Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area/Archive 4

Columbia
Is the information for columbia accurate? It is listed as number 26, with 1,138,914, while the country at number 25, South Africa, is listed with 1,221,037. Would Columbia not be listed as number 20? could someone pleas clarify this for me? Ono (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no country called Columbia. You probably mean Colombia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.78.156 (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Earth/World
I have been in lurk mode here for a while, but am happy to see the latest EU compromise seems to have obtained. Anyway, I deleted the Earth entry (more of a science entry than a political entry, no?) and changed the "Land" entry to the title World, which more appropriately fits the political nature of this list I think. Malnova (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I need some help against an anonymous IP
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area&action=history Please help against this IP, thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC) BTW: Taiwan is also in the list, so why not Kosovo? --Tubesship (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest an edit summary on the reversion something like "Revert: Not supported by the cited supporting source". The table does have a "Source, unless otherwise specifed: ..." footnote. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Looking again, I see that cases contrary to the cited primary source appear generally to report the figure from that source in the Area column and mention any differing figures along with explanations and supporting source citations in the Notes column &mdash; with Serbia and Kosovo being an exception to that general rule. Perhaps that general rule should be followed for Serbia and Kosovo. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I revert breaches of WP:3RR on sight, the more so if they come from nationalist POV pushers. Could I suggest that we give both figures for Serbia, with and without Kosovo, in the main column, and link the footnote "Kosovo's 2008 declaration of indepenence is recognised by some countries, but is not recognised by Serbia" to both Serbia and Kosovo? Viewfinder (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's essentially what is currently in place; the entry for Serbia has both figures, albeit the figure including Kosovo in the notes section. The fact that Kosovo's independence is disputed by Serbia is noted, and the figure for both territories is included. The only alteration I would suggest would be to note that with Kosovo, Serbia's ranking would climb to 113th, which I'll add shortly. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Area (km²) column, I see four separate presentation styles as illustrated by the following four cases:
 * I. unembellished data; e.g., for Russia : 17,098,242.
 * II. unlinked-note embellishment, e.g. China: 9,598,086$1$ 9,640,821$2$, with explanatory footnotes labeled "1" and"2" in the Notes column for the China entry.
 * III. &lt;Ref> style footnotes, e.g., Republic of China (Taiwan) : 36,188[7], with a full citation provided by footnote number 7 in the Other references section &mdash; including an informatively-described external link to a web page with more info.
 * IV. Bare-URL inline external links, e.g., Serbia : 77,474, with WP:CITE style-guidance that "All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used." being ignored for the referenced un-named and un-explained inline external link.


 * Case I, Russia, gives a Land area figure which agrees with the "unless otherwise specified" source mentioned in the table footnote.


 * Case II, China, gives two figures. Neither of the two figures agree with the 9,596,961 figure given in the "unless otherwise specified" source mentioned in the table footnote. No source for either of the the two figures given is cited. The 9,596,961 figure given in the "unless otherwise specified" source plus the 1,099 figure given there for Hong Kong add up to 9,598,060, which is not far from but is not identical to the 9,598,086 figure given in the table and noted as $"1"$ and explained in the Notes column as "Excludes all disputed territories."  I see that footnote 37 in the "unless otherwise specified" source says:"For statistical purposes, the data for China do not include those for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Hong Kong SAR), Macao Special Administrative Region (Macao SAR) and Taiwan province of China." I'm mystified.


 * Case III, Republic of China (Taiwan), The "unless otherwise specified" source does not appearto include info covering this. The figure of 36,188 which is given agrees with the alternative supporting source cited by footnote number seven in the Other references section.


 * Case IV, Serbia, The "unless otherwise specified" source gives a figure of 102,173 for "Serbia and Montenegro". The table mentions Serbia but not Montenegro and gives a figure of 77,474. The accompanying inline bare-URL link supports that. This page fromthat same source gives a figure of 13,812 for Montenegro alone (the table also gives this figure, citing a different source with a full citation in the Other references section). 77,474 and 13,812 add up to 91,206 and not to 102,173.  I would be mystified, except that I notice that the figure given for Kosovo is 10,887 (supported by an inline bare-URL reference to this, and that 91,206 and 10,887 add up to 102,173.


