Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Malaysia - repost - not in archives

• While the Malaysian pop clock page was updated, it appears the coding for the pop clock itself did NOT change & will still reset itself again the first of every month --JimWae (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• The clock is at http://www.statistics.gov.my. Despite the page being updated, the coding was not. It again reset to 27,452,091 on July 1. It is not worth figuring out what date that figure s supposed to be for either - the clock is worthless. Official stats for July 13, 2007 are 27,170,000 - from Department of Statistics Malaysia I contacted them in April or May, but no reply - and the page was updated already w/o correcting the clock --JimWae (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Their source code is at http://www.statistics.gov.my/eng/clockpopulation/index.php lines 149 to 203 --JimWae (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Lists of countries

Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 06:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nigeria error

I'm not out to look as I don't use this site often, but somehow I doubt the population of Nigeria is 890,000,000,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.213.169 (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, the article was just vandalized. Thanks for catching it. --McSly (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Mexico

Hello. According to INEGI and Conapo, the Mexican population reaches 107.5 million. You can look at http://www.inegi.org.mx/inegi/contenidos/espanol/prensa/contenidos/estadisticas/2009/poblacion09.asp?s=inegi&c=2734&ep=18 or at http://www.conapo.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=125&Itemid=193 (select "Républica Mexicana" and click on "Ver").--Youssef (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Completed. Generally speaking, INEGI is a reliable external source used for many articles regarding Mexican demographics and Conapo from their website seems to have been mandated from the government. Elockid (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update.--Youssef (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Germany

Hello. This adress [1] may perhaps help. The data seems however to be older than those from Eurostat.--Youssef (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The data does seem a bit older than the Eurostat estimate. If it had estimates from this year, that would have been great. Elockid (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand

NZ's population share is not 0.001 per cent, as erroneously stated. The correct figure is 0.063 or 0.064 per cent. There's a flaw in your algorithm. 203.38.54.225 (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. Elockid (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sealand

Why isn't sealand here? [[[Special:Contributions/81.158.50.162|81.158.50.162]] (talk)] —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC).

It hasn't been recognized by anyone and is not a member of the UN. If no one reliable classifies it as a country, it doesn't belong on the list. Parsecboy (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Afganistan - CIA v. UN

Currently Afghanistan has a population of 28,150,000 based on an unsourced UN estimate placing it at 43. the cia factbook has it at 33,609,937 (July 2009 est.) with country comparison to the world: 38. Should it be updated? A lot of the figures seem to be unsourced, maybe they are all out of date?93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually a lot of these figures are based of this source: "UN estimate" and they are estimates for this year. So none of them are out of date.

Regarding your concern of CIA v. UN. Each organization has a different estimate of a country and for a country like Afghanistan where information can be hard to obtain, it can be difficult to determine a population estimate. This is evident by the difference in 2009 population estimates. Also, it seems that from consensus that the UN estimates would be used for each country except if an editor finds the national statistics site of a country or a reliable organization such as Eurostat (EU), that is focused directly on their covered area. If you can find a figure from the national statistics of Afghanistan, feel free to add it on. Elockid (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook population figures are off for many less developing countries which is why the UN figures were used as the standard a few years ago. The original issue was discussed somewhere in the archives. The issue also pops up every now and then for various specific countries. --Polaron | Talk 03:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Georgia

Bringing this up here per personal policy at the second revert - and also because this requires more explanation than is possible in an edit summary.

The current Georgia figure comes from Eurostat, an EU statistical agency. The source does not explicitly exclude South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia, and all EU member states recognise both as part of Georgia. Thus I think it fair to suggest that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are included in the figure for Georgia.

The IP points me to Georgia (country) where, it is true, it is claimed that this figure excludes Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It comes from this source, from Statistics Georgia, the Georgian statistical agency. I find it very difficult to believe that an arm of the Georgian government would recognise Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence by excluding them from their definition of "Georgia".

