Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population/Archive 3

Box map
Wouldn't it be very useful to include a box map (or whatever it's called in English) as found for example at ? 82.171.200.197 (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Population of Peru( URGENT)
I changed yesterday the population of Peru, because I was checking the INEI (the official statistics bureau of Peru) information. In this web page (http://www.inei.gob.pe) you may click Información Social - Compendio Estadístico 2007 - Población e Indicadores Demográficos - Poblacional - Población total al 30 de junio, según sexo y grupos quinquenales de edad'', and in the low part of the list, you may check the total population in 2007, 28,750,770. I don't know why my information was erased. Sorry for my bad English. --Wikiperuvian (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please! it's official information, it can't be inconsistent! the number is there! you only have to confirm the information, enter to http://www.inei.gob.pe and follow the instructions that I wrote above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.101.244 (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

percent of world population
Shouldn't the world population be 99.9% ??

You know there are people in space. Just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelersfan7roe (talk • contribs) 08:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Vatican City
Good evening. Perhaps, we can add this source for the population.It is the official page of the Vatican City and it provides some details. http://www.vaticanstate.va/EN/State_and_Government/General_informations/Population.htm --Youssef (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mexico
Here is an estimate from the official stastical bureau of Mexico. http://www.inegi.gob.mx/est/contenidos/espanol/proyectos/integracion/inegi324.asp?s=est&c=11722#tres --Youssef (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Several Errors
As someone who works with statistics all the time, I came upon this page and noticed several egregious errors and was prevented from correcting them. So I'll discuss them instead. A relevant updated source is referrenced right on the World population page in Wikpedia http://www.xist.org/earth/population1.aspx. The ones that jumped out at me were Nigeria over by 10 million (there is an AIDS epidemic there), Iran over by 6 million, The Congo under by 5 million, Mexico under by at least 4 million etc... If the table is not going to provide accurate information, Ithink it should be considered for deletion. TFBCT1 (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That page uses the CIA World Factbook figures. If you're willing to dive into the archives, you'll find several discussions about why the CIA figures are off for many less developed countries. The UN estimate is generally more consistent with estimates by the various national census authorities. --Polaron | Talk 22:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, taking the case of Iran, one can find the following figures:
 * Census (2006): 70,472,846
 * Population Reference Bureau estimate (2007): 71,200,000
 * UN estimate (2007): 71,208,382 (UN figure is 70,270,178 for 2006 and 72,211,696 for 2008)
 * CIA estimate (2008): 65,875,223
 * World Gazetteer (2008): 71,028,973
 * For Iran, the CIA figure is obviously the outlier.
 * For the case of the Democratic Republic of the Congo:
 * Census: no recent census available
 * Population Reference Bureau estimate (2007): 62,600,000
 * UN estimate (2007): 62,635,722 (60,643,980 for 2006 and 64,703,617 for 2008)
 * CIA estimate (2008): 66,514,506
 * World Gazetteer (2008): 64,105,984
 * The CIA appears to overestimate by a bit relative to other common population tabulations. --Polaron | Talk 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Polaron, where did you get the 2008 UN estimate figures? Have they published a list we can cite or did you calculate them yourself using the growth rate estimates? It would be nice if we could update the UN estimates to 2008, it would make a lot of the estimates not seem so off to people that want to use the World Factbook figures. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They're found in the UN Common Database (Table 13660) . The medium-variant number is what I listed. --Polaron | Talk 21:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please someone look at Armenia. The position is incorrect. 85.187.126.114 (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.187.126.114 (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Malicious Chinese Clock
Hi, I went to the Chinese Population Clock http://www.cpirc.org.cn/index.asp which is linked from the page, but it was riddled with malicious downloaders and trojans! I stongly suggest to remove the link for now and establish a reputable link to a clock. I didnt check any other clock links. 194.46.232.199 (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia

 * 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)

Chile
There is a mistake in Chiles population (I think a . should be a ,) although I don't know where to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.70.180 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ☆ CieloEstrellado 20:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Burma
I've changed Myanmar to Burma, since the main Wikipedia page of this country is named Burma.Sponsianus (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted you. Per ENGVAR, we don't unilaterally change articles when both terms are valid. This is why you'd find references to colour and petrol on wikipedia even though the article is color and gasoline. Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan's population
What is that, some sort of scientific notation? Why is it different than everything else? Zazaban (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the link given in the column "source" only cites a 1998 census that gives a 132 millions figure. The true source should be linked instead. --Iv (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Trojan at India population clock seems to be gone now
McAfee detected a trojan at the india population clock site http://www.indiastat.com/ the other day. It seems to be gone now, but I am reluctant to restore link at least until others have also tested it --JimWae (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Cayman Islands
A recent analysis by a national newspaper puts the population of the country at 62,000. http://www.caycompass.com/cgi-bin/CFPnews.cgi?ID=1032528 I would like this page changed to reflect that but the code is too complicated for me. If someone else can do this, I would appreciate it. There are more official sources cited by the article with figures which still top what is listed here and in any event, we are due for a new census next year, so there is no harm in updating the figure now. Travisritch (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

bare in mind the Cayman islands is not an independent country but it a British terriroty so doesnt really belong on the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gashmak (talk • contribs) 22:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That just isn't true. Territories do belong on the list, but are formatted italicised and without bold. As I say, I will put the results of the 2009 census on here at the time. Travisritch (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Population of Pakistan
Its 172,800,000 not 164,000,000 as it says in the article. Some one change it please.--SergeiXXX (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Italicized names?
As far as I can tell there's no explanation on the page currently about why some countries' names are italicized. Perhaps it was there at one point and got lost...? --Jim Henry (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The italicized names are for the semi-recognized countries, Jim.--SergeiXXX (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

POPULATION OF BRAZIL The population estimate are 200,000,000 in total 2008

Inconsistent Spain vs. Sweden
Text has Sweden 7th largest in Europe and Spain 6th, but Sweden is ahead of Spain in the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igodard (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ireland
the official name of the country is Ireland not Republic of Ireland. WIkipedia disambiguates that to Republic of Ireland to avoid confusion with the island of Ireland (a controversial decision but that is the current position). In his case we have a list of COUNTRIES, so there is no issue of any ambiguous meaning and the proper name of the country should be used. -- Snowded  TALK  12:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sealand not Included
Sealand's population of 27 is not included in this article, and should be promptly added.
 * can you find definitive proof that Sealand is an actual country? --smadge1 (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Countries of the United Kingdom
Four further countries should be included in this article. They are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The reason for their inclusion is: They are countries. This is a list of countries by population. To complete a list of countries by population, countries should be included on it.

