very similar. Israel is included in the List of states with limited recognition Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
This whole charade is stupid. There's no reason why a simple row numbering column on a population table has anything to do with sovereignity. The name of the page doesn't even mention "sovereign states". I move to kick away this political football (to other pages that are about sovereignity), and keep this as a simple statistical table. Guarapiranga (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't disagree. Which consensus is Tu-nor referring to above?Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
As TU-nor indicated, this has been discussed several times. I'm not sure where, but the relevant discussions should all be in the talk page archives. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of whether there is or isn't numbering, that doesn't answer the question I posed in the first place, why is Palestine not numbered while Israel, which has a similar level of recognitions, is numbered?Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Because the State of Israel is a generally recognized sovereign state, as best evidenced by the fact thwt it is a member state of the United Nations, while the State of Palestine is a state with limited recognition that was unsuccessful in its recent attempt to be admitted as a UN member state and that it is recognized by only 3 of the 15 countries with the highest GDP. Wikipedia articles describe the world as it is, not as we aspire it to be. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

How about this:

  • Make the Rank column indicate rank within the table the only indicate rank within the table by numbering all the rows;
  • Add a Political status column to categorize listed entities as country or dependency and/or, possibly, otherwise in ways not fitting the article name but nevertheless deemed worthy of inclusion in the table;
  • Add an explanatory note below the table defining the categories and guidelines for inclusion;
  • Change the column heading reading Country (or dependent territory) to read Name.

Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful suggestion. The problem is that, if, say, Kiribati is ranked 192 instead of 177, someone informed of that fact may mistakenly believe that it is the third least populated sovereign state in the world (given that there are 194 generally recognized sovereign states). AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
What's "generally recognized" mean? Sounds like OR to me. The article lead says "sovereign states". Palestine is in List of sovereign states and there is a List of countries with limited recognition which Israel is listed in so there would appear to be some POV pushing going on here.Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Israel is a UN member state, so, as in the case of the People's Republic of China, the fact that a few countries do not recognize it does not take away from its general recognition. The State of Palestine, though, was unsuccessful in its recent attempt to be admitted as a UN member state and that it is recognized by only 3 of the 15 countries with the highest GDP. Like Kosovo, it has a substantial amount of international recognition, but by no means is generally recognized. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Israel and Palestine recognition levels are similar and the article doesn't say anything about UN status at all it just mentions "sovereign states" and "limited recognition". GDP has nothing to do with anything, you could just as well use population and get the opposite answer.Selfstudier (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

someone informed of that fact may mistakenly believe that it is the third least populated sovereign state…

Where in this article's title does is say anything about sovereign states?? That's such bs just to play this silly (geo)political football with a simple statistical table.
I second Wtmitchell's proposal. Guarapiranga (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, it does mention "sovereign states" in the lead but all it says is that the list includes them as well as othe entities, I am OK with the Wtmitchell proposal as well so can't we just do that?Selfstudier (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually, "sovereign state" is mentioned no less than 11 times in the article. Should I count the number of times the article refers to the UN? I agree with the long-standing current consensus and see no reason to change. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@AussieLegend:Kindly point me to this consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
As you are aware from the discussion in another article in which you wish unilaterally to number-rank the State of Palestine despite it not being a generally recognized sovereign state, the consensus was achieved over many years in dozens of articles, not just in their Talk pages, but also in User Talk pages and in edit summaries whenever someone renumbered to give Taiwan, Palestine or Kosovo a number. It should be clear to you from your interaction with longtime editors of different articles that that is the established consensus. Of course you are welcome to obtain a new consensus that differs from it, but you can't do it through unilateral edits and threats of sanctions. Why don't you start a RfC for all articles that list large groups of countries and provide a numbered rank? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
AussieLegend said it was in the archives, I guess he must have been mistaken. In any case, what you are describing is not a "consensus" it is merely the result of normal editing so there is no need to change any consensus because no such consensus exists. As of now, there 3 editors supporting a proposal to number every entry which seems very sensible to me since this is just a population list and has absolutely nothing to do with statehood/UN status/sovereign status/diplomatic recognition.Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
AussieLegend said it was in the archives - That's not what I said. I said I wasn't sure where it was but it "should" be in the archives. And yes, when multiple editors at multiple articles come to the same decisions, it's consensus., just not a strict formal consensus. However, consensus doesn't need to be formal. That said, if you look through the talk page archives then you will find multiple discussions about rankings. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Regardless, my original question still stands as posed, there is apparent POV in the way this article is presented and no-one has been able to answer the question save by pointing to a mystery "consensus" (which must a POV consensus).Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Re consensus: Earlier the list numbered all entries, including disputed territories and dependencies. In November 2015 someone (not me) changed this to the current system. It was not challenged then and has not been challenged since, so that is per definition the current consensus. To change that, I think we will need a formal decision through a RfC or similar.
Regarding the criteria for numbering / not numbering (including the question about Israel and Palestine), the article follows ISO 3166-1, as stated in the intro. I cannot see how that constitutes POV. --T*U (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

ISO is a list of names and codes, Palestine is in it, so far so fine. Then in the section I have tagged it says:

"Note: All dependent territories or constituent countries that are parts of sovereign states are shown in italics and not assigned a numbered rank. In addition, sovereign states with limited recognition are not assigned a number rank."

According to that Palestine needs a number unless you are trying to argue that it is a sovereign state with limited recognition? If so, then Israel is also a sovereign state with limited recognition.

That apart, I will go search in the archives for the date you provided (thank you) to see what was said then.Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find any material in the archives at the date you gave, the first mentions seem to start in 2016 (reference to an edit war re Palestine) and then I found this from 2017:

Numbered list

Occasionally there has been minor fights about which countries/areas to include and which not, about which countries/areas to be numbered and which not etc. in this list. The last change was made by removing the numbering from Palestine. Earlier conflicts have included Kosovo and several other entities with disputed or uncertain status. The problem seems to be that there is not any inclusion criteria (or numbering criteria) in the article. In many other similar articles, the lede gives a clear indication of the inclusion criteria, like in List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent. In essence, this is the same categorization as in the "mother" article List of sovereign states and several similar articles. My opinion is to follow the criteria from List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent and possibly include the criteria in the text of the article.Therefore I will reinstate the numbering for Palestine and remove the numbering from Taiwan. In any case, why should we include Taiwan (not UN recognized and recognized by 21 countries) in the numbering, when Kosovo (not UN recognized and recognized by 111 countries) and Palestine (UN observer state and recognized by 136 UN members)? Whatever criteria, Palestine should come first, Kosovo second and Taiwan third. The next question is: Should we include text explaining the criteria in the article? --T*U (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

