Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area

Kosovo

Kosovo should be listed separately as well. For the argument that is not fully recognized by all member states or its not in U.N., there are other country's or territories that are in similar position and are listed. Can someone please edit the page and list Kosovo in separate area to the Serbia, I think you should leave the Serbia column alone but still add Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.188.54 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo is not listed on ISO 3166-1, and thus fails the inclusion criteria for this list. Its existence is properly noted beside the entry for Serbia. Pfainuk talk 16:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Since when does WP use UN membership as prerequisite for statehood? Kosovo needs to be a separate category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.180.234 (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Greenland

Greenland is listed separate from Denmark. But the entries for the UK and the Kingdom of Netherlands includes the constituent countries. Someone care to explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.163.36 (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Greenland is separate from Denmark because it is not part of Denmark - it is a separate legal entity, albeit one that is owned by Denmark. England, Scotland, Wales and NI are all part of the UK, and so are listed in the UK entry. I don't know what you mean regarding the Netherlands - Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are listed separately from the main Netherlands entry. Bazonka (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Greenland is a constituent country of the Kingdom of Denmark just as Scotland, England, Wales & NI are constituent countries within the Kingdom of Great Britain. The Danish entry does give a figure and a provisional rank for the Kingdom as a whole, could the British entry not list the member states similarly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.216.22 (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Iran

The area for Iran is different to what is listed under its entry: Iran.Which one is correct? 1,628,750 or 1,648,195? --Najand (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither one is truly considered correct because different sources give different data. The 1,648,195 is from the CIA and 1,628,750 is from the UN. But since the article is based on UN figures the 1,628,750 figure is used for consistency. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. That makes sense. Thanks. --Najand (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

you are lie !!why usa area is increase from 9,370,000 to about 9,600,000 with this reason:big lakes and water line but iran area decrease ???have UN reason for this decrease???????i forecast a politic reason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.140.252 (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Israel?

1967 borders?

derp? TFighterPilot (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

France

France?Is not 632 000,i know it's less then Ucraine.78.90.139.102 (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mainland France is smaller than Ukraine, but don't forget that French Guyana in South America is legally part of France. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible Inaccuracy

I am pretty sure the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is smaller than the Czech Republic, and that Ireland is bigger than Panama. --Owl 2 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Contiguous area in the United States is lower than Brazil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.38.94 (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldnt the above fact be added to the article ? (the fact that brazil is larger than the contiguous United States) ??Since the article has numerous size comparisons and statetements like " largest of xxx continent largest of xxx hemisphere" and so and so on If no one disputes this i will add it myself in 2-3 days.--189.115.129.185 (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The contiguous part of the USA may be smaller than Brazil, but the USA isn't. It includes 2 non-contiguous (geographically apart) states (Alaska and Hawaii) and 5 non-state territorial realms (Puerto Rico, American Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, and Guam). The contiguous area plus all 7 other areas (2 states and 5 territories) combined are actually larger than Brazil or even China. Technically, I omitted several Pacific islands held by the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service, which are not inhabited by humans. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sweden needs to be in place nr. 55, right? I would change it myself but the article is semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solkig (talk • contribs) 09:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Principality of Sealand

It actually is a country. Please stop undoing the changes when it is added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.204.234 (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a recognised sovereign state and doesn't qualify for inclusion in the list. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't matter if it was anyway. It's not listed on the source we use. Night w (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It is De Facto recognised by a few country's. Plus, recognision of a country by other country's is not neccasary to be a country. just as long as you have a few square meters in land that is not claimed by another land, poststamps, citizens, coins etc etc. So its not up to you to decide wheter its a country or not.

It's true that the ISO standard used as a source for this article doesn't mention Sealand, but that is only because it's an incomplete source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.200.59 (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a number of measures of what does and does not constitute a country. Sealand satisfies none of them. The 'de facto' recognition is the opinion of the guy behind Sealand, whose opinion is obviosuly slightly skewed. raseaC^{talk to me} 19:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete or not, it's the source we're using. If you want to propose a different, authoratative source, that's a different story. If not, end of discussion. Night w (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

China is more bigger.

China's for official dispocision is bigger than eu, you want to take advantage of this bad because Chinese territory annexed practically counting the beats in size from one form or another to the U.S., so therefore let him guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.228.145.118 (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pardon? Bazonka (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent surge in China VS US reverts

I am the editor responsible for most of the info you see in the China and US notes and footnotes. Recently, there has been a lot of reverts of my edits which I think are purely motivated by political reasons i.e. hate China/support US. I would like to discuss this with those making the reverts. 68.36.226.99 (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2010.

