Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population/Archive 4

Introduction to list

Ok i have redone the intro to the list explaining what is included and what isnt. Much like it was before mentioning that the United Kingdoms countries are included, i have added explanations on Chinas two SARs and Frances overseas regions. The only thing that was left unranked in the list was Somaliland which for the time being i have removed. It should be re added when Kosovo and other unreconized states are ready to go on the list (ranked or unranked).

Please let me know what you think of the changes, i hope its acceptable to everyone. Now its clearly explained i dont mind England etc staying on the list, however if in the future there are demands for all the US states, German states or regions of mainland France to be added to this list then they should all be removed to avoid the list getting bogged down. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

China

At the moment the note next to Chinas entry says it is the figure for mainland china only. However Hong Kong and Macau have never been ranked in the list, so if the note is correct Chinas population is currently missing over 8 million. The source for the actual number is a population clock on a page full of chinese which i do not understand. I dont like the idea of using "population clocks" which are basically just random guesses rather than offical estimates, but could someone please find the correct number or remove the note if it does infact include Hong Kong / Macau. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Integral parts of sovereign states

This list, until my edits, included the integral parts of three sovereign states. Each of the three was handled in a different way.

In the UK, all four UK countries were listed in the article, and also in the main UK figure. The UK's overseas territories were listed in the article but not included in the main UK figure.

In France, régions that happen to be in Europe were not listed in the article, while those that are not in Europe were. All of those, as well as all of France's overseas territories were listed as part of the main France figure. If the UK had been done like this, the UK figure would have included Bermuda, Gibraltar and so on, but all of those would have been listed separately - along with Northern Ireland but not Scotland, England and Wales.

In China, the Special Administrative Regions were listed entirely separately from China, and the main value for China did not include them. So, in UK terms, this would be like not listing the UK at all, but rather giving separate values for Scotland and Northern Ireland (which have more devolved power), and then a combined value for England and Wales.

I am making these changes based on the apparent consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries: that lists of countries do not need to be renamed, and should not include UK countries separately, but that the inclusion criteria should be clearly stated in the lead. I have altered the inclusion criteria in the lead of the article to reflect this apparent consensus. Pfainuk talk 14:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the changes made, its the fairest and safest way of doing it. I had to undo one edit by someone who added a US state to the list yesterday. If parts of France / UK were allowed on there then others simply want theirs to be included too. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

European Union

In line, with the inclusion of dependencies, can the EU be included, as a special case, of a dependency?--217.112.186.123 (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The European Union is not a dependency or territory, whilst i agree there is no other international organisation that comes close to as much intergration as the EU there are always calls for other things to be added, like the NAFTA or the African Union. To avoid fights the fairest thing is for it not to be included at all. There was a sentence saying this table doesnt include trade blocs and international organisations. The Trade_bloc#Most_active_regional_blocs provides a table comparing data of things like the European Union as well as comparing it to current countries such as the United States. I think linking to that table is fairer than making a special case of the EU on this page. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

One more point.. I dont have a problem with it being included at the bottom as a note (like it currently is) but if people ask for other international entities like the AU to be added it should be as well or they all need to be removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Pfainuk talk 20:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

At last place228, Pitcairn Islands, population of 46.

File:Habitantes de Pitcairn.jpg

All Pitcairn residents

Or, 227 Holy See

The EU, has more "statehood", then those two things. Notes on top, and move there other notes, for other stuff. I agree that, only EU, is a special case, not nafta, AU or what ever.--217.112.186.123 (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This list is about countries and territories. The Pitcairn islands is most certainly a territory there for its inclusion is fully justified no matter how many people live there. Vatican city is a sovereign city state which is independent from Italy, also justifying its inclusion although a note about why that one is included might be useful. The European Union is not a sovereign state, its not a territory and its not a country. These issues have been gone over in the past @ Talk:European_Union/inclusion_in_lists_of_countries. I think including the EU at the bottom with a note is more generous than the alternative which is simply leaving it off all together. The Eurozone appears on the GDP lists and rightfully so but there really is no real need for the EU to be included here. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As BW notes, this has been discussed before, and you may wish to review those discussions.

