Talk:World population/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Graph "Worlds Share of Population..."

The Graph for continents has a different number of continents than its legend, and the graph proportions appear to be incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.155.143 (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right and wrong, You might think it misses one (Oceania) but it actually is between orange and green, in a realy, realy, realy small blue line. The graph it self can be edited as it shows all 7 billion of the world but the stats near it will confuse the regular user (including me)
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Historical Population Estimates

Could someone add the Angus Madsison historical populations by country?

They're in the historical population section below

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/content.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouyuecheng (talk • contribs) 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

moscow or istanbul

isn't istanbul's population (without surrounding urban areas) bigger than moscow? 88.66.27.100 (talk)

• Yes. I am wondering where the number for Moscow (14,837,510) came from and what it encompasses. There is no reference. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

BBC now say 107,6bn and apparently some people did live twice.

BBC News now claims there were a total of 107bn 600mio people (H. S. S.) who have lived since 50k BC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16870579

The strange thing is the genetical variance of Homo Sap. Sap. race is only enough for 70bn different gene sequences according to Wikipedia, so some humans must have lived twice already! (and James Bond was right?) That's because at least 100bn people have lived since 4000 BC, by which time human genetical evolution was already over, with various colour races already developed and bearded sumers topping clay brick towers. 82.131.133.7 (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thats the dumbest thing i have ever read86.6.234.40 (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The human genome has over 3 billion base pairs and less than 30,000 genes. Therefore average human gene is over 100,000 base pairs long. Given that:

• 4^5 > 1000
• 4^10 > 1 million
• 4^15 > 1 billion
• 4^20 > 1 trillion

A single string of 10,000 base pairs can result in one of more than 10^6,000 combinations. That is a googol to the 60th power.

Therefore, 82.131.133.7 is totally wrong on this one.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 04:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

European Union

Hello everybody, I was looking for some aggregate information on the European Union. Could we please add them?

Thank you! Pietro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.216.213 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Regional milestones by the billions

The "Regional milestones by the billions" section is completely unsourced and without dates, and I haven't been able to find reliable sources online. The article already lists reliable sources for the historical populations of individual regions and continents - do we really need a repetitious, unsourced section on "regional milestones by the billions?" Would anyone like to help find those sources, or should I delete the section? Michaelmas1957 (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, my mistake - it does include dates. But those have to be backed up by sources. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Incongruities

The first few lines give the current world population according to the USCB to be over 7 billion, yet the 'Forecast' subsection gives the USCB projection for breaking 7 billion to be July 2012. I'm not sure if there's a projection for topping 8 billion which may be more relevant now, or if it would make more sense to simply remove a few sentences, but I thought this needed flagging. 92.15.51.203 (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I forgot to update that section in March. Done now. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Billion

Please make the first mention of billion an in-site link. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: per WP:OVERLINK. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, but billion is very a important term in this context and is used throughout the entire article, and in numbers, billion has a long and a short scale: 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000,000. I do think at least one in-site link would be justified. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd support the OP's request; "billion" is indeed an ambiguous term because of long/short scale issues.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: I've added one link for the first use of billion (to the short scale), but I'd like to see a consensus before I add it in anywhere else. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

High rank of total population

In table "Countries ranking highly in terms of both total population and population density", the criteria 15M and 250 people/km^2 were chosen without explanation. IMHO it would be more interesting to display a list of "dense" countries from a short-list of the really big ones, say above 50M. (25 countries have over 50M people as I'm writing these lines). According to this suggestion the implication is that Pakistan, Germany and Italy would replace Taiwan, Sri Lanka and Netherlands in the table. Their densities are approx in the 200-230 range which is not a great difference relative to UK and Viet Nam (250+). What say you? Eric car (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The UN number in - d*mn quick!

English is (now) known to be a global language, one that tourists especially know very well and "belonging" to 2 - 4 Bn people, loosely and by my own estimate given fast expanding Internet (Glo Network and so on) all users combined, primary and secondary: I want the UN counter (that speaks for everyone) IN. It is here: http://7billionactions.org/ . (Yes, we still miss the US commitment to the UN, but they have indeed signed Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, still though in the World, cluster bombs and mines, all "maiming well"!) 84.202.100.86 (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC), removing a slight, "false accusation". 84.202.101.225 (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

White people only 12% of the population?

The world population is seven billion. 10% of that is 700 million, so 12% is something like 850 million. There are 730 million people in Europe, of which only about 30 million are non-Europeans. So, 700 million white Europeans plus 220 million White Americans= 920 million people. Then you have around 200 million White Latin Americans, which then places the white population above one billion. I can't even access the source that says whites are 12% of the population. It has to be bigger than that.

The Universe Is Cool (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)The Universe Is Cool

There actually seems to be no source given for the "12-13%" statement; possibly someone added just the "Germans, French and English" mentioned in the "reference" footnote, which might explain the discrepancy. But do you have references for the numbers you give here? I would expect the number of white Latin Americans to be much smaller, for example...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

White Latin Americans number around 200 million. There are over 220 million White Americans. That's over 400 million people plus the 700 million Europeans. The number of white people easily exceeds one billion.

The Universe Is Cool (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)The Universe Is Cool

Why not erase the whole skin-notions whatsoever, as they are so "conspiring" and rather use "ethnicity" such as Euro-Americans for these "white" Americans? Any good? 109.189.208.182 (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the conversation? My point is people of European descent number over one billion and easily surpass 12% of the world population.

The Universe Is Cool (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)The Universe Is Cool

Billion fallacy in second sentence of article

I don't seem able to edit that first paragraph of content, but there's a very slight (though significant) fallacy. It says:

As of today, it is estimated to number 7,044,445,200 billion by the United States Census Bureau (USCB).

But that's not the case. It should read "7,044,445,200 people" or "7.044 billion". 7 billion billion people would be far more than this world could handle.