Scotland Wales England N Ireland are not self governing dependencies, in purely international legal terms they are akin to US states- and you dont see them on the list-only, they are, for want of a better word `states` of the UK not the US

I propose that:


 * 1. The article's second sentence: "The list ranks sovereign states, as well as self-governing dependent territories." is replaced by:


 * "The list ranks countries, as well as self-governing dependent territories. A country is a geographical territory, both in the sense of nation (a cultural entity) and state (a political entity)."

With this reference added:


 * The Oxford English Dictionary lists the first six definitions of country as:

"*1. a. A tract or expanse of land of undefined extent; a region, district.
 * 2. a. A tract or district having more or less definite limits in relation to human occupation. e.g. owned by the same lord or proprietor, or inhabited by people of the same race, dialect, occupation, etc.; spec. preceded by a personal name: the region associated with a particular person or his works; also fig.
 * 3. The territory or land of a nation; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories, as England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the United Kingdom, etc.
 * With political changes, what were originally distinct countries have become provinces or districts of one country, and vice versa; the modern tendency being to identify the term with the existing political condition.
 * 4. The land of a person's birth, citizenship, residence, etc.; used alike in the wider sense of native land, and in the narrower one of the particular district to which a person belongs.
 * 5. a. ‘The parts of a region distant from cities or courts’ (J.); the rural districts as distinct from the town or towns; sometimes applied to all outside the capital, called, by eminence, ‘town’.
 * 6. a. The people of a district or state; the nation."

- Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, with online updates as of September 2008. Entry "1. country" .
 * 2. The countries England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are included on this article.

Please note your views on this proposal. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:SILENCE says "Consensus can be assumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident". Consensus has, therefore, been reached to include the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on this article, and to clarify the lead paragraph by replacing the second sentence with "The list ranks countries, as well as self-governing dependent territories. A country is a geographical territory, both in the sense of nation (a cultural entity) and state (a political entity).". Thank you for your time. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No argument with the change itself, but shouldn't the UK countries be italicised, possibly with a footnote to explain to the reader that they are each contained within the UK figure? Noting, as above, that there is currently no explanation on the page of why names of some countries are italicised and some not; nor why some are listed but not ranked.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a sensible suggestion, Ghmyrtle. Please go right ahead and make the changes. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * While I dont object to the change you really should wait more then 24 hours before presuming consensus exists. It may still be okay to make the change per WP:BRD but you shouldn't complain if a few days later someone objects to your change and then try to imply there was consensus because you waited a day Nil Einne (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

England Scotland Wales and N Ireland are countries,and are sovereign in their own right, but they do not constitute internationally recognised independent states.........if they have their population listed along side the United Kingdom, whihc is the legal representation ontheir combined sovereignty, then all 50 US states should be on the list........see, seems stupid doesnt it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gashmak (talk • contribs) 19:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's not have this debate separately on every single list with the word "countries" in the title - just as with the move proposal at Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area, it should be done on all or on none. I think we're better off with "none". Pfainuk talk 19:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotland Wales England N Ireland are not self governing dependencies, in purely international legal terms they are akin to US states- and you dont see them on the list-only, they are, for want of a better word `states` of the UK not the US
 * Historically there were independent countries, they still are countries and the analogy with US states represents a misunderstanding of history. You might also want to check out the OED and other sourced, many of which are listed  here -- Snowded   TALK  22:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at the whole list it appears the only exceptions to the rule made are for the 4 parts of the United Kingdom and offical overseas France which get included in Frances totals. I would support the removal of them from this list to bring them in line with almost all other country lists which do not include England etc. Perhaps SOURCE column could be changed to "notes" and then simply include the break down of England, Scotland, Wales, NI in that box rather than in separate rows. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I recognise the uniqueness to the situation, so i propose adding Texas and Hawaii to the list, as they were both formerly independent states. I also recommend adding the Basque country and or Catalonia, as well as Tibet, in the interests of consistency.....if no one agrees with that, then England Scotland Wales and N Ireland should be removed from the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gashmak (talk • contribs) 22:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason i suggest this is because to some its confusing-people often get confused with the diference between England and the UK, so to compound it by catering to that missunderstanding by seperate listings in this article is counterproductive to peoples knowledge of international representation etc. If people wish to know about the UK and its unique internal divisions,t hats hwat the UK page is for —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gashmak (talk • contribs) 22:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Texas, Vermont and others were Republics who became states, they are no longer described as countries, neither does the US Government on its web site describe them as such. In the cases in question this is the case and they are further defined as countries in the OED no less.   Now to come back to another theme.  If you want to make this a list of sovereign states (a restriction of country) then I would happily agree that they should be excluded.  In any event your deletion while the matter was under discussion was a breech.  -- Snowded   TALK  22:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a brief bitof research into the history of texas and Hawaii would suggest, there clearly were independent states. I agree including states would be confusing and inaccurte-just as the current presence of Scotland etc is. We need consistancy and accuracy. As for deleting the entry whilst the article is under discussion-my experience fo wikipedia is that discussion goes around in circles unless someone takes action and pushes people to a yes or no


 * I agree it is very confusing, i am strongly against the inclusion of England etc on such international lists because of that reason. I would also be strongly against adding states of the US otherwise this page really would have to be renamed. I agree on the issue of population such facts could be useful, so what do people think about changing the column labelled SOURCE to "Notes" so that England, Wales, Scotland and NIs populations can be mentioned in that in the UK row instead of in their own rows? That seems to work well on another list i have seen (cant remember which one right now) but i think it was land mass or something. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you could change the name of the article, or restrict it to sovereign states. However as long as its countries then they are entitled to their own row. Its a simple issue of fact really.  -- Snowded   TALK  22:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Snowded would you be ok with keeping the title, but if we reworded the opening paragraph so its clear it only includes sovereign states / dependencies like on that other page? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that may ultimately be a sensible solution, although listing non-sovereign countries within their sovereign one might also make sense.  For that to work though it really need to propagate across all lists - see other comments above, needs a one time not a peace meal resolution.  As it is I am going to bed, so no consent as of now I am afraid.  -- Snowded   TALK  22:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In the interim, ive added a brief explanationa fter the opening European Union sentence. Edit at willbut i do think the basic premis of the explanation is necessary, at least until, as i hope happens, we delete the entrys altogether-i think this passage should be usefulfor both sides —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gashmak (talk • contribs) 22:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed the current explanation helps explain matters a bit and will do until some resolution is made. I will just fix the links and will leave it till agreement is reached. Night snowded. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * umm.. not trying to be unhelpful or anything, but when was NI an "independent state"? (sorry...)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed that was incorrect, added (originally part of the Kingdom of Ireland) which will do for the time being unless someone else wants to try and improve it. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A few problems with this page
I have a few problems with this page, some of which i would like to try and resolve in the next few days if there are no objections, but there is one thing that i think contributors to this page seriously need to consider.

