Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area/Archive 1

message: I thought that the format for listing non-ranked areas, like Antarctica, EU etc. looked much cleaner in the "countries by population" entry of Wikipedia, and changed the format for all non-ranked countries to mirror the format in said entry.  Indeed, the way it was formatted in this article looked almost like some kind of formatting mistake.  If you feel this is rash judgment on my part, I won't fight a revert if you explain your reasons adequately. Malnova 22:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing format for non ranked territories et al

message: Why were England, Wales and Scotland removed? They are countries, not regions or ..., even if also part of the UK. Unless someone explains clearly, I'll put them back in shortly. -- SGBailey 11:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: England, Wales and Scotland (and Northern Ireland) are not self-governing countries for the purposes of this list. They are not listed on List of countries, which should be the basis for all the other lists of countries on WP. sjorford #£@%&$?! 16:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are administrative subdivisions of a sovereign state. They happen to be called "countries", but might as well be called "republics" or "states" or "emirates", as is the case with other sub-national entities. But if the list is for every entity that is called "country", then of course they do fit the criteria. Perhaps the name of the article need to be modified/specified so the reader is not in doubt about exactly what is being listed? --Big Adamsky 21:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This list is not for every entity called "country". It is for self-governing entities, which are collectively referred to as "countries" for the sake of simplicity. England, Scotland and Wales are not self-governing. The title of the article is in line with all other lists of countries on Wikipedia, and the introductory paragraph adequately explains what is being listed. I realise I'm starting to sound tetchy here, but there really is nothing wrong with this article. sjorford (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. My comment was not really meant as a serious suggestion but more as gentle gesture towards those that are not familiar with Geography as a field of systematic study. Cheers! --Big Adamsky 18:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah right - end of a hard day's work I often can't spot sarcasm. Sorry! sjorford (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I reverted back to the addition of England and the other countries within the UK.  They are perfectly legitimate additions for purposes of comparison.  All the other territories et al included for comparison are largely packed at the beginning (huge masses like Antarctica) and at the end (tiny atolls only geography nuts know about).  It is logical to put some in the middle, and to use recognizable names that are known to many.  Besides, the fact that they are listed, but NOT as sovereign entitities might comes as a surprise to some who visit here and be an education for them.  Malnova 21:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I see your point, of course, and I considered this.  But I figured that with the overkill of atolls and rocks in the middle of nowhere at the end of the list that no one would mind the addition of 4 more territories most everyone has heard of in the middle.  I don't mind taking out one or two of the UK components, but it seems to me we should also eliminate 2/3 or more of the 1 kilometer islands with a population of 1 or 0 at the end. Malnova 11:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: England, Wales and Scotland revisited

message: greenland is an integral part of denmark just as alaska and hawaii are in the usa and should be included in its area making it about the same as saudia arabia; french guiana, martinique,etc are departments of france (just like states in the usa) not dependencies.
I updated the area of OMAN but I see that the numbering is all fixed, is there any way to correct this without having to redo everything. The reason for the change in Oman area is to do with definition of borders, especially Yemen and UAE. I would guess that these countries shrunk as a result. Data change was 1995 or thereabout. Can anybody help fix this? Rjstott 06:43, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW Geography of Oman still needs updating. I hope the rankings didn't change too much. I will add a list below of the articles that include the area numbers. -- User:Docu
Could someone please fix the intro to the article, I would do it myself but I really have no idea what it is trying to say.  As far as I know "outwith" is not a word, but it has been there for some time now. Malnova 02:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  corrections 

message: India's entry has an asterisk next to it that links to the Remarks section, but there are no remarks regarding India's area. What was intended here? Can the asterisk be safely removed?
:The asterisk appears to refer to the European union which would hypothetically occupy India's position, though I don't think it's necessary. Dtcdthingy 20:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that having it at India's entry was silly, so I made separate entries for the EU and AU. Not sure if they really should have their own entries though, so if somebody wants to reverts my edit, get rid of the asterisk please. Illuvatar 14:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there an asterisk next to India's entry? 

