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

Serbia

Is placed in front of several countries with a higher population. Any reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoman82 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

I think the note at the bottom concerning accuracy should be placed at the top. For instance, China's population is quoted in a manner that implies accuracy to one part in over one thousand million, which is absurd. The Holy ettlz (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, moving that note to the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2009 (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 (France for example had been deeply changed by EU legislation and politics —not always for the better, though—, and yet it's one of the most reluctant EU member to european policies, politics often using the EU as a scarecrow) and are now dependant from the supranational level ; 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) 17:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

We'd normally say European law or EU law in the UK, but Community law would probably work as well.

I agree with you in general. I do understand your argument about its inclusion being informative - I agree that it would be informative and I do think it should be included in the article.

But one of the issues on these lists is that things become complicated if we don't take a single rule and stick to it - preferably without exception. Here, the rule (at the moment) is sovereign states and dependent territories. So, I would say include the EU in the article, but put both it and the entry for the world in a notes section at the bottom. Pfainuk talk 00:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of the EU as an entry in several lists is based on the Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries and resulted in a broad consensus of inclusion or special mentioning all lists (like in this article). Please study thoroughly the discussion and refrain from alterations at the article. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have read through that inclusion in lists of countries, it didnt seem to me like a general consensus was reached, many were divided about how they wanted to proceed. The last post on that page is a powerful argument about why the EU shouldnt be the only one allowed on this list. As ive said before i dont mind it staying as long as if somebody adds the African union or something similar tomorrow its not going to be removed because its "not as worthy as the European Union" I agree that the information on the EU would be useful to some people which is why id prefer to see a whole table comparing international organsations, but when ONLY the EU is allowed remain on such country lists where there is little justification for its inclusion it simply looks like its for European pride and has a very arrogant and blind view of the rest of the world.

Again there is full justification for the Eurozone to be included on GDP lists, but apart from being useful information to some (just like including African Union etc would be) i fail to see why the EU actually belongs here on its own. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not about a european pride, I'm not really opposed to their inclusion, but I explained earlier why they are strongly different imo. Orravan (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I too cannot see your justification based on that page. When asked what the conclusion was, one of the principle debators said "[t]hat is was a huge waste of time as everyone has just stated their position and gone to bed." Further users have noted with some surprise your use of that page to try and justify your position. Zebulin said that "I see most of my important points have already been made and I'm very puzzled as to how Lear construes any sort of consensus to exist here". I will not accept a claimed consensus on that page as being the end of the matter here without debate, at least partly because I cannot see any justification for that claim.

Further, I will not "refrain from alterations from the article". You do not own this article. If you wish to discuss my edits, then do so. But reverting me without discussion of the issue based on a consensus that does not appear to exist is not helpful - even leaving aside the fact that for at least three of the eleven months since that page was last edited this article did not include a single reference to the EU, and so even if a consensus existed at the time, it can reasonably be said to have changed since. Pfainuk talk 00:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, in retrospect, it was a bad idea, that i started, this discussion, as always it will go nowhere. The general councencus is, EU as a note at the bottom. Even List of sovereign states, has the EU as a note.--217.112.186.125 (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

To provide consistency with other lists it is necessary to include the EU entry here. The List of sovereign states is a different matter because of its headline claim to include "sovereign" countries (even though non-souvereign entities are included). BTW, even in this list the EU entry is mentioned at the top of the list to recognize its special character. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem, is that, if put at the top, alone, a lot of editors will take offense. However, if the note of the EU, had company, i think that the other editors will accept it. For example List of countries and outlying territories by total area.--217.112.178.85 (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have moved those three on the list of sovereign states and the list by area. It makes absolutely no sense to start a list of sovereign states with a list of things that aren't sovereign states - to put the list of entities that are explicitly not included above the list of entities that are included. The whole point of these lists is to be lists by sovereign state/dependent territory. Having what could turn into a very long list of things we're leaving out before we get on to the things that we're supposed to be including rather defeats the purpose of the thing.