Please sign the end of your comments with four tildes (~~~~), so other that editors may identify you. In addition, please assume good faith in other editors. Openly announcing your beliefs about another editor will never help matters. That said, if what you are doing is simply sorting the two entries in question, then there is nothing wrong with that. I'd advise other editors to check over the archived discussions on this talk page. When two or more figures conflict with one another, we sort them in alphabetical order: in this case, C (or P) before U. That's how it's been for years. Night w (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The changes made to the United States and China are not motivated by political reasons. If you look to the numbers, you shall see that the US is in fact larger than China.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html Look at the Area - Comparative sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.214.143 (talk • contribs) 17:37, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

CIA Factbook publishes things from CIA's standpoint, which is VERY political. For instance, from 1989-1996 China was listed as "slightly larger than the US." Please refer to the footnotes I have provided on the main page for details. It is called "21 years of World Factbook." And this issue has been settled YEARS ago. CIA Factbook is in fact published by the CIA. A political entity. Hence, we used the UN figures. Although the UN figures are also bias since it includes coastal water for US and not for China. However, the CIA further includes Territorial waters for US which is 12 nautical miles times length of coastline. Of course it doesn't include that for China. The only fair source in my opinion is Britannica. They at least calculate both areas on equal terms, namely: Land + inland waters + inner seas. And China slightly larger.

Let me simplify this for you, according to CIA Factbook:
US = Land + inland water + inner seas + coastal waters + territorial water
China = Land + inland waters + inner seas
Of course US will come out on top according to CIA.

Simplest way is to keep it alphabetical. This page is crying out for some sort of protection. Bazonka (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Include coastal and territorial waters of China, and the USA would still be slightly larger. China has fewer offshore territories (Taiwan; Offshore full province: Hainon) than the USA (Puerto Rico, American Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, Guam; Non-contiguous full states: Alaska and Hawaii). It also has less coastal waters due to the fact that western China is landlocked. The USA, on the other hand, has a West Coast in addition to an East Coast. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Most people rely too heavily on CIA Factbook. Sure there is a lot of facts in it but when it comes to the "enemies" of US, almost all info regarding them are way off one way or the other. And this includes total area, proved reserves, military expediture, etc etc. CIA LieBook if you ask me. Jc900 (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2010.

Oh, the CIA? There's a neutral source for you. Bazonka, did you request protection? There does seem to be a surge in IP reverts. Night w (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that one month of semi protection would help to reduce the edit war. Bazonka (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you over the reliability of the CIA World Factbook, however, I do not heavily rely on it and provide another source. I have copied and pasted sections of articles from Encarta Reference Library below. Encarta states its sources for individual figures at the bottom of its statistic pages which give the same information as the article itself. The first sentence of the sources section is as follows: Area data are from the statistical bureaus of individual countries. Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The United States of America is a federal republic on the continent of North America. It has an area of 9,826,630 sq km (3,794,083 sq mi) and is the third largest country in the world after Russia and Canada. Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The total area of China is 9,571,300 sq km (3,695,500 sq mi) including inland waters. Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Please note that with all of this I have included the copyright information that Encarta adds whenever one copys and pasts information from an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.214.143 (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there are several definitions, which vary. Depending on the definition used China may be bigger, or the US may be bigger. We cite all available sources, and note they differ.

I'm inclined to agree with alphabetical ordering: it's what we get when we sort the table, anyway. Which is why I've been watching the slow edit war here with some amusement, instead of heading off to WP:RFPP... TFOWR 15:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

the encarta figures are similar to factbook figures. Any figure that lists US as 9.8 million sqkm is including territorial waters for US and none for china. I implore you to compare the various years of cia factbook to see how much US water space has expanded. Also, go take a look at china's figure; it has NEVER changed since the inception of the factbook.

UN figures include coastal waters, which already bais. But this is the compromise we struck on this article: include coastal waters for US but also include the disputed territories under china control for china.

Everytime you put US ahead undermines this compromise.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.157.112 (talk • contribs)

At the moment, the article states that China is 3rd or 4th. It states that the USA is 3rd or 4th. Both countries are listed as being 3rd/4th. The recent edits have not done anything to change that - the only thing they've changed is the ordering in a table on an online encyclopaedia. I appreciate that China and the US might care which state has a greater land area, but I sincerely doubt they care about the ordering in a table. A table that says that both states are either 3rd or 4th, depending on definition used. TFOWR 17:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove Vatican City?

