 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
The UN data is inconsistent with many sources. Many of the notes of 2005 already point that out. Just copy them. -- Nic Roets ( talk) 07:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It should be about 10%, and not 1.7%, for that one country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sockerkorn ( talk • contribs) 12:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- I saw this too! Seconded. Also, note, it's in direct contradiction to the 'Demographics of Denmark' article (which gives the rate as 10.4% having one parent not born in Denmark). Is this a typo (10.7 required rather than 1.7?), or is this a quirk of the way the Danish state measures (im)migration? 109.246.241.180 ( talk) 00:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're right, this must be a typo. Thanks for spotting this.
- With respect to the definition of an immigrant, note that the U.N. only considers persons born outside their country of residence. "[H]aving one parent not born" there is a rather different definition. -- EnOreg ( talk) 12:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. -- Nic Roets ( talk) 07:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The UK being between France & Germany in the table, & all being within 10%-20% means these three countries should be the same colour. The map however makes it appear like the percentage of Britain's population is made up of fewer migrants when this is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.79.190 ( talk) 03:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- the wrong map of russia. where is crimea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolltheblunt ( talk • contribs) 11:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
After backing out the Native American population (less than 10%, I believe) shouldn't all current citizens be counted as immigrants? Does this table only mean "recent" imigrants? Nearly everyone in America today traces their ancestry to Europe, Africa, Asia, et cetera? Does anyone else see it this way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.160.154 ( talk) 11:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you really serious? Immigrant is a person who lives in a country where the person was not born. If you are born in the Unites States, you are not an immigrant, but an American.
- Most countries have experienced immigration waves going back thousands of years, it would be near impossible to define the exact original native population as a percentage, you could only arrive at a rough estimate. What exactly is a Native American, all the waves of colonists from the siberian-alaska land bridge or only the first wave, pure blooded Native Americans or mixed blooded. Perhaps, you would define a Native American as having certain racial characteristics but if you applied that same logic to the United Kingdom, for example, you may decide that only people with red hair and green eyes or people with blood type O are true natives and the rest are immigrants. It would be very controversial and again nearly impossible to arrive at anything other than a rough estimate of numbers. All countries, regardless of their current policies on immigration, would be found to have around 90 to 100 percent immigrant population, except perhaps Iceland. If, you want exact percentages you have to limit yourself to recent history.
Please, go to school. Opinoso ( talk) 16:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
How do immigrants in UAE make up more than 100 % of the population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.88.37 ( talk • contribs)
- Good catch, Koavf added those columns by hand from this source. Probably a typo. -- Van helsing 08:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking all of the higher than signs (>) in the Percentage of total number of immigrants in the world column, should be lower than signs (<).
Ex. Nepal: (819000/186579300)*100= 0.44, thus <0.5%. Matthijs Triep 04:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The table sorts alphabetically, not numerically (1000 is ranked lower than 9, because the first digit is lower). I've tried to play about with the code along the lines described in Help:Sorting, but without success. Can anyone help? Matt 07:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- First, it's not really CSS… You just have to know how this specific javascript sorting code works. Unfortunately, Help:Sorting is a copy of Meta page and it describes heavily modified Meta version of sorting script (I'm trying to fix that).
- The most important thing is: whenever you click on the sorting icon, the script looks at the first non-empty cell which is on top at the moment, if it's a number then the whole column will be sorted numerically. So the solution is to remove "-" in the Western Sahara row (leaving empty cells).
- Unfortunately I'm not sure what could be done for the the 4th column ("Percentage of total number"), it seems like you can't keep < and still sort it correctly ∴ Alex Smotrov 15:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think I've fixed the sorting problems now. The table used the SMS template inappropriately and aligned at the decimal point in a way that made proper sorting impossible. -- EnOreg ( talk) 05:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well it was actually I that fixed the sorting problems, but didnt make a notice about it here. When I added the template sms in column 5 (former 4) "Percentage..." it sorted ok. Now when you have deleted the sms it does not sort correctly anylonger. Test it yourself by pressing the sorting button twice. USA should be at top with 20.56 but now Russia is at top with 6.474! Could you please explain what kind of sorting problems you experienced in column 5 that made you delete the sms?