The figure the IP is adding is sourced to the CIA, but is different from the figure given by the current CIA World Factbook. I cannot account for the discrepancy, and I cannot source this number. Pfainuk talk 16:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Russia

Hello. The Russian population does not match with the source. According to the link in the table http://www.gks.ru/bgd/free/b09_00/IssWWW.exe/Stg/d06/8-0.htm the Russian population is 141,8 million as of 1 June 2009. Can someone fix it? --Youssef (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

fixed. LokiiT (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Date of UN Population Division Estimates

A few minutes ago, the article claimed that the World Population Prospects 2008 Revision at http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2008/wpp2008_text_tables.pdf was created on July 2009. However, the Population Division's website at http://www.un.org/esa/population/ says that the 2008 revision was posted on March 11, 2009. Also, the directory at http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2008/ says that the tables were last modified on March 25, 2009. Finally, I saw a citation in the Guam article in which someone stated that they had retreived this data on March 12, 2009. I have corrected the stated date on this article to March 11. Unfortunately, it is possible that other articles, especially those that link to this one, may still have the incorrect date. One possibility is that someone meant that it was a projection of the population in July, rather than an estimate that was created in July. Looking at the UN Population Division's website, I was unable to find a specific month for which the population estimates were supposed to be based. 24.171.61.225 (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing the date of publication with the date of the estimate. See page iv of the report highlights. All years are referred to as July 1. Nowhere will you find a reference to a March date in the report. The List here doesn't claim the report was created on July 2009. It says the figures listed are for July 2009. --Polaron | Talk 13:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but you shouldn't have said in the edit history that my edit was vandalism. Vandalism is deliberate harm to an article, as opposed to an error in correcting what appeared to be incorrect information. 24.171.61.225 (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for that. I wasn't aware of the March date and I thought the UN estimate date was changed for no apparent reason. --Polaron | Talk 15:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Error in ranks Indonesia vs. US?

It seems like the US and Indonesia should change ranks? also the "% of world population" calculation seems off as well...

David.nuescheler (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Taken care off. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 13:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Error in Pakistans percentage world population?

It seems that Pakistans percentage of world population is definitely too high (34.77%) Also according to the source referenced it seems off by quite a bit. David.nuescheler (talk) 07:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The article was vandalized and I reverted the vandal. Everything should be correct now. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 13:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Afghanistan is way off, as compared to CIA World Factbook 2009 estimate (28 million in this chart, 33 million in Factbook)97.125.31.128 (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The CIA population figures are generally unreliable. Examples include the Philippines and Egypt. Also see this discussion: Talk:List of countries by population#Afganistan - CIA v. UN. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 19:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Iraq

Iraq is way off, too (much too large). I think somebody switched Iraq and Afganistan. You might want to make a note at the top of your page that it is being chronically vandalized. 97.125.31.128 (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Same lines as the CIA discussion above. Other than a government source, the other source being used is the UN because it uses data from governments which is generally much more reliable. (compare the the CIA list with this list and you'll see a whole lot of problems in the CIA list). The figure of Iraq comes from this UN Source. I keep an eye on this page often so there shouldn't be any vandalism on right now. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 19:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Samoa

Just discovered my 9-year old son has been editing (on my login!) Samoa's population according to media reports about the tsunami there. A bit of a case of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith... Nankai (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

World

Is the world a country?89.249.0.170 (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, and it should be removed from the list on that basis. We already mention the population of the world in the lead. Pfainuk talk 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're joking, right?89.249.0.170 (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No. This is touted as a list of countries, defined according to ISO 3166-1. The world is not on ISO 3166-1 and should not, therefore, be on this list. That's not to say we can't mention the population of the world in the article - it is already given by the lead - but we shouldn't include it on the list itself. Pfainuk talk 20:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It still is included on the list itself. Are you sure I should remove it? If you say it shouldn't be on the list itself, why haven't you removed it yet? The question is, if the world is not a country, why is it included in the list? I know why, but it's not a country technically, get it? I think it's good that it's there but there's a problem cause the world is NOT a country. So the question is, should we do anything at all? 89.249.0.170 (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not telling you that you should remove it unless you want to. If no-one comes and tries to defend its inclusion, I'll remove it at some point this weekend. Pfainuk talk 16:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice job! I love you! 89.249.0.170 (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, i didn't notice this discussion till now. (there are a lot of changes to this page). I was the editor who added the World population to the chart. My impetus was seeing the "% of world population" column, but not the actual total that was being used to compute that percentage. I did not want to have to calculate the total from the total of one nation and the percentage. I also thought that including the world total in a list of countries by population would be useful, relevant information. This list's purpose is most likely to be a comparison tool, and comparing the large countries with the population of the world I thought would be a handy thing.