Remove the Vatican, it's a city not a countries, also it's more part of Italy since if you are born there you become a Italian citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.137.22 (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an independent state. Feel free to do some research. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Vatican is quite obviously a country with His Holiness Pope Bennedict XVI as sovereign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.208.208 (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

European Union

Why is the EU not listed ? Its a defacto state. There are several entries here which are not countries as well. The overseas territories for example. The EU should be properly integrated because it has statistical relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.129.36 (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The EU does not figure on ISO 3166-1, the inclusion criterion for this list. Pfainuk talk 14:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the EU is not needed in this list and does not meet the criteria. To be honest i do not know why anyone that wants the EU displayed is complaining. It currently gets mentioned (with its total area) very clearly in the introduction. Some would question its right to be mentioned at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The EU is now recognized as a state under international law. The European Union has a legal personality and can therefore act and be treated as a state. This is the case since Dec. 2009 when the Lisbon Treaty came into force. The EU is represented in G8 and G20 and is defacto acting like a state (unlike 100 entries here on the list). Therefore the EU should be an entry in this list. Regards GlobalContinent (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A blog is insufficient to demonstrate your contention, as per your comments at Talk:List of countries by population. Representation at the G8 and G20 is not a determining feature of statehood. Pfainuk talk 14:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. WP:SPS says, in part:

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

The blog at issue is http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ and the author of the cited piece is Daniel Hannan. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What's being claimed is that the EU is a single sovereign and independent state. This is an exceptional claim that requires an exceptional source (for example, a treaty or other document signed by the governments of all member states). The opinion of Daniel Hannan is not an exceptional source. Pfainuk talk 16:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding it to the list would also require us to remove the details of all of the member states, otherwise we'll be double-counting. Not going to happen. Bazonka (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The author Hannan is a well known journalist, the source is part of the Telegraph. Hannan is also known as ultra-national-British (hardcore-anti-EU). If this man writes about a sovereign EU, something has changed (Lisbon Treaty). In any case, the list here is a list and not a law school. As mentioned in another Forum the EU has become to big and relevant to leave it out. Regards GlobalContinent (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What he isn't is the exceptional source I said we needed. His view is insufficient for us to overturn our inclusion criterion, which adheres to the prevailing wisdom that it is the member states, and not the EU, that form the sovereign states in this part of the world. Better to include the member states, as per our inclusion criterion, than to remove them all and list the EU instead. Pfainuk talk 22:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hannan is certainly only an illustration to the defacto reality. Exceptional sources ? How about the G8 inventors ? They obviously see no contradiction by including classic nations and the EU. The same with UN and WTO, no contradiction. You seem to argue on a strict minor (ISO code?) level while the reality has superseded this nitpicking. Where is the problem in including the EU unnumbered ? I just discovered, that country articles even use the EU in their top maps as a wider territory. This an amateur list and not a Harvard seminar on international law. By the way, may I ask you are intending to represent when talking about we ? (Not that I´m interested, but it appears you talking for others) Regards GlobalContinent (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Hannan's view makes no difference to if the EU belongs on this list or not. The title says list of countries and outlying territories, the European Union is neither of these things. We exclude certain entities known as countries, there for the case for including a non country is very controversial. That is why it is very important we follow a strict code on what can and can not be included. If we did not follow the strict code, we would to argue with many different editors about the inclusion of exclusion of certain things. This EU thing has been gone through extensively in the past as you can see from the past archives. The "we" thing probably refers to current consensus agreed before on this talk page or it could mean "we" as responsible editors must follow rules on things like sources, and Dan Hannan is not one when it comes to things relating to this list.

As a supporter of the European Union, personally id have no real problem seeing it in the list to provide readers with more information (something they get in the introduction already anyway) as long as its status was clear. However there are certain entities described as countries that i strongly oppose be included on this and other lists. Its hard to see how it can be justified to include a non country/territory, whilst excluding things described by reliable sources as countries. There for i support following the strict criteria for inclusion. The European Union or Eurozone is included on a list like about GDP, where reliable sources for those pages actually provide data for the EU/Eurozone justifying their presence. It is not needed here. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. Bazonka (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

All fine, Britishwatcher. But let me ask a question. Obviously at some point during the creation of this page the decision was made to include outlying territories, which are not countries. Obviously a special interpretation of a "territory/country" is already the foundation. I don´t see no circumstance why the exceptional status of the EU should not be reason enough to grant an inclusion (other than Anti-EU-Propaganda). Another question, because previous discussions are mentioned: Is everybody really aware of what the Lisbon Treaty (Dec 2009) implicates ? A legal personality and even diplomatic services have been added. I also can´t see what other territories argue to get an inclusion, the EU is exceptionally advanced and sovereign and therefore can be included. It should be no problem at all to get an unnumbered entry, sorry. (Same with the population statistics) GlobalContinent (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The UN also has legal personality and a diplomatic service (most of the organisation) - and the UN also gets a look in at the G8 and G20. Does that make the UN "sovereign" in your view?

