Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe by population

	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Europe Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I don't really care how strict you are with who gets to be in this list or if you focus on population or area etc., but be sure to fix it! I would also want to exclude dependent territories and add them to to their respective countries. Some "problematic countries": Denmark, Iceland, Russia, Turkey, Cyprus, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. I don't think it's wise letting 1. claims to Antarctica and 2. insignificant overseas areas be enough to exclude anyone from this list. Be reasonable, but across-the-board, with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.162.181 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the transcontinental countries except Turkey, somehow, in the list. Wheather it makes you happy or not, Turkey is considered as a transcontinental country partly in Europe such as Russia, also included in the all statistics of Europe in wikipedia articles, not mentioning Europe sections of major worldwide media companiea ranging from BBC to CNN.

We have to put Turkey to list and so i am doing now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogussahin (talk • contribs) 11:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with racism, or, as you prefer, "RACISM"? Turkey is indeed a transcontinental country, this has nothing to do with race or even ethnicity, just with geography. About 12% of Turkey's population live in Europe, and the remaining 88% live in Asia. --

By the way; Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan should be included in the list. And Cyprus should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khagannn (talk • contribs) 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. they dont consider states in the caucasus and turkey european but here turkey is included and other so called "westrn asian" countries are not. this website has an ambition to be credible ? some people think it is their personal webpage and write everything that they want.--Polscience (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article and now it includes all of the states. could not understand how could Turkey be on the list and caucasus countries NOT even though they are both considered "western asian" states, whatever that "western asia" means. but someone will definately delete them because this website is full of uneducated racist fascists who believe you have to have blond hair to in in europe --Polscience (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC

• Please observe
  WP:NPA and do not insult or harass other users.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

According to Statistical Office of Kosovo, Kosovo poplation in 2006 was 2.100.000. Here isthe link: [1]--Liliboy (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey is a European country

• Turkey is a founding member of the
  User:Koalorka thinks that Turkey is Asian! How can it be? If Cyprus is a European country, Turkey must be European too! Because Cyprus is completely in Asia and it's sociopolitical Europe. Izmir lee (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Constantinople is a European city, you are correct. However, the majority of Turkey's landmass lies in Asia. Turkey's population is descended from Central Asia and Turkey is ethnically and socially very distant from Europe. The above-mentioned treaties are political in nature and a symbolic gesture towards Turkey to open her markets for European goods. Really, why do you Turks think you have anything in common with Europe? It's very flattering, but somewhat pathetic at the same time. Perhaps you should seek closer ties with your Middle Eastern brethren?

Koalorka (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

-Kaolorka read more, Turkey has roots from Middle Asia, not Middle East. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.231.175.211 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• First it is not Constantinople, Istanbul! You're right, the majority of Turkey's landmass lies in Asia like Russia! And Middle Eastern countries are Arab and Turkey isn't an Arabic country and it's official language isn't Arabic. We are lots of things in common with Europe but it's hard to you to learn these things. Because you hate Turkey and Turks! Izmir lee (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is historically tied to continental Europe, ethnically, culturally, linguistically. Russians are indigenous to what is continental Europe. The Asian Russia is a result of recent territorial expansion. That is also why Russia is not considered an Asian country outside of the strict geographic sense. Turkey however, apart from an insignificant holding on the European continent (less than 3%) of it's entire landmass and does not originally belong to Turkey has absolutely nothing in common with Europe. Your pushing a very narrow POV interpretation.

Koalorka (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I also removed the images and maps. They serve no purpose. Are we to believe Turkey is all of a sudden European because of a shiny skyscraper? I've been to Turkey on several occasions and I'm familiar with the crushing poverty and general backwardness.

