Jump to content

Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alensha (talk | contribs) at 22:49, 1 November 2020 (→‎anti-EU campaign in country-related lists in english Wikipedia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Venezuelan and other non-quoted population of country source update 2020

Hi,

The estimation of Venezuela and other countries need to be updated to new decade 2020 (at least projections and cit).

For the case of Venezuela it is not cited with link the reference (or not wanted to be by some users) and when you visit the link for Venezuela national authority, as for the other countries, adding this information seems to be the date of the web-page update but not the actual year of when the projection was made: (Read "Población Proyectada al 30/06/2019 - Base Censo 2011" when being able to visit it).

Moreover, the current page of that national source is partially unavailable, for some browsers or locations, you have to turn ON/OFF cookies or do private navigation in some browsers to avoid the bugs on that webpage. That's the reason why that for such case a more reliable and accessible source has to be added.

Please visit https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Files/1_Indicators%20(Standard)/EXCEL_FILES/1_Population/WPP2019_POP_F01_1_TOTAL_POPULATION_BOTH_SEXES.xlsx and see that the current estimation is different for each of the non-quoted countries / year.

Finally please note the projection of Venezuela that was made on 2011 by the goverment with Census of 2010, published on 2011, I know it, was a static projection until 2050, and every year seemed to be updated following that file in this wiki. This disrupts factual information since they are suffering an incremented refugee crisis since 2012-2014 (still today) not even taken into account even if we take UN numbers following the rule of more accessible source (see the webpage file if you can for contrast and verification of what I said http://www.ine.gov.ve/documentos/Demografia/SituacionDinamica/Proyecciones/xls/Entidades/Nacional.xls).

I'll try to update some.


Best regards,--Santelli 09:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardollovera (talk • contribs)