You say that the EU has more "statehood" than Pitcairn and the Vatican. While you do not define "statehood" in your comment, I would dispute this - particularly in the latter case - but it's not really important. Our inclusion criterion is "sovereign states and dependent territories" so we include sovereign states and dependent territories.

The European Union is not a sovereign state, and it is not a dependent territory. If you wish to argue with that statement, I suggest you come up with a pretty damn good source - say, an EU Treaty - to back your argument up: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. In my view, it is best placed either at the bottom of the article or not at all. Notes explaining the list should not be considered to be more important than the list itself. Pfainuk talk 23:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A modern state —if you take the common definition of the term for at least the last 500 years of Western history— is a political entity with legislative, judiciary and executive powers. As stated earlier on this page, that's fit with the European Union, inform yourself about how the EU works, how it affects it citizens and how it has a constraint power over its members in the 3 political fields forementioned, which only a "country" have.

If you consider that the place of the EU in the list is debatable due to its uncommon form (which is a sui generis entity and thus does not stick with any current model, so did the USA when they came to exist by the way), so is the place of the United-Kingdom or the United-States. I think we can agree that it would be absurd.

So, there's no reason not to include it, but I totally understand how and why it affects some people, so it's not a big deal to me to let it unranked. But it has to be in, in my opinion. Orravan (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Your definition a "country" would involve a massive overhaul of this list, for the worse IMO. The states of the US are all political entities with executive, legislative and judicial powers, for example. So is Scotland. So is the UN. I wouldn't be surprised if there are many other members of federations, and international bodies, with all three powers - and indeed local government in most countries can manage two out of three.

That said, per the lede of this article, our inclusion criteria is sovereign states and dependent territories. As I said earlier, if you can find a good source to demonstrate the EU is a sovereign state, it can go in. But in that case, since the EU member states would then be integral parts of a sovereign state - so according to our current inclusion criteria they would have to be removed.

I am aware of the EU's competencies and I live in an EU member state. Pfainuk talk 01:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"My" definition of a country would not involve an overhaul at all : does Scotland or the states of USA overrule the state they are part of ? Of course not, they can promulgate local laws, but ultimately, they are bound to the sovereign legislation. So it is for the EU, the european laws are overruling the national ones, which must bend to the common law if it infringe it. For instance, in the USA, the Supreme Court will have the last word over states judgements, so it is for the European Court of Justice.

The notion of "sovereignty" is bound to the notion of "contraint", and the EU does have that political, judiciary, legislative contraint power, just like any country. That's why it is legitimate to be included, in my opinion. Note that I don't argue to call it a "country", though, I just react about facts.

Anyway, you deleted it, I will not include it again for now, as I don't want to start an edit war, but let's think about my pov, would you ?

Merry Christmas by the way ! Orravan (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Being a "country" is not the defining criterion of this list (because of the vagaries of the definition of the word "country"). The defining criterion is sovereign states - which we generally define as per the list of sovereign states - and dependent territories. Note that we have gone over the EU issue before, and I suggest that you read these discussions.

Would you advocate removing the member states of the European Union? If we did consider the EU to be a sovereign state (per your argument) then the member states of the EU would be in an equivalent situation to the states of the US. The details would be different, sure, but the fundamentals would be the same. They are clearly not dependent territories but integral parts of the European Union, and this list explicitly excludes areas that are integral parts of sovereign states.

I believe these arguments - requiring legislative, executive and judicial competence that cannot be overridden except by secession - would also extend to other international organisations such as Caricom and possibly the United Nations.

I am willing to drop my objections if a reliable source - from an EU treaty or similar - can be found that defines the European Union as a single sovereign state on a par with Norway, Thailand and Cuba (for example). I want a decent source because I think this would come as a great surprise to the 500 million people living in the EU.

FWIW my political POV is actually basically pro-European. Merry Christmas. Pfainuk talk 10:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"Sovereignty is the exclusive right to control a government, a country, a people, or oneself. A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority" Will it be de jure or de facto, it sticks, imho.