Koalorka (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• But i added them again. :D Because it's hard to see these images for you. Isn't it? You are a nazi in my opinion! Izmir lee (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey is a transcontinental country. Saying "Turkey is a European country" is just as right, or wrong, as saying "Turkey is an Asian country". As 88% of Turkey's population is in Asia, it may in fact be about seven time more correct to say "Turkey is an Asian country", but since we want to be right, not just 88% right, we should say it is a transcontinental country. --

There is no contest here really. Turkey is to be included in this list. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brsh (talk • contribs) 05:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? The Council of Europe is an international organization with a loose worldwide membership that includes Iceland, the Caucasus nations and observers such as Canada, the USA and Israel. And Turkey was not a founding member of the COE, it was Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom that established the organization. Constantinople played a major part in European history until its sacking by the Ottomans in the 15th century, it declined in importance since then. There really is no case for Turkey in this context, East Thrace is a minute territorial outpost of Turkey who's landmass, population are focused in Anatolia, which is on the Asian continent.

Koalorka (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• The Federal Government of Canada does not consider Turkey a European entity.
• Neither does National Geographic.
  Koalorka (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Map_of_Europe_%28political%29.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brsh (talk • contribs) 11:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia and Cyprus are included symbolically as they share a common history and culture with Europe, Turkey does not. In fact, I would not argue if both were removed from the list as well.

Koalorka (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Turkey is not european, his history is against Europe. Many peoples hate Turkey because ocupation in 1500-1900: Greece, Hungary, Rumania, Serbia, Bulgaria... Remember Siege of Viena, Mohacs Battle, etc. And geografy... Turkey is not Europe. And is a islamic country, asian country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.9.91 (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey is a nation that is partially in Europe and therefore should be included in all facts regarding Europe, don't forget the majority of Russian landmass is also in Asia so in terms of size it should never be included in Europe by some people's arguments. I'm putting it in its rightful place as a European nation. Oh and you can't say many Europeans hate Turks therefore Turkey is not in Europe? So was Germany not in Europe during and immediately after WWII when it was loathed? I think not, that's a ridiculous argument. Mspence835 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TURKEY IS NOT A EUROPEAN COUNTRY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_east EUROPE IS NOT MIDDLE EAST. TURKEY MUST BE DELETED FROM THE ARTICLE.

Why is Kosovo on this list? It is NOT a UN member, is not offically recognized etc etc. Apparently it is on the list because "a lot of people recognize it" or some such argument. Well, in that case what about North Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia etc etc? What makes Kosovo "special"? Surely the criteria for a European COUNTRY should be universal recognition and/or? UN membership? Kosovo has neither. In fact, the overwhelming majority of sovereign nations do NOT recognize it as a country. I have attempted to remove it, but some abusive member account has warned me for "disruptive edits". People should stop arguing over whether Turkey(a European COUNTRY) should be in this list, and notice the addition of Kosovo, which is not a country at all! And if it takes discussion/consensus for Kosovo to be removed, why did it never need discussion/consensus to sneak it in in the first place? Why was there never a "should we include Kosovo in this list?" discussion? 196.25.255.218 (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo's independence has engendered mixed international reaction:

International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo makes as much clear, but also establishes its recognition by 47 countries, including much of NATO and some of its neighbors. JNW (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Turkey is not a European country, what a ridiculous assertion.

Koalorka (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This discussion is about Kosovo, not Turkey. The central point, about from any links to other wikipedia articles, is that Kosovo is not universally recognized. In fact most states do NOT recognize Kosovo. 198.54.202.218 (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, using another wikipedia article as a link would seem to completely contradict the point of wikipedia. 196.25.255.218 (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "disputed" tag. Kosovo clearly belongs on the list. If we had to add a disputed tag to every Balkan article where someone disagrees with the consensus on wikipedia.....well... there would be no un-tagged articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo does not "clearly belong on the list". That is what this discussion is about. If Kosovo is included, then why not Abkhazia, South Ossetia, North Cyprus etc.? Merely reverting stuff with no sources or links is not consensus. It is actually disruptive. It is in fact completely laughable that there needs to be a discussion about whether Turkey should be included, but then Kosovo is just added in without any discussion. Do you have a source, a link, a reason for removing the "disputed" tag? Or is it just your POV? 196.25.255.218 (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a good point, there are other non-recognized territories that are not on the list, sorry for not noticing the first time. OK, let's compare the recognizion that they have, to see why editors left those out but decided to include Kosovo:

• Abkhazia is recognized by only two countries (four if you count non-recognized countries). The EU, NATO and OSCE only recognize it as part of Georgia

• South Ossetia is in a similar state

• North Cyprus
  is only recognized by Turkey, with everyone else on the world not recognizing it

• for
  UN Security Council
  , from the five members with right to veto, three have recognized it, but, of the two who don't recognize it, one of them is Russia, who is friend of Serbia and doesn't like the example that Kosovo gives, so the UN recognition is stuck.