- And I also aligned the decimal point (talk) in column 6 "Immigrants..." to make the numbers more easily readable. Now you have deleted it because of "sorting problem". Could you please explain this sorting problem in more detail? It could be a browser problem. I am using Internet Explorer 7, which are you using? In my edit [1] all columns sorted perfectly except column 1 "Rank" which I saw you fixed. Najro ( talk) 13:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Najro, wow, you're right, in column 5 I did create the problem I thought I solved! Strange that I didn't notice yesterday. Sorry about that, I'll revert this change. (Needs to be done manually. :-( )
- In column 6, however, the sorting does not work for me (1, 10, 2, ...) with the previous version and it does work now. I use Firefox 2.0.0.14. Cheers, -- EnOreg ( talk) 00:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I dont know how many precent of the swedish population is from other countries but its definetly NOT 12/100.(maybe, if you count finland-sweden immegrants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.10.135 ( talk) 18:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
-- Bezuidenhout ( talk)I think south africa is a bit out of date as there are officialy at least 3 million immigrants from zimbabwe alone(bbc) and there are deffinatley more from mozambique. —Preceding comment was added at 15:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Spot on B. During the 2001 census I interviewed my domestic servant who said she was born in SA. Later I found out she in fact comes from Zimbabwe and was fearful of being sent back. So unless Stats SA and the UN did a good job (doubtful), there is bound to be massive under reporting. I think the Economist reported that a Zimbabwean makes 6 times more and has much greater political freedom in SA than back home. So SA should be much much higher on this list than other countries where the pressures are not as great. -- Nic Roets ( talk) 19:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- During to the 2001 census, approximately 1 million people reported that they were not born in SA. [2] -- Nic Roets ( talk) 11:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
What about Taiwan? It has a non-gray color on the map, but isn't listed in the table. If it should be counted under China, then we should say so. 71.131.194.193 ( talk) 20:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There are millions of foreign born citizens and immigrants in Turkey. 1.5 million is very low estimate. Only Yugoslavia and Bulgaria expelled more than one million Muslims. And there are Iraqis, Armenians, Moldavian, Georgians, Russians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.236.55 ( talk) 09:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I find it awfully hard to believe that there are only 156,000 immigrants in the Dominican Republic. There must be more than that from Haiti alone. Funnyhat ( talk) 05:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
LOL ofcourse,haitians in the DR are about 1 million,there a lots and lots of asians(mostly chinese) and there's a pretty big ammount of Southamericans-- BoricuaPR ( talk) 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is Australia marked with the colour for 10-20% and not 20-50%? The percentage of Australian's born overseas is 25%, as given by on the following Australian government website (from 2008): http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/15population.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denkealsobin ( talk • contribs) 23:55, October 19, 2009
- One reason is that the article needs to compare numbers from the same year. The UN report gives numbers from 2006, not 2008. According to the report, Australias population in 2006 was 20.3 million compared with 21.4 million according to your source for 2008.
- In any case, whenever you update facts please reference your source in the article.
- I'm not sure what to do here. I don't see a methodological difference in the two sources and it seems implausible that the population and immigration grew this steeply within two years. Are there other reliable sources? -- EnOreg ( talk) 13:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is no discrepancy. The Australian Bureau of Statistics confirms a growth rate of 2.1% per annum: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0
- Using a pocket calculator, growth from 20.3 to 21.4 in two years is reasonable at this rate. Thus, no discrepancy. Denkealsobin ( talk) 17:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Most articles on Wikipedia (e.g. the ones for Monaco, Demographics of Monaco etc) state that only 15-16% of the population are native Monegasques. This article presents a much larger number. Any reasons for the discrepancy? Avman89 ( talk) 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- This article says that, based on UN numbers, 70.11% of the residents of Monaco was born outside the country. So 30 % was born inside the country. The difference between 15% and 30% can be due to a number of factors, including definition (does being born in Monaco make you Monegasque ?), how the number was obtained (interview a statistical sample like a census vs. official government records) and base year combined with extrapolation. To be within 15% is quite good, considering how open the borders are and how little resources will be allocated to researching the demographics of such a small country. --
Nic Roets (
talk) 21:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Being born in Monaco does not make you Monegasque, that's where the discrepancy comes from. 30% of the population were born in Monaco, but only half of them are citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.78.10 ( talk) 20:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Canada has a population of only about 34 000 000 people, but we are listed as having 38 000 000 immigrants. It also says that those 38 mil. are 12.81% of the country's population which would make Canada's population 300 million.
Yours trully Railroader 96 20:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Railroader96 ( talk • contribs)
The table lists a number of 6.2 million immigrants and says that is 18.76% of the population. The table doesn't give any number for the total population but if you do the maths you arrive at about 33 million. Where are the numbers you are referring to? -- EnOreg ( talk) 09:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)- Oh, now I see. You are commenting on a vandalized version of the article that has been reverted in the meantime. -- EnOreg ( talk) 12:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
By popular demand again the appeal: Don't update individual numbers! To keep the numbers comparable they all must be from the same year. Update all (based on a new study) or nothing.