Whichever, the Lisbon Treaty has not changed the fact that the EU does not feature on ISO 3166-1, which is our inclusion criterion. Including one entity that doesn't feature on our inclusion criteria rather implies that we (the editors of this article, or anyone else who comes along and asks) can include other entities not on our inclusion criteria such as US states and Canadian provinces. The latter are a good case in point: they also have legal personality and some have diplomatic relations with outside states. But remain within Canada.

All are in exactly the same position with respect to this list. They don't belong because they don't meet our inclusion criterion, ISO 3166-1. Including one would imply that we can include any of them, undermining the list. Pfainuk talk 06:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop Pfainuk, you making it worse every time you start writing. You already tried to sell "territories" as fully independent or sovereign, which is ridiculous. Now you try to compare the UN with EU which (don´t take it personal) is bluntly dumb. Please read the EU article to improve your reputation. Honestly (when considering Pfainuk) I come to the conclusion that an EU entry here, has become very necessary, because of previous unawareness or (sorry) ignorance, or (sorry again) Anti-EU-Propaganda. So if nobody objects the new agreement should be: the inclusion of the EU on an unnumbered base. The justification base can easily include all defacto state features; currency, parliament, legal personality, citizenship. Pfainuk I hope you don´t take to personal, but it is your immature argumentation, which I always was skeptical when reading Wikipedia. Now that I´m an editor as well, on the exact level like you and anybody else, I have the responsibility to improve the lists here (and in population). Regards GlobalContinent (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. Regardless of your going on about "don´t take it personal", that is a personal attack, which is considered unacceptable behaviour on Wikipedia.

"So if nobody objects the new agreement should be..."? Too late for that. You've already had four editors giving reasoned objections, many of which you have answered only with insults. Your position has been considered, and we have, it seems to me, reaffirmed the consensus against making an exception to the inclusion criteria in this case. I suggest there is little benefit in continuing this discussion.

But for the record, I have never claimed that dependent territories were sovereign, nor made any claim that could reasonably be inferred to suggest that. Your suggestion that I have is false. Pfainuk talk 22:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Aw, screw this. You are indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer Lear21 and I claim my five pounds. Pfainuk talk 22:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

China's numbers?

I just figured out the answer hence I deleted my original question.

Serious changes needed

This is titled as a list of countries. If it's not a sovereign political state, it is not a country regardless of its cultural significance or what have you. Consider the 5 tropical territories of my own homeland, the USA.

1. Puerto Rico

2. American Virgin Islands

3. American Samoa

4. Northern Marianas

5. Guam

These are not countries. They are legally part of the USA. Although not "states," they are part of the country. They are directly subject to what Congress enacts unless Congress specifies that only states are covered, in which case the District of Columbia is excluded unless otherwise noted. They can not appoint there own diplomats. They must use the Federal Dollar. They do not and can not require Passports for those coming from other parts of the USA.

They are simply not countries, and should not be separately listed. The same goes for similar holdings of other countries that lack full provincial status within their respective countries. I refer to the remaining British colonies, the few French holdings in the Americas, and so on and so forth. (Note: Canada should still be listed in 2nd place. It is not still part of Britain as is popular belief in some circles. It's a separate sovereign state in the personal union of a figurehead monarch. It was proclaimed a separate country through the Statute of Westminster in 1931).