message: Most of the entries at the bottom of this list are not countries in any sense of the word, and should be marked as such or, preferably, omitted. --Rsholmes 22:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not countries 

message: Can it be two-column - one for ranking of sovereign states, and the other for all countries listed?  — Instantnood 12:06, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
:I would suggest no, because then you lose the ability to directly compare to other countries. —Cantus…☎ 18:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
::Please take a look at this version . :-D  — Instantnood 06:46, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
:::Hmmm. I don't like it. —Cantus…☎ 09:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
::::The EU and world are not countries and are not ranked but other palces that are not countries are, why? --Happy ga 23:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rankings

message: I came to this page and was astonished, who in their right minds would use "CIA World Factbook" as a source? If the KGB had a Missing Person List, would you believe it? CIA World Factbook I don't know if all of it are facts much less being Not-American-Point-of-View. A country's area is political and therefore being NPOV is quite difficult. I would suggest using the United Nations' figures along with observing members (Holy See, League of Arab States, European Community...). Then along it, using cursive, list out the territorries as well as non-UN recognised nations like Northern Cyprus, Taiwan, Western Sahara...
About PR China, Hong Kong and Macau's figures should be included because they are not territories of China but Special Administrative Regions which are integral parts of the nation. Same goes for France's Overseas Departments(Mayotte, Reunion...), they are integral parts of the nation, not territories, and therefore should be included. 
Also, I think it would be wiser to simply use land areas, because normally, when one is referring to a nation's area, one is refrring to the land areas in addition to areas of bound bodies of water which does not extend into another nation. Lake Michigan would be counted as USA's area but Lake Superior would not. The coastal waters are not counted because they would be quite difficult to be exact and NPOV. Since a tiny coral reef could grant a nation 10 more square nautical kilometres of sea.   
Lastly, the beginning section states only sovereign nations are included, which is obviously unclear as to which organisation's recognition of sovereignty. As I said I would suggest the United Nations' stance, because I think it would seem to be the most neutral since de facto sovereignty is quite difficult to measure (new and old treaties, problem of Somalia which chages de facto area every day...).         
Thank you for reading, I hope you could take in some of my suggestions.
-S
:The CIA World Factbook is as good a source as the United Natons website, and actually contains much of the same information, if one bothers to look up the difference between total area and land area.
:As for listing land area rather than total area. In principle, I agree this sounds logical, but it poses problems. Under that syatem, Canada is a much smaller country, and would be demoted based on its massive amount of internal waters, not in the form of large lakes, but in the form of thousands of very small ones. It is counterintuative and awkward to demote Canada, on technical grounds, being that it appears, visually, to be so huge on a world map. The difference between USA and China, in comparison, is relatively much smaller and more marginal, so it would be better to respect Canada's historically accepted well-known position as #2 after Russia, and thus apply the total-area criterion to every other country in the world based on that.
:--Supersexyspacemonkey 19:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: Western Sahara is not a country. --  Earl Andrew - talk 3 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)
===>Do you care to offer proof? Tell that to the several dozen states that recognize the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic of Western Sahara and the African Union, of which it is a full member. Justin (koavf) July 3, 2005 19:13 (UTC)
::It is not a sovereign state, but nonetheless a country. Wales and the Catalan Countries are countries, but not states. The Sorbs and the Garifuna are neither, but they do constitute nations. And in the end of the day, we're all people belonging to various groups and geographic units. Blablabla.... //Big Adamsky 17:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even that depends on who you believe. According to the African Union, the SADR is a sovereign state whose territory is (mostly) under external occupation ... something like the Republic of Cyprus or the State of Palestine, or else like the Republic of Afghanistan when the Taliban occupied most of the country (an 'internal' occupation, you might call that, I suppose). QuartierLatin1968  23:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Sahara 