If you could let us know which of the entries on that list are not in fact sovereign states, it could be adjusted. The whole point of that list is that it only includes entities that are at least de facto sovereign. Pfainuk talk 15:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This lists are like this for ages. Discuss it first. On List of countries and outlying territories by total area, it was a compromise, to put it there [Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area/EU discussion].--217.112.178.85 (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The only objection raised so far is the fact that the previous version is long-standing. This is not a good reason for a revert: if no-one objects then there is no reason not to make the edit. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy (per WP:BURO), and editors are encouraged to be bold (per WP:BOLD). Pfainuk talk 21:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks later, people are still reverting on the basis that the old version was a "longstanding consensus version". In this case "longstanding" appears to mean eleven days. So far, there has been no other argument against moving the EU on this page. The only argument against change remains that this was a not-particularly-longstanding version based on a consensus that apparently never existed. Without any substantial arguments against, it seems fair to assume a consensus in favour. Pfainuk talk 12:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another week goes by, and people are still reverting on the basis that that version that lasted a whole eleven days is a "longterm compromise" - with no other rationale. And then failing to raise any substantial objection to the edit on talk. Indeed, the fact remains that no substantial objection has been raised to this edit - the only reason anyone has given to revert this edit is this claim of long-term consensus.

But even if this were a long-term consensus (and it is not), this would not, in and of itself, preclude changes from being made. Particularly given that there has been no substantial argument against the edit, continuing to revert it is becoming disruptive. I'm willing to discuss the issue, as elsewhere. But those that disagree with me appear to have decided that they'd rather edit war over this than discuss it. Pfainuk talk 01:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In my case, I don't participate anymore in this debate, not because I "fail at raising objection to the edit" (I've already raised mine), but because I'm tired and not willing to fight over and over something that worth so little, nor I'm willing to fight over something that sometimes feels like a biased issue for some people. I prefer facts and flexibility over rhetoric and stiffness, but that's only me.

If you can't settle it with Lear, maybe let ask for some Wikipedian moderators help to do so ? Orravan (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was referring more to Lear and the anon than you. I get the impression that a fair few people are bored of this. The problems with mediation are twofold. Firstly, I have difficulties with WP:AAGF - in that I find it difficult to assume that the person who wrote this and has not since withdrawn it is assuming good faith in my intentions. Without this good faith assumption, mediation cannot work. Secondly, we don't seem to be able to get any kind of discussion together. If those reverting won't discuss on talk, I don't see there's any reason to assume that mediation will change that. Pfainuk talk 16:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the note about the EU is included twice, once at the top, once at the bottom, in identical wording; surely this can't be your idea of a compromise :-) Make up your mind, people! My personal view is that the EU is worth including in this page in some way or other, if only because I think many people (like me) are interested in comparing the EU's population to other countries. And also, most people, including most Europeans, don't have the slightest idea about the EU's population. 84.198.246.199 (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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

As Parsecboy on the other list, this is not a discussion about whether the EU should be in the list, but where in the article it should be placed. This discussion has not been had, and my arguments were not made in those discussions. In any case, your claim of consensus last February or earlier is irrelevant. The most recent longterm consensus lasted from August to December and did not include the EU at all. There was no discussion on the EU's removal because no-one objected and silence implies consent. Pfainuk talk 17:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The stable version including the EU entry at the beginning of the article (or even within the list as an unranked entry) must be considered the longterm version. At least from July 2007 to August 2008. The NOW re-installed version represents therefore the achieved compromise and developed over the last 3 years involving several dedicated editors from many different countries. Lear 21 (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So, consensus can only change if you like the way that it changed? If you wanted to object to the removal of the EU from the article in August, you should have objected in August or September. You didn't. Since silence implies consent, the edit in August - and nothing before then - reflects the standing consensus version. This version went unchallenged for three and a half months, which fits in with any reasonable definition of "longterm" in the context of Wikipedia.