By the way, the USA is slightly larger than the PRC when all is said and done. Both countries claim about 200 miles (the maximum allowed by maritime treaties) of water beyond their coastlines, and I say "about" because treaties would be written in SI. America has more coast because it has a West Coast. Western China is landlocked. As for dry land, Alaska alone is larger than Taiwan and Hong Kong combined, and slightly larger than Manchuria if I read my globe right. Now, add Hawaii and the 5 territories. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. Census Bureau does not include these territories in what it calls the "United States". This is pretty much the fundamental reason why dependent territories are listed separately: the national census authorities do not include them in their national tabulations. --Polaron | Talk 13:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Census is ultimately more about population and demographics than about area. More importantly, the CIA World Factbook does include them, not to mention the territorial waters surrounding them. For a list like this, the CIA World Factbook (whose data set is global, not national) would be more reliable than each country's respective census, at least in the sense of being more consistent. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This list doesn't use national censuses, it uses a document from the United Nations Statistics Division. The notion that the CIA would be a reliable source is certainly amusing though. Night w (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Even the CIA Factbook does not include the U.S. territories in its figure for the United States. --Polaron | Talk 14:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Sources 8 and 9 cited by this Article, it does include territorial waters. Including the surrounding waters and excluding the territorial islands is quite strange indeed. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The territorial waters of the U.S. are completely unrelated to U.S. territories. --Polaron | Talk 03:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The US territories are not part of the US, though they do belong to it. They are legally and politically separate entities and so it makes sense for them to be listed separately. Bazonka (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

To Mysterious El Willstro: I am the poster responsible for most of the info you see in the China and US footnotes. I wish to shed some light to you as to why China is the 3rd largest country. China is actually the 2nd largest by LAND area. But including water space, Canada is larger than China. Prior to 1997, the CIA factbook lists China as 3rd largest country and the US as 4th. But starting that year, US started including coastal water spaces. Then 10 years later in 2008, it started to include territorial water spaces. At this point I got really pissed because the CIA DOES NOT include those areas for CHINA. (Interestingly, its current figures for China is all wrong; it list China's Land as 9.5 KM^2 whereas it should be 9.3. Please go compare the different years of the CIA factbook and you will see what I am talking about.) Basically, by including out-land waters, that is how CIA "boosted" US over China in terms of TOTAL area (please note: not LAND area since this can be calculated by satellite imaging). The proper method of defining territorial extent is LAND + INLAND WATER + INNER SEAS. Anything outside of land borders should not be included. This is how Encyclopedia Britannica computes and China comes out ahead. However, CIA may choose to define terrirotial extent differently. But to do so they should include similar figures for China but they obviously don't. Let me say this again, China's figure in the CIA factbook DOES NOT included coastal or territorial water space. BTW, territorial waters is 12 NM. Not 200. Also as to your argument of including the 5 additional territories, I would kindly suggest that you look into their sizes as they are miniscule and wouldn't impact our calculations in any meaningful way. One last thing, after USSR fell, US began "focusing" on China. It does not want to be seen as smaller than an Asian nation. That understandable and I believe you feel the same way. Here on wikipedia, facts can be presented for all to see and judge. Facts are not just from one source, for instance, the CIA. People who value knowledge, rightfully value the truth, and I believe you do too.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.115.215 (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, figure of 9,629,091 for the United States IS NOT the CIA world fact book figure. It the figure which use the standard method of LAND + INLAND WATER + INNER SEAS. If we take China figure of 9,640,011 (which the same method in fact) than yes China is larger. BUT, the total Unincorporated territories of US (which are include for some other countries) come out to over 11,000 square Kilometers, meaning the US just edges out China. No matter how you slice it the difference is not great... within a few thousand square kilometers, UNLESS you use the CIA world fact book figure here which in fact IS NOT being used. If you go by CIA than in fact the US is over 100,000 square kilometer larger than China. But this is not a space to discuss of World Fact Book!! 07:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProgressiveThinker (talk • contribs)

Previous poster, I am not getting your point at all. The CIA figure for US is 9.8. Also, the territories of US that is not included is already listed above. Please see it. They are MINISCULE. They are so small, you can't see them on the map. The difference of size between US and China is NOT about land, it is about WATER. Please go check how much water space US has expanded from 1989 to present.

Land Area vs. Total Area / China vs. United States - an explanation

Most people don't understand the difference between Land Area and Total Area. This sections serves to explain this distinction between the two and how it affects the ranking of China and United States.

US (5 parts):
1. Land: 9,161,923 sq km
2. Inland waters: 204,083 sq km
3. Coastal waters: 109,362 sq km (this area was included in UN official figure used in main page)
4. Territorial waters: 195,213 sq km (this area was further included in CIA World Factbook)
5. US Great Lakes: 156,049 sq km
Source: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/616563/United-States
Note: Only includes 50 states and DC. Also, Encyclopedia Britannica specifically excludes 3 and 4.