message: I'm surprised nobody's commented on my proposal of using colour in the table as a way of distinguishing between different broad categories of political status (always subject to notes, disclaimers, and clarifications of course). Should I take this a sign of a lack of enthusiasm? QuartierLatin1968  23:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea in general but think that fewer colors might be preferable, making it easier to remember what each of maybe 5-7 colors means. --Myke Cuthbert 22:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colours

message: Do we include Sealand anywhere? --Doc0tis 18:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No - it's little more than a "vanity state", and certainly isn't in the same class as any of the countries listed here. It has no foreign relations, and its claims to independence are due to its legal status being largely undefined. sjorford (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, Sj – no. E Pluribus Anthony 13:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sealand]]

message: Are the Desventuradas Islands and the Juan Fernández Islands also included in the calculation for Chile? As the external link is down and in the countrytable in the article about Chile they are also not mentioned. --Hardscarf 00:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chile 

message: ::NOTE: I did not start this section, nor did I make up the section title. User:Malnova changed the section title and deleted his first message to this section . The original text was " I changed the name of this article to reflect that it also lists a number of territories, but is also a list of what people largely consider "countries" because I thought that it was most people come looking for and they might be confused by a countryless title. However, though I read up on "MOVING", I am not sure if I handled redirects correctly. I did what Wikipedia tutorials told me to do, but I am not positive I got it right. Could someone check that? Sorry. Malnova 21:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here comes another problem. There's little reason for us not to rank those that are not sovereign states. At least we shall have two columns - one for rankings of sovereign states, one for sovereign states + dependent territories (and equivalence). — Instantnood 19:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this such an imperative?  The list has survived this long in it's current form.  The list is not perfect, but neither is the world it describes.  That's my thoughts anyway. Malnova 20:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, and I would like to see in the list, even if not ranked, entities like the EU. --giandrea 21:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm, too, not asking to rank supranational organisations such as the EU. Their statuses are not quite comparable with the sovereign states and the dependent territories (and equivalence) listed. They're included merely for the purpose of comparison - giving readers some idea about their sizes. (C.f. what had been suggested above some time ago.) — Instantnood 21:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At one point, there were a number of dubious entries clogging things up.  The AU and the EU and even Antarctica weren't so out there I guess.  But the former British Empire, the former Roman Empire?  And all of these entries were listed in the top 10 (though not ranked) making the list look like a hodgepodge.  If people insist on putting in such entries "for purposes of comparison", why do they all have to be massive entities, packing the top 10?  Shouldn't example be spread evenly throughout if that is their true purpose? I am starting to think Istantnood's suggestion of a second, less obtrusive column for these entities might be the way to go, to avoid these problems. Might even be a good place for the China size dilemma. What would this look like I wonder? Malnova 23:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  May I suggest to use the Wikipedia guidelines to resolve disputes? --giandrea 21:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never agreed with the addition of other entities into this list.  But I figured if they were truly for purposes of comparison, I should be diplomatic about it, and I would add some entities down the list to even out the "comparison" over the whole list.  I added in some of the countries that belong to the UK, unranked of course.  They are considered countries by many and called as such even if they are not countries in the strictest sense.  For the record I am not a citizen of any of the UK countries, nor descendent of any of them, so I was/am NPOV in that respect.  The entries survived a few days and then somebody editted them out.  Twice.  The exchange about it is above some where I am sure.  From my experience here and other places, nobody else (or few) really gets involved in the debate, and the exchange almost always comes after the delete/revert, not before.  My point about spreading out the "comparisons" was not addressed, and I am sure if I tried to put UK countries et al in again and get an intelligent debate going, they would quickly be deleted "on principle", and little reason would be given for it besides maybe a short "not countries" blurb. I even asceded someone's valid point not to list all of the UK countries, and still the two I left  survived about a day.  So, I figure, to avoid differing POVs about what entities should be added, we should go with a policy of no "pseudo-country" additions, because in principle they shouldn't be there in the first place anyway, and if we all start adding extra entries it wouldn't be much of a list at all. Yes this doesn't solve the debate of "what a country is" but it certainly does exclude the EU, AU, Antarctica, Roman and British Empires, the UK countries et al.  Any one else care to join this debate? AND, on the off chance that this exchange is garnering any attention, could somebody PLEASE edit the introductory paragraph for this article and fix the word "outwith"?  It is not in any of my dictionaries.  I would fix it myself if I knew what it is attempting to explain.  Alternatively, someone please tell me what "outwith" means.  Above here somewhere on the talk page I have already written this same blurb, but so far, no response, and "outwith" has remained there for well over a month. Thanks in advance.Malnova 00:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand why not being a citizen of the EU gives someone a neutral point of view. I am not a citizen of China, but my neutrality regarding the argument might be questioned! The same goes for people from around the world arguing about the European Union. All things considered, I think that the EU should be included, but not ranked, and perhaps with a description that goes like not a sovereign-state, but it has its own elections, its own currency, it is relevant. It is not like the roman or the british empires because it's an actual entity, not something storical. And its inclusion in this listed is quoted many times through wikipedia, but it doesn't appear here. --giandrea 09:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "other" entities 

