Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population

This is not updated

Honduras is now the country number 93 in world's population there's actually 7,810,848 of people in Honduras excuse me my English is not brilliant--190.53.237.148 (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What source says this? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 19:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Honduras' national statistics office (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas, INE) currently estimates a total population of 7,876,197 inhabitants, but it doesn't specify an exact date for that figure.

MaxBech1975 (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A useful list, except the Indonesian data can't have been updated as of July 2010 seeing that today is April 17, 2010Witnessforpeace (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The UAE figure is not consistant with the UAE entry United_Arab_Emirates Allmedia (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Spain

I have updated the population using the same reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.77.156 (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Indonesia population date

The population for Indonesia was last updated in April 2010 and that date was added to the "Date Last Updated" column. Since this happened that date was changed to the projection date for that figure, which is July 2010. This is misleading for our readers since the column heading is "Date Last Updated", not "Projection date", and the figure could not possibly have been updated in July 2010 because that date hasn't happened yet. I've changed the date back to April 2010 twice now, to properly fit the article, but the change has been reverted both times, by the same editor.[1][2] Using July 2010 without any explanation as to why a future date is used in the column is inappropriate and appears WP:CRYSTAL. I've now added a note that this is a projection and restored the correct date to the column to avoid misleading readers and any suggestion that the "Date Last Updated" is WP:CRYSTAL. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

European Union

I have added the EU into the table but have not given it a rank as it is not a country. I added this because as you can see above wikipedia wants more information on the EU on this particular page. Mspence835 (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Somebody must have deleted your entry. I have added it again. 15 July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.30.208 (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The European Union does not feature on ISO standard ISO 3166-1, which is the inclusion criterion for this list. As such it does not belong on this list. Pfainuk talk 20:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well this is not fully correct. On this issue the ISO website says:

"What is the ISO 3166-1 code for the European Union?

Recognizing, however, that many users of ISO 3166-1 have a practical need to encode that name the :ISO 3166/MA reserved the two-letter combination EU for the purpose of identifying the European :Union within the framework of ISO 3166-1. "

Source: http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166-faqs/iso_3166_faqs_specific.htm

This means that DE FACTO, the European Union has an ISO code, and as such it has the right to be in this list. Thank you very much for keeping this list carefully updated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.145.157 (talk)

You miss out the words:

You can use EU for the name European Union. Please note that this is not an official ISO 3166-1 country code. The European Union is not a country but rather an organization. As such it is not eligible to be formally included in ISO 3166-1. Pfainuk talk 06:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The EU is not included in ISO 3166-1 and so does not belong here. Nearly is not good enough. Pfainuk talk 06:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the meaning of ISO 3166-1 is crystal clear. (And that is why the EU is included in the WB, IMF and CIA lists). Legally, the ISO position, is a de facto recognition of the EU code in ISO 3166-1 through ISO 3166/MA. You can check online there are various points on this. This follows ISO decision:

"the ISO 3166/MA reserved the two-letter combination EU for the purpose of identifying the European Union within the framework of ISO 3166-1"

Source: http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166-faqs/iso_3166_faqs_specific.htm

We can agree not to number the EU, but it should be listed. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.145.157 (talk)

User:78.53.145.157, please reach a consensus here at talk-page, along the lines of WP editing policies before re-inserting your editions on the article, please. If you are not acquainted with the policies, please consider that you've already surpassed 3 reversals in a few minutes. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 07:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(Note to other editors: IP is refactoring his talk page posts.) Pfainuk talk 16:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Fact remains that ISO 3166-1 FAQ that you point us to states very clearly that the EU is not included on ISO 3166-1. It is not included here because it is not included there. Pfainuk talk 16:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth adding that this has been extensively discussed before. I suggest editors read the archives for details of this. Pfainuk talk 19:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

How is the reader served by not including the EU (unnumbered) in the list? How many articles would a reader have to search to find out how it would rank comparatively? If we state we are including it for convenience of the reader, we are not "violating" any ISO. The section is just entitled "List" so it would not be outside the bounds of the section.--JimWae (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Recognizing, however, that many users of ISO 3166-1 have a practical need to encode that name the ISO 3166/MA reserved the two-letter combination EU for the purpose of identifying the European Union within the framework of ISO 3166-1. - ISO FAQ

As a legal personality the EU is able to conclude treaties with countries and enact legislation in justice and home affairs - WP

The EU article takes a long time to open - and I see no easy comparison there. There is no WP policy that it cannot be included, and it could easily be included (unnumbered) if there is a desire to do so. The standard for inclusion could easily be changed to "being given a code by the ISO organization" or something similar. --JimWae (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You ask how many articles need to be searched. The answer is none, other than this one. The EU is noted in the second paragraph of this article, and its population is given in a footnote.