In any case, I'm quite happy for the EU to be included on the article, provided it goes below the main list. No-one has yet argued that there is anything wrong with putting it below and not above the main list, except that it doesn't meet the requirements of a consensus that doesn't apply because it was superceded three and a half months before this discussion started. And even if it did apply, the fact of previous consensus is not, in and of itself, a good reason to object to an edit. Pfainuk talk 18:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I seriously don't understand how it can be such a problem to include it in the list unranked (with a "-" instead of rank). It makes things clearer for the reader, don't pollute the page with sidenotes and do exactly the same job with less polemics. It's done that way for a majority of versions, as well as for similar subjects requiring listing of countries, and I think that's not without reason.

I come once again with the model of the french version, which can probably be improved, but I find it to be esthetically clearer, pleasant and easier to read. Orravan (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If a list is to have any meaning, it must have a set of inclusion criteria that define what belongs on the list and what does not. On this list, the inclusion criterion is sovereign states and dependent territories. The list must then include entities that pass the inclusion criteria and exclude entities that fail.

Putting the EU in the list at best implies that the EU is a sovereign state (or, if italicised, the dependent territory of a sovereign state). This is grossly POV - the EU is not a sovereign state - and is not something that we have any business in implying.

Further, as demonstrated by this message, if one entity that fails the inclusion criteria is included, then people will argue for others on that basis. If we have the EU, why shouldn't we have the Countries of the UK and whatever else people fancy? And if we do that, we have a massive list that loses all sense of what it's actually supposed to be listing. That's not a theoretical argument - people do argue that we should include entries on the same basis as the EU and they have a point. Pfainuk talk 09:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pfainuk, there are actual countries which we do not include in the list because they do not fit the criteria so i do not see how anyone can try and justify the inclusion of something that everyone accepts its not a country, not a sovereign state and its not a territory. There is actually no justification at all for the European Union being mentioned on this article, but a reasonable compromise in my opinion is for the EU to remain underneath the main list with antartica. That seems fair considering the EU really does not belong on this article at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also just one point on the French article mentioned. That article clearly is sourced just by the CIA World Fact Book which does mention the European Union (although right at the bottom of the list). Our article does not have a single source, there for the criteria we set has to be stictly enforced to prevent this list becoming a joke as it was a few months ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason of the inclusion of the EU entry is based on it´s recognition by external sources like the CIA and IMF (5th time user Pfainuk & BW are confronted with this argument). This is not the case for Scotland or other hypothetically contentious entities. The Pfainuk concerns are baseless and theoretical therefore. Looking at the talk archives it becomes clear that almost no other "country" or territory has seriously experienced advocates for inclusion. In fact it seems an internal British discussion about what is a "country" and what is not. This clearly does not belong here. I support Orravan´s proposal for an unranked inclusion of the EU. This is done by many other languages as well, btw. Until the Orravan proposal gets full support, the special mentioning of the EU entry at the top remains. Lear 21 (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does it have to be at the top? What's wrong with the bottom? The CIA World Factbook only adds it as a special mention (at the bottom), which is why it is being mentioned here as a special case as well. The IMF has the EU on a different table from the main list of countries. The UN does not include it on any of its lists of 230 or so countries. Why would the list suffer if we put the EU in the Notes section at the bottom? --Polaron | Talk 22:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a list of entities included in the CIA World Factbook, nor a list of entities recognised by the IMF, as I have responded several times now. This is a list of sovereign states and dependent territories, and while the EU is neither, it cannot go on this list. In any case, as Polaron notes, neither body lists the EU as if it were a sovereign state as you want us to. That the CIA and IMF list the EU - treating it differently from the other entires on their lists - is not a good reason for us to abandon NPOV and imply that the EU is a sovereign state. That Wikipedias in other languages' equivalents of this list fail WP:NPOV is concerning, but not immediately relevant to us here.

On other entities, I think the basic "fails the inclusion criteria" argument against new entries - including the countries of the UK - would be seriously undermined by an EU entry. A fair few debates get no further than a response of "not a country", "not a sovereign state/dependent territory" or whatever - either on talk or in the edit summary. The EU would be used as an argument, as I have demonstrated. And in any case, Wikipedia is not - or should not be - an exercise in what you can get away with. The encyclopaedia is best served when we separate entities that pass the inclusion criteria for the list as stated in the article from those that fail them.