If you have a reliable source for a new number for an individual country you can add a comment in the Notes-column, mentioning the number and referencing the source. However, don't update the numbers in the other columns unless you update all of them based on a new, consistent UN study. The lemma has 2005 in it for a reason.
Thank you, -- EnOreg ( talk) 19:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The idea of 45.38 percent of the current (or 2005) population of Gaza and the West Bank being born outside of said territories is definitely overblown by at least a factor of 10. There has been no immigration to these territories to speak of since 1949. I recommend deleting, unless someone can get reality figures from a serious source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.9.174 ( talk) 22:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, as these numbers come from a reliable source, i.e., the UN it works the other way around: You find a reliable source making your doubts credible. Then you can voice them in a footnote to the Palestine entry. -- EnOreg ( talk) 11:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I checked and found that the numbers given by the UN source appear to use a broader definition of "immigrant" (i.e., other than "people born outside their country of residence") in all countries where the UNRWA registers so called "Palestinian refugees", defined by UNRWA as both actual refugees and all of their descendants. Happy politics. As the most reputable UN is involved in this piece of flagrant propaganda and dishonesty, I do not mind if the article keeps the wrong numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Alkibiades ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Political ranting aside, this is indeed a very interesting clarification. Thanks for improving the article with this information. Cheers, -- EnOreg ( talk) 20:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
In 2010, it was estimated that 961,121 people in Mexico are immigrants by INEGI. Many from the U.S., Central America or the Caribbean. http://www.inegi.org.mx/inegi/contenidos/espanol/prensa/contenidos/Articulos/sociodemograficas/nacidosenotropais.pdf -- GuyWithoutAUsername ( talk) 22:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
having 1% of immigrants in a country with 100 humans is different from having 1% of immigrants on a country with 123456 humans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.195.79 ( talk) 13:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
This list contains both Vatican City and Holy See, but with very different statistics... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.45.678.90 ( talk) 6:01, 2 February 2014 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.49.123.21 ( talk)
- Panama only 156000?, Only Colmbians are more than 200000, there are also a lot of Venezuelans, Dominicans, Haitian, Central Americans, Chineses, Ecuadorians, etc, there must be at least half a million inmigrants or maybe more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.73.67.5 ( talk) 14:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does it indicate what the numbers represent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.192.222 ( talk) 13:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The UN data is inconsistent with many sources. Many of the notes of 2005 already point that out. Just copy them. -- Nic Roets ( talk) 07:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It should be about 10%, and not 1.7%, for that one country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sockerkorn ( talk • contribs) 12:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- I saw this too! Seconded. Also, note, it's in direct contradiction to the 'Demographics of Denmark' article (which gives the rate as 10.4% having one parent not born in Denmark). Is this a typo (10.7 required rather than 1.7?), or is this a quirk of the way the Danish state measures (im)migration? 109.246.241.180 ( talk) 00:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're right, this must be a typo. Thanks for spotting this.
- With respect to the definition of an immigrant, note that the U.N. only considers persons born outside their country of residence. "[H]aving one parent not born" there is a rather different definition. -- EnOreg ( talk) 12:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. -- Nic Roets ( talk) 07:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The UK being between France & Germany in the table, & all being within 10%-20% means these three countries should be the same colour. The map however makes it appear like the percentage of Britain's population is made up of fewer migrants when this is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.79.190 ( talk) 03:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- the wrong map of russia. where is crimea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolltheblunt ( talk • contribs) 11:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
After backing out the Native American population (less than 10%, I believe) shouldn't all current citizens be counted as immigrants? Does this table only mean "recent" imigrants? Nearly everyone in America today traces their ancestry to Europe, Africa, Asia, et cetera? Does anyone else see it this way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.160.154 ( talk) 11:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you really serious? Immigrant is a person who lives in a country where the person was not born. If you are born in the Unites States, you are not an immigrant, but an American.
- Most countries have experienced immigration waves going back thousands of years, it would be near impossible to define the exact original native population as a percentage, you could only arrive at a rough estimate. What exactly is a Native American, all the waves of colonists from the siberian-alaska land bridge or only the first wave, pure blooded Native Americans or mixed blooded. Perhaps, you would define a Native American as having certain racial characteristics but if you applied that same logic to the United Kingdom, for example, you may decide that only people with red hair and green eyes or people with blood type O are true natives and the rest are immigrants. It would be very controversial and again nearly impossible to arrive at anything other than a rough estimate of numbers. All countries, regardless of their current policies on immigration, would be found to have around 90 to 100 percent immigrant population, except perhaps Iceland. If, you want exact percentages you have to limit yourself to recent history.