Jpickar (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Jason

Yeah, that was some IP's test edit/vandalism. I've fixed it now. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks!

Jpickar (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Population by continent

Australia is most depressed at not being invited to the party. 2birds1stone (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Mega cities map is wrong

This image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2006megacities.PNG is wrong. Germany is all covered in red, but the only Germany cities that have more than 1 million inhabitants are Berlin, Hamburg, München (Munich) and maybe Köln (Cologne). 93.128.151.22 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Billion (again)

In my opinion, the first usage of the word "billion" needs an internal link. I've explained why a while back and as a result of a short discussion (see Talk:World_population/Archive_3#Billion), an edit was made. That edit was reverted rather quickly. However, nothing has changed: billion is still a important term in this context and it is still an ambiguous term because of long/short scale issues. Please discuss and if billion gets an internal link again, maybe add <!-- a comment after it --> that explains why it's linked. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree and since "billion" has different meanings in different parts of the world, Done I've linked it to billion. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Simple issue with text should be fixed

Richard C. Duncan claims the that the world population will decline to about 2 billion around 2050.[126]

should be changed to:

Richard C. Duncan claims that the world population will decline to about 2 billion around 2050.[126]

or

Richard C. Duncan claims the world population will decline to about 2 billion around 2050.[126] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrpenner (talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No Valid Reference for 'UN 2008 estimates and medium variant projections' table

Reference for table is not available (see http://esa.un.org/unpp). Table needs to be removed or revised! Mindravel (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it'd best be updated for the new 2013 predictions, if these are already available in detail. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Done Updated link to the 2008 data source. 2012 Data are available, but I don't have the time to change the data table right now. These updates are not annual. Next update (after 2012) will be 2015. Meclee (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect/confusing continent identifications

1. The section entitled "Population by region" is very confusing. Continents (e.g. Asia and Europe), are compared to Regions (e.g. "Northern America" and "Oceania"). It is apples and oranges.

2. The table on the right says, "Top ten most populous (%)". Most populous what? It lists North America and Asia, which are continents, and Latin America and the Middle East, which are not continents. And only six of the ten entities are numbered.

3. The table on the right shows "Asia" and underneath it "+ China". There are several other "+" signs, which should be bullets, not the symbol for addition.

4. In the table on the right, the population of "North America" does not include Central America, as it should, because (presumably) Central America is included in "Latin America". And the footnote to "North America" mistakenly defines it as "US, Canada, Mexico".

5. In the table on the right, under "Europe" is "ex-Soviet Union". Since the Soviet Union no longer exists, it is hard to see how this matters anymore.

96.228.5.215 (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC) treplag

6. In the section mentioning "Continents" it is wrongly mentioned the existence of North and South America, in fact there is only one "America". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.67.61.249 (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

7. "Predictions of scarcity": This paragraph is misleading "In 1798, the British scholar Thomas Malthus incorrectly predicted that continued population growth would exhaust the global food supply by the mid-19th century." The facts are that the "Great Irish famine" (years 1845, 1852) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29 and other phenomena (previous and latter)confirm what Malthus said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.249.148.1 (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

8. In the "UN 2012 estimates and medium variant projections (in millions)" table of the "Projections" section, there is an error on the row of 2025 year in both Europe and Latin America/Caribbean percentages. The european percent of that year should be 9.1 instead of 10.1 and the latin american/caribbean percent should be 8.5 instead of 9.2. That is why in the final sum of the percentages of that year the result is 101.7 instad of 100. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLTrevinho (talk • contribs) 04:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion Drawn From Incomplete Data Set

The line "in 2011, around 63% of children of the relevant age were enrolled in secondary education worldwide." cites the world bank website as its source. If you dig into this data set, you will see that it does not contain data for China OR India . This should probably be removed, as the countries sampled are a little bit random in any given year. (Please excuse any bad wiki-etiquite, this is my first time contributing to a talk page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.211.5 (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

One week later, seems like no objections, I'm going to remove the sentence, please revert the edit if you disagree - but please take a look at the data set before you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.211.5 (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Population based on tectonic plates

The population statistics for this article are largely based on arbitrary political lines. For the sake of scientific documentation, perhaps we should begin breaking up the population based on tectonic plates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.252.103.23 (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Why? Political borders do matter. Historically, in some societies, water connected and land separated. And breakdowns should be based on what data is available - what our sources do.--Nø (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Political borders matter, so do non-political ones. I can begin recompiling the data. 24.97.221.98 (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

New data

Added data for 2010 and 2012 taken from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/9/97/World_population%2C_1960-2012.png, itself taken from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/European_population_compared_with_world_population.

The table seems too long now. Whoever may wish may delete at will or add the source, as I don't know how to do that. Azubarev2 (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Azubarev2

Peak oil collapse sources

I noticed a few days ago that material had been added to the article which had been taken from the peak oil/collapse movement. For those unfamiliar, the peak oil/collapse movement is a fringe movement which claimed repeatedly that industrial civilization would collapse suddenly because of peak oil, first in 2006 and then every few years since then.

The peal oil/collapse ideology is a fringe crackpot body of theories. It is not a scientific body of theory. It is not supported by relevant experts.

I often keep up on fringe/doomsday/collapse movements, out of curiosity. I've been following the peak oil/collapse movement for about 6 years now. It is my third doomsday/collapse group.

When I saw those ideas being promoted on wikipedia, I felt it violated WP:Fringe and I removed the material. Especially the sources entitled "4 Billion Deaths!" which predicted an imminent population die-off back in the late-2000s, and Richard Duncan's "Olduvai Gorge" theory, in which he claimed that industrial civilization would collapse and there would be permanent electrical blackouts worldwide circa 2008.