But we all know that there will not be a consensus for an unranked entry - it simply won't get consensus. The principle question is not whether such an entry should be included, but whether the EU should be mentioned above or below the list. You're edit warring to get it above instead of below the list, but you have not yet given any valid argument as to why it should be above the list and not below it. Your only argument so far is an old consensus version - which wouldn't be a valid argument (taken on its own) even if it was the standing consensus version rather than a version that was superceded three and a half months before the discussion began. The standing consensus, let's remember, does not mention the EU at all. So, why, in your opinion, should the EU be put above the list rather than below it? Pfainuk talk 23:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The special mentioning at the top is the compromise between those arguing for an exclusion/mentioning at the bottom and those who argue for an unranked inclusion within the list. A manifold of arguments have been cited already here and in several other list discussions over the last 3 years. Lear 21 (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No. The separate mention was the compromise between exclusion and inclusion but there has never been a discussion (until now) about the specific positioning of the EU. You have not yet provided a reason why it cannot be at the bottom and have refused to address the specific issue of the positioning. What is wrong with putting the footnotes at the bottom of the list? --Polaron | Talk 19:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I remember, the old arguments we had over this subject more or less assumed the EU was going to be put in the list but not given a number for rank. So I'm not really sure how you arrive at your conclusion. TastyCakes (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? That's what I just said. We agreed it should be mentioned as a separate entry from the main table. But there was no discussion on whether the separate mention was to go before the main list or after the main list. --Polaron | Talk 20:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. When I was involved in this argument (literally years ago) there was no talk about putting it before or after the table, it was going to be put in the table and rather than a number in the rank column be given a -. I don't know when the idea of putting it in the blurb at the beginning or footnote at the end came about, for all I know it hasn't been discussed as you say. TastyCakes (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This dispute has been going on for weeks with certain users continuing to move the EU back to above the article, but nobody as Polaron said has actually given a reason why it belongs at above the list and not below it. Considering one of the main justifications for the EU to be mentioned at all on this list is the fact its on the CIA world fact book, those who support the EUs mention at the top fail to accept the CIA put it right at the bottom of their list.

Times have changed so even if it sat at the top without too much problem for a year does not justify it remaining in that position. A few months ago quite a few entries were removed from this list and others, as mentioned above some which are actually defined as countries. Because we exclude countries from being included the EU can not be treated as a special case. The best thing in my opinion would be to remove the EU all together because it really has no right to be on this article any more or less than the African Union does. But as people feel strongly about this the best compromise is for it to be included at the bottom of the list in the notes. Putting it at the top is not a compromise, and if the edit wars continue we should remove the EU all together to put an end to this once and for all. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

@BW: As long your arguments draw parallels between the EU level of sovereignty and the AU you not even start to be taken as a serious voice here. It´s almost ridiculous. The number of arguments have been numerous and were endlessly repeated even for the inclusion at the top. But I´m looking forward to a broad commitment to an Unranked inclusion of the EU within the list, which seems appropriate and justified given the degree of EU integration and it´s global relevance and involvement. That would settle the discussion and stabilize the article. Lear 21 (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I know you want the EU in the list itself. I also know that it's not going to happen. It's not going to happen because the implication that the EU is a sovereign state is inaccurate and POV. It's not going to happen because it is not appropriate for any entity that is neither a sovereign state nor a dependent territory to be listed in a list of sovereign states and dependent territories and because the only basis we have to include or exclude entities from this list is whether those entities are sovereign states or dependent territories. Global relevance, involvement, and degree of integration of entities that are neither sovereign states nor dependent territories is irrelevant. But it's pointless going through this because we all that inclusion is not going to get consensus.

So, why you feel the EU has to be above the list and not below the list? Because this debate - and I use that word in the loosest possible sense - has been going on for six weeks and I still have no idea what your objection to listing the EU at the bottom instead of the top actually is. Pfainuk talk 17:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"It's not going to happen because the implication that the EU is a sovereign state is inaccurate and POV."