 * For Case IV, my suggestion would be to add references in the style of Case I to the Serbia, Montenegro, and Kosovo entries, to add companion explanatory text in the Notes column for those entries, and to add &lt;Ref> style references from that explanatory text to full citations in the Other references section to an alternative supporting source. My further suggestion is that the same alternative supporting source be used for all three of these entries unless there is a good (and well-explained) reason for using some other source.


 * For Case III, I'm still mystified. Perhaps it's an arithmetic error. Perhaps not-- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

UN stats
The UN report at the end gives the area of India as 3,287,763 sq km, the other reference to the Census of India was broken. As far as the EU is concerned, I am not disputing its inclusion, but why is it the sui genesis ? That needs a citation for sure. Unless one can provide it soon the tag is going to go back on. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Area of Cyprus
I tried to add the UK Sovereign Base Areas (Akrotiri and Dhekelia) to the list, but they were removed because they're not in the UN DYB. I assume this is because the SBAs have no permanent population. Fair enough - I hadn't realised that this list was restricted that. However, the entry for Cyprus in the list includes these territories, with an area of 9251 km2. Whereas the CIA World Factbook states that the area of Cyprus excluding Akrotiri & Dhekelia is 9250 km2. The SBAs are considerably more than 1km2 in area. So who's right, the UN or the CIA??? (My guess is that the World Factbook is wrong, but I don't know for sure.) Bazonka (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding territories that are not fully independent
Why are the articles involving of countries, such as lists and such, include territories that are not fully independent. I think we should get rid of those territories and place them in another article. And also: "What is the point of having a country list if it includes territories that are not independent?".Albertal (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This list more or less matches List of countries except where the official figure includes another territory. --Polaron | Talk 13:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Norway
Why is'nt Norway's Spitsbergen and other Islands included in the total of Norway ? I find it silly that Svalbard ( spitsbergen ) has it's own mention... And should'nt ocean areas / terretotial waters be included in the total too ? Mortyman (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Svalbard and Jan Mayen (which are two separate integral overseas areas, by the way) are part of the Kingdom of Norway and should be included in the number. -- Nidator T / C 10:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This encyclopedia entry generally reports what the cited third-party supporting source says. That source separates Norway proper from (see footnotes 19, 80, and 81 therein -- particularly 81). Incidentally, I've just corrected the Norway figure in the article to correspond with the figure in that cited third-party supporting source. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Kazakhstan
The entry in the table on Kazakhstan said "Second-largest country in Europe (after Russia)", however this is misleading as only a small proportion of Kazakhstan is in Europe. It would be more accurate to say "second largest country partially in Europe" or "second largest wholly or partially in Europe". Its area in Europe is smaller than many other countries (I can't find an exact figure, but the Wikipedia page on Kazakhstan has a map, and the discussion page there suggests 1/8th, which is 340,000 square km). Perhaps someone can find a simpler way to explain this, or better still add a figure for the area of Kazakhstan in Europe, or failing that I'll change it to "Second-largest country (partially) in Europe, after Russia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltelauridsbrigge (talk • contribs) 16:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Same issue with Turkey, which like Kazakhstan has been more commonly referred as part of the Eurasian continent to highlight the fact that location of the countries in both Europe and Asia. After Russia, which actually has enough landmass in Europe to make it both the largest country in both Europe and Asia separately, Ukraine is actually the largest country in Europe b/c it has its entire land mass in Europe as opposed a small piece like Turkey and Kazakhstan.--RossF18 (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the area of France minus overseas territories smaller than Ukraine? If not, then I think the comment in the list that Ukraine is the largest in Europe is misleading. Andries (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It says Metropolitan France (which is basically the mainland Europe part) covers 543,965 km² Ukraine 603,500 so it is correct as it says "fully in Europe". Ill remove the term from Ukraines entry till there is a better way of describing it though to avoid confusion.  BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right that Metropolitan France is smaller than Ukraine, though Russia has more territory in Europe than Ukraine does.