message: Hey everyone.  I still don't find the title fo this article very satisfying and even misleading. The consensus here from what I have seen in the history and development of this page is to include sovereign countries and include territories/dependencies/protectorates etc. of countries that are outlying and/or not officially included in the area of their "mother" country.  It seems to me a more descriptive title would be either "List of countries and outlying territories by area" or a version that changes outlying to "overseas".  What do you think?  If I get no feedback I'll change it in a few days to one of the two. Malnova 02:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  name change 

message: (Instead of a name change to "outlying territories") A little while back I thought I would make a separate article for all the outlying territories of sovereign countries and link it to this article in the introduction (with the eventual plan of eliminating the territories from this article if there was no dissent).  I made a new article and worked on it a bit, but I let it fall by the wayside.  I accidentally ran across it today, and someone has even went in and cleaned it up quite a bit, which makes me think it might be worth a try.  The article is entitled Territories and self-governing areas of sovereign countries.  Check it out if you have time.  Any thoughts?  The territories could of course have been ranked if there was a necessity, I just never got around to it. Thanks for your time.  Malnova 04:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR! 

message: The 21 March 2006 edit by BlaiseFEgan seems to have been a simple find and replace of commas with nbsps -- including all the commas in all the article entries.  It also seems to have wiped out most of the crosslinks to other language wikipedias.  I'm not sure if this is too far to revert to, but it seems important to correct.  I also don't see how one country's standard of number separation is necessarily an improvement over another's.
--Myke Cuthbert 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Find and Replace Bug 

message: Please see Talk:Israel#Contradicting_numbers eeemess 13:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradicting numbers 

message: I was wondering why India's total area includes disputed territories such as Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas of Pakistan. Being a disputed territory, those disputed area's should not be in either countries area listings.
::Yeah, why do India's total area includes disputed territories which India itself doesn't control?? When China's area doesn't include disputed territories? Where's the sense in this? Heilme 22:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your disputed insertion since it is already claimed as disputed in the preceding column. No need for redundancy. Joelito (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's different. The number itself is disputed because the method of calculation (including disputed territories) is disputed. The preceding column did mention that the number is based on disputed territories but that's just a statement of how the number is calculated. Heilme 22:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's redundancy. If the calculation is based on disputed territories then the calculated number is implicitely disputed. Again, no need to insert two "disputed" when one is sufficient. Joelito (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Then I will make the necessary edit to reflect the total area (including disputed) that are under administration of each government. Heilme 23:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added some area to China and minus the appropriate size from India's. Disputed territories cover Aksai Chin (1962) and northern Kashmir (1963). These areas are disputed but under China's administration (see Line of Actual Control) Heilme 23:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  India 