The information does exist in the lead, but I did not see it there, when wondering the world population. I thought it would be much easier to find when placed in the chart.

So yes, I know that the world is not a country, but i thought the information would be useful in a list of countries by population. Do you have reasons other than 'the world is not a country'? Cheers —fudoreaper (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No. But the only way we have of judging whether an entity belongs on the list or not is through the criterion given in the article - that is, whether it is a country or not (defined according to international standard ISO 3166-1). As such, in my view, not being a country (or rather, not being listed on ISO 3166-1) is all the reason needed to remove an entry from the list.

One might, for example, equally argue that it is interesting, useful or relevant for the Countries of the United Kingdom, the States of the United States, the Arab League or the Roman Empire to be listed. In all these cases I would argue the same thing as for the global population - it's not on the ISO list and so it doesn't belong on our list. The world should not be seen as a special case.

I would not oppose moving the world population to a more prominent position in the lead, if it is felt that it is not sufficiently obvious where it is. I would oppose moving it back into the table. Pfainuk talk 18:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Spain

following the same link the current population at 1st october 2009 is 45,967,632 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.233.44 (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Spain updated. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 10:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

About the population clocks

I have recently added more linear-growth formulas to match the remaining official pop clocks (Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, Morocco, The Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia and Venezuela).

Although in virtually all cases I have based on statistical or census data from the respective official websites, I would appreciate it if someone keeps an eye on the resulting population figures, al least for the next few days.

Greetings from Argentina :-)

MaxBech1975 (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just rounding leads to displays in scientific notation form -- IF the number ends in 5 (or more) zeroes and IF it is processed by an older wiki server --JimWae (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

India population

According to http://www.indiastat.com/default.aspx the population of India is c1.173 billion, not c1.5 billion as this article states which puts it in second place behind China. Melly-moo-ma (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If you check the history you'll notice that that was a change introduced within the last hour. I have just reverted it. Pfainuk talk 13:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Russia

I've been maintaining the population clock for a few months now, but it's getting tedious because every month when new data is released the formula has to be changed due to the reversing population drop. Because of this, I think it's a good idea to do away with the population clock for good and simply update the figure monthly. Rosstat puts out a new report every month around the 21st (on this page[2]) which shows the exact population change from the start of the year. To get the current population figure simply add/subtract the change based on the population at the start of the year, which was 141,903,979[3]. I'll try to keep it updated myself, but if I forget or disappear anyone can take the liberty of updating it themselves. Just use google translate if you can't read Russian. LokiiT (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind doing the update for Russia if you forget and if you decide to remove the pop clock. I do some updating on the article anyways, so this shouldn't be a big problem. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 23:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, the 1 January 2010 population is 141,927,297.[4] LokiiT (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Spain

The population of Spain at 1st of January 2009 is 46.745.807 (http://www.la-moncloa.es/ConsejodeMinistros/Referencias/_2009/refc20091211.htm#Empadronado) Spain is a just bit more populated than Ukraine, being the 27th most populated country in the world. 92.0.226.39 (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit out of date though compared to the one listed. The INE estimate that's listed is October, 2009. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 23:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No, http://www.ine.es/jaxi/tabla.do?path=/t20/e245/p04/provi/l0/&file=0ccaa001.PX&type=pcaxis&L=0 46.661.950 hab. --62.42.19.58 (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Try this link. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 16:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

About the CIA estimates

It wasn't me who added the CIA figure for Romania, as you can clearly see from my recent edit summary. I just might have changed its position while moving Mozambique's row, without paying attention to the Romanian population source.

