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)

Mexico

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)

The ISO issue may be true for some characteristics, but Palestine is not an independent or recognised state at the UN, in practice, or anywhere else. The criterion is simply not relevant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ella.dels (talk • contribs) 16:25, 18 November 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)

Hmmm...now it's Pakistan, listed as 1.706E+8. Cwelgo (talk) 18:11, 22 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muskydusky (talk • contribs) 22:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't generally rely on other Wikipedia pages for back-up/sourcing simply because Wikipedia pages can be edited by anyone, which means a high risk of vandalism. Many articles are vandalised, country articles are somewhat in the top of the list, so information from a reliable source is used instead. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

On the other side, those country articles should be referenced from same reliable sources as this articles entries. So mostly they should be the same. Or tell me even one goor reason why not? 82.141.117.178 (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Add the reported growth rate figures?

This seems to be an additional statistic whose presence here would be useful. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really necessary. We already have an article that does this. See List of countries by population growth rate. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - only just spotted it. My feeling is that it's still a missed opportunity - to have to go off and get those growth figures from elsewhere is a pain whereas often they would be useful to be able to see immediately - certainly more relevant IMHO than the percentage figure once you get out of the top 40. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles

I don't want to involve myself into the discussion which statistics should be used on this page, but the Netherlands Antilles have been dissolved, and should not be listed. Instead Curaçao, Sint Maarten, and possibly Bonaire, Saba, and Sint Eustatius should be listed separately. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Bangladesh population clock

Looks like Bangladesh has a new population clock. It doesn't show the date but I'm assuming that it corresponds to whatever the time is at the moment since it keeps changing. Any thoughts on using this? Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 13:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the clock is consistent with previous annual estimates and it is an official one so I think it should be okay to use this. --Polaron | Talk 14:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

New population of 149m is highly inconsistent with the previous one of 164m, and does not agree with the Bangladesh article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleaman5000 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bangladesh population clock clearly does not work properly: I don't think it's a reliable source. Also Bangladesh's world ranking is variously shown on Wikipedia as 7th or 8th. I propose that we use the CIA Factbook as our source, which shows Bangladesh's population as 156,118,464 (July 2010 est.) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bg.html The Factbook also ranks Bangladesh as 7th in the world. Melba1 (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Up to now the Bangladeshi population clock seems to be working quite well, being based on a previous official estimate of 144.5 million inhabitants for July 1, 2008 (in fact, as you can see in the comments above, there were some initial fears that it might not work properly, just as the Malaysian popclock, which seemed to reset from time to time and only appears to work under Microsoft Internet Explorer, but not on Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox and Opera).

On the other hand, in this list we pay special attention to official estimates above any other source (that is, to primary rather than secondary or even tertiary sources), and www.bbs.gov.bd is Bangladesh's official census authority (and thus naturally the most reliable source for demographic data about that country). It's not very serious to suggest or suppose that a subordinated agency of the Federal Government of the United States, such as the US Census Bureau or the CIA, is more authoritative than it when it comes to generating its own data.

Now let's take a look at three standard exponential projections for Bangladesh, exclusively based on its last two censuses (the next one will be held in some month's time, on March 15, 2011):

March 1991 census	January 2001 census	Type	Average annual growth (%)	January 1, 2011 projection
106,314,992	124,355,263	Unadjusted figure	1.60	145,621,000
111,500,000	129,300,000	Adjusted figure	1.51	150,102,000
111,500,000	130,000,000	Adjusted figure	1.57	151,737,000

As it can clearly be seen from these simple projections, Bangladesh's population appears to be around the 150 million figure, and that is precisely what is shown by that country's official population clock, which has some three million inhabitants more than WorldGazetteer's 2010 calculation (147,243,324). Those estimates are notably lower than the 156,118,464 estimated for Bangladesh by the US Census Bureau's IDB for 2010 (and reflected by The CIA World Factbook) and the even more exaggerated UN estimate for the same year (164,425,000), originally elaborated in 2008 and not changed at all in its 2009 revision (just as it happened with every other country or territory).

Besides, we shouldn't care much about the different country rankings in every related Wikipedia article, as they are not necessarily exact and only approximate, and thus subject to change.