Now I notice that someone has re-added some of the material. However, the material now has a reference to a more credible-sounding source. The material now has a reference to a study written by an officer in the German Army. The study is reported in the German magazine, Spiegel.

Nevertheless, I still believe that the material is crackpot pseudoscience and should not be allowed here. The study extensively relies upon crackpot or unreliable sources of information such as The Oil Drum (a website), Richard Heinberg, and other sources which are not serious. The "study" is not a study in the scientific sense, but a whitepaper by a non-expert which relies upon crackpot sources for information. I realize it might have some imprimatur of credibility to have someone within the German army writing these things. However I don't believe that's enough for it to be considered a reliable source. It appears that the German officer who wrote the "study" and the author of Spiegel article, have both been duped by a crackpot pseudscientific doomsday group. I think this material is unsuitable according to WP:Fringe and should be removed, or at least presented as a fringe or discredited view.

I don't wish to start an edit war about this, but I do wish to solicit opinions and argumentation here about whether the material and source should be allowed. If there is no consensus gained here then I will refer the matter to the WP:Fringe noticeboard.

Thanks, Pthbbb (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Peak oil is a fact, at some point the peak in production of oil must occur since it is a finite resource. --- Tobby72 (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not the point. The referenced source claims more than just "oil is finite". The referenced source, also claims that there are severe, near-term threats to civilization and the food supply. For example, on pages 58 and 59 of that document: "the global economic system and all market-oriented economies would collapse... Collapse of critical infrastructures... Famines...". Those claims are not supported by any serious scientific work, and are supported only by crackpot sources with a long history of failed doomsday predictions. Therefore, those claims not allowed according to WP:Fringe, even if oil is finite.Pthbbb (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That graph must be wrong?

On top right corner of the article there is a graph projecting lower population growth and "worst case", only linear growth. If you look at the historical part of the graph, it show accelerated growth. What has happened in last 20 years to remove the possibility to further acceleration/steeper slope of growth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14B8:100:2A9:0:0:0:2 (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Population clock update needed

The population clock at the start of the page is currently about 3.5 million off of the estimate that the source gives. Anyone know how to correctly update the templates? --Yair rand (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

---

World population → World human population – Present title is generic, does not state the actual topic of the article. Also: section in Population article is "World human population" not "World population" 109.54.16.225 (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can understand where the nominator is coming from, but I feel the current title is fine as it is the term most commonly used. Additionally, I'm unsure of what would happen with the word population if the move went through. It could be a disambigaution page, but one doesn't exist already. It could also redirect to the new title, but what would the point of moving it be in that case? Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 00:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support counters systematic bias that humans are the only things that count. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It goes without saying that this relates to human population, hence why it is not said. No one is counting insects, reptiles or anything else in this case. All the related sub-pages also conform to the title sans the "human" element (for example World population estimates, World population milestones, List of countries by population, etc. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. With no species stated, the universal assumption is that the topic is about humans. No confusion to fix here. Binksternet (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I support fighting a bias towards white male angloamerican perspectives, I have no problem with a human bias in wikipedia.--Nø (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

7.4 needs rewrite

This section is a really weak part of this topic. Lots of grammatical errors. The claim "some scientists and others..." is backed up only by an opinion piece in the NYT? The rest of the section cites 2 right wing magazine articles (themselves without citations) and an unrelated piece in Scientific American. There is legitimate debate about where the population limit lies, but this is a horrible representation of it. I would suggest this section be removed until it can be written properly. Jaydub99 (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's been reworded somewhat in the meantime. I removed a low-quality polemic right-wing "source", but I think Fred Pearce's Prospect article is a reasonable source. (Actually, the same Prospect magazine also published population-control support articles like [1]) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

World Population 1800 to 2100 graph

I suggest changing legend of the graph to better reflect the terminology (and meaning) used in the data sources. That is, "Actual" is in fact "U.N. estimate", and U.N. Low, Medium and High area actually termed as "UN Medium Variant Projection", etc. ( http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Other-Information/faq.htm#q2 ). The Past estimates may be termed as historical estimates to match the data source terminology. SamuelN77 (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox says: "Geographical definitions as in IEA Key Stats 2010 p. 66", but I am not able to find the definition for "post-Soviet Union" according to this. Perhaps someone would enlight me as to who uses this definition and why it is relevant for this article? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 11:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

If ANYONE has a more "updated statistic" of the "World Population" for 2014, that would be GREATLY Appreciated, seeing as how these "statistics" are from 2012

Thanks you -(Aiden Pierce)- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.7.14 (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

rename page to: Human Population (or something of the sort)

Human's are not the World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.234.66 (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Really, I don't think there is any need to change that; nobody will misunderstand.

• 
  Caption1
• 
  Caption2

COI

A contributor to this article is citing his own work, per the box above. Needs to be reviewed for NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff - i see - you took the "box above" to mean literally just above this section. I was referring to the "connected contributor" tag at the bottom of the yellow box way, way at the top of this page, which actually refers to conflicts of interest (COI). Sorry for being too terse - that is my bad. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, when you said above, I didn't go far : ) ...... No worries. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

fixed it here. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The growth is definitely slowing now

2010, the date of the headline graph, is quite a long time ago. This http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/beyond/beyondco/beg_03.pdf is more recent and less ambiguous. This graph:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Population_Growth_1750_-_2050_sourced_by_the_World_Bank.jpg seems quite clear. Would other editors object it replacing the current article headline graph please?

SmokeyTheCat 12:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the graph is not displaying altho I uploaded it. Do I have to wait for the image to be validated or am I just a stupid old man baffled by the technology? Help, please!