 * France's overseas territories are a little complicated because there are four overseas departments - that is, departments that happen not to be in Europe, but that are formally as much parts of France as Provence and Brittany. Algeria had a similar status pre-independence (except that it was split into several departments).  Other French overseas territories, OTOH, are formally separate from France.


 * This being the case, only about 86% of France's territory - as defined by the 100 departments - is in Europe: thus France is not fully in Europe. The current wording is accurate, if perhaps surprising.  The situation could probably be better explained in the article though. Pfainuk talk 12:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes the bit about Ukraine was correct but the way it was worded was rather confusing so i removed it for the time being. Not sure how best to reword it to make it clear though. "Ukraine is the largest country with all of its territory in Europe" or something along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for removing it. Andries (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Pro india bias
how comes India gets disputed territory included such as jammu and kashmir while pakistan and china do not better change this blatant bias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.178.203 (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Who occupies it and controls it? Possession is 9/10ths of the law.Laomei (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's see.... The cited overall supporting source says:
 * India: area 3,287,263. Footnotes 43 and 44 talk about including figures for Indian-held part of Jammu and Kashmir, but I'm not sure whether or not that applies to the Area figure.
 * China: area 9,596,961. Footnotes 38 through 40 talk about inclusions or exclusions for SARs. Again, I'm not sure whether or not that applies to the Area figure.
 * Pakistan: area 796 095. Footnote 58 speaks of some figures excluding data for the Pakistan-held part of Jammu and Kashmir. Again, I'm not sure whether or not that applies to the Area figure.


 * This article says:
 * India: area 3,287,263 - same as the cited source, with a note that this included disputed territories.
 * China: area 9,598,094(1) 9,640,821(2), with notes saying (1) Excludes all disputed territories, but not citing a source for how the areas were determined, and (2) including some specific disputed territories, but not citing a source for how the areas were determined.
 * Pakistan: area 796,095(1) 880,940(2)2, with notes saying (1) Excludes all disputed territories, and citing a govt of pakistan source for the figures, (2) Includes Pakistani-administered disputed territories, and citing a source which has been tagged failed verification.


 * Confusing? You bet!
 * Bias? Yeah, probably. Probably by WP editors with a POV different from the IP user who asked the question. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition the statement:
 * "[India is the] third-largest country in Asia (after Russia and China) and the largest in the Indian Sub-Continent, which itself wholly formed the 20th Century India."
 * The first half of the comment is undoubtedly true reflecting a fact. But the second half of the comment "which itself wholly formed the 20th Century India." does not make sense, for the majority of the 20th centruy India was as it is today. It was only a certain period under British rule before 1947 that the Indian subcontinent as a whole, in addition to territories in South East Asia, constituted "India". So the second half of the comment ought to be removed or elaborated upon to avoid confusion. -- User:Zkazmi —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