So could you maybe tell me what happened after that? Thanks.Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

1) ISO 3166-1 has information about whether an entity is independent or not, see the far right column in the table at ISO 3166-1#Officially assigned code elements. Israel is considered independent, Palestine is not.
2) The "system" was changed in this edit, and as I said, no-one challenged it at the time. As you found, I tried to raise the question in 2017, but got zero ressponse. After that, I seem to remember there has been a few questions raised about Taiwan and/or Kosovo and/or Palestine, but nothing substantial, examples here and here. At some point, someone was edit-warring in order to change the scope of the article (including the numbering), but they were eventually indeffed. That discussion is here. --T*U (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The system change you mention from 2015 was to rank "only countries" but Palestine remained numbered at that point so that is apparently nothing directly to do with the problem? When was it decided that ISO/independence was going to be used (thereby resulting in denumbering)? Is that the archive 7 discussion? Because although it is mentioned there, it does not actually say that such a decision was made (It is interesting that List of countries and dependencies by area also is unclear about this issue in its lead as well as having no explanatory note for the actual list itself).
If ISO is what is being used as the numbering criteria then that's what it needs to say (with source) in the section I tagged not what it says there now which says that it is sovereignty, not "independence", that determines the page numbering (it ought to be sovereignty/UN status or something of that sort but we will leave that be for the moment). In any case, I thank you for clarifying what the problem actually is, it is the use of ISO as a determinant for numbering not some imaginary unexplained consensus. I understand that if I want to challenge that, then I need consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
When was it decided that ISO/independence was going to be used (thereby resulting in denumbering)? ISO as a criterium was introduced in this edit from 2009, evidently after discussions, but I have not wanted to use more time in searching for that old stuff. The denumbering is not a necessary result, but was "decided" through "silent consensus" in 2015. I agree that the text introducing the table could be more precise, but cannot help feel that the POV tag is an overreaction. Anyways, if you start a formal discussion about the numbering system, I will go to that discussion with an open mind. See your there! --T*U (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I have been doing some research.This [Edit] by AutoH2ORepublican on September 25, 2019 overturned years of Palestine being numbered giving the reason "Following consensus from similar articles, only generally recognized sovereign states should be numbered". This reason is OR and the editor failed to mention that he had himself had been creating this "consensus" (on February 17, he denumbered Palestine at the List of countries and dependencies by area article and on March 5, he denumbered Palestine at List of countries and dependencies by population density, on both occasions with incorrect and OR edit summaries and in each case overturning years of prior practice.Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
In fact, Palestine was numbered continuously all the way from 2008 up until the above mentioned edit on September 25 this year (including for all of 2015 so there may have been a "quiet consensus" but it was not about numbering). I have therefore restored the prior consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
For the sake of good order, I should record that it has been pointed out to me that although it is true that Palestine was always numbered, the "split" into numbered/unnumbered only occurred in November 2015; this affects the length of time of prior consensus but nothing else.Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Just to get the facts of the timeline precise: Until this edit 8 Nov 2015, all entities were numbered, so any consensus about which countries should be numbered and which not can only be traced back so far. Included in the numbering at that time was Palestine, Taiwan and Kosovo. In the very next edit, also Western Sahara was included in the numbering. In this edit in July 2016, the numbering was removed for Taiwan, Kosovo and Western Sahara. At this point Palestine had been completely removed from the list for a peroid. Eventually Palestine came back in and Taiwan was again numbered. Since then there has been short-lived outs and ins, but Taiwan stayed mostly numbered until this edit in February this year, and finally Palestine was de-numbered in this edit in September. Most of all these edits changing the "status" of one or more of the entities, have been unexplained. My conclusion is that it will be difficult to make a case for there being a long-time consensus for Palestine and not for Taiwan or indeed any selection. --T*U (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

As I have I think indicated, my primary concern is not really the length of time for which any supposed consensus existed, it is the treatment of Palestine in Lists (not only numbered) in general, not just this article. I see you have put back in the previously undisclosed criterion, the "independence" column of ISO. Are you able to tell me how that was agreed because as I understand it (including from the discussion on this page) everything first had a basis on List of sovereign states (where Palestine is listed). So somewhere along the line a decision (new consensus if you prefer) was taken to override that with the ISO "independence" criteria? Or have I got this wrong?Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

To give a concrete example, a recent edit summary reads as follows:

Under current consensus, only generally recognized sovereign states are numbered in the rank. This currently is the subject of a RfC in a similar article, and may be the subject of a dispute resolution, but in the meantime the status quo ante should be preserved.

There is no such term as "generally recognized" either in law or anywhere else, it is OR. In addition Palestine is included in the List of sovereign states. Furthermore, what you have said is that the reason for not numbering is the ISO criteria. This kind of nonsense is prevalent across many List articles.Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

You are correct that the ISO criteria categorize Palestine (and Kosovo, and presumably Taiwan (ROC), Western Sahara (SADR), South Ossetia, etc.) as sovereign states, because that is what they are de facto. The issue is whether they are generally recognized by the international community as sovereign states, and answer is that they are not. There is a reason why a consensus developed over the years to number only generally recognized sovereign states in articles listing sovereign states and dependent territories, and your attempts to assign a numbered rank to Palestine but not to Kosovo, Taiwan, et al leads me to question whether your pro=Palestine bias may be clouding your judgment here. Or are you suggesting that not only Palestine, but that Kosovo, Taiwan, Western Sahara, Somaliland, etc. be numbered as well, since all are sovereign states, albeit without general recognition? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
My reference to ISO is to do with the previously undisclosed critierion (so Tu-nor informed me), the "independence" column of iso, nothing whatsoever to do with what you are talking about. In fact in your many OR edits, you never refer to this supposed criterion, which is why I am asking about it, the only place it has been mentioned that I can see is here, by Tu-nor so I will wait for his response.Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what I am expected to respond to. In order to give the Wiki users a consistent version while we are discussing the future list, I reintroduced the explanation you helped create. I think I have done my share of work in clarifying how the list has arrived at the current version, but now I want to concentrate on the discussion about how it is going to be. If anyone wants to continue harping on who did what when and how good/bad that was, please count me out.
FWIW, I do care about Palestine being removed from the list, which has happened in bad faith edits more than once. I do not care that much about whether Palestine is numbered or not, as long as the numbering/non-numbering is consistent with some kind of rule. Such consistency has often not been present, but at least it is now, and it has to be after we are finished with the RfC, whatever the result.
FWIW2, I agree that the term "generally recognized" is not a sufficient criterion for the numbering system. We need a more tangible rule that is not open to personal analysis and WP:OR. The current ISO list is one option, UN membership is another, UN members and observers is a third. There may well be other. I am still open for discussions about that, but the place for that discussion is not here, but below in the RfC section. --T*U (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I wont pursue the iso criterion thing for the moment while the below discussion is in progress other than to make clear that I did not help create this criterion, I introduced it because you explained to me that this criterion was being used for numbering. Subsequently, I found this not to be the case and so I reverted myself. Its not really appropriate to add a previously undisclosed criterion in order to cover the current situation so I have taken it back out again. As you suggest, any further comments within the RFC body.Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