The European Union is not a sovereign state. Per WP:NPOV and for reasons of accuracy, we have no business in implying that it is something that it is not. Pfainuk talk 20:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

---

1) I stongly back JimWae position. Adding the EU (unnumbered), especially considering that ISO 3166-1 has clearly reserved for the European Union the "EU code", has simply the purpose to give more accurate information to the European citizens (term which is defined by the treaties).

"the ISO 3166/MA reserved the two-letter combination EU for the purpose of identifying the European Union within the framework of ISO 3166-1"

Source: http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166-faqs/iso_3166_faqs_specific.htm

---

2) Second point, in the text currently it is written: "The European Union is a sui generis supranational union whose sovereign members delegate to it by treaty certain powers that are often exercised by sovereign states". This phrase does not make sense. The powers delegated to the EU are exerced by the EU Institutions (European Commission, European Parliament and Council. In addition,the European Court of Justice controls that national legislations abide by EU law). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.145.157 (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could source this notion that the European Union is a sovereign state, as you seek to imply in this article? We need something official - it shouldn't be too difficult to search through the treaties to find something if this implication is accurate. If not, as I contend, then the EU does not belong on the list. Pfainuk talk 21:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure! The EU act as a sovereign state i.e. it has exclusive competence and Member States can no longer legislate, in these fields:

Article 3 (of the Treaty on the Functionning of the European Union).

1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:

(a) customs union; (b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market; (c) monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro; (d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy; (e) common commercial policy.

2. The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or in so far as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope.

In the other areas it share the competence with Member States:

Article 4 (of the Treaty on the Functionning of the European Union).

1. The Union shall share competence with the Member States where the Treaties confer on it a competence which does not relate to the areas referred to in Articles 3 and 6.

2. Shared competence between the Union and the Member States applies in the following principal areas:

(a) internal market; (b) social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty; (c) economic, social and territorial cohesion; (d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources; (e) environment; (f) consumer protection; (g) transport; (h) trans-European networks; (i) energy; (j) area of freedom, security and justice; (k) common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty.

3. In the areas of research, technological development and space, the Union shall have competence to carry out activities, in particular to define and implement programmes; however,the exercise of that competence shall not result in Member States being prevented from exercising theirs.

4. In the areas of development cooperation and humanitarian aid, the Union shall have competence to carry out activities and conduct a common policy; however, the exercise of that competence shall not result in Member States being prevented from exercising theirs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.50.163 (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

None of which says that the European Union is a sovereign state. It says that the member states have delegated some of their power to the European Union, which is not the same thing at all.

We're going to need a source that's a lot better than that: exceptional claims need exceptional sources, and I think the claim that the 27 member states of the European Union are not in fact sovereign states (and that the EU is a sovereign state in their place) would count as pretty exceptional. It would come as serious news to the 27 governments for one thing. We're going to need something from the EU that actually says that the EU is a sovereign state. Pfainuk talk 10:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you are clearly waisting our time.

1) We are not discussing here whether the EU is a state or not. Rather we are supporting ISO 3166-1/MA decision to reserve the EU an ISO Code in the framework of ISO 3166-1 on which this list is based. ISO has clearly done that because it act like a state in several domains. That is why the EU should be in this list. Is that clear?

"the ISO 3166/MA reserved the two-letter combination EU for the purpose of identifying the European Union within the framework of ISO 3166-1"

Source: http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166-faqs/iso_3166_faqs_specific.htm

2) On my prvious point. What is currently writtein is wrong. the Powers delegated to the EU are NOT exerced by the Member States. But by the EU institutions. Read the treaties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.50.163 (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Continually quoting a phrase out of context does not make the context disappear. Anyone who looks at that page can see perfectly well that it starts by making it very clear that the EU is not on the ISO standard. Pfainuk talk 11:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

---

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”

Benjamin Franklin

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.50.163 (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The EU is a state since December 2009

The EU is now recognised 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) 12:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Please demonstrate, using reliable sources, that the EU is a sovereign state. This will require exceptional sources, because it would imply that EU member states are not the sovereign states that they are generally taken to be.

Blogs are not considered reliable sources even when the claim being made is not exceptional. This blog, which I would note is written by an MEP who is known for his strong views on the subject, doesn't come close to the level of sourcing required here.