total area does not include sea territory?
is there any source in which countries are ranked by total territory including sea?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Spain
Here it says taht Spain is the 6th largest country in Europe, but that s not truth, because is the 4th one, after Russia (the europe territory), Ucraine and France. Please, check it.
 * If you consider Russia a European country, you have to consider Kazakhstan and Turkey, which are located partly in Europe as well, European countries, and both countries are larger than Spain. Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But is the part of their territory in Europe larger than Spain? When I read "6th largest country in Europe" I think about the amount of land on the continent, not "6th largest country among countries with any amount of territory in Europe".LedRush (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The European part of Kazakhstan is not exactly defined, so it is rather difficult to speak about that. Belgian man (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But it is for Russia? That's odd.  Also, I'd imagine that the number for Turkey would be easy to come up with, and that number would clearly put it way down on the list.  Having said this, I really don't have a strong opinion on this at all...just trying to make an argument for our Spanish friend who obviously does care.LedRush (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As you maybe saw in my reaction I am lacking any strong opinion on this ranking of European countries as well. You are right about Russia. I think he is right: It is the fourth one if we only consider the European parts of the countries. Belgian man (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm no geographer, but I see that the Europe article says that Europe is generally divided from Asia to its east by the water divide of the Ural Mountains, the Ural River, the Caspian Sea, and by the Caucasus Mountains to the southeast, citing Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia. Encarta shows that on this map.  The Europe article also says that Kazakhstan is physiographically considered a transcontinental country in Central Asia (UN region) and Eastern Europe, with European territory west of the Ural Mountains and both the Ural and Emba rivers. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If that map is correct, spain is clearly larger than the european section of Kazakhstan. I guess the only question is if the "____ largest European country" includes only the European part of the country or the entire area of any country with any land in Europe.  I suspect it's the former, but don't really know.LedRush (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, this is about which ranking should be used. I think we should only consider the area of the European part in this particular ranking. In the same way, I don't think anybody would rank Spain as the "23rd largest country in Africa", just because it has territories on that continent. At least, both rankings should be mentioned. Mbuergo (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia
Abkhazia and South Ossetia are independent and recognized by Russia. But user reverted my inclusion of these independent republics saying: "This is not playing room of Dmitry Medvedev". Somebody please tell me then one thing: why Kosovo CAN be here and Abkhzia and South Ossetia CAN'T, huh?
 * Recognized by Russia? Fine, that is one of 195 countries... Let's wait until, let's say, 48 countries have recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia (as many as have recognized Kosovo), so that at least somebody outside Russia or Serbia can take this independence as being serious? Belgian man (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait. Are there any criterias of including countries to that list? If no, then we have to create ones, so each new case like that will not result in an edit war. At least now, I may imagine following ones:
 * Recognized by 90% of other countries (neither Abkhazia nor Kosovo)
 * Members of United Nations (neither Abkhazia nor Kosovo)
 * Recognized by any other country which is member of UN (both Abkhazia and Kosovo)
 * De-facto independant (both Abkhazis and Kosovo)
 * Also note, that we can split such countries into a seperate subsection — VasilievV 2 17:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the reactions from all over the world when Russia had recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia. And look at the reactions of the Serbians when Kosovo became independent. Don't you know enough then to see who is right in this case? Belgian man (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it matter who is right and who is wrong? We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to judge anyone. --Grebenkov (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view ≠ point of view of majority. Both POV that Abkhazia is independant and POV that it isn't have a right to be represented in this list. Therefore I suggest to color rows with Kosovo, Abkhasia and Southern Osetia, and make a about their status — VasilievV 2 19:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you mean exactly? Belgian man (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Something like that:

— VasilievV 2
 * support proposal by VasilievV as making the best of an awkward situation. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * support this proposal. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 17:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * oppose I support my Government which does recognize Kosovo and not Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Belgian man (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please realize the fact that your government has no right to rule over Wikipedia.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If I would think so, this poll was not even necessary. Your comment is senseless. Belgian man (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you guys decide in the end, please make sure there are no overlapping or double-counted entries, i.e. if the UN figure already includes territories that are to be listed separately, please make sure that the separated territory is not ranked. --Polaron | Talk 15:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * support. This is a sensible compromise to a tricky situation.  Belgian Man, whether your country recognises or not should be irrelevant - letting your politics guide this article is POV.  The fact is that these countries are de facto independent and are partially recognised - that should be enough to warrant a mention.  (Incidentally, Northern Cyprus would also fit into this category, and so should be listed seperately from Cyprus.  Somaliland and Transnistria are de facto independent, but unrecognised - probably should not be listed seperately.) Bazonka (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We have all our own reasons, so why can't I have my own reasons at least to choose my voting option here? Isn't it possible that I use my Government to decide what seems the most objective to me in this case? Belgian man (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I recommend you to read WP:POV. Wikipedia isn't a tribune. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 13:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Those pages don't interest me at all. I can simply not support that we would rank Georgia according to its area without Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Belgian man (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * oppose. The lead sentence on Wikipedia's policy on verifiability says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." the policy on what Wikipedia is not says, "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not previously published." The policy on no original research says, "Material published by reliable sources can be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited do not make this argument in direct connection to the topic of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." The table footnote says, "Source, unless otherwise specifed: ". Re Serbia, Kosovo, and Georgia, the table currently says (with the refs altered to inline links):
 * which seems in line with all of that. A modification to the Georgia entry to add a note along the line of the current note in the Serbia entry might be OK, as might be addition of the other entries with notes similar to the note currently on Kosovo. "Might", I say; I'm not following the politics of this, and neither should this article unless political developments subsequent to the info in the cited supporting source renders the info there badly outdated&mdash;and a better solution to that than adding a bunch of special-case exceptions would be to find a more up-to-date overall source (perhaps easier said than done).-- Boracay Bill (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It says Russia and Nicaragua both view the two as indipenent, but didn't Belarus also make a big deal about siding with Russia on this as well? Kyprosサマ (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would recommend you to raise the matter at Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over this
Considering there seems to be progress being made here, I'm not going to protect the article. Instead, the next user to revert will be blocked for 24 hours for revert warring. Jennavecia (Talk)  18:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Brazil & Australia
Okay, can someone clear up the description on this, It says for Brazil, that it's the largest country in the southern hemisphere, but Australia says the same thing; Largest country "wholly" in the Southern Hemisphere. I assumed that it means not landlocked or bordered by another country, because it could both be saying that it's the only country fully in the southern hemisphere with the way that it's written. Kyprosサマ (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The equator runs through northern Brazil, so Brazil is partly in the northern hemisphere and partly in the southern hemisphere. Australia, being completely below the equator, is wholly in the southern hemisphere. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see, yes. Is Brazil still larger then Australia in size -after- the portions of the counter north of the equator have been excluded? Kyprosサマ (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If my memory serves correctly, only about 1% of Brazil is north of the equator. The 99% in the southern hemisphere is still larger than Australia. Bazonka (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland
Switzerland's area "excludes state forests and communanzas (7.15km2)". What does that mean? Surely these are just as much part of Switzerland as the rest of it - it's not like they're some questionable overseas territory. I propose that this distinction is removed, and the 7.15km2 added to Switzerland's total. Any thoughts, explanations or suggestions? Bazonka (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what it means either, you have my support. Belgian man (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand it either, but the fact is that this is what the cited supporting source says (see footnote number 86 therein). The article reports information from the cited supporting source&mdash;except, probably, in those parts of the article where unsupported changes to that information have been made by WP editors. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've altered Switzerland's details and added a comment about the difference with the UN source. (It seems inexplicable to exclude these areas.)  Bazonka (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The table used as a supporting source is from the 2006 UN Demographic yearbook, which is based on demographic analysis of census data. My guess is that the census in Switzerland was not conducted in "state forests and communanzas", that the census results report was footnoted with that information, that the area figure reported excluded those areas and was so footnoted, and that the UN picked up the info reported in the census results. I see that section I(1.7) of the UN Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses says "The census should cover a precisely defined territory (for example, the entire country or a well-delimited part of it).", and I guess this comes from efforts to delimit well the part of the country which the census covered. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that could be it. So for population purposes, it makes sense to exclude these areas; but for area purposes it doesn't. Bazonka (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Slippery slope
This article has recently had several edits related to China. Without going into the gory details (it's too late at night in my timezone for me to do that), I want to air a concern that this article is on a slippery slope into WP:POV-land. The article currently says (this may have changed by the time you read this):

The table footnote says:


 * Source, unless otherwise specifed:

The cited supporting source puts the area of China at 9,596,961 km², with a footnote saying that this does not include the Hong Kong and Macao SARs. For encyclopedic purposes, that seems good enough for me. Editorial license might roll in the SAR areas (9,596,961 +1,104 + 29 = 9,598,094), and that is one figure which the article uses. The other China figure in the article is 9,640,821, includes a couple of disputed areas (with area figures from who knows what source) and specifically disclaims that Taiwan is not included. (regarding Taiwan, there has historically been some dispute regarding whether or not it is a part of the PRC)

At a glance, I see somewhat similar situations, looking to be POV-driven, with Pakistan, Sweden, Syria, Taiwan, and perhaps other entries.