First of all, the introduction to this article is clearly incorrect as non sovereign states (countries) are included on the list but are not ranked despite saying countries and dependencies are ranked in the intro. I think its correct they are included on the list, but its right they are not ranked so "Sovereign States" needs to be mentioned in that introduction.

I do not believe the current table shows the difference between Sovereign States and territories very well. Italics are almost unnoticable against regular font, unless all the sovereign states were given BOLD which would make the difference far more clearer. Even with the bold the table could provide far more information. I would there for like to add a column to the table to detail what type of state it is. So to say if its a sovereign state, unrecognied state, dependencies and of which country etc. So taking England it could say Country of the United Kingdom, linking to the correct page so people do not have to go to the notes section for an explanation. Or for Jersey it would say Crown Dependency linking to the relevant page. There would be enough room for such a column if we shorted some of the columns such as the source one. Bolding the sovereign states would address the actual problem and i would be happy to just do that if people object to an extra column, i just thought that might provide more detail and be more useful to some people in understanding this list.

The main problem i have which contributors to this page really need to consider is just how inaccurate this list is because it is updated at different times for different countries and the info is from different sources. Considering this list is used on all country pages to rank their population, this really should be as accurate as possible and in my opinion accuracy is more important than showing most recent figues. I dont mind what source is used be it UN or CIA etc but it really should just be one source updated at the same time rather than all than all these differences which makes the list very problematic. Perhaps the table could include figures from several sources, So one column for CIA 2007 one for the UN 2007 but rank using the most accurate.

I am very interested to hear what people think on the above suggestions, if there is no objections i will go ahead and make a change to the intro / bolding the sovereign states and might try to add a column (depending on how it looks). I wont attempt to make any changes on the issue of the sources, i was just curious to see if others felt the same way that currently its very inaccurate and if there are other things that could be done to improve the list. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should be inclusive and include independent states as well as autonomies. I don't think it is necessary to distinguish between the two on the list. One thing we should change is that in the country infoboxes, the total number of countries m on the list should be added to the position n, so it says "nth out of m". As for sources, the problem is that we won't find a single source for all countries. I don't think that the slight distortion caused by using different sources is a big problem, the general place of a country on this list seems most important. sephia karta |  di mi  17:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree they should be included on the list as its useful information, but considering they are entered in italics in an attempt to distinguish them from the other countries i think it would be better to bold the sovereign states as well so there is actually a clear difference. I accept on the sources it doesnt make a huge difference to overall ranking but it still seems more inaccurate than it need be. I agree with ur suggestion on the country info boxes showing what the number is out of.


 * Would you have a problem with me bolding the Sovereign states and doing a slight rewording of the opening paragraph to explain some things are not ranked? those were the main two things i wanted to change, everything else was just suggestions about how the list might be improved in the future and be more accurate / useful. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as the bolding is concerned: if it makes the list look better, sure. And I agree with you that at the moment it is not completely clear what the criteria are, so we should make that clear. My personal opinion is that if we want to make a distinction between states and dependencies/autonomies, then all the states at List of sovereign states should be bolded (also those not generally recognised, some of them are missing still, some appear unranked). Furthermore, I propose that we give only the population figures for the territory actually controlled by a state. So e.g. the entry for West Sahara, which should probably be changed into Sahrawi Republic, should see its number changed from 400,000 to 30,000, which is the number of people living in the Free zone, and the amount for Morocco should be increased by 370,000. What do you think? sephia karta  |  di mi  00:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have bolded the sovereign states, i thought the disputed states such as palestine / West sahara look better with both Italics / Bold so there is also a difference between the undisputed / disputed ones. After going through the list there are certainly several disputed sovereign states missing from the list. As for the idea of only stating the numbers under their control, that seems a sensible suggestion although i am not sure how that would work on the Palestinian territories which still has many of their people living under an illegal occupation.


 * If Palestine / West sahara / taiwan can be on the list i would think South Ossetia / kosovo etc belong on there too, although adding them would create problems of having to deduct from Serbia, Georgias population like the west sahara problem you mentioned. Will try to reword the opening a bit just to mention sovereign states a bit later today. Let me know what you think about how they look in bold now. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. :) Palestine is indeed difficult. I think that we should take the population living in the Palestinian Territories. But perhaps we should divide it into the part controlled by Fatah (= West Bank) and the part controlled by Hamas (= Gaza Strip). sephia karta  |  di mi  00:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All non-independancies, should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? sephia karta  |  di mi  00:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Introduction to list
Ok i have redone the intro to the list explaining what is included and what isnt. Much like it was before mentioning that the United Kingdoms countries are included, i have added explanations on Chinas two SARs and Frances overseas regions. The only thing that was left unranked in the list was Somaliland which for the time being i have removed. It should be re added when Kosovo and other unreconized states are ready to go on the list (ranked or unranked).

Please let me know what you think of the changes, i hope its acceptable to everyone. Now its clearly explained i dont mind England etc staying on the list, however if in the future there are demands for all the US states, German states or regions of mainland France to be added to this list then they should all be removed to avoid the list getting bogged down. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the note at the bottom concerning accuracy should be placed at the top. For instance, China's population is quoted in a manner that implies accuracy to one part in over one thousand million, which is absurd. The Holy ettlz (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, moving that note to the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

China
At the moment the note next to Chinas entry says it is the figure for mainland china only. However Hong Kong and Macau have never been ranked in the list, so if the note is correct Chinas population is currently missing over 8 million. The source for the actual number is a population clock on a page full of chinese which i do not understand. I dont like the idea of using "population clocks" which are basically just random guesses rather than offical estimates, but could someone please find the correct number or remove the note if it does infact include Hong Kong / Macau: Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Census and by-census figures from the National Bureau of Statistics of the People's Republic of China [www.stats.gov.cn] cover only 31 provinces, self autonomous regions and centrally administered municipalities. In other words, the figures do not cover the special administrative regions, Taiwan and Fujian islands administered by Taipei. Umofomo (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We quote three different sources for the population of China - related to the Mainland, Hong Kong and Macao.