Well, in the absence of any response here I have replaced the graph. I am aware that this is far from perfect but the best I can do. SmokeyTheCat 09:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, is there any indication that the license for that pdf is compatible with wikipedia? Also adding the image like this on the page breaks the layout. --McSly (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe not but I am just concerned that the current graph gives readers a false impression. There is no way that the upper or lower lines on it are accurate. Only the middle line is right. Population is rising but the rate of rise is slowing. Human population growth is very predictable as we know well how many children women will have on average and how many of these will survive. Human population is set to peak and will not reach 11 billion as the more accurate graph shows. Surely this truth is more than important than the layout of the article? The layout can be changed anyway. SmokeyTheCat 09:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The layout problem is a detail and can obviously be fixed. My main point is the copyright of the image. There is no indication whatsoever in the pdf file that the image could be used here. And not surprisingly, it is up for deletion. --McSly (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Use of ERA style

I attempted to change era from BCE/CE to BC/AD throughout the page to reflect the consistency of use of the latter style in academic references. However this was undone by AUS0107 citing WP:ERA rules. Rules which suggest consistency is best to avoid confusion and ambiguity.

The subject of the article is secular, and BCE and CE are already in use in the article. The academic references you are referring to may have their own standards for era names, but within the context of the article itself, I see no reason to change to BC and AD. Aus0107 (talk) 06:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

ERA rules suggest consistency and should tie up with academic references. If the article is based on references then there IS every reason to keep consistent otherwise it looks a bit schizophrenic and diminishes Wiki as a source of reliable, evidence based information.86.7.253.227 (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:ERA suggests consistency of use of style within Wikipedia articles. It does not dictate consistency within Wikipedia as a whole, and it certainly doesn't suggest consistency with external sites or resources. Mindmatrix 21:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Short-scale billion ?

Perhaps it should be pointed out whether the billion figure is short or long scale. Need to check but it is almost certainly short scale. --JamesPoulson (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

No need to point this out in every article using the word "billion"; all English-speaking countries in the World exclusively use short scale today.--Nø (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on World human population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140827000606/http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/EXCEL_FILES/2_Fertility/WPP2012_FERT_F01_BIRTHS_BOTH_SEXES.XLS to http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/EXCEL_FILES/2_Fertility/WPP2012_FERT_F01_BIRTHS_BOTH_SEXES.XLS
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120427065628/http://www.census.gov:80/population/international/data/idb/region.php?N=%20Region%20Results%20&T=7&A=aggregate&RT=0&Y=2011,2012,2013,2014,2015,2016,2017,2018,2019,2020,2021,2022,2023,2024,2025,2026,2027,2028,2029,2030,2031,2032,2033,2034,2035,2036,2037,2038,2039,2040&R=1&C= to http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/region.php?N=%20Region%20Results%20&T=7&A=aggregate&RT=0&Y=2011,2012,2013,2014,2015,2016,2017,2018,2019,2020,2021,2022,2023,2024,2025,2026,2027,2028,2029,2030,2031,2032,2033,2034,2035,2036,2037,2038,2039,2040&R=1&C=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Haub's "40.1%" claim needs removed

This part is inaccurate: "His estimates for infant mortality suggest that around 40% of those who have ever lived did not survive beyond their first birthday."

The article mentions infant mortality, but the numbers are only representative of one time period (a very generic time period at that)

"Infant mortality in the human race’s earliest days is thought to have been very high—perhaps 500 infant deaths per 1,000 births, or even higher. Children were probably an economic liability among hunter-gatherer societies, a fact that is likely to have led to the practice of infanticide."

Using that as a basis for the 40% claim is wrong.

It's also important to note that the he says this in reference to the idea of projecting the number of people who have 'ever lived':

"Any such exercise can be only a highly speculative enterprise, to be undertaken with far less seriousness than most demographic inquiries."

Not sure who posted the above or when. This particular reference may be questionable (especially the part about children being a liability, that's more true in urban areas), but the estimate of 40% infant mortality is not unusual. Some sources may say age 3, he says age 1, but it's pretty likely than half of all humans born did not live to reproductive age. Nerfer (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Error in Copy

The fifth paragraph down(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population) contains this text, " Northern America, primarily consisting of the United States and Canada, has a population of around 352 million (5%)" I believe the United States population is approximately 352, which would mean nobody is living in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Variable1980 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Not to mention Mexico (amazingly, also part of North America)'s population is approximately 122 million compared with Canada's approximate population of 35 million. 204.99.118.9 (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, the United States population isn't nearly as high. They currently have roughly 322 million – so your figure is certainly about 30 million off. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If you're going by continents, then Mexico is part of North America (& Belize, etc). But often (and apparently here) people use the cultural distinction of Latin America vs. North America (roughly, Spanish- & Portuguese-speaking vs English-speaking, with some French in both), and Mexico is part of Latin America. U.S. population in the 2010 census was 310 million, Canada is roughly 10% the population of the U.S. Nerfer (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Total number of humans who have ever died by the sword?

> An estimate of the total number of humans who have ever lived ... ranging from app. 100 billion to 115 billion, with a mean value of 107 billion as of 2011...

It would be important to further elaborate on that value in the article. How many of them died naturally or violently? Some people allege more than half of all humans who ever lived, died at the hand of other humans and homo sapiens is actually homo belligerens.

On the other hand such a claim appears technically impossible, since truly large armies could not be amessed and transported in the pre-railway era, so the maximum amount of carnage was significantly limited, despite the intent of monarchs and stratagems.