MaxBech1975 (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this comment is directed towards me since I was the one who made the edit. I already know it wasn't you. So need to explain yourself. :) Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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.[5][6] 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)

MORE LOGICAL INCLUDING THE E.U. THAN HONG KONG The E.U. is at least a Confederation while Hong Kong is just a Chinese territory. So, if the E.U. is not included neither should be Hong Kong (Hong Kong and Macau should be added to China)--88.1.244.16 (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2012 (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)

I agree with you, there is no good reason for that. I assume it is what you meant by not responding to the request. 82.141.117.168 (talk) 23:43, 30 March 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)

Åland is now included, but that is not good since it is also counted in Finland's population. And the note below the table says the France figure includes the four overseas departments, but still they are listed separately. That kind of double-counting should not be there. Good thing that Hong Kong and Macau are not included in China's figure. 82.141.66.232 (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2012 (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)

{Actually Pakistan's population clocks are little liars. The UN and numerous other sources point to Pakistan's population at being about ~190 mil. so we should probably think about changing Pakistan's population, — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliRoolz (talk • contribs) 03:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Official data in general is used over other data. Where is your evidence to support your claims? What other sources are you talking about? The only other source that I found where it was even close to 190 mil is the CIA. CIA population data is unreliable. Some countries are blatantly wrong. Take Brazil for example and see that little disclaimer on there. Here's some other data I found that are not copied lists:

IMF: 169,380,000 (2011) and 166,578,000 (2010)

World Gazetteer: 155,360,000 (2010)

World Bank 169,708,303 (2009)

The World Bank estimate is a little outdated but there is no way Pakistan could grow by 20 million people in just two years. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 15:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re the assertion, "Official data in general is used over other data", see WP:DUE. Re what sources are believed by WP editors to be truthful, see the initial paragraph of WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

In light of other data from reliable sources, WP:DUE is not always used/applied in practice especially for demographic data. For example, there is multiple data for the 2010 population of the U.S. However, the data from the U.S. Census Bureau is solely and widely used and consideration of what other sources say the population is for the U.S. are mostly disregarded/not accepted by other readers. There is reason to. The data, both in population base and population change, that is used by reliable secondary and tertiary sources use data from the primary source. Once the primary source updates, the other sources also update their data. Editors are more keen to having more up to date rather than data that is based on outdated data (the CIA falls in this category for their population data).

Secondly, the statement that what sources are believed by WP editors to be truthful, see the initial paragraph of WP:V is not always used in practice. See the Ottoman Empire land dispute at Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 5#Edit request from Savaskan, 9 December 2010 which also spurred this change. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:02, 21 April 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?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IksDe (talk • contribs) 10:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This is because their respective sources have changed since then:

• The population clock of Pakistan has been corrected and updated.
• The previous (presumably inflated) 2010 UN estimate for Bangladesh was replaced with its popclock.

Both sources currently used in the article are official ones, as you can see for yourself in the corresponding (external) links of the last column.

Regards from Argentina :-)

MaxBech1975 (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Population of UK

Why not update the population for UK using the 2010 estimate, which is 62,041,708 in the the UK homepage? For France, the 2011 estimate was used so I am wondering why the estimate isn't used for UK?

cchow2 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Cook Islands

I note that the Cook Islands Government Stats Office which is the source of the population data uses two categories, Total Population and Resident Population. The latter is defined as those normally resident. The former is used for your list.

The difference is very significant 23,400 to 11,400 i.e. 12,000 (51%) of the total population are not normally resident. The Cooks have a significant tourist industry (100,000 or so visitors per year) and a substantial expatriate population. Furthermore very large numbers of Cook Islanders live overseas (principally in New Zealand and Australia).

I am not sure how the Total Population figure is derived but wonder if using it in a table such as this accurately portrays the population especially in population density data.

125.239.105.108 (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Pram

Libya

Why is Libya 101st? 165.124.212.253 (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

nvm i was on the wrong page 165.124.212.253 (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Philippines