So ,there's a lot of difference on recognition between those territories and Kosovo, and that's why people (like me) complain so loudly when Kosovo is removed from lists.

As for general consensus among wikipedians, the best place would be the talk page of

WP:MOSKOS, which is still at the "proposed guideline" stage --Enric Naval (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

There is ZERO difference between Kosovo and Abkhazia/South Ossetia. This is NOT the EU/NATOpedia, it is Wikipedia, and if Kosovo is included, so too will Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which are recognised by other countries as per the

Dialogue 09:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Absolutely not. It is all or nothing. Kosovo is not recognised by a vast majority of countries; it is not a member of any international organisations. It is not a member of the United Nations. It is still internationally recognised as an integral part of Serbia. We can not allow our own POV (mine is that both Kosovo and A & SO are independent) to cloud

Dialogue 11:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Imho there's a clearer difference between a country having general recognition and a UN seat and a country with "significant" recognition (dozens of recognisees) than between countries with "significant" and "not-so-significant" recognition. Significance is after all rather subjective. And suppose a country appears that is recognised by 5 or 10 other ones - would this be enough or not? So I propose to treat all the countries not having general recognition in the same way, listing them separately or in the main list. Alæxis_¿question? 20:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A country with only 5 or 10 recognitions? We can deal with that when it happens. For now we have tis situation with one very recognized country versus three that are almost not recognized at all. I find it silly to treat all four them the same way. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is your opinion that a country recognised by a quarter of UN members is a 'very recognised' one.

Besides, recognition is not and shouldn't be the only criterion for inclusion. The situation on the ground is also important. For example Transnistria, which is not recognised even by Russia, has frequently been described as a de facto independent state (see refs in that article), juts as Kosovo.

So I propose to either make a separate list of countries with limited recognition or include them in the main list marking them in some way (like iltalicysing) and providing necessary footnotes. Alæxis_¿question? 13:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quarter is a lot more recognition than the other 3 countries and Transnistria. "A lot more recognition" as in "not being on the same category at all". --Enric Naval (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the UN membership is the only legitimate criterion to separate "state" and "self-proclaimed state", I think that this criterion should be used everywhere. In order to avoid disputes that result in continual changes of this page based on political opinions, I suggest to broaden this list by separate list that would show the list of European "not fully recognized territories".

I agree. What about adding such table below the main one?

Pos	Country	Population
1	Kosovo	2,100,000
2	Transnistria	555,347
3	North Cyprus	265,100
4	Abkhazia	215,972
5	Nagorno-Karabakh	138,800
6	South Ossetia	70,000

Incidentally I think that all save for the first two are located in Asia, I added them since the states they've broken from are present in the main list. Alæxis_¿question? 17:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above may work if it's also indicated by how many countries each country is recognized by. Otherwise it's really no different then including all of them w/o comment. Just commenting, not even gonna touch the edit button on the article page.

talk) 06:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it would more informative to a reader to write about who recognises whom below (or above) this table. Smth like "Kosovo is recognised by 48 UN member states, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are recognised by Russia, Nicaragua and Venezuela and TRNC is recognised by Turkey. Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh do not have any international recognition." The last sentence is optional. Alæxis_¿question? 13:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Alæxis_¿question? 20:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still looks a bit weird to a newcomer - you have non-independent territories in the main table, while these ones are excluded from the main table on the grounds that not everyone recognizes their independence. What exactly is the motivation here?--Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't the french population be given as the metropolitan population rather than the population including oversees areas, since this is about europe. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc26324 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading all the comments by people complaining about the inclusion of the Republic of Turkey , the Republic of Cyprus etc. - I wonder why no one wants the Kingdom of Denmark to be excluded from this list - a state with only about 2% of its territory in "Europe". —Preceding unsigned comment added by FO-I-KN (talk • contribs) 07:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article itself and 'Talk Page' have different titles, leads to all this 'unnecessary' confusion I believe:

Currently, it seems the article lists "countries", not "Monarchies / Kingdoms". Denmark as a country is in Europe. Greenland and the Faroer are 'constituent countries'. Like Aruba, Sint Maarten , Curacao and IIUC French Polynesia. All these constituent countries are not in Europe.