RFC: Numbering

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This was more of a discussion than forum to decide. By one !vote there is consensus to remove the numbering. The other points in Wtmitchell's proposal were not fully addressed. I did not find consensus for the current lead (inclusion in this article is poorly defined: "primarily", "in some cases", "includes certain states...."?). One verifiable inclusion policy needs to be in place. You could choose the U.N. or ISO (one person voiced an objection to ISO). Wishing you all good luck with your list. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure) SusanLesch (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Upon TU-nor and AuH2ORepublican's suggestion, I am requesting comment on adopting Wtmitchell's proposal stated above in this section. Guarapiranga (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Before that point, lists like this tended to refer to "countries" or "sovereign states" and to "dependent territories" without further definition, and this wasn't clear enough to define what belonged and what didn't. The consensus we reached was that for lists based of multiple sources that included both states and dependent territories, a general criterion of ISO 3166-1 (using names according to Wikipedia consensus), plus appropriate mention of states with limited recognition, was generally appropriate.
I think we'd have considered the numbering to be a side issue. The main issue was which entities went in and which did not.
To the point of the proposal, I would suggest that we should simply remove the numbering column entirely. It is unnecessary and any numbering system is likely to cause the sorts of controversies that we see above. It also tends to be taken as far authoritative than it actually is, as all systems will depend on which side you take in a number of international disputes.
I note also the question of what constitutes a "generally recognised" sovereign state has come up. The problem is that the phrase "generally recognised" is not clear enough to be useful. If we need to distinguish the generally recognised from the unrecognised - and we do - then the only way to do it without WP:OR is through an external standard. Just as ten years ago we had to define the equally-problematic "countries and dependencies" based on an external standard. At List of sovereign states we have archive after archive after archive going over this precise point in a long and detailed discussion, and we eventually reached a compromise consensus based on UN status. It's not a perfect standard, but it's as good as you're realistically going to get. Kahastok talk 22:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
My take is that sovereignity, statehood, recognition, independence and the UN are pretty much irrelevant to this list so long it is titled List of countries and dependencies by population. The Country article says:

A country is a region that is identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state,[1] as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, a physical territory with a government, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated people with distinct political characteristics.

I trust that's a sourced definition. As we can see, even the "and dependencies" complement is redundant here, as territories and dependencies are also countries. Guarapiranga (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Stand-alone lists on Wikipedia have to have selection criteria that are "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources". These are defined not by the title of the list but in the text of the list.
This is a really important point that anyone working on a stand-alone list really needs to understand. The selection criteria in the article text define the list. Not the title. The text.
Your definition of a country may or may not be sourced, but it's irrelevant because you cannot use that definition to provide us with a definitive list of "countries" without WP:OR. The definition itself is vague, because in practice the word "country" has a number of different and overlapping meanings.
And this is why, back in 2009, after much discussion, we defined the contents of this list not as "countries and dependencies" but as "sovereign states and inhabited dependent territories based on the ISO standard ISO 3166-1." The wording has changed a little since then, but the fundamental rule has not changed.
You say that "sovereignity, statehood, recognition, independence and the UN are pretty much irrelevant to this list". Wrong, I'm afraid. They are always relevant to any list of countries or states. Because by the mere fact of including or excluding certain entities you may be taken as endorsing one side or other in the disputes over those entities' status. The only way to avoid this is to neutralise it by explaining the situation. Yes, you have to neutralise it on every such list. I know it's tiresome, but it is absolutely necessary if you are to achieve WP:NPOV. Kahastok talk 23:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Kahastok says "sovereignity, statehood, recognition, independence and the UN" are always relevant to any list of countries, yet the Country article says (reformatted for clarity):

A country may be:

  • an independent sovereign state
  • part of a larger state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division
  • a physical territory with a government, or
  • a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated people with distinct political characteristics.
These two statements are evidently contradictory. One of the two is wrong, I'm afraid. Guarapiranga (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
That's not one definition, that's four definitions. All of which are different. And bear in mind that there are lots of people who will instinctively prefer one of them, and treat it as the most important definition - but which one they prefer will vary dramatically from person to person.
If you tried to define a list based on those definitions - or any single one of them - you would be mired for years in the sorts of problems that make it inescapably clear why Wikipedia bans this sort of original research. Which is why we adopted ISO 3166-1 ten years ago.
And bear in mind that there are certainly several entities internationally that may or may not be "countries" by some or all of those definitions, depending on your point of view as to their sovereignty, statehood or independence. So there is no contradition here. Kahastok talk 19:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
The source for this definition cited in the article is (Jones, 1964 What Makes a Country? Human Events, 24(31), 14.) Guarapiranga (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of what J. Jones said in 1964, it is POV to assert that the word "country" can be used to describe dependent territories. If you want to start a fistfight, tell someone from Beijing that Hong Kong is a "country," or tell a U.S. statehood supporter in Puerto Rico that his "country" is not the United States, but Puerto Rico. The article should continue to mention "dependent territories" if dependent territories are to continue to be listed. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
A fistfight?? Is that how you resolve POV disputes? 0.o
This whole charade seems to stem from confusing country, a geographical entity, with state, a political entity. Of course all states have sovereignty over a country (or more), but evidently not all countries have a single sovereign state of their own. So, yes, territories are countries (if you disagree, you should change that on the country article). Guarapiranga (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I certainly don't resolve POV claims with fistfights, but you apparently seek to resolve them by injecting obvious POV into it. If some political scientists use "country" to refer to all polities, whether at a national or sub-national level, and including dependencies, then bully for them, but in normal use the word "country," like the term "nation," is a loaded term that only increases controversy and that, yes, is extremely POV, with, for example, pro-independence advocates in Puerto Rico applauding while pro-U.S. statehood advocates in Puerto Rico rejecting. I don't think that it's necessary to find a neutral term to describes both sovereign states and dependent territories, but if you wish to propose one, please note that "entity" dies not have the historical baggage of "country" (or "nation"). AuH2ORepublican (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Country is not a a neutral term to describes both sovereign states and dependent territories, AuH2ORepublican, it's a term in an another category. As I've shown above, country is a geographical entity, sovereign states and dependent territories are political entities. Country is a land, a place, a region, as defined in the Country article. India was a country before it was independent, for instance. So is Scotland. Guarapiranga (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
And nation is a people, since you seem to be confused about that too, AuH2ORepublican. Guarapiranga (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
You are assuming far more consistency on this point than exists in the real world. What you actually gave us above was four different definitions describing different meanings of the word "country". The meanings overlap but they are not the same. And anyone can legitimately use the word "country" to mean one of the meanings and not the others.
By some of those definitions (e.g. number 4) pre-independence India was a country. By others (e.g. number 1), it wasn't.
The terms sovereign state and dependent territory have similar issues. For example, Article 1, Section 26 of the Louisiana state constitution defines Louisiana as a "sovereign state".
Trying to treat any of these terms as though they were absolute and not open to debate is a mistake. Because they aren't. Kahastok talk 21:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Do you mean this definition, Kahastok?