My sense is that this article is on a slippery slope into POV-land. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent Sweden vs. Spain
Text for Sweden says 7th largest in Europe, but is higher on list than Spain for which text says is 6th largest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.23.129 (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The numbers for Sweden include about 81,000 km2 of sea water. I'm pretty confident national sea territory is not included in most of other countries' figures. How about reducing Sweden to 450,295 km2 in accordance with the very reliable source supplied from the Swedish Central Bureau of Statistics. Skrofler (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The source named in the table footnote&mdash;the source used for most of the countries in this list&mdash;gives the area as 450,295 km$2$, apparently not having added in the area of the water between the coastline and the territorial border. I don't see the sense in not using that source and that figure. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the area of Sweden now to exclude national sea territory. Skrofler (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

USA and China
Why does the USA come first in the rank order if it's disputed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.106.35.47 (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean first? China's size is disputed which either makes it slightly larger or slightly smaller than USA depending on which figure you use.  Therefore both China and USA are ranked as 3rd or 4th in the list.  (PS Please place new comments at the bottom of this page (I've moved this down), and sign your comments with four tildes.) Bazonka (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Timor
There's a lot of different IP's (probably the same user) changing the info on Timor to an incorrect/typo source. Can we get this article locked down to only longtime editors? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The user who keeps reverting to the edit against consensus is User:Domaleixo, and he has been doing the exact type of practice on the Equatorial Guinea and Portuguese language articles (for over a month now). Since he never logged on and the IP addresses changed, he could never be blocked (IPs that start with 189*, 200*, and 201* such as 189.30.82.187, 201.3.254.235, 200.101.251.185 are all his). I finally got those 2 articles semi-protected to prevent IPs from editing, so that's why he finally started to use his User:Domaleixo account again which got him blocked pretty quickly. I haven't been actively editing this article, but I would highly recommend that you request this article to be semi-protected for a while to prevent the persistent edit warring. Kman543210 (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But do we really find it is no problem two have two different figures for East Timor? The East Timor article itself uses "Domaleixo's" figure... Belgian man (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was Domaleixo who changed that figure. Bazonka (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

These constant reversions are getting silly. The UN source should be good enough - it's used for practically every other country. Whereas the East Timor government site gives two widely different figures for the country's area ("around 18,900km2" and "96,120 sq.km" ). This second figure is clearly nonsense (the page also claims that the population is 900 million!) and brings into question the reliability of the entire website. We can't use it as a source. If this continues we should try to get semi-protection for the page to stop the vexatious edits by our IP friend. Bazonka (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's yet another figure from the East Timor government website: 14,604km² as the sum of the areas of the country's districts . However, this figure excludes the area of the exclaved district of Oecussi.  Wikipedia gives the area of Oecussi as 815km² - this gives a total area of 15,419km² - much nearer to the UN figure than the one that the IP user insists is correct. Bazonka (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The most authoritative figure based on the 2004 census is tabulated in this pdf file. See pages 17, 24, and 26. The official figure is 14,919 sq km, which is not too far off from the UN figure of 14,874 sq km (as of 2006). There are some boundary disputes with Indonesia that could be the source of the small discrepancy. In any case, the 18,900 figure is definitely incorrect and is likely a typographical error for "14,900". --Polaron | Talk 16:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A sockpuppet report has already been filed for the user that continues to make changes to the East Timor area: Suspected sock puppets/Domaleixo. It hasn't been worked yet by an administrator. Kman543210 (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

French DOMs
I have integrated the French Overseas Departments into one entry, but I thought I'd better write this for info:


 * this version uses official French government statistics per INSEE.
 * This version, meanwhile, simply sums the numbers already found in this article.