And that's why it's added unranked elsewhere : it provide information that a lot of people want, without formal recognition that a lot of people don't want, keeping the article neutral enough for everyone. If you are looking for a consensus between POV, here it is, imho. :)

You act like if including it in the list would mean : "the EU is a country". No ! No one argued specifically for this here, it would be added in italic and unranked to clearly show its uncommon status, possibly with a ref if needed. It's probably the most balanced choice to reach consensus. Also, it's a good and simple choice to get rid of this vain "under/below" polemic. Orravan (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This list is entitled list of countries by population. The very first sentence uses that same language, and then the next sentence - the one that defines the inclusion criteria - defines this as a list of sovereign states and dependent territories. Putting the EU in a list of sovereign states and dependent territories would certainly imply that the EU is either a sovereign state or dependent territory. Which it is not.

You say that it's the best way of making consensus. It's not. There's more than one editor who has said - in equivalent discussions elsewhere - that they don't care whether the mention goes above or below, but would not accept the EU integrated into the list. Putting an unranked option in is not a realistic solution. Pfainuk talk 21:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Article name change proposal "List of countries and the EU by population"--217.112.177.207 (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Pfainuk >>

1st) If it were not a realistic solution, there would not be concrete examples everywhere, working for age without problems. It's not even a POV, the facts prove it's realistic. I don't even understand how you can deny something that does exist, it's just unlogical.

2nd) "List of countries by population", the list is entitled that way, okay. And what is the usual polemic around that argument : arguing either the EU is a supranational entity, a dependent entity (aka simple trade union), both, or none. And there is a lot of people to defend each position. See my point ? See the whole point ? Some says the EU does have the attributes of a country, some says it doesn't. And since the EU is a sui generis entity, both are right, as long as they chose carefully their arguments, and that's why, as a major POV, it definitely belong to the list, whatever how it's done.

By the way, I'll remind you one pillar of WP : Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view."

Another point -a minor one- is that we can play this for long : Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada : maybe Canada doesn't belong to the list as an independant country, as one of its political branch partially belong to England ? Maybe the UK doesn't belong to the list either, as Scotland got its own parliament ? Or maybe it grant Scotland the right to belong to the list as an independant country ? What about every federal/confederal-style countries and their specificities ? And Kosovo ? It's all about POV, and ultimately, about the dominant one.

Now, being real, there is of course a general consensus for UK and Canada : they belongs to the list, and are fully looked at as countries. There is aswell a general consensus for the African Union : it doesn't belong to such list. As for the EU, there is no consensus at all, there is polemic and major POVs, and with the fact that the EU is still under construction and mutate, that sort of polemic will be going on for a lot of time, and come again and again, hence the need of something neutral enough for everyone.

3th) That being said (repeated ?) about the pertinence of the inclusion, I'll say a word about the manner to do it : if you ask me, just me, I would put the EU in the list, ranked, and voilà. But I am aware that a lot of people don't see the things that way, hence the inclusion unranked seem to be the better balanced choice to get a neutral long-term consensus. I came with the french example, because it show a lot more informations, in a clearer layout, and it suit everyone without doing harm to chauvinistic POV or whatever the reason.

I will not fight more for it again, I'm seriously tired about that. If it can't be settled and if the editwar can't stop, Wikipedia firefighters / admins will probably decide ; as for me, I don't care, I'm just playing logic here, sticking with facts and trying to consider things realistically. If biased/single POV is granted/kept as a reasonable choice, so be it. :)

217.112.177.207 >> I don't know if your proposal is ironical, but if not, the article is not specifically about the EU.

Orravan (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

EU 2

@Pfainuk: Read the endless rationale published in the past. The EU entry at the top reflects a compromise. Lear 21 (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There has never been a previous discussion about where to place the extra note. The only discussion was to mention the EU as note separate from the main table. You continually point to a particular aspect of the past discussion that never happened. You still haven't answered why can't the footnotes be at the bottom? --Polaron | Talk 16:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So you've said repeatedly. But, as I've said (also repeatedly), past consensus does not bind our future decisions - particularly when the past consensus in question is not even the most recent version that had consensus (as in this case).