 * As on other lists, I do not object to the split of Hong Kong and Macao figures from Mainland China's, provided that all other permanently-inhabited entities on the list ISO 3166-1 are also added, and providing that the inclusion criteria are suitably changed. Pfainuk talk 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are all permanently inhabited entities on ISO 3166-1 normally regarded as countries within and beyond Wikipedia? And is it the norm or common practice on Wikipedia and beyond to add up three separate figures (not just population, but GDP, trade volume, FDIs, foreign reserves, etc., as well) to obtain a 'total' figure for the People's Republic? Umofomo (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no standard definition of "country" whatsoever. But that's OK, because we the inclusion criteria don't depend on the title.  If they did, the title of this article would have to be List of sovereign states and dependent territories - excluding entities that for integral parts of the sovereign states concerned, supranational unions that are not sovereign states and uninhabited dependent territories including claims to Antarctica - by population.  Hong Kong and Macao don't meet the criteria stated in the article.  We can change the criteria to include all inhabited entities on ISO 3166-1.  But we mustn't just randomly add entities that don't meet the criteria. Pfainuk talk 09:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd agree there's no definite standard. But there's definitely a common norm - Hong Kong and Macau are among those that are frequently counted as countries, not only on Wikipedia. And back to the question is it the common practice on Wikipedia and beyond to add up the three separate figures to obtain a 'total' figure for the People's Republic of China? Umofomo (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And the inclusion criteria don't depend on the word "country", so it makes very little difference whether Hong Kong and Macao are frequently counted as countries or not. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are frequently counted as countries, but that doesn't make them not integral parts of the United Kingdom.  And there is no reason why we shouldn't add these three figures to get a total value for the PRC. Pfainuk talk 08:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If they are frequently listed as countries, it'd be an anomaly not to include them on this list. England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales don't usually appear on such lists of countries except in the area of sport. And I wasn't asking for reasons to add up the three figures to get a total value for the People's Republic. I asked if it is a common practice. Umofomo (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, because this is only a list of countries inasmuch as the word "country" means the same thing as the inclusion criteria. We do not base our lists on the titles.  As I say, if we did, this article would have to be called List of sovereign states and dependent territories - excluding entities that are integral parts of the sovereign states concerned, supranational unions that are not sovereign states and uninhabited dependent territories including claims to Antarctica - by population. Pfainuk talk 16:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are still avoiding the question about common practice. Umofomo (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's mostly because it's not relevant. Hong Kong and Macao did not meet the old inclusion criteria, therefore they were included in the state that they were part of.  If that means adding the three numbers together, so be it.  Since the inclusion criteria of this list have just changed, they are now listed separately. Pfainuk talk 18:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Integral parts of sovereign states
This list, until my edits, included the integral parts of three sovereign states. Each of the three was handled in a different way.

In the UK, all four UK countries were listed in the article, and also in the main UK figure. The UK's overseas territories were listed in the article but not included in the main UK figure.

In France, régions that happen to be in Europe were not listed in the article, while those that are not in Europe were. All of those, as well as all of France's overseas territories were listed as part of the main France figure. If the UK had been done like this, the UK figure would have included Bermuda, Gibraltar and so on, but all of those would have been listed separately - along with Northern Ireland but not Scotland, England and Wales.

In China, the Special Administrative Regions were listed entirely separately from China, and the main value for China did not include them. So, in UK terms, this would be like not listing the UK at all, but rather giving separate values for Scotland and Northern Ireland (which have more devolved power), and then a combined value for England and Wales.

I am making these changes based on the apparent consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries: that lists of countries do not need to be renamed, and should not include UK countries separately, but that the inclusion criteria should be clearly stated in the lead. I have altered the inclusion criteria in the lead of the article to reflect this apparent consensus. Pfainuk talk 14:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the changes made, its the fairest and safest way of doing it. I had to undo one edit by someone who added a US state to the list yesterday. If parts of France / UK were allowed on there then others simply want theirs to be included too. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Aren't French overseas régions similar to the case of Alaska and Hawaii? Umofomo (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

European Union
In line, with the inclusion of dependencies, can the EU be included, as a special case, of a dependency?--217.112.186.123 (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The European Union is not a dependency or territory, whilst i agree there is no other international organisation that comes close to as much intergration as the EU there are always calls for other things to be added, like the NAFTA or the African Union. To avoid fights the fairest thing is for it not to be included at all. There was a sentence saying this table doesnt include trade blocs and international organisations. The Trade_bloc provides a table comparing data of things like the European Union as well as comparing it to current countries such as the United States. I think linking to that table is fairer than making a special case of the EU on this page. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One more point.. I dont have a problem with it being included at the bottom as a note (like it currently is) but if people ask for other international entities like the AU to be added it should be as well or they all need to be removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Pfainuk talk 20:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

At last place228, Pitcairn Islands, population of 46. Or, 227 Holy See

The EU, has more "statehood", then those two things. Notes on top, and move there other notes, for other stuff. I agree that, only EU, is a special case, not nafta, AU or what ever.--217.112.186.123 (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This list is about countries and territories. The Pitcairn islands is most certainly a territory there for its inclusion is fully justified no matter how many people live there. Vatican city is a sovereign city state which is independent from Italy, also justifying its inclusion although a note about why that one is included might be useful. The European Union is not a sovereign state, its not a territory and its not a country. These issues have been gone over in the past @ Talk:European_Union/inclusion_in_lists_of_countries. I think including the EU at the bottom with a note is more generous than the alternative which is simply leaving it off all together. The Eurozone appears on the GDP lists and rightfully so but there really is no real need for the EU to be included here. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As BW notes, this has been discussed before, and you may wish to review those discussions.


 * You say that the EU has more "statehood" than Pitcairn and the Vatican. While you do not define "statehood" in your comment, I would dispute this - particularly in the latter case - but it's not really important.  Our inclusion criterion is "sovereign states and dependent territories" so we include sovereign states and dependent territories.


 * The European Union is not a sovereign state, and it is not a dependent territory. If you wish to argue with that statement, I suggest you come up with a pretty damn good source - say, an EU Treaty - to back your argument up: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.  In my view, it is best placed either at the bottom of the article or not at all.  Notes explaining the list should not be considered to be more important than the list itself. Pfainuk talk 23:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A modern state —if you take the common definition of the term for at least the last 500 years of Western history— is a political entity with legislative, judiciary and executive powers. As stated earlier on this page, that's fit with the European Union, inform yourself about how the EU works, how it affects it citizens and how it has a constraint power over its members in the 3 political fields forementioned, which only a "country" have.
 * If you consider that the place of the EU in the list is debatable due to its uncommon form (which is a sui generis entity and thus does not stick with any current model, so did the USA when they came to exist by the way), so is the place of the United-Kingdom or the United-States. I think we can agree that it would be absurd.
 * So, there's no reason not to include it, but I totally understand how and why it affects some people, so it's not a big deal to me to let it unranked. But it has to be in, in my opinion. Orravan (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your definition a "country" would involve a massive overhaul of this list, for the worse IMO. The states of the US are all political entities with executive, legislative and judicial powers, for example.  So is Scotland.  So is the UN.  I wouldn't be surprised if there are many other members of federations, and international bodies, with all three powers - and indeed local government in most countries can manage two out of three.