Please, go to school. Opinoso ( talk) 16:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
How do immigrants in UAE make up more than 100 % of the population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.88.37 ( talk • contribs)
- Good catch, Koavf added those columns by hand from this source. Probably a typo. -- Van helsing 08:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking all of the higher than signs (>) in the Percentage of total number of immigrants in the world column, should be lower than signs (<).
Ex. Nepal: (819000/186579300)*100= 0.44, thus <0.5%. Matthijs Triep 04:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The table sorts alphabetically, not numerically (1000 is ranked lower than 9, because the first digit is lower). I've tried to play about with the code along the lines described in Help:Sorting, but without success. Can anyone help? Matt 07:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- First, it's not really CSS… You just have to know how this specific javascript sorting code works. Unfortunately, Help:Sorting is a copy of Meta page and it describes heavily modified Meta version of sorting script (I'm trying to fix that).
- The most important thing is: whenever you click on the sorting icon, the script looks at the first non-empty cell which is on top at the moment, if it's a number then the whole column will be sorted numerically. So the solution is to remove "-" in the Western Sahara row (leaving empty cells).
- Unfortunately I'm not sure what could be done for the the 4th column ("Percentage of total number"), it seems like you can't keep < and still sort it correctly ∴ Alex Smotrov 15:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think I've fixed the sorting problems now. The table used the SMS template inappropriately and aligned at the decimal point in a way that made proper sorting impossible. -- EnOreg ( talk) 05:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well it was actually I that fixed the sorting problems, but didnt make a notice about it here. When I added the template sms in column 5 (former 4) "Percentage..." it sorted ok. Now when you have deleted the sms it does not sort correctly anylonger. Test it yourself by pressing the sorting button twice. USA should be at top with 20.56 but now Russia is at top with 6.474! Could you please explain what kind of sorting problems you experienced in column 5 that made you delete the sms?
- And I also aligned the decimal point (talk) in column 6 "Immigrants..." to make the numbers more easily readable. Now you have deleted it because of "sorting problem". Could you please explain this sorting problem in more detail? It could be a browser problem. I am using Internet Explorer 7, which are you using? In my edit [1] all columns sorted perfectly except column 1 "Rank" which I saw you fixed. Najro ( talk) 13:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Najro, wow, you're right, in column 5 I did create the problem I thought I solved! Strange that I didn't notice yesterday. Sorry about that, I'll revert this change. (Needs to be done manually. :-( )
- In column 6, however, the sorting does not work for me (1, 10, 2, ...) with the previous version and it does work now. I use Firefox 2.0.0.14. Cheers, -- EnOreg ( talk) 00:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I dont know how many precent of the swedish population is from other countries but its definetly NOT 12/100.(maybe, if you count finland-sweden immegrants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.10.135 ( talk) 18:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
-- Bezuidenhout ( talk)I think south africa is a bit out of date as there are officialy at least 3 million immigrants from zimbabwe alone(bbc) and there are deffinatley more from mozambique. —Preceding comment was added at 15:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Spot on B. During the 2001 census I interviewed my domestic servant who said she was born in SA. Later I found out she in fact comes from Zimbabwe and was fearful of being sent back. So unless Stats SA and the UN did a good job (doubtful), there is bound to be massive under reporting. I think the Economist reported that a Zimbabwean makes 6 times more and has much greater political freedom in SA than back home. So SA should be much much higher on this list than other countries where the pressures are not as great. -- Nic Roets ( talk) 19:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- During to the 2001 census, approximately 1 million people reported that they were not born in SA. [2] -- Nic Roets ( talk) 11:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
What about Taiwan? It has a non-gray color on the map, but isn't listed in the table. If it should be counted under China, then we should say so. 71.131.194.193 ( talk) 20:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There are millions of foreign born citizens and immigrants in Turkey. 1.5 million is very low estimate. Only Yugoslavia and Bulgaria expelled more than one million Muslims. And there are Iraqis, Armenians, Moldavian, Georgians, Russians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.236.55 ( talk) 09:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I find it awfully hard to believe that there are only 156,000 immigrants in the Dominican Republic. There must be more than that from Haiti alone. Funnyhat ( talk) 05:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
LOL ofcourse,haitians in the DR are about 1 million,there a lots and lots of asians(mostly chinese) and there's a pretty big ammount of Southamericans-- BoricuaPR ( talk) 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is Australia marked with the colour for 10-20% and not 20-50%? The percentage of Australian's born overseas is 25%, as given by on the following Australian government website (from 2008): http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/15population.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denkealsobin ( talk • contribs) 23:55, October 19, 2009
- One reason is that the article needs to compare numbers from the same year. The UN report gives numbers from 2006, not 2008. According to the report, Australias population in 2006 was 20.3 million compared with 21.4 million according to your source for 2008.