The past discussions did not touch on the point of whether this mention should go above or below the list. So I still don't know what your objection to putting it below the list is. Pfainuk talk 16:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No justification has been made to place the European Union above the main list. I fail to see any compromise agreement about placing the EU at the top of the list. Until the case is made for placing it above the list the EU and other notes belong under the main table where it belongs. Simply moving the info to above the table is unacceptable and will be undone, its vandalism and edit warring and this has been going on for weeks on several articles. Never ONCE lear have you said why the note about the EU must be at the top of the page. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2009 (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)

French overseas collectivities

The user above neatly explained how the French overseas collectivities are integral parts of France. Concerning the INSEE document, INSEE distinguishes the residents of Metropolitan France and the overseas departments, the DOMs, on the one hand (where INSEE is in charge of collecting data) from the residents of the overseas collectivities, the COMs (where daughter statistical agencies are in charge of collecting data). The distinction is purely technical, based on which statistical agency collects data. It's the same in the UK where ONS is in charge of collecting data in England and Wales, while separate statistical agencies are in charge of collectig data in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Most data on the ONS website refer to England and Wales only, but some data sum up figures from ONS and the Scottish and Northern Irish statistical website. The INSEE website is the same. Most data are about Metropolitan France and the DOMs, but some data sum up figures from INSEE and its daughter statistical agencies in the COMs. If we separate the COMs from the rest of the France in the list, then we should also separate Scotland and Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK to be consistent. Obviously it makes no sense to do that. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Does the combined figure ever appear in an INSEE table? This is a statistical comparison table, and for statistical purposes, INSEE normally does not include the overseas territories in the figure for "France". This is clearly not the case with ONS and the United Kingdom. A figure for the "United Kingdom" always includes Scotland and Northern Ireland. --Polaron | Talk 16:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it appears in some INSEE tables, for example in this one, as of Jan. 1, 2006 ([3]). Der Statistiker (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it not part of the total? Anyway, according to this, INSEE uses the term "France" as excluding the overseas territories but including the overseas regions. The statistical entity that includes overseas territories is "Territory of the French Republic". --Polaron | Talk 18:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually your source proves that the overseas collectivities are part of France. In the source you quoted it is stated: "on distingue trois ensembles géographiques de la France" (translation: "three geographic sets/layers of France are distinguished"). The overseas collectivities are one of these three layers "of France" ("de la France"). Can't be more clear than that. Constitutionally speaking, there is no dictinction between the French Republic and France. It's quite different from the Netherlands where the Netherlands are constitutionnaly distinct from the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Next time you're in Mayotte or in Saint Pierre and Miquelon, tell the people there that they are not part of "la France", and you'll see the angry reactions you get. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So what does it mean when at the bottom of an INSEE data table it says "Champ: France"? Which of the three definitions is it using? You're just arguing semantics now. For statistical purposes, "France" does not include the COM. Anyway, the point is moot for now. --Polaron | Talk 19:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistencies, that's all I can say. Everytime I'm in France, I often hear people referring to Metropolitan France" as "la France", even though it is technically and constitutionally wrong. The guys at INSEE are not immune from that mentality. It is only a few years ago that they started to include the departments and territories of overseas France along with the statistics of Metropolitan France. It will take a generation for mentalities to change. Sometimes it can lead to absurd situations: when INSEE says "France entière" ("entire France"), they mean Metropolitan France and the four overseas departments, but when the Ministry of the Interior says "France entière", they mean the entire French Republic (incl. the overseas collectivities). How can two branches of the French administration use the same phrase ("France entière") with different meanings? I've never understood it. INSEE is a bit faulty here, whereas the Ministry of the Interior is more correct in its use of words. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

China

Same problem with China. I see Polaron has now separated Macau and Hong Kong from Mainland China just because they have separate statistical agencies. Hong Kong and Macau are integral parts of China now. They have a status of large autonomy, but they are integral parts of China, so I see no reason for separating them from Mainland China in the list just because they have separate statistical agencies, just like Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is becoming really silly... Der Statistiker (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