 * That said, per the lede of this article, our inclusion criteria is sovereign states and dependent territories. As I said earlier, if you can find a good source to demonstrate the EU is a sovereign state, it can go in.  But in that case, since the EU member states would then be integral parts of a sovereign state - so according to our current inclusion criteria they would have to be removed.


 * I am aware of the EU's competencies and I live in an EU member state. Pfainuk talk 01:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "My" definition of a country would not involve an overhaul at all : does Scotland or the states of USA overrule the state they are part of ? Of course not, they can promulgate local laws, but ultimately, they are bound to the sovereign legislation. So it is for the EU, the european laws are overruling the national ones, which must bend to the common law if it infringe it. For instance, in the USA, the Supreme Court will have the last word over states judgements, so it is for the European Court of Justice.


 * The notion of "sovereignty" is bound to the notion of "contraint", and the EU does have that political, judiciary, legislative contraint power, just like any country. That's why it is legitimate to be included, in my opinion. Note that I don't argue to call it a "country", though, I just react about facts.


 * Anyway, you deleted it, I will not include it again for now, as I don't want to start an edit war, but let's think about my pov, would you ?
 * Merry Christmas by the way ! Orravan (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Being a "country" is not the defining criterion of this list (because of the vagaries of the definition of the word "country"). The defining criterion is sovereign states - which we generally define as per the list of sovereign states - and dependent territories.  Note that we have gone over the EU issue before, and I suggest that you read these discussions.


 * Would you advocate removing the member states of the European Union? If we did consider the EU to be a sovereign state (per your argument) then the member states of the EU would be in an equivalent situation to the states of the US.  The details would be different, sure, but the fundamentals would be the same.  They are clearly not dependent territories but integral parts of the European Union, and this list explicitly excludes areas that are integral parts of sovereign states.


 * I believe these arguments - requiring legislative, executive and judicial competence that cannot be overridden except by secession - would also extend to other international organisations such as Caricom and possibly the United Nations.


 * I am willing to drop my objections if a reliable source - from an EU treaty or similar - can be found that defines the European Union as a single sovereign state on a par with Norway, Thailand and Cuba (for example). I want a decent source because I think this would come as a great surprise to the 500 million people living in the EU.


 * FWIW my political POV is actually basically pro-European. Merry Christmas. Pfainuk talk 10:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Sovereignty is the exclusive right to control a government, a country, a people, or oneself. A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority" Will it be de jure or de facto, it sticks, imho.


 * The polemic point is that the EU is in such an ambiguous situation that it share its sovereignty and competences with the member-states. But the same occurs for a lot of countries, let's think about the Länder of Germany for example, where the federal state and the Land share their power. Still, Germany is seen as a united country, because a common law is ultimately overruling the whole people. Think about Costa Rica, it suppressed its army and delegated its defense to the United-States, still it's a country. There's so much cases that can be discussed if you stick to a too much formal POV.


 * Constraintive Law is the constitutive key of any sovereign state, the UN for example can't force a country to respect its rule. As for the Caricom, maybe one day it will change to something similar to the EU, but for now it is far, far away from what the EU is, it's kinda like the EEC 50 years ago, which would not had been added today. To be honnest, I'm not even sure it has all the powers EEC had 50 years ago.


 * Anyway, I'm not a federalist jusqu'au-boutiste, but the EU is a sui generis federal state that does not tell its name, that's why a lot of people feel uncomfortable about it. So, I don't care about the name, the status or whatever, I stick with the facts, people lives together under the same common Law they are building together — maybe not perfectly, but still. If it's not a "sovereign state" as we usually think of it, it's not anything else either, the EU is unique, and for me, it belongs here unranked, in or out of the list, that's only a formal matter.


 * Have a look on the french version, I find it more clear, factual and useful, as it try to inform about specificities rather binary classification. Orravan (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The USA also shares its sovereignty and competencies with its states. Indeed, US States are technically "sovereign" - see Louisiana's state constitution|, section 26 which actually defines Louisiana as a "free and sovereign state".  If we are to assume that the EU as a sovereign state, I do not see any fundamental distinction between a member state of the EU and a state of the US.  Distinctions in the detailed powers of each, yes, but nothing fundamental.


 * You say that the UN can't force a country to respect its rule. On the contrary - it can and does, at least de jure.  Any member of the UN is obligated by the UN Charter to accept Security Council resolutions as part of international law.  These resolutions are legally enforceable, and enforced by Security Council itself - the economic sanctions against Iraq from 1990-2003 are a prime example of such enforcement.  The International Court of Justice will also accept UNSC resolutions as part of international law.  The facts that countries sometimes flout the resolutions laid down by the Security Council, and that not all resolutions are well enforced, do not mean that countries are not legally forced to abide by UN resolutions.


 * I'm willing to accept the EU placed in a note below the list (per this revision). But not in the list itself unless it can be demonstrated with a source - an EU treaty, say - that it is a single sovereign state.


 * The French list - I've looked at it quite recently. There's some quite favourable reaction to it lower down on this page. Pfainuk talk 18:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood me, I don't recognize the EU as a "sovereign state" for itself, as I said it's a sui generis political union and I don't try to do an analogy with others existing states, I'm just assuming that due to all the reasons I aforementioned, it's a data that have to be included for informative purpose, but unranked. That's quite simple.


 * Now, yes, Louisiana is theorically a sovereign state, but it's like the Bible saying to women to submit to their husbands, or a forgotten, never-abrogated law 150 years-old : it's there, wrote black on white, but it's not anymore used on a daily basis, in fact not legally used at all. What I'm speaking of is mainly the situation de facto that legitimate its place for informative purpose as I said, as for the situation de jure, it's debatable, but it's not my point since I don't try to say whether or not it is a country (for me it's not anyway).


 * As for the UN, indeed my mistake, the UN resolutions does have a constraint power, but it strongly differ from what I'm speaking of, it's more like actions taken over a situation, it doesn't affect/is not part of the legislation of a country, and have really limited powers over national sovereignties. To say it all, I would be less inclined to add UN to the list than Mercosur, African Union or Caricom...