The polemic point is that the EU is in such an ambiguous situation that it share its sovereignty and competences with the member-states. But the same occurs for a lot of countries, let's think about the Länder of Germany for example, where the federal state and the Land share their power. Still, Germany is seen as a united country, because a common law is ultimately overruling the whole people. Think about Costa Rica, it suppressed its army and delegated its defense to the United-States, still it's a country. There's so much cases that can be discussed if you stick to a too much formal POV.

Constraintive Law is the constitutive key of any sovereign state, the UN for example can't force a country to respect its rule. As for the Caricom, maybe one day it will change to something similar to the EU, but for now it is far, far away from what the EU is, it's kinda like the EEC 50 years ago, which would not had been added today. To be honnest, I'm not even sure it has all the powers EEC had 50 years ago.

Anyway, I'm not a federalist jusqu'au-boutiste, but the EU is a sui generis federal state that does not tell its name, that's why a lot of people feel uncomfortable about it. So, I don't care about the name, the status or whatever, I stick with the facts, people lives together under the same common Law they are building together — maybe not perfectly, but still. If it's not a "sovereign state" as we usually think of it, it's not anything else either, the EU is unique, and for me, it belongs here unranked, in or out of the list, that's only a formal matter.

Have a look on the french version, I find it more clear, factual and useful, as it try to inform about specificities rather binary classification. Orravan (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The USA also shares its sovereignty and competencies with its states. Indeed, US States are technically "sovereign" - see Louisiana's state constitution|, section 26 which actually defines Louisiana as a "free and sovereign state". If we are to assume that the EU as a sovereign state, I do not see any fundamental distinction between a member state of the EU and a state of the US. Distinctions in the detailed powers of each, yes, but nothing fundamental.

You say that the UN can't force a country to respect its rule. On the contrary - it can and does, at least de jure. Any member of the UN is obligated by the UN Charter to accept Security Council resolutions as part of international law. These resolutions are legally enforceable, and enforced by Security Council itself - the economic sanctions against Iraq from 1990-2003 are a prime example of such enforcement. The International Court of Justice will also accept UNSC resolutions as part of international law. The facts that countries sometimes flout the resolutions laid down by the Security Council, and that not all resolutions are well enforced, do not mean that countries are not legally forced to abide by UN resolutions.

I'm willing to accept the EU placed in a note below the list (per this revision). But not in the list itself unless it can be demonstrated with a source - an EU treaty, say - that it is a single sovereign state.

The French list - I've looked at it quite recently. There's some quite favourable reaction to it lower down on this page. Pfainuk talk 18:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood me, I don't recognize the EU as a "sovereign state" for itself, as I said it's a sui generis political union and I don't try to do an analogy with others existing states, I'm just assuming that due to all the reasons I aforementioned, it's a data that have to be included for informative purpose, but unranked. That's quite simple.

Now, yes, Louisiana is theorically a sovereign state, but it's like the Bible saying to women to submit to their husbands, or a forgotten, never-abrogated law 150 years-old : it's there, wrote black on white, but it's not anymore used on a daily basis, in fact not legally used at all. What I'm speaking of is mainly the situation de facto that legitimate its place for informative purpose as I said, as for the situation de jure, it's debatable, but it's not my point since I don't try to say whether or not it is a country (for me it's not anyway).

As for the UN, indeed my mistake, the UN resolutions does have a constraint power, but it strongly differ from what I'm speaking of, it's more like actions taken over a situation, it doesn't affect/is not part of the legislation of a country, and have really limited powers over national sovereignties. To say it all, I would be less inclined to add UN to the list than Mercosur, African Union or Caricom...

As a sidenote, I noticed that for a lot of versions, mainly european ones, the EU belong to the list : danish, spanish, italian, french, portuguese (they added a lot of things !), polish, finish... Orravan (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Louisiana's constitution was written in 1974, and the states' sovereign status does have a bit of an impact on US constitutional law. The Federal Government cannot make any law it wants - it has to show per the Tenth Amendment that the law concerned is specifically delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Sometimes the logic involved in doing this is quite obscure - for example, states are theoretically free to lower their drinking ages below 21, but if they do so they lose federal highway funding. For example, marijuana - even when grown without the intention of selling it - can be regulated federally because the courts have held that it affects interstate commerce.