U.S. and Brazil Populations are Wrong

According to the U.S. Population Clock, American Population is 305,6 million (not 306,1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.72.140 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the Brazil Population Clock, Brazilian Population is 190,1 millon (not 188)

Permanent unranked inclusion of the EU entry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note 2 The lack of full sovereignty will be reflected by its unranked inclusion to avoid future misconceptions about the nature of the EU as a state. Lear 21 (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Responding in the same way

1. None of this is relevant. It can be compared with the list where it is. Comparison would also potentially include just about any entity you choose to name. There has to be a limit, and on this list it's sovereign states and dependent territories.

2. The EU is not a country. If it were treated as one by the UN, G8 and WTO then EU member states' membership of those organisations would be impossible. But it happens. In any case, I can't see the EU on the UN membership role.

3. The CIA treats the EU as a special case, the IMF don't list it, the BBC list it as an international organisation. And so on.

4. If other language versions of Wikipedia don't feel the need to maintain NPOV then that's a tad concerning but it's ultimately their business. It's not a good reason for us abandon NPOV as well.

5. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and in any case, single-source lists should reflect the single source that they are derived from. This is not a single-source list.

The fact is that this is a list of sovereign states and dependent territories. The inclusion of the EU on such a list would imply that the EU is either a sovereign state or dependent territory. Even unranked this is the clear implication. To include it would be grossly POV and grossly misleading. Pfainuk talk 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The exact same argument is on List of countries by population density and List of countries by area. Let's keep the discussion in one place (here) as all the arguments will apply to all three lists. --Polaron | Talk 19:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

@Pfainuk: The EU is a special, correct. That´s why it is going to be unranked to mark it´s sui generis status.

As I said, even unranked, the implication that it is a sovereign state is clear. But let's keep the discussion on the other list, shall we? Pfainuk talk 19:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Pfainuk is getting unintentionally funny. The IS a sovereign state in many respects. It IS a de facto state. Have you heard of a single currency, single territory (Schengen), EU citizenship and several more ? Probably not because you live on the least integrated part of the EU. Anyway, the EU entry doesn´t need to avoid that it could appear as a sovereign state. IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS, IT IS a country-state-like entity. Lear 21 (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Find me a reliable source, such as an EU treaty, that defines the EU as a sovereign state, and I will accept the EU on the list. I think something on the level of an EU treaty would be necessary because exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If you can find one, then we can add the EU, and remove all the member states (because the integral parts of sovereign states do not belong on the list).

Schengen applies to only 22/27 EU member states, but also applies to 3 non-EU member states. Lack of border controls is not a defining feature of a sovereign state - for example, the UK and Ireland have never had border patrols, but Ireland pre-1973 was certainly a separate sovereign state.

The euro applies to only 16/27 EU member states and also to 6 non-member states. Sharing a currency is not a defining feature of a sovereign state - the CFA Franc and East Caribbean Dollar are good examples of currencies that are not tied to individual sovereign states. Again, Britain and Ireland shared a currency until 1979.

The existence of a citizenship is not a defining feature of a sovereign state. There is Commonwealth citizenship for example, which (like EU citizenship) means that any Commonwealth citizen can go to a fellow Commonwealth country's embassy if his own country does not have an embassy in the country he is in. For example, British citizens in Laos (where there is no British embassy) are not asked to go to any EU embassy, they are asked to go to the Australian embassy. Commonwealth citizens get preferable terms on visas and suchlike for other Commonwealth countries, and in some cases Commonwealth citizens have voting rights (indeed, in the UK Commonwealth and Irish citizens get rather stronger voting rights than EU citizens). But the Commonwealth is not considered a separate sovereign state.