The figures for St. Barthélemy and St. Martin are taken from their respective articles, but INSEE gives exactly the same numbers. I have added both to the list, and subtracted their areas from the values used for Guadeloupe and for France as appropriate in my France entry. The INSEE list is dated 2006, and so was written before the two collectivities were separated from Guadeloupe. Pfainuk talk 18:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Western Sahara change
I made a changement in the Western Sahara entry as the term "occupation" isn't appropriate for Morocco as well as the term "administration" for "SADR". In the resolution S/2001/398 of the UN adopted in 24 April 2001, it mentionned black on white that Morocco is administrating the region (Par. 19). There is no mention in ANY UN resolution to the territory administrated by "SADR". The republic "SADR" isn't recognized by the UN. The recognized body by the UN is the Polisario Front.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I put out the flag of Western Sahara as WS isn't a sovereign country. The flag is the one of "SADR", the republic claiming independence in Western Sahara backed in Tindouf south Algeria.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been considering the case of Western Sahara in this list. Issues are:
 * The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) is an unrecognised state, and most unrecognised states are not included on this list.
 * However, Western Sahara is recognised as a non-self governing territory by the UN, the only such territory for which the UN has not designated an "administering power" (per UN documents). The UN defines Western Sahara as a territory that has not yet been decolonised, but recognises that the former Spanish authorities are no longer in control.
 * Neither Morocco nor the SADR does not control all of Western Sahara, rather, the two sides are divided by a berm. Morocco claims that SADR control east of the berm is illegitimate (and MS has echoed these claims), but independent sources do not back this up.
 * Despite this division, we gave a value amounting to the entire territory of Western Sahara next to the SADR flag. I don't think this was neutral. Pfainuk talk 12:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a thought, to those unfamiliar with some of the on-Wiki history here, this dispute was previously argued in gory detail at Talk:List of countries/Archive 3. Pfainuk talk 12:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The flag thing is a matter for the flag templates. This list simply calls on the template which displays whatever it does. --Polaron | Talk 12:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan, India and disputed territories
I don't understand why these figures aren't corrected. I changed it a few times but people keep reverting it back.

It's quite simple really. The figures should be:


 * 7 | 🇮🇳 India

3,166,4141 3,300,0972 3,065,0273

1 Includes Indian administered Jammu & Kashmir (101,387 km²). 2 Includes Pakistani administered Northern Areas (72,520 km²) and Azad Jammu & Kashmir (13,297 km²). Also includes Chinese administered Aksai Chin (42,685 km²) and Trans-Karakoram Tract (5,181 km²). 3 Excludes disputed territories of Jammu & Kashmir.


 * 34 | 🇵🇰 Pakistan

881,9131 983,3002 796,0963

1 Includes Pakistani administered Northern Areas (72,520 km²) and Azad Jammu & Kashmir (13,297 km²). 2 Includes Indian administered Jammu & Kashmir (101,387 km²). Does not include disputed territories of Junagadh & Manavadar (10,607 km²). 3 Excludes all disputed territories.


 * What are your sources for these figures? Note that the list uses the official UN data for nearly all entries. Parsecboy (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

India
Andhra Pradesh				275,608

Arunachal Pradesh			83,743

Assam					78,438

Bihar					99,200

Chhattisgarh				135,194

Goa					3,702

Gujarat					196,077

Haryana					44,341

Himachal Pradesh			56,019

Jharkhand				74,677

Karnataka				191,976

Kerala					38,863

Madhya Pradesh				308,252

Maharashtra				307,713

Manipur					22,347

Meghalaya				22,720

Mizoram					21,081

Nagaland				16,579

Orissa					155,820

Punjab					50,362

Rajasthan				342,269

Sikkim					7,110

Tamil Nadu				130,058

Tripura					10,453

Uttar Pradesh				243,286

Uttarakhand				53,566

West Bengal				88,752

Andaman and Nicobar Islands		6,495

Chandigarh				114

Dadra and Nagar Haveli			487

Daman and Diu				130

Lakshadweep				28

National Capital Territory of Delhi	1,484

Puducherry				492

Total

Excluding Jammu & Kashmir (India) 3,067,436 km² OR 3,065,027 km²

Including Jammu & Kashmir (India) 3,168,823 km² OR 3,166,414 km²

Jammu & Kashmir (India)	              101,387

Northern Areas (Pakistan)		72,520

Azad Jammu & Kashmir (Pakistan)		13,297

Aksai Chin (China)			42,685

Trans-Karakoram Tract (China)		5,181

China is the largest unitary state, no?
Nominally, it is a unitary state, so I thought I'd add it in :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.4.55 (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)