A country may be:

  • an independent sovereign state,
  • part of a larger state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division,
  • a physical territory with a government, or
  • a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated people with distinct political characteristics.
There, I highlighted it for you. So, no, one may not legitimately use the word "country" to mean one of the meanings and not the others. Any one of them is a country. Guarapiranga (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
And in the same way, since an "Indian" may be a person from India or a Native American, you would doubtless feel not only that both Pocahontas and Mahatma Gandhi both belong in a list of Indians, but that the fact that one was from Gujarat and the other from Virginia should not even be mentioned in that list? Kahastok talk 21:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to mentioning whether a country is the mainland of an independent state or a dependent territory, as Wtmitchell proposed, Kahastok. Guarapiranga (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. So, when you said, "My take is that sovereignity, statehood, recognition, independence and the UN are pretty much irrelevant to this list", what you meant was that there were actually very important to this list, given that without them you can't distinguish the sovereign states from the dependent territories?
And then comes the problem question - on what basis do we distinguish the sovereign states from the dependent territories, exactly?
Yes, there are edge cases. There are always edge cases when it comes to these things. Are the Cook Islands and Niue sovereign states or dependent territories? Their governments are deliberately ambiguous on this point. The rest of the world accepts that they are whatever they want to be and don't worry about it. But we have to decide, because we need to know which side of the line to put them on.
And then there are the states with limited recognition. If you number them, you count them as sovereign states, which is POV. If you don't number them, you count them as not sovereign states, which is POV. If you number some of them or not others, that's also POV in both directions. In theory you could provide an extra numbering system for each separate one, but that's patently not practical. Realistically you have to acknowledge each situation in its own terms.
Which is why I say that the best option for the numbering system is to remove it completely, and then that we need to make absolutely clear what the status of each entry is, something that can only be done sensibly using words. Kahastok talk 23:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kahastok: If you number them, you count them as sovereign states
Nope, you count them as countries, which is what this page is about. It's about geographical regions, not political entities. Your confusion stems from being unable (or unwilling) to distinguish the two, Kahastok. I don't oppose including info about which countries are sovereign state mainlands, and which are territory, but this by no means has any bearing on whether a land, a geographical region, ought to be included or numbered on this list.
And of course numbering ranked tables is useful to readers; it shouldn't be removed bc editors can't tell geography from politics. Guarapiranga (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
So, in this list of Indians, you would indeed count both Pocahontas and Mahatma Gandhi equally and without distinction.
If you feel that your definition of the word "country" is so important that it should define the entire list, surely it's incomplete? Surely it should also contain all geographical regions or lands? All formerly-sovereign political divisions that are now parts of a sovereign state? All physical territories with governments?
There are 50 states in the US, 26 in Brazil, 16 in Germany (in German, they're even called "countries"), 28 in India. We can go further than that. Every US county-equivalent is "a physical territory with a government", and there are 3242 of them. As of January 2015, there were a total of 36,681 communes in France - each one "a physical territory with a government". Another 7,918 comuni in Italy. Another 12,013 municipalities in Germany. Every single one is "a physical territory with a government". All of those, without exception, are countries by your definition. Why are they not all here? Along with the equivalents in all the other parts of the world?
Alternatively, we could consider the possibility that you have misinterpreted your definition of the word "country". Kahastok talk 18:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Alternatively, we could consider the possibility that you have misinterpreted the definition of the word "definition", Kahastok.
The definition I quoted is not mine, but that cited on the Country article. But, no, I wouldn't include federated states on the list. I would simply include all countries on the List of ISO 3166 country codes. Guarapiranga (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
No, it's your definition. The article country lists four different definitions, you've just decided to amalgamate them altogether for no apparent reason. The article itself is entirely clear - repeatedly - that one possible meaning of the word "country" is an independent sovereign state.
And if you're going to only include "all countries on the List of ISO 3166 country codes", that means not including on this list many of the states with limited recognition. In turn, that effectively takes the positions that Kosovo, Abkhazia, Western Sahara and the rest do not exist. Put it this way, if you exclude Kosovo as you propose, there are a lot of pro-Kosovo editors out there who will correctly point out that this is biased. And they'll be no more impressed by your argument - effectively that "Serbia" is a geographical designation that includes Kosovo - than I am.
Oh and by the way, this is not technically a list "of countries". As I pointed out in my very first message in this thread, the list is defined by the inclusion criteria in the article: sovereign states and dependent territories based on ISO 3166-1, plus states with limited recognition. The title of the list is a description only. Kahastok talk 21:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
This is not a list of countries?? Better rename the page then. It's confusing apples and elephants, countries and states. Guarapiranga (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
If you wish to start an RM, you are welcome to do so. The list is defined by its inclusion criteria in the lede. "List of countries and dependencies" is purely descriptive. Kahastok talk 18:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, done. Guarapiranga (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Kahastok invited you to open a Requested Move discussion, not to move the article. Moving the article was inappropriate and I have reversed the move accordingly. This page has been moved to List of sovereign states and dependencies by population 3 times previously and each move was contested so it requires formal discussion and consensus to move, not the whim of one editor. That move was very close to WP:POINTy editing. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I didn't think anyone disagreed with the name, as Kahastok has made plentifully clear that it is what the article is defined as in the lede. And I'm not obliged to know it had been suggested before (Kahastok certainly didn't mention it). WP:Assume good faith, AussieLegend. Guarapiranga (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
You should always check the move log before moving an article except in the most obvious of cases, like moving an article to draft. Also, as I pointed out you were invited to open a Requested Move discussion, not to move the article. That should have been an indication that a page move might be controversial, as are comments in the discussion here. Don't assume. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, done. Guarapiranga (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
List of countries redirects to Lists of countries and territories and the talk page there says that all of the content that was in List of countries is in List of sovereign states, is that what this is about?Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Only because Guarapiranga changed it without consensus on 11 November. It has since been reverted. List of sovereign states is the consensus target, a consensus that has been repeatedly reaffirmed over the years. Kahastok talk 18:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Having had a think, I agree with either numbering them all simply for convenience/ease of reference or none. My reason is that I think the primary intent of this page is to convey information about population of entities regardless of their political status.Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, I get the "sovereign state is a number" thing, so I guess it will have to be "none" + explanations as necessary. (maybe there is some other convenience markup that could be done).Selfstudier (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Actually, the structural analysis of the "Country" definition made by Guarapiranga is wrong, since they have omitted a crucial or between the two first parts. As far as I can see, the only possible interpretation is this:

A country may be:

  • an independent sovereign state or
  • part of a larger state, as
    • a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division,
    • a physical territory with a government, or
    • a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated people with distinct political characteristics.
The definition an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state with three examples of such parts, is hardly useful as inclusion criteria. The lede of the article Country also says that Countries can refer both to sovereign states and to other political entities,[2] while other times it can refer only to states., making the term "country" even less well-defined. Could we please now stop discussing the meaning of the word "country" and instead consentrate on this article and 1) its inclusion criteria; and 2) the numbering system? --T*U (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The inclusion criteria are fine as-is, so far as I am concerned.
The numbering system needs to be fully, unambiguously and neutrally defined or it needs to be removed.
At present the numbering system is either poorly-defined or incorrect. The current text is:
Issues:
  • There is a genuine problem in distinguishing "dependent territories or constituent countries that are parts of sovereign states" from sovereign states in some edge cases, most notably the Cook Islands and Niue.
  • A strict reading of the second sentence sees six UN members (China, the two Koreas, Cyprus, Armenia and Israel) and one UN observer (Palestine) unranked, since they have limited recognition. This would not be neutral as it would give undue emphasis to the idea that they are not legitimate.
  • Treating the states with limited recognition and the non-sovereign dependent territories equivalently is non-neutral since it implies that the states with limited recognition are not sovereign states. The use of italics to distinguish the two categories is inadequate for accessibility reasons (they are not represented by screen readers). Kahastok talk 18:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
There are many ways of defining unambigiously what countries to include in the numbered rank. It could be 1) UN members or 2) UN members and observer states or 3) those that are listed as independent in ISO 3166-1 or 4) states that are recognized by more than a plurality ofN UN member states (N being whatever we decide: 150, 100, 50, 81, 50%, 28) or 5) ... We only need to get a consensus about which way to define it. And as you say, the definition has to be explicitly stated and will then solve issue #1 and #2.
As for your issue #3, I am not sure how to solve it. The three categories should be distinguished whatever the numbering system. Coloured background? An asterix for one group, a dash for another? --T*U (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I have changed one of my examples to avoid sidetracking of the discussion. --T*U (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I have stricken my "option 4" completely to avoid more sidetracking. It was never meant as a real suggestion, only as a "theoretical possibility". --T*U (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Whatever we decide — isn't that OR? Guarapiranga (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
No, it is WP:CONSENSUS. --T*U (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Except…

Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. … participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

Guarapiranga (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Sigh! I was just listing possible (theoretically possible) definitions. I have changed it to avoid another sidetracking of the discussion. --T*U (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, option 4 there is OR and bound to cause problems in the long run. It has been tried on other articles before, and always fallen on this point: you're bound to get people coming along saying it should be 50% instead of 60% or vice versa (oh and by the way that means including/excluding their favourite example).
My number 2 can be handled with a change in wording in principle, once you've nailed down your criterion.
The main problem on point 1, if we're saying listed as independent by the ISO, is what about those entities not listed as anything by the ISO, i.e. the states with limited recognition. And remember that the ISO takes its lead from the UN, which is a good and authoritative source but isn't a fount of neutrality.
Number 3 will continue to cause problems. Coloured background is no good - screen readers won't read out the colour. And can they distinguish a star from a dash?
Any system needs to be really properly nailed down, accurately reflecting the status of the states with limited recognition per WP:NPOV. Given the inclusion of the dependent territories, this becomes a really difficult thing to do, which is why I think having a numbering system is more trouble than it's worth. Kahastok talk 18:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I have removed my "option 4", which never was meant as a realistic suggestion.
Yeah, I agree that the real problem here is the entities that are not in the ISO list. But I am not so sure that the numbering system is the main culprit. Even if we number all or remove the numbers altogether, the "limited" will still create havoc, since we will need a definition that covers also those entities. One possibility might be to split the list and create different lists for independent countries (according to a given criterion), dependent territories (according to a given criterion), states with limited recognition (according to a given criterion). It might be easier to make "rules" for such sub-lists, which could be numbered or not, but then we would lose the comparison element.
Anyway, I completely agree it will be really difficult. No quick-and-dirty solution will do. --T*U (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
A good reason not to rely on the "independence" column of ISO, the situation is complicated enough without introducing yet more variables into the mix. You are using expressions such as "independent countries" which have no clear cut meaning. Even the idea of "independent" is troublesome, what does it mean precisely? Not dependant? I forsee many arguments if we go down that route.Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I used the term "independent countries" just for convenience, to avoid having to give a long "countries or states that are sovereign according to so-and-so and/or are recognized by so-and-so and/or are UN members or observers" type of statement every time I talk about the list. You may not have noticed the parenthesis (according to a given criterion), which imho is the main point here. I have not yet formed very strong views about which criteria we need, but I am quite sure that we need some criteria that is not open for interpretation by different editors. --T*U (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Returning to the timeline question, I would note from December 2017 until [this edit] of 25 September 2019, Palestine was numbered continuously, ie for about 22 months. The edit summary for overturning the prior consensus reads as follows: "Following consensus from similar articles, only generally recognized sovereign states should be numbered" which is not only untrue but OR.Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