Note also that G8 or G20 representation is not the determining factor as to whether an entity is a state or not. Never has been. Pfainuk talk 13:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Why should it be useful to demonstrate that the EU is a sovereign state ? It has a legal personality and exercises many sovereign powers, think of the monetary affairs (currency). It is semi sovereign so to speak, like its member states. Its a pretty comparable situation to the countless country-overseas territories relations. Because the overseas territories are obviously accepted here, there should be no problem at all to include the European Union. There should be also no problem to amend the leading introduction, which (BTW) is currently misleading and wrong, claiming that the EU is considered non-sovereign. GlobalContinent (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not enough. It is plain to anyone that the EU is not a dependent territory in the way that (say) Bermuda is. More to the point, it doesn't figure on the UN standard list of countries on which this list is based. The whole point behind choosing such a standard is to avoid this sort of constant argument about what belongs on this list.

If you want to change the list so that implies that the EU is a sovereign state, you will need an exceptional source to back this implication up - such as a treaty or other document that all member governments have signed up to that states that the EU is a sovereign state and the member states mere divisions of it. You will need the same level of sourcing if you want to change the introduction to make the same claim. Pfainuk talk 14:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

With all respect, please don´t start arguing that overseas territories are "fully sovereign states" (which are all listed here). It makes you look ridiculous. This here is a list which ought to inform readers on population figures, not on specific ISO country codes. This also is the reason why your claim of "sovereignty" seems misplaced. Obviously the list has to use criteria. One of them should be relevance, that´s why I have cited the G8/G20, it signalizes the defacto sovereign nature of the EU. Regards GlobalContinent (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The list has no overlapping figures. The population of the EU is already accounted for in the individual member states. Its total is already indicated in a note in the lead from which one can easily compare to other entries in the list. Dependent territories are included because their population figures are not part of the standard figures for their sovereign states. --Polaron | Talk 16:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The European Union does not belong on this list. There is no need or reason to add it. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point Polaron. But as mentioned by JimWae, the EU could be unnumbered. This seems very reasonable because as it went out, this is a practical way already done in the GDP lists. Please note that the EU has become too sovereign (legal personality), too relevant (G8) and too independent (currency) to leave it out the list. By the way, the EU "population" has an EU citizenship. And this list deals with population. GlobalContinent (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No. When it comes down to it, the EU still does not figure on our inclusion criterion (ISO 3166-1) and therefore does not belong on this list. After all, if we allow the EU despite its not being in the inclusion criteria, where does it end? US states are all legally sovereign, after all - they could go in. Canadian provinces meet all the criteria Daniel Hannan asks for, so we can add them. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all "countries" - if we're adding things that don't meet our inclusion criteria, then why not? When it comes down to it, we're better served by a succinct list that adheres strictly to its inclusion criterion. No entity not on ISO 3166-1 belongs on this list.

If we were to include it, it would have to be at the expense of the member states in order to avoid double-counting people. I think it better to list the member states. Pfainuk talk 22:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume there are no major problems to agree to the JimWae proposal. An unnumbered inclusion of the European Union. The list of significant Pro-EU inclusion arguments is definitely long and relevant enough that an inclusion is justified. The comprehensive chain of arguments is also unique to a degree that no other entity can claim an inclusion. The existence of several editors arguing for an inclusion seems to advance an inclusion as well. Regards GlobalContinent (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors should be aware that the above user is under investigation as a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked User:Lear 21. Pfainuk talk 13:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo

Why is it that when I entered Kosovo, a state recognized by 65 UN members, it is removed, but Palestine is listed? Slaja (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This list uses as inclusion criterion ISO 3166-1, an international standard. It uses this in order to avoid issues that come up with defining what exactly is a "country". Palestine is included on the ISO standard as it stands. If and when Kosovo is listed there, it can be included as a separate entry. Until and unless that happens, it is most appropriately listed as a footnote to the Serbia entry. Pfainuk talk 19:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ranking

According to the list, Palestine has more inhabitants than Bosnia and Herzegovina, but is ranked below Bosnia. Is the ranking performed manually? 85.70.117.103 (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Should this article be updated or expanded?

I’ve seen that the Spanish version of this article already has mid-2010 UN and US Census Bureau’s estimates in two different columns, along with annual growth rates and perhaps dozens more official estimates than this one in another column. Is there something -or some idea- from it that you could include in this article? 190.97.33.5 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Label for source

The "Official Indian Population Clock" is a ticking "estimated" population number from a site called http://www.indiastat.com/ which is run by a company called Datanet India Pvt. Ltd. which has nothing to indicate that it is a government authority or agency. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Scientific notation

Why is China's population in scientific notation, not a normal number like the rest? It looks stupid. BirdValiant (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is the US population listed as 3.102E+8? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.77.136.54 (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency between pages

The inconsistency between the population of individual countries and the population stats given here. Surely population stats should be taken from these pages and the relevant accuracy of these stats discussed on that page and not this one.