Yet, until circa 1870, wars and epidemics walked hand-in-hand and most victims of war fell not from weapons but contaminated food and water supplies, shortage of food/water as well as diseases contacted. Thus natural/violance deaths may be difficult to sort apart. 79.120.175.13 (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose The Better Angels of Our Nature more or less tried to estimate more or less what you are proposing. --dab (𒁳) 07:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Senseless statement

One of the population tables is accompanied "Note: in the table below, the figures for North America only refer to post-European contact settlers, and not native populations from before European settlement." That begs at least two question: 1. Under which category are the native populations from before European contact listed (included)? 2. Why aren't the people of the Americas listed in the corresponding geographical category or categories? 3. Aren't we just counting people on various continents here? In other words, what does ethnicity, politics, or ancestral homelands (?) have do with this in the first place? Questions 1. and 2. obviously must have answers for the table to make sense, and question 3. is quite obviously a relevant question in light of this confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.127.210.173 (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Senseless statement is senseless. It's Wikipedia, you can just as easily remove it as the person who added it was able to add it. It is ostensibly senseless because it gives estimates for the year 1000, and unless you want to assume that eight million Vikings migrated to South America, these values clearly refer to pre-European contact populations. --dab (𒁳) 07:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like to modify the above by saying that the statement was not senseless when it was first added, and it was just kept around even when people fiddled with the data in the table. More to the point, substantial portions of the table are still unreferenced. In cases like these, it is better to have no data than to have unreferenced data. We have a certain responsibility here, journalists use Wikipedia all the time, unthinkingly. We shouldn't just pull numbers out of our collective behinds. --dab (𒁳) 08:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

@Engineering Guy: Your undiscussed move broke all the archive links, and probably more. At least have the decency to clean up after your own mess. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I think a move or similar action like this is fine as per WP:BOLD. I am ready to correct the broken links. I just want opinion, if any, on what a suitable final title for this article is: "World human population", "World's human population", "Human population of the world", "World population of humans", or something else. (I think all these are better than just "World population". The species should be mentioned when using the word "population".) --Engineering Guy (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly why you should discuss first and move later. How many times are you intending to break links and clean them up, or have other people clean them up? Shooting straight from the hip is a bad idea in such a case. WP:BOLD is not for moves of highly prominent pages as this one. Also note that nobody else has butted in on the issue of how to name the page; start a formal discussion, so more people will notice, and we will talk. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is fine, followed by WP:BRD. The move was misguided. The introduction clearly says "in demographics, world population means...". The term used in demographics, as well as in common language, is "world population", not "world human population" (which is malformed anyway, if anything it should be human world population, unless you want to idly argue syntax along the lines of Tolkien's "green great dragon" -- which is a great argument, just one that is not in its proper place in the naming of Wikipedia articles on pragmatic topics; but, channeling Tolkien, "human world" or "world human" is redundant anyhow). Language doesn't work the way you think it does. --dab (𒁳) 08:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

this made me research the term's history. It seems that the compound "world population" arises around 1930, from the earlier genitive construction "the world's population", which itself isn't much older (c. 1900?). Before that (19th century), it was necessary to say "the population of the world", or "the population of the globe", etc.; note how at no point was there ever a term "the human population of the globe" or similar in common usage. I would argue that "world" is here meaningfully (archaically) used in its original, etymological sense. It is slightly jarring to say "the world population of gerbils" (as opposed to "the global population of gerbils"), because "world" still does retain shade of its meaning of "relevant to humanity taken as a whole" rather than "global", "terran", "universal", etc. --dab (𒁳) 09:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Modern era needs to accommodate migration

The section on the modern era talks about population growth in the U.S. and population decline in the former Soviet Union, but both of those are heavily affected by migration (not necessarily reflecting growth/decline of world population). I don't have time/plan for changing this now, but it should be modified. Nerfer (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

why? it's perfectly fine as it is, "population growth" for any given country includes migration, and "growth in the US" combined with "decline in the former SU" (etc.) will still be both relevant and accurate to a description of world population. The fact that some populations are rapidly outbred by others and about to replaced via migration is certainly important and portentuous, but not to the subject of "world population", which refers to human population taken as a single whole. --dab (𒁳) 10:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Number of humans who have ever lived

The article mentions the following sentence without stating a source for the statement or the scholarly estimates: "Several other scholarly estimates published in the first decade of the 21st century give figures ranging from approximately 100 billion to 115 billion." — A^Eden 12:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I fixed this. As you would expect, the margin of error is much larger, of the order of 30% or so. Even modern estimates aren't better than to a few percent, so it is entirely pointless to cite estimates of the "number of humans who have ever lived" to three significant digits. --dab (𒁳) 09:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

After some research, I find human population during the Paleolithic is estimated at about 100,000. The question of "who to include" (speciation at 130 kya vs. 2Mya) would thus result in a margin of error of about 1E10 individuals, or about 10% of the total number, well within a margin of error of some 30% (but certainly affecting any estimate attemting to give two significant digits). The question of including Australopithecines and what have you, back to the human-chimp mrca, on the other hand, becomes intractable and would possibly affect the result by a factor of 2 or so (but probably still would not affect the order of magnitude of 1e+11). --dab (𒁳) 11:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on World population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://srs.dl.ac.uk/SPEAKERS/KAPITZA/Uspekhi_96.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060222095418/http://www.unfpa.org/6billion/ to http://www.unfpa.org/6billion/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130718121104/http://7billionactions.org/ to http://www.7billionactions.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy of estimates

@Dbachmann: Thank you for adding the info about the accuracy of population estimates. A margin of error between 3–5% means that the real world population in July 2015 was somewhere between about 7.0 and 7.7 billion, and makes more than two significant digits definitely indefensible – two digits are barely justifiable, with the less significant digit being very uncertain. However, this also means that I was right to suspect that the scepticism expressed in the edit I reverted here is excessive. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on World population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101220025/http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf to http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101220025/http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf to http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210203604/http://www.interacademies.net/?id=3547 to http://www.interacademies.net/?id=3547
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150816232627/http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm to http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150816232627/http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm to http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150816232627/http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm to http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Cleaning up the sources

I have made some changes to the page in response to the "verify sources" maintenance tag on this article. There are still some more left, but I didn't have the time to find alternate sources which will verify the same data. The ones I think we still need to remove since they don't look like original sources or authoritative ones are:

• http://www.indexmundi.com/
• http://www.internetworldstats.com/
• http://www.adherents.com/

There may be others, of course. Amiwikieditor (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

New Section: Number of Living Humans

Would like to see the chart summarized with totals, telling such as number of humans currently living.<3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornyowl (talk • contribs) 06:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2017

10 most densely populated countries (with population above 5 million)

Rank Country Population Area (km2) Density (Pop. per km2) 1 Singapore 5,535,000 710 7','796 2 Bangladesh 161,940,000 143,998 1,125 3 Taiwan 23,519,518 36,190 650 4 South Korea 50,801,405 99,538 510 5 Lebanon 5,988,000 10,452 573 6 Rwanda 11,553,188 26,338 439 7 Burundi 11,552,561 27,816 415 8 Netherlands 17,110,000 41,526 412 9 Haiti 11,078,033 27,065 409 10 India 1,311,960,000 3,287,240 399

In this chart you need to add a comma after the first 7 in the density column for the Singapore row. Rbspyro (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  17:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Population check for Lagos

The article refers to the largest city in Africa being Lagos at 21M people. However, the Wikipedia article on Lagos itself only has lower numbers; even the numbers for Lagos state (more than the metropolitan area) are lower than 21M. So I'm wondering where the 21M number comes from and if it should be updated. As I'm not sure what a proper number would be I didn't want to make the page edit myself. --84.30.8.211 (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The united nations, 1st paragraph.

The United Nations estimates that World Populations will reach 6 billion by the year 2100, a reduction of 1.4 billion due overal Universal improvements in hygiene, living standards and education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.88.226.115 (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a cite or reference for this? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Worldometer vs. Census.gov

Why is the US-based Census.gov number consistently much lower than other sources, such as Worldometers.info and PRB, yet it gives a higher count for US population than some other online sources? Should this - and problems in counting - be discussed more? MaynardClark (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

most populated european city

the most populated european city is Moscow, Istambul is larger but around the 40% of its population is in the asian side — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.35.217.217 (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, the stated criterion is "metropolitan area"; Moscow has a larger population by metropolitan area than Istanbul even including Istanbul's Asian side. Istanbul is only larger by the "city proper" criterion. Magic9mushroom (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Request to format an enumeration of numbers as a table

Please can someone tableize the text "Using the above figures, the change in population from 2010 to 2015 was: <bulleted list>" in the same format as the table directly above it? That would improve readability. Thanks.

Orbilin (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

If the current population growth rate is around 1.2% and COVID-19 death rate is much higher, might world population go down?

If the current population growth rate is around 1.2% and COVID-19 death rate is much higher, with 0% population immunity, might world population go down? WordwizardW (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Pimentel to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Pimentel_(scientist)

I can't edit, but this link needs correcting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mol7en (talk • contribs) 14:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done --McSly (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2020

Please use this list in the "See also" section.

1. Insert the existing bullets items in the article's "see also" to the list below in the "Meta concepts section".
2. Remove the second half of the article's see also as those items are already covered in the list below.

Feel free to take some of this list or reorder, etc as you deem fit.

Thanks you . 58.182.176.169 (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: - Excessively large "see also" section does not conform to MOS:SEEALSO. --IamNotU (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Population

What was the world's population in the year 1000 Clpcls54 (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

What was the worlds population when Jesus was here, around the year 40 A.D. Clpcls54 (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, nobody knows, but I believe that is adequately addressed in the article; see section World population#Past population. There are no figure for AD 40, but for AD 1 and AD 1000. (Actually the gap between those two is uncomfortably large; iy would be nice with reliably sourced estimates in that interval too.)--Nø (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nø: See Estimates of historical world population § Before 1950. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

North American Population wrong

In the intro it gives 363 million for North America, but the countries' wiki pages has US at 328 million (2019) census, Mexico around 120 million (2020), and Canada 38 million so it's closer to 490 million. 2602:306:CD96:CC10:3825:A326:B481:1978 (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done, Mexico was added recently by mistake. The Northern America doesn't include it. 363 Millions is just US + Canada. Thanks for noticing the problem. --McSly (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

it's still wrong. Northern America (US and Canada) and North America (US, Can, Mex) are not the same thing. North America includes Mexico so the population by Continent section is still wrong for North America. It should be about 490 mill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.65.237 (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The article seems to consistently count Mexico with the group that also includes South America, and exclude Mexico from the group that includes USA and Canada. That's a valid choice, but the article is not consistent w.r.t. what it calls these two groups.

I assume North America and South America are continents, Mexico belonging to North America.

And I assume the groups we actually use here should be called Northern America resp. Latin America. At least once, "South America" is used where I think it should be Latin America, and in many places, "North America" is used where I think it should be Nothern America.

I will not make any changes, as great care should be taken in each case to make sure the numbers and the sources are in agreement with what we say. We should not care what a specific source calls these groupings, but we should care what is actually included in the numbers we cite from that source.