The fact remains that, however much you argue it is like a sovereign state, the fact that it is not a sovereign state is not disputed by any government in the world - including the EU commission itself. Unless you can demonstrate conclusively not that it is like a sovereign state but that it is a sovereign state, we should not imply that it is. Pfainuk talk 00:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No my dear Pfainuk, I have provided enough credible sources. From now on YOU and every other interested editor provide reliable sources why a few single voices here are more credible than several globally respected authorities. From now on YOU and others convince me why it is a mistake to include the EU while it serves highly relevant purposes. From now YOU have to convince ME an editor with a several years of Wikipedia experience providing highly credible sources in some of the most read and standardsetting articles. From now on YOU and others can try to deliver sources and academics denying the relevance of the EU as a coherent single entity. I suggest you start with the G8 summit authorities and convince them to exclude the EU. Or even better start with the WTO and get an agreement to withdraw the EU mandate for all its members. Until that happens the EU entry will be constant unranked entry in this list. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, you appear to have forgotten that, per WP:V, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material - in this case, that's you, and I'm effectively asking you for a cite to back up your proposed implication that the EU is a sovereign state or dependent territory.

The only test for inclusion on this list is whether the entity is a sovereign state (or dependent territory). Not that it is like a sovereign state but that it is a sovereign state. You have cited no source that says that the EU is a sovereign state. The UN doesn't. The IMF doesn't. The CIA doesn't. The G8 doesn't. The WTO doesn't. The BBC doesn't. The EU itself doesn't. But unless it can be demonstrated that it is a sovereign state (or dependent territory) - that it meets the inclusion criteria - it cannot go on the list.

I think we both know that this isn't going to get consensus, so I hope that by saying that "the EU entry will be constant unranked entry in this list" you aren't saying that you'll try and force it in without consensus. Pfainuk talk 09:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with comments above by Pfainuk but i would like to just add a little in response to the points made by Lear.

1) Whats relevant to some people in the European Union may not be relevant to the 6 billion other people who do not live there. Putting it unranked in the list with out an explanation is going to confuse far more people than find it useful to compare. Whats relevant is based on the introduction, which makes it clear the list only includes sovereign states and dependent territories. Im sorry but the EU is NOT sovereign in anyway, as mentioned before not all EU countries are part of Schengen and not all have the Euro so the EU can not be listed on those grounds.

2) You admit the EU is not a country. The organisations you list do not treat the EU as a single country. FIFA is an international organisation and it treats Scotland as a single country, but that doesnt justify it inclusion here.

3) The CIA treats the EU as a special case by placing it at the BOTTOM of the list, not at the top above all others. So the only major source that does include the EU in its list treats it differently to sovereign states and territories.

4) Those other language wikis probably havnt had the trouble that English wiki has had when dealing with non sovereign countries like England and Scotland that some believe should be allowed on the list and as mentioned before the french one uses a single source, this list doesnt.

5) The Eurozone is indeed included on GDP lists and rightfully so. The Eurozone has a single central bank, a single interest rate and offical figures on growth etc but not all EU countries are part of the Eurozone and none of the disputed lists are about economic issues. None of us are trying to remove the Eurozone from GDP lists. The others you mention are more questionable, the EU doesnt belong on some of those lists and just because they are incorrect doesnt justify vandalising this one.

All of this doesnt resolve the fact that the European Union is not a sovereign state and not a dependent territory. Currency isnt shared by all EU countries, nor is the Schengen area. The EU may have elements of a state, like a parliament, council, and commission but that doesnt make it sovereign. The EU can agree to legislation, the EU commission can issue directives but it can not implement anything. That is up to the sovereign state, and on many occasions the sovereign state simply ignores orders from Brussels. Thats the big difference, a Sovereign state can do what it likes the EU cant. The UK Parliament has supreme sovereignty over everything that happens within its internationally recognized borders. It can withdraw from the European Union, ignore EU directives, withdraw itself from the European Convention on Human Rights (not linked to the EU but something that has far bigger implications for this countries law). It can suspend devolution and close down the Scottish parliament which is why Scotland (actually called a country) doesnt belong on this list.

Anyway i strongly oppose the inclusion of the EU into the table and believe it should remain underneath the list in the notes section. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)