Finally, in the Spanish version of this article -which I myself keep updated-, you can see a comparison between IDB (that is, CIA), UN and official estimates. Please take a look at the remarkable discrepancies that appear in the first few more populated countries, in particular in China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan... and Bangladesh (also note that the UN estimate includes Taiwan inside China's population for political reasons). For example, you can see there that the IDB/CIA and UN estimates for Indonesia and Brazil differ in some millions from their respective 2010 initial or provisional census results. Let's see how much time the IDB and the UN take to correct their respective population series for those two countries (from my own “historical” experience, I would say that they are going to take some months, if not some years, to do so).

Regards from Argentina. :)

MaxBech1975 (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

List of countries by population

When looing at the list I noticed that Norway is 'off' ... 500,000 ... should that not be some 5 Million??? Lars Ericsson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.9.207 (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It was my fault. As I was updating various estimates and popclock formulas, I decided to pay more attention to the “Show changes” feature than to the “Show preview” one, and so I didn't see that Norway's figure had in fact become about one tenth of its real population. Fortunately, another user -in this case an anonymous one- quickly corrected that mistake. That's what Wikipedia is about!

Best regards

MaxBech1975 (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign states or countries?

Pfainuk - A point/question regarding your earlier comment "Please demonstrate, using reliable sources, that the EU is a sovereign state." Not referring to the EU but constituent countries of the United Kingdom. Is this list for sovereign states or countries? England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are countries but not sovereign states, what is the consensus on what entries are added? Zarcadia (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Entities included should be those entries on ISO 3166-1 with permanent populations. Noted in footnotes are states with limited recognition, whose sovereignty is disputed to a sufficient degree that they are not included on ISO 3166-1.

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries in some senses of the word, but not in others. This is why we have clear in-or-out inclusion criteria - the word "country" is best avoided in inclusion criteria because it has multiple overlapping meanings. That's not to say that it can't go in the title, because the title is intended as a succinct description of what may be very long inclusion criteria.

The argument being made at the time was that the European Union was a sovereign state, and thus that it had to be included despite our inclusion criteria. The argument was rejected on the basis that there were no sufficiently reliable sources to support such an exceptional claim, and the editor blocked for block evasion (as the sockpuppet of another user, who had previously been indefinitely blocked). Pfainuk talk 19:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the EU should not be included in this list due to the fact that it is neither a sovereign state nor a country (rather a supranational entity). For the sake of clarity should this page not be 'List of sovereign states by population'? I disagree that 'country' provides a more succinct description than 'sovereign state'; there are unambiguous differences between the two. Zarcadia (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not really accurate. ISO 3166-1, and thus the list includes several entities that aren't sovereign states - mostly dependent territories. These territories, generally speaking, are not parts of the sovereign states concerned (unlike England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), and are generally counted separately from the sovereign states in lists such as this. Pfainuk talk 20:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, no need for a change to the inclusion criteria or the title. EWSNI do not belong on this list as they are included in the figures for the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The page should be renamed List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population. The term country is ambiguous. ~Asarlaí 02:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The terms sovereign state and dependent territory also have their own ambiguities. It is appropriate to use a short form of the inclusion criteria in the title, as we currently do - even if it is not 100% unambiguous. Pfainuk talk 19:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Entities included should be those entries on ISO 3166-1 with permanent populations" - if this is true, then you're missing a lot of entries (e.g. Aland or some French territories) 80.123.210.172 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

France

I know French Polynesia and all the other "overseas" collectivies are "part" of France, but I don't think they should be included in these statistics, it gives an unrepresented figure, and people reading this will then think that the NATION of France (Metropolitan France) has 65 million people. Most people don't associate Tahiti as a direct "part" of France. Cyprus is listed in Europe, not Asia because it is CULTURALLY in Europe, despite what Geography says. Now French Polynesia is both Geographically and Culturally NOT in France. I think we should still give the figures for "France+overseas" but have Metropolitan France as the first figure. Bezuidenhout (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree especially since the cited source shows only the figure for France proper. --Polaron | Talk 15:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Excludes

Why? Official statistics do not include these - see the sources in parentheses:

• Excludes the Republic of Abkhazia (216,000, census 2003) and South Ossetia (geostat.ge.2010.xls):
• 2010
• G E O R G I A - 4 436,4
  • Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia - …
  • Sokhumi, City of - …
  • Tkvarcheli, City of - …
  • Azhara, Municipality of - …
  • Gagra, Municipality of - …
  • Gali, Municipality of - …
  • Gudauta, Municipality of - …
  • Gulripshi, Municipality of - …
  • Ochamchira, Municipality of - …
  • Sokhumi, Municipality of - …

• • Shida Kartli - 310,6
  • Tskhinvali, City of - ... - the actual area South Ossetia
  • Gori, Municipality of - 144,1
  • Eredvi, Municipality of - ... - the actual area South Ossetia
  • Tighvi, Municipality of - ... - the actual area South Ossetia
  • Kaspi, Municipality of - 52,6
  • Kareli, Municipality of - 51,6
  • Kurta, Municipality of - ...- the actual area South Ossetia
  • Khashuri, Municipality of - 62,3
  • Java, Municipality of - ... - the actual area South Ossetia

• Excludes Transnistria (555,347, census 2005). (statistica.md.2010.pdf):

Citation:: "Informaţia este prezentată fără datele localităţilor din partea sîngă a Nistrului şi mun.Bender."

• Excludes North Cyprus(cystat.gov.cy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlatonPskov (talk • contribs) 16:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation:: "The population of Cyprus in the Government controlled area was estimated at 803.200 at the end of 2009, recording an increase of 0,8% from the previous year. The population in the district of Lefkosia was 315.400 at the end of 2009, in Ammochostos 44.800, in Larnaka 134.400, in Lemesos 230.800 and in Pafos 77.800." --> that is not of the Kyrenia District, and not part other district --> 803.200 excludes North Cyprus --PlatonPskov (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Poland?

A startling omission!! Any reason why this major country in not on the list???Three bet shove (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

A formatting error made it hidden from view. But I've fixed it. It should show up now. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Nigeria

This list puts Nigeria as the seventh most populous country in the world, but the article on Nigeria puts Nigeria as the eight most populous country. Can this contradiction be rectified, please? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Indonesia and Pakistan

Not so long ago (as at February 2011), I heard on BBC Radio Four, that Pakistan could soon be overtaking Nigeria as the world's most populated Muslim country. So, we had better keep close watch over this article in case this article needs updating. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The most populated Islamic country in the world is not Nigeria nor Pakistan; it is Indonesia, with some 200+ million Muslims out of a total population of some 240 mill. On the other hand, we don’t usually worry here about the approximate population ranks shown in each individual Wikipedia country article.

MaxBech1975 (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Many apologies - I did mean to say "Indonesia" in the above (I must have been tired when I typed that!) I did know that Indonesia, currently the fourth most populated country in the world, is also currently the most populated Muslim country - it was on Radio Four that I heard it could be overtaken by Pakistan. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Some of these numbers must be wrong

I was going to use the list on this page for some statistical analysis, but as soon as I did the first step, summing the total, I found that something is seriously wrong. The total according to this list is 10.3 billion. The total according to the World Bank is 6.8 billion. Quite a discrepancy. Is there a reason for this, or are our numbers just wrong? Qwrkx (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

For reference, I just found this site, whose numbers *do* ad up to about 6.8 billion. Qwrkx (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Try recalculating. I reverted the vandal that caused an increase of over 3 billion. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

China "Official" Population Clock

I see nothing official about this clock. Note the Days since January 1, 2005. A rough estimate of the number of days is 2,190 (6*365). Also note the footer "The figures here are based on probability projections and may therefore differ from official figures." Aye! You must correct and find a more credible source. The US "Clock" seems official, I haven't checked any of the other ones. 24.20.13.202 (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed and replaced. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 17:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Serbia is listed twice

Both on place 85 and place 91, with different populations, none which matches the number on the page of Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.146.210 (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate entry removed. The reason the numbers are different because they have different definitions. The one here includes Kosovo and the other doesn't. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Population of some countries changed?

When I checked this page few months ago, Pakistan had 183 million and Bangladesh 164 million population. How does Pakistan now have 175 million and Bangladesh 151 million population??