At least there was an edit summary, which has not been the case in most of the earlier ins and outs of Palestine, Taiwan, Kosovo and Western Sahara. Anyway, I wish we could now stop harping on what has been and concentrate on what shall be. I think everyone here agrees that the development of this article has not been perfect, to put it mildly. --T*U (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What are the rational, neutral, unbiased arguments against using an externally published expert criterion for this list? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
There could not be any argument against (in this particular case as well as in others similar) IF "an externally published expert criterion" existed that addressed inclusion and numbering or even either one. One might think that List of countries by population (United Nations) would do but that list excludes some entities that are included here, is thought by some to be biased because it is a UN source and does not address the numbering question, instead numbering everything. And you can argue against the CIA fact book and ISO and...Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
All sources are necessarily biased, Selfstudier. That's not relevant (WP:NPOV applies to editors, not sources). What is relevant to WP is whether they are WP:reliable (the UN is, of course). And what is relevant to the question being discussed here is whether all rows on a list of countries and dependencies should be numbered or not, regardless of their level of sovereignity or independence. Guarapiranga (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree with you. If Peter Southwood question is only about numbering criteria (and not inclusion criteria) then there is certainly no external source, "numbering" has been invented by Wikipedians.Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, agreed, it's WP:OR. The rank column should simply be replaced by a static row number column, with no added connotations on top of being the 1st, 2nd, 3rd row on a table (and hopefully that'll end the geopolitical footballing with this article). Guarapiranga (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The RFC has expired, do we have a rough consensus that all ought to be numbered?Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I would support that. Guarapiranga (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't. Coming back to this discussion after all this time I find the RfC fundamentally flawed. Per WP:RFCBRIEF, the RfC statement should be kept short and neutral. Editors arriving at this RfC would have a hard time working out what the proposal actually is. I know some of what lead up to this but even I'm having a hard time. There are no clear "support" or "oppose" votes so the only real outcome I can see is "No consensus". To the RfC closer, good luck. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
If the outcome is "No consensus", the closer will also have to assess what constitutes the status quo ante. This is among the things discussed in a spin-off of this RfC in the section #Vatican City further down. --T*U (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not understand what the exact proposal is, so here are some possibilities. Is the proposal to remove the numbering column? That would be the best solution, because the column has no added value at all. Is the proposal to number all entries? That would be a second best solution, as it keeps the numbering in the column consistent with the inclusion criteria of the entries (whatever they are). Is the proposal to change inclusion criteria and thus remove some entries? That would require a separate discussion imho. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Marcocapelle For ease of reference, I am copying the proposal to here(it can be found near the top of the talk page):
(Copy)
How about this:
Make the Rank column indicate rank within the table the only indicate rank within the table by numbering all the :rows;
Add a Political status column to categorize listed entities as country or dependency and/or, possibly, otherwise in ways not fitting the article name but nevertheless deemed worthy of inclusion in the table;
Add an explanatory note below the table defining the categories and guidelines for inclusion;
Change the column heading reading Country (or dependent territory) to read Name.
Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)(Endcopy) Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks. My comments above sort of cover these suggestions. As the RFC title is about "numbering" we should not discuss more fundamental issues (about the definition of country and about inclusion criteria) in the same discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I view the other elements of the proposal besides the numbering more as matters arising should a decision on numbering be agreed; in the sense that reaching a consensus on those points should follow quite easily. That is not necessarily the view of other editors however (see Tu-nor comments below).Selfstudier (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on coronavirus pandemic

Hello, just to let you know: Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data#RfC on countries/dependencies. --Checco (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to enter both the Kingdom of the Netherlands and (the country of) the Netherlands for consistency reasons

To be consistent with having unnumbered entries for Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten - which are three of the four constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands - I propose unnumbering the current entry (country of the) Netherlands, which is actually the fourth constituent country, as well as entering a numbered entry for the Kingdom of the Netherlands. I also propose adding a reference to the Kingdom of the Netherlands (rather than just Netherlands) for each of these constituent countries. Any objections or suggestions? Redav (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't object to this proposal, but in that case I think that we should do the same for similar countries such as France and Denmark. Maybe follow the approach in the List of countries and dependencies by area. Heitordp (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

UK Population

The UK's page now estimates the population of the country to be 67,886,004. This from 2020, and is therefore a more up-to-date figure than the current 2018 estimate. Should this be updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camali2003 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Missing entries

Looking for their population figures, I missed the following countries/dependencies in the article: French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion, Guadeloupe, Mayotte, Caribbean Netherlands. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

They're neither countries nor dependencies, but full parts of France. Notice how there isn't separate entries for Alaska or Hawaii either. --Aréat (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Updating Pakistan's Population source

Today I changed the source for Pakistan's Population from its data page to its UN Projection, and as I changed this, there was a comment I read that I had to delete:

"Do not replace this with a manual calculation. Template:Data Pakistan, like other data templates do for other countries, is used to automatically calculate today's population based on National sources. If this country's population is not accurate, please update the data template, not this article. Do not remove this template without providing justification in the edit summary. Failure to provide justification will result in the removal being reverted."

This is my justification: Pakistan took its most recent census in 2017, but since then, Pakistan hasn't published any population projections (and isn't likely to until it publishes the final results, which the PBS (Pakistan Bureau of Statistics) has said will happen later on in 2020. The article states in its methodology to use national sources when available, and if none are available (as in the case of Nigeria), to use the 2020 UN Projection. There are currently no such national sources available for Pakistan and the population that was being given for Pakistan was based off of an extrapolation that I can't find any basis in. The extrapolation took the census' population (which was correct), but then added 11,000 more people each day. The base day was also seemingly arbitrary. It was June 3, 2017, a date mentioned nowhere in any data from the PBS as the reference date for the 2017 Pakistani Census. I could not find any source anywhere on the internet or referenced at the bottom of the page anywhere for the 11,000 number, so I replaced the population with the U.N. projection, as it seems there are no National sources from the government currently that are updated and reliable.

Abbasi786786 (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Do not change it back to the older source anymore without providing a new, nationwide source from the government of Pakistan, as Pakistan's data page now also uses data from the U.N. Population Prospects with an extrapolation that is based off subtracting the U.N. data of July 1, 2019 from July 1, 2020 and dividing it by the number of days between the two reference dates (366). Also respond to me in the talk page when you do that.

Abbasi786786 (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

European Union should be in the list

I see there has been some confused discussion on this topic. And the article states Areas that form integral parts of sovereign states, such as the countries of the United Kingdom, are counted as part of the sovereign states concerned. Not included are other entities, such as the European Union,[a] that are not sovereign states, and independent territories that do not have permanent populations, such as various countries' claims to Antarctica.

I think not including the EU in the list is totally unjustifiable and misleading. As the note states it's a "sui generis" union and saying it is "not sovereign" is incorrect as it does legislate on many topics. Also I'm not too sure why that is relevant in this article. The European Union is a sui generis supranational union whose sovereign members delegate to it by treaty certain powers that are often exercised by sovereign states. Its combined population has been estimated at 512,379,225 on 1 January 2018, and it would be ranked 3rd if it were included in the list. Totally misleading to just remove what would be the third entry on the list. It clearly changes the whole interpretation of the list.

I propose that we should keep the EU in the list as well as the individual countries that are part of it.