 * As a sidenote, I noticed that for a lot of versions, mainly european ones, the EU belong to the list : danish, spanish, italian, french, portuguese (they added a lot of things !), polish, finish... Orravan (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Louisiana's constitution was written in 1974, and the states' sovereign status does have a bit of an impact on US constitutional law. The Federal Government cannot make any law it wants - it has to show per the Tenth Amendment that the law concerned is specifically delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution.  Sometimes the logic involved in doing this is quite obscure - for example, states are theoretically free to lower their drinking ages below 21, but if they do so they lose federal highway funding.  For example, marijuana - even when grown without the intention of selling it - can be regulated federally because the courts have held that it affects interstate commerce.


 * I can see the argument that it's informative. But if the EU, why not include a theoretical united Korea (as was added and removed this morning) - that would be informative.  So would adding the UN, ASEAN, Caricom, the GCC, ECOWAS and other such organisations, and possibly the populations of the continents and so on.  These are all different cases with different merits and flaws, sure, but we do have to draw a line somewhere.  I think the current formula is a good one, mostly because it is relatively easy to say what belongs and what doesn't.  Because of the profile of en.wiki, we are rather more prone to people arguing these points over and over compared with other Wikipedias.


 * As I say, I be happy to include the EU in the article below the list - we could point out it's there in the lead (in the sentence that mentions the EU already). I think putting it directly above the list gives it a bit too much precedence - this is, after all, primarily a list of countries.  But the reason I removed it was not because I objected to it being on the list - I don't.  Indeed, I believe we have consensus that it should (or at least can) be included in the article - but the question is where.  And because the last version of the list that had consensus did not include it, if we can't get a consensus over where to put it we can't put it in. Pfainuk talk 15:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (I'm answering below to save space. Orravan (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

I re-added the EU as a note on top of the list. The has become the standard display in comparable lists. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am removing it entirely, because that is the last position that had consensus here . Please discuss further. Pfainuk talk 01:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see how being able to compare the populations of some countries with blocs like the European Union could be useful, but there is a table on Trade bloc that compares the EU, NAFTA, and other trade blocs with countries such as the United States. I still dont have a problem with the EU appearing on this article, although its probably best placed at the bottom and any other international ogranisation such as the AU or perhaps even the Commonwealth of Nations has a right to be included as well. Personally i would prefer some form of list of International organisations that could include all the known trade blocs and organisations and have a sortable table for population, area, GDP etc which could be linked to on all the different lists, rather than having to include them or mention them all on country lists.


 * Just on the issue of the European Union, it is not a sovereign state and nowhere close to becoming one. The European parliament may vote on some laws, the EU commission may issue directives but the true power is still held by the member states themselves who have to implement those laws and sometimes simply choose not to, they also always have the ability to withdraw from the union by passing a single bill. The same goes for the courts, European Court of Human Rights which is linked to the Council of Europe rather than the EU has overruled Britain on several occasions but the COE is not added to such lists. The Eurozone certainly belongs on GDP lists, but whilst the information may be useful to some there really is no true justification for the EU alone being included on this list or area lists etc.


 * I think its best to keep it off the list until agreement is reached about where to place it or if other international organisations like the AU are allowed on here too. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to react on two things : first, the point is that the EU is much, much more than a simple trade bloc, that's why there is so much debates about it. Ask people if Mercosur belong to the list, you'll see it will be a lot less polemic. See what happen when you ask about EU : pages and pages of discussion. Imho, just that legitimate its presence as informative data.


 * Second, the member-states cannot legally chose to not apply a european directive, they can take time to do so, and adapt it to their own legislation as long as it doesn't infringe the common law, but they can't chose to ignore it. The ECJ is there to remind them so, as its judgements prevail on any national judiciary court. Orravan (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that EU is more than just a trade bloc. I would also say that a state's status is not defined by whether it has the right to leave an organisation that it is a member of.  That is to say, if there is no theoretical right to secession then a state does not belong on this list, generally speaking.  I don't know of any exceptions but that doesn't mean there aren't any.  But if there is such a right, the question is open.  The republics of the USSR and Yugoslavia pre-breakup would not have belonged on this list despite the fact that the constitutions of those countries contained the right to secession.  In both cases it was widely assumed that the right to secession would never be used until it was.


 * I don't know of any country nowadays that a theoretical right to secession for its constituent parts - the closest I can think of are Canada and the UK (and possibly others), where it is accepted that a clear referendum result in favour of secession or sovereignty for a particular province/country would require the Ottawa/London government to negotiate terms with the province/country concerned (and these terms would have to be mutually agreeable - see Reference re Secession of Quebec for details of the Canadian situation).


 * Incidentally the phrase "common law" is not perhaps the best to describe European law because "common law" also refers to the English legal tradition of using judges' previous decisions as part of the law. It's not a big deal, mind. Pfainuk talk 15:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we are going far, really far too much in the details and examples without necessity, I'll try to summarise my position, which is simplier, really.


 * I'm not to speak about what I would like the EU to be ; as today, looking at the practical side, at how the things works in the EU, both at national and supranational levels, I see it as an hybrid, unofficial federation, because in the facts, it works kinda like one, of course with its specificities. And it have not a single equivalent because there is no such union or organisation —besides countries— that received so much sovereignty delegation from its members.


 * That's explainable, as countries usually don't let go parts of their sovereignty out of their control, they keep it with great jealousy. Regarding this, the EU is a strong exception, we dropped a lot of our sovereignties to europe (France for example had been deeply changed by EU legislation and politics —not always for the better, though—, and yet it's one of the most reluctant EU member to european policies, politics often using the EU as a scarecrow) and are now dependant from the supranational level ; by the way, that's why so much national-oriented political movements had been standing up against european construction for decades now, arguing that their country are losing its sovereignty. It should ring a bell.


 * So, I don't think its place is out of the list, will it be below, or worse, above ; but I think it definitively belongs in the list, classified out of the ranking to show that it's not a sovereign state by itself. I like some of the versions I linked above including the french one, because they show the countries and their dependencies and specificities (have a look at the UK line), and therefore focus on the information rather than politics or polemics. Actually, I find it kinda funny when I think about it, because the EU can be seen de facto as a sovereign power AND a dependency of its members. That's really an uncommon structure, and because it makes people wonder so much, I think it should be included for informative purpose. This single reason would be enough for me.
 * I hope I'm clear enough, my thoughts are really simple and does not need to deeply debate on the nature of the EU, as it's not the point, if you decide not to add the EU, it's really not a big deal to me, but I think we would lose some useful informations.