China (6 parts):
1. Land: 9,326,410 sq km
2. Inland waters: approx. 270,550 sq km
3. Coastal waters: No official figure
4. Territorial waters: No official figure
5. Aksai Chin: 37,250 sq km (this is valid inclusion for China via Line of Actual Control.)
6. Trans-Karakoram Tract: 5,800 sq km (this is valid inclusion for China via Pakistani cession.)
Source from CIA Factbook and Wikipedia.
Note: Only includes Mainland China. This means Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan are all NOT included.
Water space notes: It is difficult to deduce China's actual water space. For instance, CIA Factbook includes coastal and territorial waters for US, however, it is uncertain whether the same has been done for China. Given that China's coastline is 14,500 km long, which is not much shorter than the US, it is not likely for China's total water space to be that low in comparision to US'. Furthermore, China's CIA Factbook figure has never been modified since it's inception in 1989. While US water space had been added to on numerous occasions.
See: http://www.theodora.com/wfb/
Note that after adding coastal waters in 1997, US began listing itself as the third largest country. Thus from 1989-1996, CIA Factbook listed China as third largest.

This sums up the difference b/w China and US in terms of size, both total and land. It is rather complex. The purpose of this posting is to inform future contributors as to the reason why the ranking is disputed. Specifically, why CIA World Factbook figure and those that mirror it, cannot be regarded as a definitive source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.110.29 (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought the great lakes were shared by USA and Canada, is their a definite water border? It's not just Encyclopaedia Britannica that list china as third biggest, the Dorling Kindersley encyclopaedia also says it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.100.20 (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Great Lakes is shared. The Britannica figure only includes the US share of great lakes I believe. Keep in mind, prior to 1998 all sources listed China as 3rd largest but the US/CIA is changing that. Since the Factbook is free, most people use it as a definitive source now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.229.89 (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Svalbard and Jan Mayen

Should Svalbard and Jan Mayen have their own entry in this list? And if so, why together? They are used in the ISO as a separate listing due to geography, but other places which are like this, like Christmas Island and Reunion do not have their own list entries. Even if one wants to list Svalbard due to its international status, including Jan Mayen in that seems silly. I think their area should just be included in the entry for Norway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This list uses a single source, from the United Nations Statistics Division. So it's just a reflection of what's in that document. Night w (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha and the Pitcairn Islands

I added the area of the uninhabited islands to the figures: there is no reason at all to exclude them if they are not excluded in the figures of other countries. I listed Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha together: they form one territory. Please note the following things as well:

• Akrotiri and Dhekelia is a British territory, there is no reason at all to include its surface in that of Cyprus.
• After the decision of the international court about Kosovo, this Wikipedia seems to have decided (only the "country" infobox left!) to treat Kosovo as an independent country, finally. There is no reason at all to include its surface in that of Serbia (very serious error).
• I see no reason why the "almost uninhabited" territories, such as the French Southern and Antarctic Lands (140 inhabitants) or South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (30), should not be included as well. Completely uninhabited territories, such as the Coral Sea Islands or Clipperton Island, could be excluded, inhabited territories not.

Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Since we're speaking here about things outside of the topic suggested by the section header, I'll put in my two cents worth. It seems to me pretty meaningless to compare area figures taken from widely divergent sources taken from different points in time, based of differing presumptions about what "area of ..." should include and exclude, and bridging times of political redefinitions of where the boundaries of some particular countries lie. Re level of inhabitation, I don't understand what that consideration might or might not have to do with area.

The lead sentence of the article says, "This is a list of the sovereign states and dependent territories of the world, sorted by total area, including all entities on the ISO standard ISO 3166-1." The rest of the lead explains some things which don't fit with that lead sentence. The table which follows is a hodgepodge of information which varies week by week, driven by competing editorial POVs. Such is Wikipedia.

It's early in my timezone. I need another cup of coffee before I look further at my watchlist. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It may well be clear that I'm the one who doesn't understand either why inhabitation or not apparently has something to do with mentioning a territory here or not. And of course am I working to make this list as neutral and consistent as possible: it are exactly the anomalies that I am talking about. Excuse my English, it is rather late in my time zone as well. Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

@Belgianman, regarding your comment on Kosovo, I do not think it is correct to say that Wikipedia has decided to treat it as an independent country. The Kosovo article which you linked to as your evidence only describes it as a disputed territory. And the ICJ decision was about the legality of the declaration of independence, not the legality of the independence itself - a subtle but important difference (IMO Serbia asked the wrong question of the court) - so there are still large question marks over Kosovo's statehood. As about two thirds of UN nations still recognise Kosovo as part of Serbia, I think that this article has got it just right - certainly not a "very serious error". Bazonka (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's wait until a majority of countries have recognized it then. What do you think about Akrotiri and Dhekelia and the almost uninhabited territories? Belgian man (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Knights of Malta?