(Inclusion or exclusion of a number of other areas, relatively small or thinly populated, is also in question. E.g., continent-wise, all of Mesoamerica as well as Greenland is counted as North America, while e.g. Falkland Islands are counted as South America - but are they also counted as Northern America resp. Latin America?)--Nø (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It would make more sense to use the term "Americas". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesteriana (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

We have to go with the way the data have been compiled.---Ehrenkater (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ehrenkater and hence not with User:Hesteriana. But we need not label to the regions the same way the sources do, if that makes our article inconsistent.--Nø (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

In a recent edit, user MB (talk · contribs) changed one instance of Northern America to North America. Was that edit based on knowledge of what region was intended in this case, or was it based on the (in my opinion incorrect, per above) view that "Northern America" is an incorrect name?--Nø (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2021

For year 1988, please change lines

!style="text-align: right;" |1988 |5,145,426,008 |1.84% |92,903,86 |35 |2,176,126,537 |42% |-

into

!style="text-align: right;" |1988 |5,145,426,008 |1.84% |92,903,861 |35 |2,176,126,537 |42% |-

because the difference (column 4) is not correct. Chromate (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 22:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

"Worldometers" estimate

They got that from UN. Please change my mistake. -MathHacked (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that refers to http://www.worldometers.info/ .--141.126.78.222 (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Please sort out these four terms

There are four terms in the article:

• Optimum population
• Carrying capacity
• Sustainable population
• Human overpopulation

Let us create a new section where we consolidate and sort out these four terms. I recommend that we title the new section "Sustainable population". Perhaps we should even start an article with that name.--Pages777 (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that carrying capacity refers to animals in nature while sustainable population refers to human world population.--Pages777 (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I plan to move the text of the Overshoot section to the new article and leave just a few summary sentences in this article. At 140 Kbytes, this article seems a little too big.--Pages777 (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I am now aware that there are large delays for new articles. Sigh. I will settle for Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories. I think I have things sorted out now.--Pages777 (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2021

change "will be in a state of human overpopulation" to "may be in a state of human overpopulation." Reasoning: at best, the notion of "human overpopulation" is an opinion, not a certainty. "Overpopulation" is a constant theme of human history, from the great flood of Gilgamesh to the concerns of Malthus and beyond, but, so far, population has far exceeded all the "limits" previous generations have supposed, without the predicted shortage fo natural resources, especially, food, potable water, and land. We cannot therefore conclude with any certainty that we are near an upper limit for population, and the use of "will" in the article presumes otherwise. 2603:8080:1440:356:E52E:1B64:5CCB:63B6 (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The fake

Why on the map of "Population in 2020" Poland is gray, with a population below 2.5 Crore, and Portugal is violet with population above 2,5 Crore ??? It's an error, it should be otherwise: Poland - violet (3,8 Crore), Porugal - gray (1,3 Crore). It is unacceptable.

Please try a slightly more constructive tone here. Why would it be fake; it may be a trivial mistake.

Anyway, I removed the map; there is a nicer one showing population in 2019, and we don't need both. Of course, a newer map is as such better, but so is a correct one, and in the English wikipedia, large numbers should not be given in crores.--Nø (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2021

Thank you sir Xaras I was pleased to meet you,. I would like to change the xaras name to Jihwan Zhou thank you,. may god please and help you you will be pleased with the changes alright xaras have given me confirmation now please end this kill wala or dang goodies are welcome Johnathan Jerymans (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The greater number of men is possibly due to the significant sex imbalances evident in the Indian and Chinese populations.

Hi, I believe that this statement is misleading. Almost all the countries with a young population and not affected by war, have a sex ratio above or at 1.01. More male children are born, but life expectancy is higher for women in almost all the countries. Stating that the sex ratio is the effect of Indian and Chinese populations is a nice political point to make, buy its misleading without the context of population age. We also have the biological (and more controversial) issues, including the age of the father, a number of children born per women etc. Notice that I am not saying that the "significant sex imbalance" referenced are not true, they are. I believe that we should clarify the statement (the use of impacted by, versus "due to") or adding a clarifying note.

• Also in Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh. Indonesia too. These countries have a lot of people.49.178.89.216 (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Declining population.

There's no talk about Covid. Over five million people have died. Probably more, because a number of deaths have not been registered.49.178.89.216 (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

At this point, that is of marginal significance to world population. Measures to limit Covid have in many countries saved lives that would otherwise have been lost to ordinary flu, traffic accidents, etc. Covid remains low on lists of causes of death - even where such statistics are reliable and most Covid cases are detected. I'm not trying to down-play the impact of Covid on society and health; I'm just saying it is still insignificant for world population numbers. (Let's hope it remains that way.)--Nø (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2022

I believe the statement "Birth rates were highest in the late 1980s at about 139 million,[11] and as of 2011 were expected to remain essentially constant at a level of 135 million,[12]" is factually incorrect.

According to more recent data from the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Crude birth rate peaked in 1950-1955 at 36.9 births per 1,000 population, while the birth rate was only 27.4 births per 1,000 population in the late 1980s.

These updated statistics can be found in: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division 114 World Population Prospects 2019, Volume I: Comprehensive Tables https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Volume-I_Comprehensive-Tables.pdf

I believe the original statement should be corrected. DreamsOfMountains (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I think, also, that it is misleading to talk about birth rates, and then state a level in millions. Are we talking about number of births per year (in the millions), or about birth rates, i.e. number of births per capita per year (e.g. in "births per 1000")? When we mix the two and say "Birth rates [...] remain essentially constant at a level of 135 million", which one is it that remains constant? (Only if the total population is constant too, can the two be simultaneously constant.)--Nø (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Clearify: You're comparing x/1000 to x/1,000,000. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 20:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

That table seems to be a primary source, raw data without analysis is not an ideal thing to cite in Wikipedia, while the data itself is not original research, the analysis and selection that you would provide is. Better to keep using a secondary source.--TZubiri (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It appears the number 139 million refers to aggregate total annual births, but this appears to me to be original research extracted from the UN data for the period 1985-1990. The UN gives a year range and a total number for that range; but does not provide an annual number. It would be better to actually have an annual number. Agreed that this should be corrected. Please propose an exact text to replace current text before reactivating the edit request. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The references for this para are from 2011 and 2012 and the numbers should be updated. I suggest either one of these two options

“The total number of births globally is currently (2015-20) 140 million/year, is projected to peak during the period 2040-45 at 141 million/year and thereafter decline slowly to 126 million/year by 2100. The total number of deaths is currently 57 million/year and is projected to grow steadily to 121 million/year by 2100. (ref = UN 2019 report) The median age of human beings as of 2020 is 31 years."[14]