Please keep comments and votes brief below to facilitate discussion

  • Approve (proposer) - as stated above --Gtoffoletto (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
And if we included the African Union it would be above the European Union. The fact that an entity has a large population does not make it more likely to need an entry.
Per the inclusion criteria for this list, the European Union is not on ISO 3166-1 and is not a state with limited recognition. All being sui generis means in this context is that the EU does not belong, because it isn't any of the types of entities that go on ISO 3166-1 or the list of states with limited recognition.
Of course, if it were to be included, we would have to remove all 27 member states, all of which do meet the inclusion criteria (in that they are all on ISO 3166-1). Kahastok talk 17:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Where is the inclusion criteria stated?
I don't think the African Union is comparable. We have the EU in other lists for a reason (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) ). --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The inclusion criteria are started at the top of the article.
The only reason the EU is on one of the three lists on the article you mention is because it is on the list provided by the source. It is not included on the other two lists because it is not on the lists provided by those sources.
I do not see why the African Union is not comparable, since it has a large population and also does not meet the inclusion criteria for this list. Kahastok talk 19:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The article states "primarily based" on ISO 3166-1. The EU clearly has a "special" status as it is "in between" a country and an organisation. The states have given substantial sovereignty to the EU (some more then others). Here are notes taken directly from the wikipedia articles mentioned.
  • "because the European Union is not a country, it is not formally included in ISO 3166-1, but for practical reasons, the ISO 3166/MA has "reserved the two-letter combination EU for the purpose of identifying the European Union within the framework of ISO 3166-1"." No code exists for the African Union as far as I am aware.
  • "The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states that are located primarily in Europe. The EU is included as a separate entity in The World Factbook of CIA because it has many attributes of independent nations, being much more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN, NAFTA, or Mercosur.[24] As the EU is not a country, China is the second ranked country on these lists.".
Both the CIA and ISO think the EU deserves special status. I would deem them reputable sources for the inclusion of the EU in all country lists. And certainly not comparable to the African Union for this reason. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The list is "primarily based" on ISO 3166-1 because it also includes state with limited recognition, as noted by the inclusion criteria. The European Union is not a state with limited recognition. Nothing in the inclusion criteria allows random non-states to be added that are neither on ISO 3166-1 nor state with limited recognition.
The ISO does not treat the EU as a sovereign state or a state with limited recognition. The CIA does not treat the EU as a sovereign state or as a state with limited recognition (and even if it did, since when was the US government an arbiter of WP:NPOV in international politics?)
And even I accepted that claim, the standard is not a random Wikipedian interpets their cherry picked source as thinking X deserves special status. The standard is ISO 3166-1 and the List of states with limited recognition.
Also, this breaks WP:CANVASS.
I think it is far more valuable to retain the 27 member states, which do clearly meet the inclusion criteria but which would have to be removed if the EU were included, to avoid double counting. Kahastok talk 21:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@Kahastok: To be clear my proposal is not to remove the 27 member states. But to add the EU as a relevant grouping in recognition of its "special nature" as many other RS do. The world is complicated and not "black or white" and I think the inclusion of the EU would be useful in this and other lists.
Ps. I'm sorry you found my notification "leading". It seemed innocuous to me (rereading it I wouldn't guess what my position is). Do you have a proposal on how I should edit it for neutrality? Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
All this rubbish about the EU's "special nature" is irrelevant. The European Union does not meet our criteria, so it does not belong on this list. End of.
And you couldn't add the EU without removing the 27 member states anyway, because of the need to avoid double counting. So yes, the consequence of your proposal is that the 27 would have to be removed.
As to your canvassing, it's far too late to change it now. We just have to ignore any input from that project and other that you have notified in violation of WP:CANVASS. Kahastok talk 16:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Double counting is not an issue as the same problem has already been solved for all dependencies (e.g. Cocos (Keeling) Islands (Australia)). We could just say "Italy (EU)" and avoid thus double counting.
Also, this is a proposal. I've provided my sources. You have provided yours. We can disagree in a WP:CIVIL way.
I do not agree that was WP:CANVASSing and you have not indicated what your exact issues were with that notification. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 16:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually you've provided no relevant sources. You've pointed at a couple of Wikipedia articles, which are not sources for other Wikipedia articles. There have been no sources demonstrating either that the EU is included on ISO 3166-1 or that it meets the standard for the List of states with limited recognition - for the very good reasons that it isn't and doesn't.
On double counting, we don't include the population of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in the population of Australia. It's solved in the sense that we don't do it anywhere.
And yes, asking people you think will give you the answer you want is canvassing. Whether you like it or not. Kahastok talk 17:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The sources for those statements are within the articles themselves. Surely you can verify them without me copying them. If not let me know and I will copy paste them for you.

Regarding double counting I don't see the problem. It's not like the total is an actual sum of the list items. It's just another estimate (and correctly so).

I though you were contesting the specific wording of the notification sorry. Should we notify some other project? I just chose the one that seemed more relevant. More editors would be welcome here. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Basically, everything Kahastok said. Not a country or a dependency. Not part of the ISO 3166-1 standard. If we include it, we will have to include other organisations such as the African Union or NAFTA. --McSly (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Does not meet the current criteria; not a sovereign state, not a dependent territory. ISO 3166-1 states explicitly that the European Union is not a country, and that it is not formally included in ISO 3166-1. Making new criteria that includes the EU (and EU only) in addition to the current list will take some original research. --T*U (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The EU is not a sovereign state, de facto or otherwise, and it does not fit the vaguer definition of "country," either. It certainly is not a dependent territory. Unlike in articles listing states by GDP, for example, in which groups like the IMF, UN, etc. include the EU in its list of "economies," there is no viable reason to include the EU in a list of countries ranked by population density. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Finland/Åland

In this edit, Numberguy6 specified in a note that the population number for Finland was exclusive of Åland, consistent with the system used for other dependent countries. The number that was in the table at the time, was, however, the total for all of Finland including Åland, so in this edit, I replaced the number with an updated number for Mainland Finland, at the same time also updating the population of Åland from the same source. In the next edit, Sokndal reinserted the now updated population for all of Finland, and at the same time changed the note to say that the number was inclusive of Åland, giving the edit summary Åland is a fully integrated part of Finland like Corsica is in France and Sicilia and Sardinia in Italy.

It is true that the Åland islands are an integral part of Finland, and that they are autonomous in a similar way that these islands are in their respective countries, but there are also significant differences. One such difference is that the autonomy of Åland was achieved through an international decision by the League of Nations, making their status so special that their EU membership is following special rules, see Special member state territories and the European Union. In the context of this list, it is also relevant that Åland is included in ISO 3166-1, which is the main inclusion criterion. That means that unlike Corsica, Sicily and Sardinia, Åland is a separate entry in the list.