 * As for the english common law, I knew about it but didn't think it would be ambiguous, sorry about it, I'm not that good in english but I try my best though. :)
 * "Community law" is probably better suited ? Orravan (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

To provide consistency with other lists it is necessary to include the EU entry here. The List of sovereign states is a different matter because of its headline claim to include "sovereign" countries (even though non-souvereign entities are included). BTW, even in this list the EU entry is mentioned at the top of the list to recognize its special character. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem, is that, if put at the top, alone, a lot of editors will take offense. However, if the note of the EU, had company, i think that the other editors will accept it. For example List of countries and outlying territories by total area.--217.112.178.85 (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


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


 * If you could let us know which of the entries on that list are not in fact sovereign states, it could be adjusted. The whole point of that list is that it only includes entities that are at least de facto sovereign. Pfainuk talk 15:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This lists are like this for ages. Discuss it first. On List of countries and outlying territories by total area, it was a compromise, to put it there [Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area/EU discussion].--217.112.178.85 (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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


 * I seriously don't understand how it can be such a problem to include it in the list unranked (with a "-" instead of rank). It makes things clearer for the reader, don't pollute the page with sidenotes and do exactly the same job with less polemics. It's done that way for a majority of versions, as well as for similar subjects requiring listing of countries, and I think that's not without reason.
 * I come once again with the model of the french version, which can probably be improved, but I find it to be esthetically clearer, pleasant and easier to read. Orravan (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


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


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


 * Further, as demonstrated by this message, if one entity that fails the inclusion criteria is included, then people will argue for others on that basis. If we have the EU, why shouldn't we have the Countries of the UK and whatever else people fancy?  And if we do that, we have a massive list that loses all sense of what it's actually supposed to be listing.  That's not a theoretical argument - people do argue that we should include entries on the same basis as the EU and they have a point. Pfainuk talk 09:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pfainuk, there are actual countries which we do not include in the list because they do not fit the criteria so i do not see how anyone can try and justify the inclusion of something that everyone accepts its not a country, not a sovereign state and its not a territory. There is actually no justification at all for the European Union being mentioned on this article, but a reasonable compromise in my opinion is for the EU to remain underneath the main list with antartica. That seems fair considering the EU really does not belong on this article at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also just one point on the French article mentioned. That article clearly is sourced just by the CIA World Fact Book which does mention the European Union (although right at the bottom of the list). Our article does not have a single source, there for the criteria we set has to be stictly enforced to prevent this list becoming a joke as it was a few months ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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

The special mentioning at the top is the compromise between those arguing for an exclusion/mentioning at the bottom and those who argue for an unranked inclusion within the list. A manifold of arguments have been cited already here and in several other list discussions over the last 3 years. Lear 21 (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. The separate mention was the compromise between exclusion and inclusion but there has never been a discussion (until now) about the specific positioning of the EU. You have not yet provided a reason why it cannot be at the bottom and have refused to address the specific issue of the positioning. What is wrong with putting the footnotes at the bottom of the list? --Polaron | Talk 19:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I remember, the old arguments we had over this subject more or less assumed the EU was going to be put in the list but not given a number for rank. So I'm not really sure how you arrive at your conclusion.  TastyCakes (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? That's what I just said. We agreed it should be mentioned as a separate entry from the main table. But there was no discussion on whether the separate mention was to go before the main list or after the main list. --Polaron | Talk 20:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. When I was involved in this argument (literally years ago) there was no talk about putting it before or after the table, it was going to be put in the table and rather than a number in the rank column be given a -.  I don't know when the idea of putting it in the blurb at the beginning or footnote at the end came about, for all I know it hasn't been discussed as you say.  TastyCakes (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This dispute has been going on for weeks with certain users continuing to move the EU back to above the article, but nobody as Polaron said has actually given a reason why it belongs at above the list and not below it. Considering one of the main justifications for the EU to be mentioned at all on this list is the fact its on the CIA world fact book, those who support the EUs mention at the top fail to accept the CIA put it right at the bottom of their list.
 * Times have changed so even if it sat at the top without too much problem for a year does not justify it remaining in that position. A few months ago quite a few entries were removed from this list and others, as mentioned above some which are actually defined as countries. Because we exclude countries from being included the EU can not be treated as a special case. The best thing in my opinion would be to remove the EU all together because it really has no right to be on this article any more or less than the African Union does. But as people feel strongly about this the best compromise is for it to be included at the bottom of the list in the notes. Putting it at the top is not a compromise, and if the edit wars continue we should remove the EU all together to put an end to this once and for all. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * "It's not going to happen because the implication that the EU is a sovereign state is inaccurate and POV."
 * And that's why it's added unranked elsewhere : it provide information that a lot of people want, without formal recognition that a lot of people don't want, keeping the article neutral enough for everyone. If you are looking for a consensus between POV, here it is, imho. :)


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


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


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


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


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


 * 2nd) "List of countries by population", the list is entitled that way, okay. And what is the usual polemic around that argument : arguing either the EU is a supranational entity, a dependent entity (aka simple trade union), both, or none. And there is a lot of people to defend each position. See my point ? See the whole point ? Some says the EU does have the attributes of a country, some says it doesn't. And since the EU is a sui generis entity, both are right, as long as they chose carefully their arguments, and that's why, as a major POV, it definitely belong to the list, whatever how it's done.
 * By the way, I'll remind you one pillar of WP : Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view."


 * Another point -a minor one- is that we can play this for long : Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada : maybe Canada doesn't belong to the list as an independant country, as one of its political branch partially belong to England ? Maybe the UK doesn't belong to the list either, as Scotland got its own parliament ? Or maybe it grant Scotland the right to belong to the list as an independant country ? What about every federal/confederal-style countries and their specificities ? And Kosovo ? It's all about POV, and ultimately, about the dominant one.
 * Now, being real, there is of course a general consensus for UK and Canada : they belongs to the list, and are fully looked at as countries. There is aswell a general consensus for the African Union : it doesn't belong to such list. As for the EU, there is no consensus at all, there is polemic and major POVs, and with the fact that the EU is still under construction and mutate, that sort of polemic will be going on for a lot of time, and come again and again, hence the need of something neutral enough for everyone.


 * 3th) That being said (repeated ?) about the pertinence of the inclusion, I'll say a word about the manner to do it : if you ask me, just me, I would put the EU in the list, ranked, and voilà. But I am aware that a lot of people don't see the things that way, hence the inclusion unranked seem to be the better balanced choice to get a neutral long-term consensus. I came with the french example, because it show a lot more informations, in a clearer layout, and it suit everyone without doing harm to chauvinistic POV or whatever the reason.
 * I will not fight more for it again, I'm seriously tired about that. If it can't be settled and if the editwar can't stop, Wikipedia firefighters / admins will probably decide ; as for me, I don't care, I'm just playing logic here, sticking with facts and trying to consider things realistically. If biased/single POV is granted/kept as a reasonable choice, so be it. :)


 * 217.112.177.207 >> I don't know if your proposal is ironical, but if not, the article is not specifically about the EU.
 * Orravan (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. I don't deny that the EU exists. But given the complete lack of evidence that it is a sovereign state, I think it fair to say that it is not.  To suggest that it is by putting into this list would be as POV as suggesting that Scotland, Quebec or Brittany is a sovereign state by putting it in this list.