@Ricardollovera: The problem of national web sites changing their structure and/or not always being accessible does not change the criteria of this page, described in the "Method" section: Figures used in this chart are based on the most up to date estimate or projections by the national census authority where available. The use of UN estimates is a back-up solution for those (few) countries that have a non-functioning statistics division, and it has never been an option to choose UN numbers as an alternative when national numbers exist. You are mentioning "the rule of more accessible source"; could you please give a link to where I'll find this rule, which is new to me. You state that it is problematic to access the Venezuela web site; nevertheless you are linking to the relevant table http://www.ine.gov.ve/documentos/Demografia/SituacionDinamica/Proyecciones/xls/Entidades/Nacional.xls, where the formerly quoted number is presented. As the criteria in the "Method" section are presented, there is no reason to choose UN numbers over the national estimation. If you want to challenge that, you will need to create a consensus for the changed criteria. If not, you will have to accept the current criteria. If you want to change the criteria, please start a RfC or similar in order to create consensus. If not, you should self revert.
The same considerations are also valid for your edit to Saudi Arabia. And by the way, that edit can never, never be considered a minor edit, see WP:NOTMINOR. Regards! --T*U (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TU-nor: Hi TU, I hope you're fine. Take it easy, I am contributing with the most accurate and relevant and most up to date figures and citing (for instance citing the backup). I didn't mentioned in this talk what you said I mentioned about the "structures of the web sites". That is a little lie you're adding at the beginning ;) The webpage has a problem of accessibility (I am from venezuela I know it pretty well), you can check it with different browsers, private mode ON/OFF, and locations using different proxies (normal reader doesn't know how to do that). When I pointed a webpage's file, I said "if you can" (although I know that that file accessibility is more stable than the website's "home" or its demographic "menu" or files for example in the other authority of population and for elections in venezuela the "cne" like the "ine" but where files disappear, speaking to everyone or the one of this community that would try to access it, because curious about the source I guess) to consult the file I pointed. Moreover, if you read spanish and when you access to the webpage (if you can using the instructions I proposed, again) you can discover that former figures are in fact projections made in 2011 (the file you could have downloaded is a file old of almost 10 years old). The central point of this my talk was about the venezuelan case and the quotes usage, but I added later in comments that a crisis of refugees takes place since between 2012-2014, a complex humanitarian crisis probably not even taken entirely into account even by the Backup of UN! so imagine, the people in that country fleed their country and today they may be millions less. That is also a reason to choose UN numbers (added to the reason of intermittent availability). Mr ! take it easy Mr ! I am not trying to challenge anyone or rules or methods. When you first reverted without knowing or self-asking 'what about the source?', your contribution would have been more constructive, as I am getting mine ;) (eventhough venezuela is in he rank 50 now for us :() For Arabia, of course it seemed to be the second and last of the table without a reference explicit-ed or cited. I saw other sources and they corroborated the UN source. (Remember my first wrong citation of world population review website? well, I didnt used it anymore!) Why you say "never, never a minor edit !" You translate some kind of anger -as in the rest of your talk- I hope you are fine ! This is my 10th edit only something like that ! Are you from Arabia or the other country? sorry If that edit makes it loose/gain 1 position in the ranking, is that it? Hope you're not angry about that! Thanks for the link of not minor edits.Take care and show welcoming to relative new editors. Best regards,Santelli 01:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardollovera (talk • contribs) [reply]
I have indented the above posting one level in order to clarify the talk page structure. --T*U (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricardollovera: Firstly, I never said that you had mentioned the structures of the web sites. I only mentioned it as another argument of the same type, since it has been an issue in this page in the past. Calling it a lie is bordering on a personal attack. Please make yourself aquainted with WP:AGF and WP:NPA.
You are not adressing the main problem with your edit. This page has a section named "Method". In that section it is stated how the figures in the table are collected: Figures used in this chart are based on the most up to date estimate or projections by the national census authority where available. The estimates that used to be given for Venezuela are made by the national census authority and they are available. You have accessed them, I have accessed them (from several computers). Whether other parts of their web site are unstable or otherwise difficult to access is irrelevant.
You may certainly be right about the UN numbers being more accurate. There are also many other countries where the UN numbers probably are more accurate. Others have argued that the figures presented in CIA World Factbook are more accurate. That may also be true. But all that is irrelevant here. Either we have to follow the criteria given in the article, or we have to change the criteria. As long as the estimate or projections by the national census authority "rule" is defined in the article, neither you nor I nor any other editor has any right to override it just because we know or think we know that our figures are somehow better. We either follow the rules or we try to get a consensus for changing them.
Just for your information, there is another article presenting the UN numbers: List of countries by population (United Nations).
Also, I am not sure how my posting may have come over as translating some kind of anger. I can only assure you that I am not angry.
On another note, please see WP:SIGN about how to sign your talk page postings. --T*U (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions of "Source" type?

It would be helpful if the different types of source identified in the table's "Source" column were defined in the article. For example, what does "National population clock" mean? Acwilson9 (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "Population" the "resident population"?!

In the note about Vatican City, I do read "The total population of 825 consisted of 453 residents and 372 nonresident citizens"

I've supposed that "Population" column shows resident population. But if it shows "resident + non resident", it not just "resident" population. Is that just about Vatican City or about the whole table?

So, what is it all about? What is "Population"? --95.249.47.130 (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TIME TO INCLUDE HONG KONG AND MACAU IN THE PEOPLE´S REPUBLIC OF CHINA Hong Kong and Macau are part of the People´s Republic of China, so they have to be INCLUDED in the total population of the country, and not aside.--213.60.225.183 (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect dates

Nearly all (!!) dates of "national estimates" are incorrect. Many countries have references from 2018 and much older years, up to 2014; but in this table is everywhere written "1 Jul 2020" or "1 Jan 2020"!!!109.252.82.190 (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not when the estimate was made that is of interest, but for what date the estimate is made. Example: The currently used UN numbers were produced in 2019, but they are mid-year estimates for 2020, so the date for them has to be 1 July 2020. --T*U (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

anti-EU campaign in country-related lists in english Wikipedia

Background and proposal:
Years of anti-EU campaign in english Wikipedia articles. Because the last EU debate for this article was promptly archived to secure anti-EU edits on the article. I reverted the changes and demand to not archive this thread until consensus is reached. Reversions or delete EU figures in the article are seen as conflict of interest and will be reverted until consensus is reached. For background information, take a look on Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries, EU figures in country-related lists has more support than the opposing side, other related articles have EU figures, it's not a debate, its a conflict of interest between some anti-EU campaigners and the rest of the world (not only EU supporters)--Manlleus (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to restore and keep EU figures with the exceptions and notes described in Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries:
Vote/support:

Discussions:

A discussion from 13 years ago that has long since been superseded is irrelevant. The last discussion was not archived before consensus was reached, and the claim that it was archived prematurely is entirely false. Your accusations against other editors are unhelpful and break WP:AGF and WP:NPA.
None of the objections raised in the previous discussion have changed.
And just for information, did you previously edit Wikipedia under another user name? Kahastok talk 20:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in your comment describes a solid argument to support EU figures removal.--Manlleus (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why include EU figures?
The unranked EU entry should be maintained and regularly reinserted when deleted without discussion. The following rationale has been provided by numerous editors and is backed by external sources and acknowledgments.
a) Country like characteristics: Common market, common policies, common institutions, bodies, agencies, common EU legislation, a single budget financing projects in all member states. Its own budget to fund common programmes such as the European Union's programmes in agriculture, research and education. A common fund for trans-country infrastructure projects and for regional development. Election every 5 years and a European parliament as well as a EU court of justice, common currency Euro, EU-Day (holiday), EU-Licenseplate , EU-Anthem, EU-Citizenship, Schengen agreement, one representation of all 27 member states in WTO, Permanent G8 participant, Permanent UN observer. Common Policy Examples in the city of Berlin: The EU is financing infrastructure, education, social projects etc. In official press conferences and gatherings the national flag stands next to the EU flag.Image of the German Federal Chancellery with 2 standard flags (Germany / EU flag)
b) already ranked in several other media and statistics like CIA World Fact Book: Preliminary statement on EU entry, IMF data sheet, Wikipedia List of countries by GDP (PPP) etc.
c) many other entries are included unranked with unclear state or country definition like the Overseas territories, Vatican, Hongkong and others. EU is not per se an exception.
d) Note that the inclusion of the EU is granted to its sui generis status and can not advocate the inclusion of Opec, Nato, African Union, UN, Commonwealth, Arab League, Mercosur, NAFTA, ASEAN and others. The degree of a state-like-entity and its characteristics make this a singular case.
e) Because of the sui generis status, the 27 member states will remain as single entry and the EU becomes unranked.
f) Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries (old but still valid, more than the short-lived thread by 2 users that originated the last anti-EU edits and reversions.)--Manlleus (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions or delete EU figures in the article are seen as conflict of interest and will be reverted until consensus is reached. - Persistent reverting is edit warring and will not be tolerated. Your edits have been opposed and it is now up to you to convince other editors that your edits should be made. While discussion is underway, the articles stays at the status quo. Before making further edits I suggest you review WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. Edit-warring will very likely result in a block. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Manlleus: - Special:Contributions/Manlleus shows that you have been actively canvassing other editors to participate in this discussion. that too is not permitted! --AussieLegend (✉) 21:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


(ec) Let's make a few comments here.

First, the OP has egregiously broken WP:CANVASS: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12].

Any edit by any of these editors needs to be marked as canvassed and ignored for purposes of consensus.

Second, the previous consensus applies until a new consensus is reached. This discussion endorses a longstanding consensus against inclusion. Your claim that this is a short-lived thread by 2 users is false, but even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. Because the consensus before then was not to include the EU.

Third, even if this discussion were not thirteen years old and long-since superseded, and even if we accept that consensus was reached, consensus on Talk:European Union doesn't override consensus on this and other articles against including the EU.

Fourth, on the substance, the question is, does the EU meet the criteria for inclusion for this article? Is it on ISO 3166-1, and if not, is it a state with limited recognition? No and no. And all the other discussion is irrelevant. Of course, if the EU were included, the member states would need to be removed.