I can see the argument that it's informative. But if the EU, why not include a theoretical united Korea (as was added and removed this morning) - that would be informative. So would adding the UN, ASEAN, Caricom, the GCC, ECOWAS and other such organisations, and possibly the populations of the continents and so on. These are all different cases with different merits and flaws, sure, but we do have to draw a line somewhere. I think the current formula is a good one, mostly because it is relatively easy to say what belongs and what doesn't. Because of the profile of en.wiki, we are rather more prone to people arguing these points over and over compared with other Wikipedias.

As I say, I be happy to include the EU in the article below the list - we could point out it's there in the lead (in the sentence that mentions the EU already). I think putting it directly above the list gives it a bit too much precedence - this is, after all, primarily a list of countries. But the reason I removed it was not because I objected to it being on the list - I don't. Indeed, I believe we have consensus that it should (or at least can) be included in the article - but the question is where. And because the last version of the list that had consensus did not include it, if we can't get a consensus over where to put it we can't put it in. Pfainuk talk 15:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(I'm answering below to save space. Orravan (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

I re-added the EU as a note on top of the list. The has become the standard display in comparable lists. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am removing it entirely, because that is the last position that had consensus here ([1]). Please discuss further. Pfainuk talk 01:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see how being able to compare the populations of some countries with blocs like the European Union could be useful, but there is a table on Trade bloc that compares the EU, NAFTA, and other trade blocs with countries such as the United States. I still dont have a problem with the EU appearing on this article, although its probably best placed at the bottom and any other international ogranisation such as the AU or perhaps even the Commonwealth of Nations has a right to be included as well. Personally i would prefer some form of list of International organisations that could include all the known trade blocs and organisations and have a sortable table for population, area, GDP etc which could be linked to on all the different lists, rather than having to include them or mention them all on country lists.

Just on the issue of the European Union, it is not a sovereign state and nowhere close to becoming one. The European parliament may vote on some laws, the EU commission may issue directives but the true power is still held by the member states themselves who have to implement those laws and sometimes simply choose not to, they also always have the ability to withdraw from the union by passing a single bill. The same goes for the courts, European Court of Human Rights which is linked to the Council of Europe rather than the EU has overruled Britain on several occasions but the COE is not added to such lists. The Eurozone certainly belongs on GDP lists, but whilst the information may be useful to some there really is no true justification for the EU alone being included on this list or area lists etc.

I think its best to keep it off the list until agreement is reached about where to place it or if other international organisations like the AU are allowed on here too. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to react on two things : first, the point is that the EU is much, much more than a simple trade bloc, that's why there is so much debates about it. Ask people if Mercosur belong to the list, you'll see it will be a lot less polemic. See what happen when you ask about EU : pages and pages of discussion. Imho, just that legitimate its presence as informative data.

Second, the member-states cannot legally chose to not apply a european directive, they can take time to do so, and adapt it to their own legislation as long as it doesn't infringe the common law, but they can't chose to ignore it. The ECJ is there to remind them so, as its judgements prevail on any national judiciary court. Orravan (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that EU is more than just a trade bloc. I would also say that a state's status is not defined by whether it has the right to leave an organisation that it is a member of. That is to say, if there is no theoretical right to secession then a state does not belong on this list, generally speaking. I don't know of any exceptions but that doesn't mean there aren't any. But if there is such a right, the question is open. The republics of the USSR and Yugoslavia pre-breakup would not have belonged on this list despite the fact that the constitutions of those countries contained the right to secession. In both cases it was widely assumed that the right to secession would never be used until it was.

I don't know of any country nowadays that a theoretical right to secession for its constituent parts - the closest I can think of are Canada and the UK (and possibly others), where it is accepted that a clear referendum result in favour of secession or sovereignty for a particular province/country would require the Ottawa/London government to negotiate terms with the province/country concerned (and these terms would have to be mutually agreeable - see Reference re Secession of Quebec for details of the Canadian situation).