message: Slight correction, 10,400km^2 to 10,452km^2. This comes from the [| Ministry of Tourism - Lebanon Overview] website.
89.108.144.66 08:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebanon 

message: Polaron, I was the editor who originally switched this list over to the UN Demographic Yearbook.  At first I applauded your efforts in keeping the list consistent, but I am sorry, I think you are going too far recently.  Numbering sub-national entities such as Greenland is a big change, which I don't agree with.  The UN put such entities on the list to acknowledge their largely self-governing status, but that doesn't mean we should rank them.  But more importantly, you made no attempt to get any kind of consensus on this issue in the discussion pages before making this controversial change.  If we are going to reflect the UNDY as much as is humanly possible then why not just provide a link to it instead of bothering with ranking them by size?  And how does that explain Taiwan?  Taiwan is listed nowhere in the UNDY, except as a footnote, so by the "strict" criteria you have set, it shouldn't be on the list at all.  To be honest, my first instinct was to revert this controversial change after I noticed it what it was, but I decided out of respect for your diligent maintenance of this list over the past few months that I would come here first. So I am asking EVERYONE what the consensus is.  I am for NOT numbering entities that are officially parts (or protectorates etc.) of other countries (Greenland being the highest ranked example). These entities being ranked but not numbered offers a good balance to acknowledge their status but also acknowledge that they are not completely sovereign entities, and this system has obtained for most of the life of this list.  Any feedback, please?  (Polaron, I apologize for using your user name in the title, but I couldn't think of another way to make sure it was eye-catching enough for people who follow this list, everything other section heading I thought of looked too generic.  It's nothing personal.) Malnova 21:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no strong feelings either way but why list them if you're not going to rank them? We can remove all the entries not included in the List of sovereign states and move this article to List of sovereign states by area. We should also do that for all ranked country lists for consistency. I believe it is important to be consistent throughout. Sovereign states are just a subset of countries which List of countries seems to indicate. Even if they are not sovereign, these dependent territories are not treated like regular subnational entities. They have top-level Internet domains; they have ISO-3166 codes, etc. It all boils down to what one thinks a country is. I will defer to what the majority opinion is. --Polaron | Talk 21:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have editted out the non-numbered entries before and they inevitably start creeping back in.  The current title was my idea because of all the "territories" people kept including.  So to be honest, what you suggested is exactly what I think/thought was the best way, but it never seems to work out that way.  And the consensus for only including unequivocally sovereign countries didn't seem to be there, considering people's editting patterns (more so than their actual comments on this page). Malnova 09:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: All those included in the list of countries, except for unrecognised states, should be ranked. — Instantnood 20:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. At one point the list of countries by population had the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau added to the population of New Zealand, which is just daft. Apart from anything else, they're not counted at the same time. The New Zealand census covers New Zealand, not other dependent or freely associatiated countries. Imagine the area of Denmark if you include Greenland!  80.192.21.20 23:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranking of non-sovereign states 

message: How exactly did the USA change the way they calculate surface area? What was the old number and what is the new number? 71.235.83.132 05:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See #Area of the US and #UN statistics above for various figures from various sources. --Sumple (Talk) 07:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA Changing Way they Calculate 

message: I find this hard to believe, I think Canada is getting ripped off on this one. Anybody look at a world map lately?
:Depends on what map your looking at. Xlegiofalco 23:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: American maps usually make themselves look bigger —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.20.224.165 (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada only 4% bigger than U.S.A? 