First off, I apologize for calling some people vandals who changed the numbers to 101 million. That's the CIA's estimate, but I question there figure. The Philippine gov't's own 2007 census was 88,546,087 [7], and their estimate for 2010 was 94 million [8]. Then there's this Phil. gov't site [9] which lists 88,566,732 on Aug. 01, 2007. I don't know why the CIA is so far away, but should we accept that number based on the official census? Reaching 101 million in a few years doesn't seem very reasonable...Smarkflea (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, I don't know where the CIA Factbook got their figures. However, it is not our place as WP editors to question and pass judgement upon figures from sources considered to be reliable on a particular topic based on what we, individually, think might be correct or incorrect. See WP:DEE and the initial paragraph of WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Which figure would you choose, seeing that the UN's and CIA' figures are different...? Smarkflea (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If sources of similar topical reliability provide figures for different years, I'd choose the one giving info for the later year, and specify the year assiciated with the figure. If sources of similar topical reliability differ significantly about the figure for the same recent year, I'd be guided by WP:DUE and by the initial paragraph of WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Philippine having new number of populations:103,775,002(source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rp.html) (as of 2012 cencus).-PilipinasWikipedia. Pls Edit!!!!!

South Sudan

Congratulations, South Sudan! You've gained independence!

It would be nice to see South Sudan added to this list (and a decrease in Sudan's population because it lost South Sudan). Only one problem: all population figures for South Sudan are rough estimates. Does anyone have any ideas as to what population number should be used for the new country? —Reelcheeper (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should use the 2008 census figures, noting that they're disputed, until more recent estimates are available. Those numbers are available in the South Sudan and Sudan infoboxes (South Sudan's 2008 census population has already been subtracted from Sudan's in the latter country's infobox). -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Colombia

Colombia is now the country number 27 in world's population, according to the National Census for 2012 colombian population is 46'406,352. Then spain is now 28. Source: http://www.dane.gov.co/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=16&id=497&Itemid=995. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejinarango (talk • contribs) 16:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Argentina

Now we have the official numbers http://www.censo2010.indec.gov.ar/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.59.48.32 (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

More columns for historical benches.

Sub says it all. Can a couple more columns be added to include a couple of historical benchmarks also?

So, for example, a 2000, 1900 and an 1800 column. Where info is not known. Estimates or N/A will suffice until data available. Could even include the % increases from each bench to present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.3.229 (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

99.99%

I admit I am not an expert in the subjec, but it intuitively seems to me that the world contains 100% of the world's population, not 99.99%

NobodyMinus (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

World pop. estimate

...is at 7 billion, that means the figures of certain individual countries is inconsistent with those on their respective articles. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:22pm • 06:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

See these newspaper articles: The Telegraph (UK), msnbc, USA Today, The Guardian (UK) and Reuters. The USA pop. clock is outdated. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:28pm • 06:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Bangladesh and Russia's population update

I've updated Russia's total population. But Bangladesh's population density really needs to be updated. Thanx. (^.^) Shafkatsharif (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)shafkatsharif

Missing 4 entry's

Where is Pitcairn Islands and the other 3 countries? In the CIA world factbook there are 238 countries on the list, here there are 234, please fix it.GuzzyG (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There are more than 4 missing entries.

With the exception of unrecognised states all the entries that could be said to be missing are:

Two special areas of internal sovereignty:

Åland Islands (Finland) 28,007 (2010 Estimate)

Svalbard (Norway) 2,394 (2011)

The Dutch Caribbean islands:

Sint Maarten (Netherlands) 37,429 (2010 Estimate)

Bonaire (Netherlands) 15,800 (2010 Census)

Sint Eustatius (Netherlands) 3,100 (2006 Census)

Saba (Netherlands) 2,000 (2010 Census)

Three Australian Territories:

Norfolk Island (Australia) 2,141 (2009 Estimate)

Christmas Island (Australia) 1,402 (2009 Estimate)

Cocos (Keeling) Islands (Australia) 596 (2009 Estimate)

Two UK Overseas Territories:

Akrotiri and Dhekelia (UK) 14,500 (Estimated 7,000 Cypriot with 7,500 military personnel and families)

Pitcairn Islands (UK) 60 (2011 Estimate)

Sapient Homo (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added the missing entities.

I have listed Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba individually although ISO 3166-1 lists them as one entry so that might need changing.

Akrotiri and Dhekelia does not have a number so is the only state or territory with general international recognition not to be included.