“The UN’s first report in 1951 showed that during the period 1950-55 the crude birth rate was 36.9/1,000 population and the crude death rate was 19.1/1,000. By the period 2015-20 both numbers had dropped significantly to 18.5/1,000 for the crude birth rate and 7.5/1,000 for the crude death rate. UN projections for 2100 show a further decline in the crude birth rate to 11.6/1,000 and an increase in the crude death rate to 11.2/1,000. (ref = UN 2019 report) The median age of human beings as of 2020 is 31 years."[14]

I think the second option is more informative and the numbers are simply copied from the UN's spreadsheet. What do you think? Joe Bfsplk (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the two proposed options are different ways of essentially stating the same thing. However, as someone not versed in statistics (I don't know what "crude birth rate" and "crude death rate" mean, and don't have a background to compare the cited stats to for context), I find the first option much easier to comprehend for a layman. CAVincent (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that CAVincent is right, that the first option is easier to understand, so I propose to replace the current paragraph that we are discussing with the first option. Then I will insert both paragraphs somewhere in the article below. Also, I think that the lead, with some of its references, needs some updating. What do you think? Joe Bfsplk (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced claim in lead

"A popular estimate for the sustainable population of earth is 8 billion people as of 2012." This really needs an [according to whom?]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.77.131.215 (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2022

I propose adding a third figure along the two existing figures at the start of the page. The figure shows the world population change in the period of 1900 - 2021, visualized in terms of a spiral strip, with the width of the strip being proportional to the population size.

Change in world population in the period of 1900 - 2021. The width of the spiral strip is proportional to the population size.

Xkdhd4956 (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I don't think this adds anything that the current images don't already provide, and would clutter the article more than it's already cluttered. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the input! I apologize for not following the correct procedure regarding prior consensus. I guess we will see if anyone else wants to comment further on the suggestion. In my opinion, strong visuals can sometimes have value and impact, even if they might not actually present any new information. At the same time, too much visual material will definitely clutter the page and make it less appealing. Xkdhd4956 (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish. The proposed graphic is an interesting way of showing population growth, but I think that the existing chart that shows population change from 10,000 BCE to present is more impressive, more shocking even. Joe Bfsplk (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2022

Update the first sentence. Source: https://www.census.gov/popclock/ Superconductr (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I've updated the month and year. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 19:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Is "Latin America" really a continent?

The table in the Population by continent section is incorrectly listing Latin America as a continent. Unfortunately the article is currently protected and I can't fix this myself. --109.249.184.147 (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Statistics tend to group Mexico and Mesoamerica with South America (as Latin America), and Canada with USA (as Northern America). The labels we use should of curse fit the actual regions the statistics cover. Thus, Latin America cannot simply be changed to South America (and Northern American cannot be changed to North America); that would invalidate our data. Some people consider North, Meso- and South America as one continent, so we could add the figures and call it "America" - but that would hardly be an improvement. So, really, the problem is the term "Continent" - and I don't see a good alternative. ("Great regions" would be a neologism, I guess!) So, I think we should leave things as they are - unless you have a good suggestion!--Nø (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no problem with the word 'Continent', other than it's not being used where it should be. Africa, Antarctica, Asia, and Europe are not 'regions' - they're continents, and should be referred to as such, and the same 'rule' should apply to the Americas. No-one in the world (with the possible exception of anglo-centric North Americans) sees this current split (anglos vs latinos) as anything other than contrived. Fanx (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I, too, was taken aback by the unusual dichotomy of “Northern [sic] America v. Latin America.” At the very least, a correction should be made to “North America.” Better yet, a change to British America or Anglo-America would improve the article. What’s important is clarity. If you’re going to use idiosyncratic terms, do so consistently. Otherwise you are planting seeds of disinformation. As for the term, “continent,” it has always been abused, so I think it’s fine as long as you are transparent about it. It’s a political construct trying to pass the gates of logic by pretending to be a scientific idea. Europe is not a continent, for example. Continents are regional manifestations of a politico-racist mind. Geology divides the earth into tectonic plates, not continents. Is Australia a continent? Greenland? Africa has only been separated from Asia by the Suez Canal, as N. & S. America by the Panama Canal. Etc. 50.47.160.242 (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

We need to work with the data provided by our sources. If they divide the Americas along the USA-Mexico border, rather than somewhere around Mesoamerica, we need to do the same. We cannot call USA + Canada "North America"; that would be incorrect. We cannot call Latin America "South America"; that would be incorrect. If we want another dividing line, we also need other sources / other data.

The divisions we have now are not strictly speaking continents, but I haven't seen a better term suggested. (I suppose the line between Europe and Asia is problematic as data for Russia may not be divided into East-of-Ural and West-of Ural, and data for Turkey not into North-of-bosporus and South-of-Bosporus. And data for Greenland may be counted with Denmark in Europe instead of in North America or Northern America. My point being, we need to work with the diviions used by sources, and describe what the data cover as accurately as we can without making it overly detailed.)

Mexico?

Article states, “Northern America, primarily consisting of the United States and Canada…” How so? Mexico City has approximately the same population as Canada as a country - 33 million; and Mexico as a country is the 2nd largest by population of the 3 Northern American countries - 130,000,000 people aka 100,000,000 more people than Canada. Do better 38.34.53.150 (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

In usage of terms for divisions of the Americas, there are ambiguities involving Greenland, Mexico, Mesoamerica and Carribean. But Northern (as opposed to North) America does not include Mexico. Latin America denotes South America + Mesoamerica and all of Mexico. Are we consistent in this usage? I do not know.--Nø (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2022

set world population population to 8 billion 90.254.6.254 (talk) 08:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Caspian Delta did it. --Mvqr (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)