SMOM, the soveriegn order of the knights of malta, is largely recognized as an independant sovereign nation by most of the world. I don't, however, see it on this list. I was curious as to whether it would be smaller or larger than the vatican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.127.238 (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a sovereign organisation, not a sovereign nation, so it should not be in the list. However. if it were to be included it would come below the Vatican because it has zero territory. (The properties that it owns are legally part of Italy.) Bazonka (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Iran is more bigger

1 648 195 km2 without Iran caspian sea territories(about 15% of caspian sea about 50 to 60000km2) in total iran total area about 1700000km2 not 1628000 you are lieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.16.77.62 (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC) forthermore iran sea territories in south of iran isnt count: about 75000 to 120000 km2 Coastal waters insist of:iran persian gulf territories and iranian sea(lier name:oman sea) but:iran total area and territories: 1. Land and Inland waters: 1,648,195 sq km
2. Coastal waters:about 125,000 to 170,000 sq km
(exactly mount of area isnt announce) in total:about 1,775,000 to 1,820,000

3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.80.9.16 (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Netherlands Antilles...

...were dissolved on 10 October 2010 so please remove them from the list. 195.114.155.92 (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And add the new countries of Curacao and Sint Maarten, and update the area of the Netherlands wich I´m guessing should now include the three new municipalities of Saba, Bonaire and Saint Eustatius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.13.205 (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. This still has to be done. You may well do it yourself. Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand

I suggest adding a commentary: "Largest sovereign country situated entirely on the islands".195.114.155.92 (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What does that mean? It is not the largest island nation by any means. Bazonka (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Madagascar, not New Zealand. 93.183.233.156 (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Madagascar is still not the largest island nation. Bazonka (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, Indonesia93.183.232.195 (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Depending on which school of geography you belong to, it'd actually be either Australia or Greenland. Given the controversies, it's probably best to leave such a statement out. Nightw 16:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Greenland is not sovereign. But I agree - not worth mentioning. Bazonka (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Includes Islands...

Throughout the list random entries appear saying that suchandsuch island is included, for example it says Zanzibar is included in Tanzania. Is this really necessary? I can understand if an exclusion is stated, or if the islands status as part of the country is ambiguous (such as in Australia). However, random islands that are simply parts of countries shouldn't be listed unless there is a good reason to, such as a territorial dispute.

Besides islands, a couple of other areas are seemingly randomly listed to (see the entry on Yemen). These should also go (possible exception for French overseas departments). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Done a lot of the cleaning up. I left islands there if they were not integral, if their status as integral is disputed, or if they are disputed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Very good work! Belgian man (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Shailshukla, 21 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Arunachal Pradesh is always integral part of India. China's claim for Arunachal Pradesh is base less. As far as Kashmir is concern, I agree that it is a disputed territory b/w India & Pakistan, but not Arunachal Pradesh. Look at here & here for references

So please remove Arunachal Pradesh & China(in bold) from following lines

Smaller figure excludes Indian Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh which are claimed by Pakistan and China respectively. Larger figure includes 120,849 km2 (46,660 sq mi) of disputed territories with Pakistan and China.[7]

Shailshukla (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Whilst China may not be actively pursuing control of Arunachal Pradesh, it certainly still claims it. The two references that you gave do not in any way indicate that the Chinese claim is baseless. Bazonka (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources. Chzz  ►  22:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Percents

Vatican with 0.44 km² and set to <0.00001% of the total world area. That is somehow wrong, since already Tuvalu with 12km² is under that 0.00001%. Vatican should have <0.000001%, if it really is necessary to put there smaller than hundreths of percents. 82.141.72.152 (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If Tuvalu's area is smaller than 0.00001% of the total land area, than it is correct to state that Vatican City's area is smaller than 0.00001% of the total area is well. I agree with you, however, that these figures are a bit useless (only interesting for the biggest countries). Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Area of Bangladesh and its Ranking

The area of Bangladesh should be 147,570 sq.Kilometer which is greater than the Area of Nepal so Nepal should be ranked at 94 and Bangladesh should be at 93 position — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulachhan (talk • contribs) 22:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I corrected it. Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Source

I think we should use the source chosen for each country article individually. Belgian man (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Then this article would become an inconsistent mish-mash. Not good. Bazonka (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