The talk page however, is about 'sovereign states', which could also be a kingdom, not only a country. Basically this whole discussion page doesn't correspond to the "country"-list, and as the article states "countries" I was surprised to find Isle of Man / Guernsey and other non-countries. IMNSHO - This discrepancy between talk page "Editing Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe by population (section)" and artcile "List of European countries by population" should be fixed before any useful discussion can happen on this talk page at all. 82.171.109.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are those numbers based on in that list? What year? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very much a mish-mash at the moment. I plan on working on this list next month, in order to ensure consistency. --WFC-- 16:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is up with the dependencies? Why not co-dependencies are included such as one that are part of the Swiss Confederation and the numerous Russian republics? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the Aland Islands, but the crown dependencies are not part of the United Kingdom, but are part of Europe. I'm a relative novice, but my understanding is that the other entities you refer to are part of Switzerland and the Russian Federation respectively. --WFC-- 16:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think this list is here to provide information about the size of the countries, not to declare a country European or non-European or its political state. Therefore, as for some it may be interesting to compare also such states or political entities whose status is not clear, I would argue for the inclusion of many "European" "countries" (such as Kosovo, Georgia, Abkhazia etc.) - again, not as a claim that these countries are European or that these countries are countries, but simply to provide information about them. That said, and acknowledging the geographic and historical affinity to Europe of some countries, namely Turkey and the Caucasian republics, which might serve as arguments for their inclusion in Europe - and so, even if that's still a matter of debate, I do see them as belonging in this list - I am yet to understand how Kazakhstan can, even remotely, be considered a part of Europe. 188.169.229.30 (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think this page badly needs to be gotten rid of. Think about the title "

Azerbaijan and Georgia are transcontinental countries and should be listed as such. Armenia is not. The difference being that Azerbaijan and Georgia, but not Georgia, have part of their territory in the North Caucasus. The claim that "Armenia has more in common with Europe than Azerbaijan" is random nonsense. Europe is a geographic notion, you don't have anything "in common" with it, you are either in it or not. The persistent claim that Armenia is not part of Asia may be taken as Turkish propaganda, trying to deny that the actual history of Armenia took place in much of Asia Minor, now part of Turkey. Claiming that Armenia is "in Europe" is simple historical revisionism, trying as it does to deny the history of Eastern Christianity in SW Asian countries that are now (for some reason or other) almost entirely Muslim.

Editors posing as Armenian nationalists trying to push the "Armenia in Europe" agenda are either stupid Armenian nationalists, or smart Turkish nationalists.

There is a merge proposal tag at the top of this list that has been there for a long time. I personally think the data here can be put into the sortable table at List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. The small amount of extra information can be included in Demographics of Europe, which incidentally also already has a sortable #Population by country table. What do others think? Rennell435 (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree DLinth (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia is not a country. Their name is FYROM. Macedonia is part of Hellas.!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.101.60 (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source given in the article, Germany is not losing people. Thanks to migration they are gaining people. I think, that the spanish version is correct. Sorry for my not so good English, but it is not my mother tongue 213.47.238.25 (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL -- Portugal's official population today is 10,479,630 not 10.7 million. Why changing to something is wrong?Good Hope Phanta (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've carefully read the introduction and list of countries in the article List of European countries by population and then compared it with the list of countries in List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe, I believe Transnistria deserve to be included in the list, under the same criteria as Kosovo, with a note under the table stating "Disputed territory, claimed by Moldova." Energy110 (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT110.5.117.243 (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]