Incidentally the phrase "common law" is not perhaps the best to describe European law because "common law" also refers to the English legal tradition of using judges' previous decisions as part of the law. It's not a big deal, mind. Pfainuk talk 15:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we are going far, really far too much in the details and examples without necessity, I'll try to summarise my position, which is simplier, really.

I'm not to speak about what I would like the EU to be ; as today, looking at the practical side, at how the things works in the EU, both at national and supranational levels, I see it as an hybrid, unofficial federation, because in the facts, it works kinda like one, of course with its specificities. And it have not a single equivalent because there is no such union or organisation —besides countries— that received so much sovereignty delegation from its members.

That's explainable, as countries usually don't let go parts of their sovereignty out of their control, they keep it with great jealousy. Regarding this, the EU is a strong exception, we dropped a lot of our sovereignties to europe ; by the way, that's why so much national-oriented political movements had been standing up against european construction for decades now, arguing that their country are losing its sovereignty. It should ring a bell.

So, I don't think its place is out of the list, will it be below, or worse, above ; but I think it definitively belongs in the list, classified out of the ranking to show that it's not a sovereign state by itself. I like some of the versions I linked above including the french one, because they show the countries and their dependencies and specificities (have a look at the UK line), and therefore focus on the information rather than politics or polemics. Actually, I find it kinda funny when I think about it, because the EU can be seen de facto as a sovereign power AND a dependency of its members. That's really an uncommon structure, and because it makes people wonder so much, I think it should be included for informative purpose. This single reason would be enough for me.

I hope I'm clear enough, my thoughts are really simple and does not need to deeply debate on the nature of the EU, as it's not the point, if you decide not to add the EU, it's really not a big deal to me, but I think we would lose some useful informations.

As for the english common law, I knew about it but didn't think it would be ambiguous, sorry about it, I'm not that good in english but I try my best though. :)

"Community law" is probably better suited ? Orravan (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

France overseas

From what i read all of the things listed form part of overseas france and count towards the total of the French republics population they just have different levels of autonomy. They were originally unranked, they probably all need to be removed from the list like reunion etc were. According to the overseas department article all of them have representation in the French senate. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I used a translation website to convert the current source for the french figures it says "At January 1, 2008, it is estimated at 63,753 million D ’ inhabitants including 61,875 in metropolis. On this date, the communities D ’ overseas (French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Mayotte, Saint-Pierre-and-Miquelon and Wallis-and-Futuna) count approximately 720 000 inhabitants. The total population of the French territories thus reaches 64,5 million people." So im pretty sure all these regions, departments, collectivities or other names they call them count towards the french republics main population total and they do all have the right to vote in french presidential elections and have a atleast 1 senator.

Im gonna undo your revision pfainuk, then delete those French territories from the list all together as i think they should of been removed with reunion etc. Pretty complicated though, would certainly help if the french governments stats were all done in English BritishWatcher (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, no two countries have exactly the same relationship with their overseas territories.

In the French case, so far as I can tell from the French constitution, the article Overseas departments and territories of France is accurate: while overseas departments have the same powers as any other part of France - IOW they are equivalent in status to the régions of Alsace and Picardy - overseas collectivities have entirely different structure as provided by article 74 of the French Constitution.

I've been looking for previous discussions on this (on the basis that there must have been one) and this one looks appropriate, if short. I agree broadly with The Tom's comment that "integral" is not the clearest word to be using, but that there - and here - we have been using it (when referring to overseas territory) to say that to be integral to a state a territory should have (in his words) "no effective constitutional differentiation between it and other parts of the country".

I also provide can provide this English-language version of the French constitution (which uses "community" in preference to "collectivity").

I would note that the EU makes the distinction: the DOMs are treated as "outermost regions" - similar to the Canary Islands, Madeira and the Azores, which we consider to be integral to the states concerned. The COM are treated as "overseas countries and territories" - similar to the British BOTs, Aruba, the Netherlands Antilles and the Faeroes - which we consider to be separate from the states concerned.