- In any case, whenever you update facts please reference your source in the article.
- I'm not sure what to do here. I don't see a methodological difference in the two sources and it seems implausible that the population and immigration grew this steeply within two years. Are there other reliable sources? -- EnOreg ( talk) 13:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is no discrepancy. The Australian Bureau of Statistics confirms a growth rate of 2.1% per annum: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0
- Using a pocket calculator, growth from 20.3 to 21.4 in two years is reasonable at this rate. Thus, no discrepancy. Denkealsobin ( talk) 17:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Most articles on Wikipedia (e.g. the ones for Monaco, Demographics of Monaco etc) state that only 15-16% of the population are native Monegasques. This article presents a much larger number. Any reasons for the discrepancy? Avman89 ( talk) 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- This article says that, based on UN numbers, 70.11% of the residents of Monaco was born outside the country. So 30 % was born inside the country. The difference between 15% and 30% can be due to a number of factors, including definition (does being born in Monaco make you Monegasque ?), how the number was obtained (interview a statistical sample like a census vs. official government records) and base year combined with extrapolation. To be within 15% is quite good, considering how open the borders are and how little resources will be allocated to researching the demographics of such a small country. --
Nic Roets (
talk) 21:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Being born in Monaco does not make you Monegasque, that's where the discrepancy comes from. 30% of the population were born in Monaco, but only half of them are citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.78.10 ( talk) 20:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Canada has a population of only about 34 000 000 people, but we are listed as having 38 000 000 immigrants. It also says that those 38 mil. are 12.81% of the country's population which would make Canada's population 300 million.
Yours trully Railroader 96 20:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Railroader96 ( talk • contribs)
The table lists a number of 6.2 million immigrants and says that is 18.76% of the population. The table doesn't give any number for the total population but if you do the maths you arrive at about 33 million. Where are the numbers you are referring to? -- EnOreg ( talk) 09:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)- Oh, now I see. You are commenting on a vandalized version of the article that has been reverted in the meantime. -- EnOreg ( talk) 12:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
By popular demand again the appeal: Don't update individual numbers! To keep the numbers comparable they all must be from the same year. Update all (based on a new study) or nothing.
If you have a reliable source for a new number for an individual country you can add a comment in the Notes-column, mentioning the number and referencing the source. However, don't update the numbers in the other columns unless you update all of them based on a new, consistent UN study. The lemma has 2005 in it for a reason.
Thank you, -- EnOreg ( talk) 19:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The idea of 45.38 percent of the current (or 2005) population of Gaza and the West Bank being born outside of said territories is definitely overblown by at least a factor of 10. There has been no immigration to these territories to speak of since 1949. I recommend deleting, unless someone can get reality figures from a serious source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.9.174 ( talk) 22:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, as these numbers come from a reliable source, i.e., the UN it works the other way around: You find a reliable source making your doubts credible. Then you can voice them in a footnote to the Palestine entry. -- EnOreg ( talk) 11:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I checked and found that the numbers given by the UN source appear to use a broader definition of "immigrant" (i.e., other than "people born outside their country of residence") in all countries where the UNRWA registers so called "Palestinian refugees", defined by UNRWA as both actual refugees and all of their descendants. Happy politics. As the most reputable UN is involved in this piece of flagrant propaganda and dishonesty, I do not mind if the article keeps the wrong numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Alkibiades ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Political ranting aside, this is indeed a very interesting clarification. Thanks for improving the article with this information. Cheers, -- EnOreg ( talk) 20:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
In 2010, it was estimated that 961,121 people in Mexico are immigrants by INEGI. Many from the U.S., Central America or the Caribbean. http://www.inegi.org.mx/inegi/contenidos/espanol/prensa/contenidos/Articulos/sociodemograficas/nacidosenotropais.pdf -- GuyWithoutAUsername ( talk) 22:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
having 1% of immigrants in a country with 100 humans is different from having 1% of immigrants on a country with 123456 humans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.195.79 ( talk) 13:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
This list contains both Vatican City and Holy See, but with very different statistics... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.45.678.90 ( talk) 6:01, 2 February 2014 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.49.123.21 ( talk)
- Panama only 156000?, Only Colmbians are more than 200000, there are also a lot of Venezuelans, Dominicans, Haitian, Central Americans, Chineses, Ecuadorians, etc, there must be at least half a million inmigrants or maybe more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.73.67.5 ( talk) 14:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does it indicate what the numbers represent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.192.222 ( talk) 13:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)