message: The first 4 entires have different area sizes than their main articles, as does India.  Is there a reason for this?  Lugnuts 07:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not consistant with countrie's own entry 

message: Viewfinder correctly points out that the 'ROI government no longer officially claims NI' . But many would say that the authorities in the 26 counties (the so-called RoI) have no right to make such a decision and that the British government still have no right to be in Ireland. They would also say that the 32-county Irish Republic still 'exists' in some sense and will someday replace the illegitimate authorities in both parts of the island today. All in all, it's still very much disputed territory. Only listing claims by 'recognized' states is putting the cart before the horse. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  13:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to reimplement the changes I made about the disputed areas of states in Ireland, unless of course there are further comments on the talk page. My point is that a dispute about the extent of a country exists even if those states/entities currently involved in the dispute are not governments of 'recognized' states. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  14:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doh! Retracting own comments. I've just noticed that my original edits weren't undone entirely. I'm happy enough with the way it is now. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  14:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Ireland 

message: In looking at the Template:Lists of countries, this article is the only one whose title refers to countries and outlying territories (all the articles just use country). Should this article be renamed to List of countries by total area, to be consistent? -- (Shocktm | Talk  | contribs.) 20:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the name change was because there was a general consensus to include territories that are officially considered "part" of other countries but are not included in the official totals for the areas of these countries.  It was a compromise to accurately portray it's contents.  Other lists, such as lists of alphabetically, don't have such nuances to worry about.  The problem with such a deceptively simple title (which of course, was it's title for a time) is that there is no consensus, here or anywhere actually, of what a country is.   As long as redirects from "List of countries by area" are in place so that people can find this list, I don' think it's a problem. Malnova 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Revisited 

message: The Macao Special Administrative Region, being part of China, is located at the Pearl River Delta of the southeastern coast of Mainland China, and is approximately 60 km southwest of Hong Kong. The territory, 28.2 km2 in area, consists of the Macao Peninsula, Taipa Island and Coloane Island; the Macao Peninsula is connected to the Taipa Island by three bridges and the two islands are connected by land reclamation. The highest peak, of 170.6 m in height, is located on the Coloane Island.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.138.191.63 (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macau 

message: Italicized entries may be included on the list for comparison values but they should not affect the numbering. See List of countries by population. All the italicized entries should have a "-" instead of a number. Is there any prior discussion on this that I am missing? Savidan 22:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But then you would be excluding substantial inhabited areas from the ranking. Either we rank the non-sovereign countries or we include their figures in the state that has sovereignty over them and rank those instead. In any case, the List of countries by population does rank self-governing dependencies separately similar to this list. --Polaron | Talk 00:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italicized entries should not affect the ranking 

message: I'm not going to wade into political waters here, but I do think it needs to be made clear exactly what is included in the figure for this.  I'm assuming it's the entire West Bank and Gaza?  Is E. Jerusalem included? --Jfruh (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian territories 

message: According to Norwegian law there are three dependencies ("biland" in Norwegian) of the Kingdom of Norway. These are Bouvet Island (Bouvetøya), Peter I Island (Peter 1.s øy) and Queen Maud Land (Dronning Maud Land). The latter two are covered by the Antarctic Treaty System, so only Bouvet Island is undisputed and should be included in this list. Svalbard (including Bjørnøya) and Jan Mayen are part of the Kingdom of Norway and should be counted with it. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings. Nidator 20:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norwegian dependencies 

message: I can't see why you didn't write the Golan Heights as aaprt of Israel- they are acepted by the global community as Israeli territory, ever since the Six Day War, and it has never been a matter of discussion since then. Israeli occupies that area, has cities there and army bases. I don't think that you should seperate the Golan Heights from Israeli territory- ever since they took over that area in the Six Day War, it has been theirs.   Adarsharon 17:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bollocks.  Try reading Golan Heights#Current status and United Nations Security Council Resolution 497.  I'm going to WP:AGF initially, but any edits will be reverted with extreme prejudice. –EdC 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golan Heights (Israel) 

message: Why include the Faroes and Greenland in the list and not Åland? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nidator (talk • contribs) 12:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autonomous regions 

message: The Gambia is listed with 10,380 km² on its own page. In this list it has some thousand more, I don't have patience to check it. --Dittaeva 15:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Gambia