Finally, I note with interest that you did answer my question. Specifically, did you previously edit Wikipedia under another user name? Kahastok talk 21:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again no valid consensus and solid arguments. Only you and the other reverser in the one-sided and month-lived "debate". You are accusing me of multi-account, thanks. BTW, I've created more than +4,000 articles, +20 bold articles awarded, +80,000 edits all in the same account. I think i'm able to write talk pages too, even cross-wiki.--Manlleus (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, frankly, that makes your behaviour here somewhat more concerning. Someone with 80000 edits - even on other wikis - should have a vague idea that canvassing is inappropriate. Somebody who knows how Wikipedia works would know that the existing consensus remains until new consensus is reached. Somebody who knows how talk pages work would know that a 13-year old discussion on the talk page for a completely separate article makes no difference whatever. If you really have that many edits and still don't know any of this, then WP:CIR comes into play.
That you (apparently) do not like this article's inclusion criteria doesn't mean they aren't important. The inclusion criteria tell us what goes on the list. This article's criteria are ISO 3166-1 and state with limited recognition. The EU is neither, therefore it doesn't belong. And it doesn't matter if you consider that not a "solid" argument. Policy disagrees with you. Kahastok talk 22:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never understood this stance against „canvassing”. No one can follow all the discussions on every topic they're interested in, I don't think it's a crime to ask for the opinions of other editors who might be interested in the issue. Malleus couldn't even have known whether I'll agree with him or not, as I've never edited this page as far as I can remember.

As for the issue at hand, I'm divided about it. While it would be useful to add it for comparison, and I don't like to see information getting deleted, it wouldn't be missed that much, since the data itself is easily accessible in the European Union article. Also, I agree that inclusion would open up the list for the inclusion of any other supranational entity, and we would have to decide where to draw the line. I'm not against including it, but I'd like to know how many supranational entities are similar to the EU (too many of them would clutter the list). Actually I was more surprised to see non-independent territories on the list, especially as their selection seems quite random, with Jersey being on the list and Scotland missing, etc. – Alensha talk 22:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Alensha (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Going to talk pages saying that they "demand your support to keep EU figures and data in country-related lists" is a fairly obvious breach of canvassing rules even if you weren't one of those involved in the discussion 13 years ago. It is biased (he's asking for support, not notifying you of discussion). It's also inaccurate in implication - Manlleus proposes to add the EU to this list overturning the longstanding consensus.
If you're not sure why Jersey is included but not Scotland, I suggest you read up on Crown dependencies. Jersey's status is really quite different to Scotland's.
Fact is, we have to draw a line somewhere, and the current standard - ISO 3166-1 and states with limited recognition - is a sensible place to draw it. Kahastok talk 22:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alesha, Kahastok, if you read past related threads, EU's entity inclusion is mainly for informative/reference purposes even with exceptions and notes. The list criteria is not a cast-iron law. Its a figure table with other entities that aren't countries like World, Hongkong and others. I'm not into that level of discussions and I make some mistakes so I apologize of war editing or non-neutral message flodding.--Manlleus (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hong Kong is on ISO 3166-1. The World is not on our list. If we're including the EU for information purposes, why not include the African Union? Why not Caricom? I'm sure a comparison between countries and US states, Canadian provinces, Chinese provinces would be informative - why not include those? Why not include historic entities such as the Roman Empire or Ancient China or the Soviet Union? Why not include major cities, islands, continents? And suddenly the list is 10000 entries long and mostly not actually countries or dependencies.
You have to draw a line, and the status quo is a sensible place to draw it. Kahastok talk 22:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well Kahastok, that line is already draw on the so-called old discussion and I defined more attributes similiar to countries but not aplicable (yet) in the examples that you cited. Take into account that ISO criteria doesn't applies to other country-related lists. Why is this different?--Manlleus (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know by Alesha's words which entity that's not a country is similar in all-round characteristics. The opposition of "other entities" is out of question, but EU is.--Manlleus (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was saying that if the EU is included, then the African Union and similar ones should be included too (if there aren't hundreds of them). Historical entities obviously shouldn't be on the list. If the Canadian provinces aren't included, then I don't understand the inclusion of dependent territories either. (The World is on the list btw.) – Alensha talk 22:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population&oldid=986610839"