China has grown larger

(and yes, that title is a humorous reference)

• January 12, 2011, Tajikistan agrees to give land to China, Washington Post
• 13 January 2011, Tajikistan cedes land to China, BBC News Asia-Pacific

Tajikistan has ceded ~1000 square km to China following the signing of a border deal. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes but China loses 632 km2 with the flooding of the three gorges dam area Three Gorges Dam:-p ProgressiveThinker (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ukraine

Please change the Notes section on Ukraine from "Largest country wholly in Europe." to something like "Largest European country (except Russia's Europe territory)" as, IMO, the phrase "Largest country wholly in Europe" doesn't make you think "Largest (trully) European country" right away. Magicoast (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Russia not truely European? Tread carefully!

But really, wholly in Europe is an accurate summary. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It works for me, too. No need to change it. Bazonka (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Russia is not truely European, it spans two continents. Open a map:)

Well, logically wholly in Europe and Largest European is the same, but makes a little bit of different impact in terms of impression. That was what I was striking at.

19:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Those are not the same. The European part of Russia is larger than Ukraine, so Russia is the largest European country. But as you rightly say, other parts of Russia are in Asia, so it's not the largest country wholly in Europe. Bazonka (talk)

Republic of China

Why does the Republic of China (Taiwan) get its own section, when other sates with limited recognition, even the more recognised Kosovo, don't? Additionally, is the ROC included in the larger PRC figure? It's not stated. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It is CLEARLY stated in PRC's notes that taiwan is NOT included.

France (2)

Should the overseas territories be included in the France figure? It seems they already are based on the text. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Only Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion (from March 1 Mayotte as well) should be included as they are, being overseas regions, fully part of French territory (they are not more independent than Corsica), all the others not, as they have their own government, in some cases their own currency as well, etc. That means that the situation is okay for now, indeed. (Although I would include the French Southern and Antarctic Lands in the list, but that's an other discussion.) Greetings, Gertjan R 12:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I misread something. Including the French Southern and Antarctic lands sounds good, although probably excluding the antarctic part. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I would exclude the Antarctic part myself as well. But if we include the French Southern and Antarctic Lands, we should include the British Indian Ocean Territory and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands as well (being overseas territories featuring a small, not necessarily permanent population and lacking an own government). What do you and the others think about that? Greetings, Gertjan R 15:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

BIOT and South Georgia are not parts of the UK, but are overseas territories. Therefore, it is correct for them to be listed separately from the main UK entry. In my opinion, as Antarctic claims are not fully internationally recognised, they should only be mentioned in notes. Bazonka (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course, mentioning BIOT and SGSSI separately was what I meant. I'll add them right now. Greetings, Gertjan R 12:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Territories not included in the list

Inhabited:

• Akrotiri and Dhekelia
• Åland Islands
• Christmas Island
• Cocos (Keeling) Islands
• Mayotte (this one certainly should be included separately and not with Comoros!)
• Johnston Atoll
• Midway Atoll
• Wake Island

Uninhabited:

• Ashmore and Cartier Islands
• Baker Island
• Bouvet Island
• Clipperton Island
• Heard Island and McDonald Islands
• Howland Island
• Jarvis Island
• Kingman Reef
• Coral Sea Islands
• Navassa Island

caspian sea territory

caspian sea territory caspian sea is big lake in world and is locked region that this area should acount in near countries insist of :kazakestan turkamenstan iran azerbaijan and russia after final agreement in 5 countries this area(about 420000 square km)(probably in 2011 or 2012)this area should added to this countries. approxmaitely:kaz29percent russia19 aze17 iran17 turkemn18 http://www.dermfa.ir/pdf/Iranian-Journal/2.dr.mousavi(final).pdf thanks a lot

Gertjan R 13:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally agree with additions, quick notes/queries:

Akrotiri and Dhekelia apparently included in Cyprus area, probably also wrong

Aland may not have to be listed separately, as it is Integral, albeit with a unique internationally guaranteed autonomy. No unique ISO, probably best not to include (Svalbard strange odd one out on this, similar to Aland in respects but with ISO code including Jan Mayen. Eh.)

Cocos and Christmas apparently included in Australia entry.

Mayotte should be out of Comoros, but will soon be part of France anyway, matter of weeks probably.

Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Mayotte is in fact the only clear case, all the others are difficult ones so I am not saying that they must be on the list, only making a little overview. What do the others think about adding or including separately one or more of these territories or not? Gertjan R 20:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)