Sapient Homo (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ranking Error

The sort on the country rank is the incorrect type of sort. It seems to be sorting the entries as strings instead of numbers, or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nostril585129 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right. This is because something like the {{nts}} template has to be used for the outcome of this column-sorting to be correct.--Jetstreamer (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's listing them in what I've seen termed Microsoft numeric order, viz. 1, 1X, 1XX, ... 2, 2X, 2XX ... etc. There's a way to fix that. It involves coding so that all the numbers have leading zeroes to give them all the same number of places, i.e. 001, 002, ... 010, 011, ... 020, etc. Those leading zeroes won't show up on the table, if it's done right. I've fixed several of these problems in Wikipedia--although none with as many individual entries as this (and as far as I know, the only way to do it is one by one!). And once I start, I'd like to finish; if I save it half way done, the table will likely be a terrible mess. But I might give it a try or so, when I have about 97 hours with nothing better to do. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

There are easier ways than that, that also avoid the awkwardness of having leading zeroes anyway. In this case, what's breaking it is the "-" in the world column. Given that the world doesn't belong on the list anyway (it fails the inclusion criteria) and the total population of the world is already included in the lede, the simplest thing to do is to remove it. I might just do that. Pfainuk talk 18:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

China population 01-01-2012

China's Total Population and Structural Changes in 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.117.57.146 (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

LIST OF COUNTRIES If it is a list of "COUNTRIES" it cannot include territories like Hong Kong, New Caledonia, Macau etc. which are not countries, the same way as the "E.U." (European Union) is not included. In other case, it could change its name to "list of countries, territories and the E.U." for comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.244.16 (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ethiopia in the future?

Why does this article state that the data of Ethiopia was released on July 1, 2012? Shouldn't it be 2011 or 2010? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OPolkruikenz (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is Poland?

Poland has a population over 38 million people and it is not on the list.92.232.237.57 (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure it is. Number 33.--McSly (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Finland, March 29, 2012

Hi! It's 5,404,956 at the moment. Besides the source is not a "Population Clock", it's the total of of registered residents in every municipality and the total of all of them. The publisher is the Population Register Centre (Väestörekisterikeskus). -- Frous (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

But the current source works as a popclock (that is, it is permanently updated), and that's why it is treated as such in the article.

MaxBech1975 (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Afghanistan's population is based on the settled population of Afghanistan and exludes Afgnani nomadic populations. UN and CIA estimates have the population at much higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.71.52 (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Why no US, China or India?

US, China, India are some of the largest populations in the world, yet there is no listing for these countries.

Any specific reason for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.43.39 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism has been reverted. Should be okay now. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Egypt's Population Clock has been updated on the website.

Egypt's Population Clock has been updated and this requires updating on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.118.181 (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. Regards from Argentina :-)

MaxBech1975 (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Burma is missing from the list

Maynmar (Burma) seems to be missing from this list at number 24. I only noticed this while comparing South Africa's spot to last year's: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_population&oldid=424681243

Can I add it or will someone do the honours. AGrobler (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears in the 26th position with its official name of Myanmar.

MaxBech1975 (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed that. Thanks!

It does seem that there is an inconsistency with the data displayed on the Myanmar infobox under 'Population' then. It also states (in brackets) that it is 24th. This seems to be the case for every coutry up until about 60th position. Should List of countries by population be used as the de facto figure to be used on all the different coutries' pages? AGrobler (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

slovenia population as percentage of world population mistake

Slovenia's reported population as percentage of the world population is inconsistent with comparable countries. Its population is listed as 2.057M and the percentage of the world population is listed as .003% when is should be listed as .029%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddweeber (talk • contribs) 18:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Population May/July 2012 (new)

population of turkey is amounted to 79,749,461 million in may/july 2012. source:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html

http://www.tageo.com/index-e-tu-airport-tu.htm

http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/turkey/turkey_people.html

http://www.turkiccouncil.org/turkey/

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Turkey

http://www.robinsonlibrary.com/history/balkan/turkey/general/facts.htm

88.66.32.125 (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

All those sources are getting their info from the CIA, so there's no need to list the others. Secondly the CIA's population estimates are not reliable as you can already see when you compare the CIA data to the official data. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Mh ok. but I have a few question the turkish article on cia have updates and all the years the number of the turkish population is growing. we should starting to think of point of the rightness of the cia's population estimates. I'm in doubt about the official date, because other sources then the cia have years ago estimated much more population then the official today. "the official" population estimate don't calculate the people in slums, isnt it? 88.66.32.125 (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the country's census bureau/national statistics office is considered the most reliable source of information as they are the actual organization who are tasked to collect the country's statistical data. Also the fact that the CIA doesn't match other reliable sources (see below) further damages its credibility:

• UN 2010 Medium Variant estimate: 72,752,000
• World Bank 2010 estimate: 72,800,000
• IMF 2010 estimate: 73,003,000
• 2010 Turkstat (official)/Eurostat estimate: 72,561,312
• World Gazetteer 2012 estimate: 73,197,419
• CIA/US census bureau 2010 estimate: 77,804,000

I think you can already figure out which is the outlier here. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The UN 2010 is not a reliable sources. it shows projections. and when the world bank is so great reliable sources how comes that the last update is in 2010? and it's really funny to see in this sources that they say that 70million people live in 2004 in turkey and in 2005 it says only 67million people live. lol? what happen in 2004 and 2005 that 3million people lost in turkey? i am not kidding. for example the Eurostat estimate says that in 2006 72519974 people live in turkey but in 2007 3million people lose (69689256). lol? the world-gazetteer says in 2004 71152000 people live in turkey but after 3years in 2007 it says 70586256 ??? same in International Monetary Fund LOL. it says that 70.551 million in 2004 but 2005 67.224. ???

sorry i am not native english speaker watch this:

• IMF 2004 estimate: 70.551million, but in 2005 only 67.224million
• Eurostat 2006 estimate: 72,519,974, but in 2007 only 69,689,256
• World Gazetteer 2004 estimate: 71152000, but in 2007 only 70586256

the world bank is don't losing populations. it shows a regular continuity growing. xd 88.66.32.125 (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If your basis is that UN is not a reliable source because it shows projections, then that goes the same for the CIA/US census. In fact all of the CIA data appears to be projections as they don't match with the censuses. The decrease is population because they are most likely recalibrating their estimates to be more accurate. This is common for all type of statistical data especially for estimates as in the case for ALL of the sources listed here. It doesn't matter if the last update was from 2010. Many organizations do not give yearly updates. This is not a basis for reliability. If the CIA is so reliable as you say, could you please find a source that actually has a figure close to the CIA? I don't mean the ones that just copy/paste from the CIA. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 June 2012

I just noticed that South Sudan is not on the list of countries. It just came into existence in July of 2011 which is probably why. According to this article

[10]

the estimated population is from 7.5 to 9.7 million. That would put is in the 85th to 99th spot on the list.

24.223.108.2 (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note CIA factbook lists the population as 10,625,176 80th but 79th according to this list. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like South Sudan is on the list at number 95, with a population within the range the IP mentioned. As the main goal of the edit request is already there I'm closing it, but I would tend to think the World Fact Book number may be a better one to use. Monty₈₄₅ 16:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Who keeps updating Mexico back to 15?

On several occasions the right population of mexico has been changed but someone keeps placing it back to number 15 with an old source. Please upadte accordingly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.27.153 (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

India population 01-01-2012

India's Population 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.117.57.146 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I just encountered the broken link for India population where it says "2011 census" -- The correct link is: http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/data_files/india/Final_PPT_2011_chapter3.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.211.240 (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Poland official population (based on census 2011) as of 31 December 2011 - population: 38 538 447

Ludność w gminach według stanu w dniu 31.12.2011 r. bilans opracowany w oparciu o wyniki NSP’2011 (click: Pobierz) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.57.185.74 (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

This is my first time making an entry on Wikipedia, so please excuse me if I am doing this wrong. I have noticed on many occasions that lists of important information, population, area, etc. are formatted as tables on the site. This is great. It would be even better, way better, to also include a downloadable .csv file for these sorts of tables. Is this possible? If I knew how to do this, I would be glad to create such files and put them up on the site. I guess it might be hard to keep those up to date along with the other data so maybe that's why it's not done.

Any ways, if you have any ideas or think I can help, I'd be glad to, but I don't want to get in the way either.

-Glen Pierce I'll try to remember to check back here to see if there's a response, but I am somewhat absent minded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.126.129 (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)