As the list now stands, the population of Åland is included twice, both as a separate entry and as part of the population of Finland. I find that somewhat odd. As far as I can see, no other dependency in the list has their number "counted twice" in this way. The main thing is, of course, that the note explains what is included, but it would be nice to have a consensus about this. --T*U (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The key determining factor is whether Åland is on ISO 3166-1. It is, so it should be listed, and its population should thus not be lumped in with the rest of Finland. Obviously the note should explain what's going on.
This would not be the only case where somewhere that is "an integral part of" a state would be included. Status of autonomous and dependent territories rarely maps particularly well between countries, so we can't really draw sensible comparisons as Wikipedians without WP:OR. That's why we use an external standard, in this case ISO 3166-1. Kahastok talk 20:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Since no-one has objected, I will now reinstate the Finland number excluding Åland. --T*U (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It is true that Åland has some autonomy like Faroe Islands and Greenland, but not to the same extent. Together with Faroe Islands and Greenlad, Åland has two members in the Nordic Council. Norway, Sweden and Denmark has 20 members each and Iceland 7. But there are differences: Åland is always listed as an integral county (province) within larger Finland ulike Faroe and Greenland which population wise is not listed in the Danish population, but rather counted separately from Denmark. Åland is always included within the total population number of Finland as stated by the Finnish Statistical Bureau. Faroe Islands and Greenland have their own semi-national statistical bureaus. 

Conclusion: I think that it is correct (and not odd) to count the population of Åland twice, both included in the Finnish population and separately.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokndal (talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Kahastok that we need an external standard like ISO 3166-1. We cannot ourselves evaluate the degree of autonomy. As long as Åland is included in ISO 3166-1, it will have its own place in the table. As for the Finnish statistics, they give the population numbers even down to municipality level every month, they give the total including Åland and they give subtotals for "MA1 MAINLAND FINLAND" and "MA2 ÅLAND", so it is no problem avoiding double counting. --T*U (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Total percentage doesn't check out

Hi!

Don't ask me why I did it, but I added together the values of all entries from the "% of world population" column. At first, I did it while only counting countries, which led to a total of 97.9836246%. Then, I also added dependent territories and sovereign states with limited recognition (that is to say, I didn't skip ANY value), leading to a total of 98.505011462% instead of 100% as indicated.

If anyone wants to triple check, here's the resulting addition: 0.0000106+0.000131+0.000141+0.000230+0.000430+0.000489+0.000497+0.000678+0.000712+0.000921+0.000995+0.00124+0.00126+0.00129+0.00134+0.00142+0.00144+0.00154+0.00229+0.00258+0.00270+0.00368+0.00391+0.00470+0.00481+0.00494+0.00524+0.00590+0.00633+0.00706+0.00746+0.00798+0.00803+0.00873+0.00952+0.0100+0.0112+0.0112+0.0114+0.0138+0.0140+0.0162+0.0171+0.0175+0.0178+0.0187+0.0198+0.0206+0.0244+0.0258+0.0266+0.0269+0.0279+0.0300+0.0301+0.0315+.0344+0.0350+0.0358+0.0359+0.0365+0.0379+.0424+0.0426+0.0449+0.0453+0.0477+0.0523+0.0523+0.0541+0.0567+0.0574+0.0596+0.0631+0.0639+0.0643+0.0649+0.0689+0.0700+0.0705+0.0706+0.0708+0.0732+0.0747+0.0774+0.0829+0.0832+0.0838+0.0876+0.0882+0.0892+0.0893+0.0914+0.0931+0.0967+0.101+0.110+0.114+0.115+0.117+0.118+0.119+0.121+0.125+0.127+0.129+0.132+0.133+0.134+0.137+0.137+0.138+0.141+0.144+0.147+0.148+0.149+0.150+0.151+0.157+0.159+0.164+0.194+0.196+0.204+0.208+0.213+0.214+0.224+0.225+0.225+0.229+0.240+0.245+0.249+0.250+0.260+0.276+0.280+0.286+0.327+0.330+0.331+0.337+0.341+0.383+0.385+0.386+0.389+0.399+0.413+0.413+0.421+0.421+0.439+0.439+0.461+0.488+0.492+0.515+0.534+0.536+0.547+0.552+0.582+0.607+0.610+0.646+0.664+0.703+0.739+0.754+0.773+0.853+0.857+0.860+1.07+1.07+1.07+1.15+1.23+1.27+1.29+1.40+1.62+1.64+1.88+2.17+2.64+2.72+2.83+3.42+4.23+17.5+18.0+0.000000642+0.00000712+0.0000180+0.0000195+0.0000223+0.0000251+0.0000410+0.0000640+0.0000723+0.0000769+0.000128+0.000150+0.000191+0.000195+0.000384+0.000385+0.000432+0.000459+0.000521+0.000551+0.000673+0.000687+0.000720+0.000721+0.000727+0.000811+0.000821+0.000844+0.00107+0.00134+0.00137+0.00144+0.00190+0.00200+0.00221+0.00315+0.00348+0.00354+0.00452+0.00602+0.00747+0.00893+0.0230+0.0410+0.0962+0.303

This means that roughly 116 522 247 people (yes, that's almost the population of Japan) are unaccounted for in this table if world population indeed is 7,794,201,000. More likely, at some point a few population values were modified and the percentage values weren't changed correctly in consequence. I suppose that adding together all the population values (instead of all the percentage values) would lead to more insights into where the mistake is exactly. But in any case, something incorrect appears to be going on somewhere. --Grelot-de-Bois (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll answer my own thing for posterity: "Because the compiled figures are not collected at the same time in every country, or at the same level of accuracy, the resulting numerical comparisons may create misleading conclusions. Furthermore, the addition of figures from all countries may not equal the world total.", says the article. Sounds like that's just an unavoidable level of impreciseness. --Grelot-de-Bois (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Somaliland

i dont understand why Somaliland is included to Somalia while its a De facto state, and other similar ones like Abkhazia, Taiwan and Kosovo made the list. Shafici Bashe (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I also do not understand. It should be listed separately, in my view. --Checco (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps Somaliland hasn't been listed separately to avoid overlaps, as there doesn't seem to be a source for the population of Somalia without Somaliland, and we shouldn't subtract the numbers because the estimates may refer to different dates. But if we don't care about overlaps, we should indeed add an entry for Somaliland, and keep the note for Somalia explaining that it also includes Somaliland. By the way, we should also add Svalbard and Akrotiri and Dhekelia to the list. Heitordp (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Somaliland should be listed this article of world's population per country, because there are numerous other unrecognized countries including Taiwan, Kosovo, and others in the list. If somaliland is listed the other articles such as the list of countries and dependencies by area, it should be included this article. I hope it will be edited soon. Bashafar (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population/Archive_9&oldid=986589981"