Figures-wise, they say that there are 63,753,000 people, plus 720,000 for the 6 COM's (including New Caledonia), giving a total of 64.5 million for the entire country. This source does not back up your figure of 64,473,140.

Finally, on a separate matter, the French Senate is elected by grands électeurs - public officials - and not by the general public. It tends to be lower profile than the lower house, the National Assembly. Having representation in the Senate is not similar to having representation in the UK House of Lords, but it's closer to that than it is to having representation in the House of Commons. That said, the Overseas Collectivities do get a certain level of representation in the National Assembly. Pfainuk talk 23:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, while I don't very much like removing all the COM's it is a situation I can live with. I have corrected the figure concerned based on the source. I do like the way the French have done their equivalent though - maybe something to consider for this list and the list by area. Pfainuk talk 23:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes i must admit that table looks very nice and would be more informative for people than the current ones on here and on the list by area. I would certainly support having such a table on here :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I like how they just use the one source as well rather than different updates at different times from different sources like on here which complicates matters and makes the information less accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how good the CIA is on population data (I think the values fr.wiki give are too precise), the colours would be unusual on en.wiki, and I wouldn't follow their inclusion criteria exactly (I would have separate entries for Western Sahara and Palestine and leave out the EU). But basically, I think the basic system works well, giving both a country's total area/population and the area/population of its overseas territories. So I'd support it. I don't know if I'll get the time to actually create a proposed edit myself though.

How we'd handle the China/Pakistan/India issues on the area list I'm not sure, mind - the French equivalent handles them very badly. Pfainuk talk 00:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the colour of their table, i dont know about the best source but i have always prefered the idea of using one or two specific sources rather than dozens of random individual ones currently used for different countries on here. Agreed on the inclusion criteria, im suprised they dont actually rank the EU on the french one, is something i would expect them to do. The area article on there is awful IMO especially how they handle things like china and taiwan as you mentioned but using the same method as their population list for the area list would work very well and look good.

Would be a big change though for the dozens of territories which would basically be unranked on such a system unlike the current one here. I like how tidy theirs is though with just 194 entries almost matching UN membership numbers rather than over 220. I think i prefer that it just ranks the sovereign states and not territories but i could imagine that annoying some people. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Also im not sure how they come up with their totals on there. Counting all the US territories towards the US population. Counting British overseas territories towards the UKs population seems more incorrect and less accurate than our current method of ranking them all separetly. They get the point about the crown dependencies not counting towards the UK population, but add the other overseas territories. Seems to be based a bit too much on a system like the french overseas areas are handled by their own government. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually looking at New Zealands entry on there they dont use the "total" to base the rank on so it is accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Several points to answer here:

• all territories/piece of land in overseas France are integral parts of France. That's quite clear from the French constitution and French law. In fact they are more integrated with metropolitan France than Scotland is with England & Wales. For example even French Polynesia and New Caledonia are completely part of the French judicial system (tribunal de grande instance, then court of appeal in Papeete and Nouméa, then court of cassation in Paris), and they are completely part of the French education system (éducation nationale, with local rectorats in Papeete and Nouméa), which is quite different from Scotland which has its own judicial system and education system separate from England & Wales. So if you separate the overseas collectivities from France, you'd have even more reasons to separate Scotland from England & Wales.
• another point: someone said the overseas collectivities do not send deputies to the French national assembly (the lower house). This is completely wrong. People in the overseas collectivities vote in the French legislative elections just like the rest of France, on the same day, and send deputies to the national assembly. For example, two of the 577 deputies in the national assembly come from New Caledonia, two come from French Polynesia, one come from Mayotte, and so on. People in the overseas collectivities also vote in the French presidential election (in fact the 2007 presidential election started in the overseas collectivity of St Pierre and Miquelon a day before Metropolitan France, because of the time difference). You can find a map of the presidential election results at French presidential election, 2007. Also, the overseas collectivities vote in the French municipal elections just like the rest of France. So for example during the last municipal elections in March 2008 people voted in the most remote atolls of French Polynesia as well as in the most central arrondissements of Paris on the exact same day to elect their local mayors and town councilors. At the last annual meeting of the French mayors in Paris last month president Sarkozy actually welcomed the mayors of overseas France's communes at the Elysée Palace and spoke in front of them. He made no distinction between mayors from overseas regions and mayors from overseas collectivities.
• some people apparently assume that the overseas collectivity are very different from the overseas regions (the latter being exactly the same as Metropolitan France's regions, the former being quite distinct, so goes the assumption). This is oversimplification I'm afraid. In fact there aren't two neatly separated categories (despite the two different names), there are all sorts of shades of gray. You'd be surprised to find out that the four overseas regions in fact don't have the exact same status as the regions in metropolitan France. Certain laws apply to them: for example gas and diesel prices in the fours overseas regions are not free, they are set by the French State, unlike in Metropolitan France where they are free like in the rest of the EU. In the French overseas region of Guyane, some people still have a customary status and are not submitted to French civil law (concerning divorce, inheritance law, etc.), which is the same in New Caledonia, despite the former being an overseas region and the latter an overseas collectivity. In the overseas region of Réunion as well as in the overseas collectivities in the Pacific, civil servants have a special bonus added to their pensions when they retire (their pension is 25% higher than what it would be in Metropolitan France), but in the overseas regions in the Caribbean they do not enjoy those increased pensions, they have the same pensions as in Metropolitan France. And these are just a few examples. In fact the legal situation is much more complicated than what people imagine. There is no clean-cut distinction between overseas regions and overseas collectivities.
• even in Metropolitan France, you'd be wrong to assume there is uniformity. For all of France's reputation as an extremely unitarian country, there are in fact lots of local idiosyncracies. In Alsace and Moselle for example, there is still a retirement scheme that is distinct from the rest of France (incl. overseas France). And there is no separation of church and state (if you ever have to stand before the criminal court of Mulhouse, you'll probably be very surprised to see a big Christian cross on the wall above the judge, which would be unthinkable in the rest of France). In Corsica there are also all sorts of special administrative and legal rules that do not exist in other French regions.
• someone mentioned that the overseas collectivities are not part of the EU. That is quite right (there's a custom barrier between the EU and French overseas collecvities), but that's irrelevant here. France is in the strange position of having a part (the largest part) of its territory inside the EU, and a part that is outside the EU, but nonetheless all these territories are legally part of France, whether or not in the EU. So if we made a list of EU countries by population, we should list the population of France with the overseas regions but without the overseas collectivities (which is what Eurostat does), but if we make a list of countries in the world by population, then we have to include all of overseas France, because the EU is irrelevant here. Also, if you're not already completely confused, there are now talks in Brussels of making the overseas collectivities fully part of the EU (they already vote in the European elections and send deputies to the European Parliament, but are not part of the EU, which some people in Brussels think makes no sense at all). And last but not least, the French overseas collectivities in the Pacific should switch to the euro in 2010 (the other overseas collectivities already use the euro).
• someone mentioned the British overseas territories. Contrary to the French overseas collectivities, the British overseas territories are constitutionally not part of the UK. This is quite clearly stated on the website of the British prime minister: see [2] ("The Overseas Territories are constitutionally not part of the United Kingdom. They have separate constitutions"). In fact I believe there is not even freedom of movement between the UK and the British overseas territories (if you're British, try to move to Bermuda and work there, you'll see what a hassle it is). In contrast, the French overseas collectivites do not have separate constitutions and are constitutionally part of France, and there is complete freedom of movement between Metropolitan and all of overseas France. Someone from Marseille is completely free to settle in French Polynesia and work there, and vice versa.
• concerning the sister article at the French wikipedia, the idea of listing overseas areas below the mainland is a good one, but their list contains some errors (for example they listed the British overseas territories as if they were part of the UK, which is factually wrong as I explained).
• finally, concerning the source for the figures in the table, I think we should keep national sources as is the case now, because they are much more accurate and up-to-date than either the UN or even worse the CIA World Factbook. It's up to people to collect figures from the national statistical offices, and if not then the default figure is the UN figure (which is often older, and sometimes completely superseded by new figures, such as in the Spanish case). 83.202.38.144 (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. sephia karta | di mi 17:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)