 * 2. The question at hand is not "what is the EU". We have other articles to deal with that.  The question at hand is "does the EU meet the inclusion criteria for this list" - which could equally be put "is the EU a sovereign state or a dependent territory"?  If it is sui generis, the answer is "no".  The idea that the EU is a sovereign state is not accepted by any government or major international body including the EU itself.  Such a POV would imply that the status of France is equivalent to that of Nebraska - but no government or major international body claims that.  There is no basis to assume that the notion that the EU is a sovereign state is a major POV.


 * As to other entities - yes there are things that perhaps could be done better with regards Kosovo and suchlike. But the differences between the status of Kosovo and that of the EU are starkly different and there is no equivalence: in Kosovo's case there is international dispute as to whether it is a sovereign state.  In the EU's case there is not.  I'd quite like to see what solutions people have to the Kosovo-Serbia-Abkhazia-Georgia question - we have the standard of the entities listed on ISO 3166-1 plus the unrecognised states waiting in the wings - but I won't do it until this debate it sorted.


 * 3. The inclusion of the EU on lists is controversial in just about every list of countries where it has been brought up on en.wiki. I am not willing to accept any version that implies that the EU is a sovereign state, and inclusion on this list in any form would do just that. Pfainuk talk 14:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Some corrections :
 * 1) It was not about the EU, but about your claim of the "unrealistic feasibility" of including it in the list you mentionned earlier, I just made a reminder.


 * 2) It's not the question indeed, but you came -there and earlier also- with the fact that the list is about countries, implying something about the inclusion criteria. I just bounced on that, and made another reminder. Besides, we're not that rigid to consider that because the title don't name everything, we can't fulfill it as soon as it's linked to the subject (and it is for a lot of people, that's exactly the controversial point here). We're not going to name the article "List of federal, confederal and unitary countries by population", are we ?
 * This said, claiming that the EU status is not a major POV dispute... well, with all due respect, it can't be serious, if you really claim to be of good faith and aware of european politics. It has been a major european debate for the last decades, and especially for the last years. And that's normal, as we are living times of deep changes in the way our countries are evolving through the EU. As an incidental sidenote, also remember that the British are the least affected by EU influence (due to several derogations) and usually the most euroscepticals, while being "only" 61m out of the 500m people of the EU. Don't make the mistake to consider what you see, hear and live in the UK, concerning the EU, is a norm everywhere else, it's the first step to alter a POV in a narrow way. ;-)


 * 3) That's exactly my point : you are assuming that including the EU in the list even unranked means recognizing it as a sovereign state for everyone, and you're wrong, because the purpose of including it unranked is exactly saying : "there is multiple major POV about that, and we do not impose one of them on an arbitrary basis". That's exactly what we need to settle strong POV disputes (and makes the article clearer to read), and that's the way WP works anyway.
 * To make things clear, there is a POV dispute over the status of the EU : federal state, confederal state, union trade, whatever. It's an endless dispute for now, because as said numerously, it's a sui generis entity, and that term is a key to understand the problem here, as it mean that its form can't be strictly compared to what is preexisting. If you understand that, then you understand everything else about the controverse.
 * Orravan (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The European Union may be "sui generis" but that does not mean its a sovereign state or a dependent territory there for it simply does not belong in the list. I fail to see why this situation is so hard for some people to understand. I accept the info for comparison sake may be useful to some but the same could be said about dozens of other international organisations.
 * I am sorry but even the French and Germans do not consider the European Union to be sovereign, this isnt just about how Britain feels towards the European Union its about fact. As you say the "British are the least affected by EU influence" and yet we are a full and equal member of the European Union. How is the EU sovereign if each member state is able to accept different levels of intergration and ignore EU directives (something even France and Germany does)?
 * You talk of some great debate in Europe over the past decade or few years? explain how this has any impact on what we list here. The European Union Constitution, something which would of given the EU another "state like" feature was rejected by some of the most pro European countries.
 * Orravan the European Union is a major thing, it does impact on peoples lives even here in the UK but that doesnt change the fact its NOT a sovereign state or dependent terrirtory which is required to be included in this list. Perhaps in a few decades time the EU will be a federal United States of Europe, then it will belong on this list, but until then it doesnt. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Point 2, the title of the list doesn't define the list, it's true. But the inclusion criteria do.  This list's inclusion criteria defines this list as a list of sovereign states and dependent territories.  As such, it is implies that every entity on this list is either a sovereign state or a dependent territory.  The EU is neither.


 * There is a big difference between the notion that the EU is currently a sovereign state (or indeed that it would be if Lisbon were ratified) and the notion that the EU should be a sovereign state. In the context of this list, the latter is entirely irrelevant.  All that matters is the current status, and the notion that the EU is currently a sovereign state is not a major POV.  That's aside the fact that no government and no major international organisation on the planet considers the EU to be a single sovereign state, including the EU itself.  You say yourself that the EU is sui generis - if it's sui generis then by definition two of the many things that it is not are a sovereign state and a dependent territory.


 * Point three, it does imply this, as I said. Including the EU on a list of sovereign states and dependent territories pretty clearly implies that the EU is a sovereign state or a dependent territory. Pfainuk talk 19:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You misread or misunderstand everything I write, and keep eluding the fact that your POV is one amongst others POV and thus require things to be put into perspective. That's perpetual talks at cross purpose (or dialogues de sourds), so I give up. Orravan (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

EU 2
@Pfainuk: Read the endless rationale published in the past. The EU entry at the top reflects a compromise. Lear 21 (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There has never been a previous discussion about where to place the extra note. The only discussion was to mention the EU as note separate from the main table. You continually point to a particular aspect of the past discussion that never happened. You still haven't answered why can't the footnotes be at the bottom? --Polaron | Talk 16:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


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


 * The past discussions did not touch on the point of whether this mention should go above or below the list. So I still don't know what your objection to putting it below the list is. Pfainuk talk 16:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No justification has been made to place the European Union above the main list. I fail to see any compromise agreement about placing the EU at the top of the list. Until the case is made for placing it above the list the EU and other notes belong under the main table where it belongs. Simply moving the info to above the table is unacceptable and will be undone, its vandalism and edit warring and this has been going on for weeks on several articles. Never ONCE lear have you said why the note about the EU must be at the top of the page. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and the sockmaster has been blocked indefinitely. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)