This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I think the full numbers (like "1,000,000,000") take up a lot of space (a problem if more columns are added later, but not really a problem at the moment), and also includes a lot of meaningless zeros - most values in the table are at best accurate to the nearest million only. Therefore, I prefer giving numbers all numbers "in millions" (like 1000 for one billion).
The obvious disadvantage is that some of the numbers, having decimal protions because they are given to e.g. the nearest half million or nearest thousand, do not align well in the table. I can imagine several ways to deal with that:
So what do you think?-- Niels Ø 09:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
9,075,903,000 |
9,243,000,000 |
9,000,000,000 |
8,918,724,000 |
9075.903 |
9243 |
9000 |
8918.724 |
The following text has been in and out of the article a number of times. I guess it may not belong in the article, but then I think it belongs here in the talk:
-- Niels Ø (noe) ( talk) 16:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC) I have not checked all the sources giving data before AD 1, but unless they all use astronomical year numbering, the present text above the table about year numbering is misleading.-- Nø ( talk) 09:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
That table itself is a good summary of original works by different researchers. It's much better to cite original works by Biraben (1979, 1980), Durand (1974), Haub (1995, Haub is a member of PRB and his estimates are already tabulated as PRB in this article), UN (1999, together with the esitmates after 1950 which are already tabulated in this article), and especially, McEvedy and Jones (1978). I found that Thomlinson's work is just using older estimates by Carr-Saunders (1936) and UN Demographic Yearbooks and not the work to be cited here.
Kremer's estimates (1993) for the period from -10000 to 1900 are perfectly the same with the estimates by McEvedy & Jones (1978) and those for the period from 1920 to 1980 are those by the UN Statistical Yeabooks (1952 and 1985/6 editions) (actually referred in the article). Kremer's estimates should be deleted.
I haven't read Ponting's book, but most (not all) of its estimates are the same with those by McEvedy & Jones (1978). I suspect Ponting's estimates are rather to be deleted.
Also I think about.com's data are not the work to be cited here. It is not clear who have estimated (maybe by Matt Rosenberg) and also estimates are similar to those by UN Census Bureau and those by Thomlinson. (Maybe compiled based on the table of US Census Bureau.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurichalcum ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot signature. Aurichalcum ( talk) 09:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I have summarized all the data in the original works cited in this article or in the U.S. Census Bureau's Historical Estimates of World Population, except for some year-to-year data presented in the US census of Bureau (2008) for the period of 1950-2050 and Maddison (2001) for the period of 1950-1998. Ponting's book is not cited, for I havn't read it by myself. Population are presented in millions.
Year | USCB (2008) | UN PP (2006) | UN ESA (1999) | PRB (Haub, 2007, (2006), (2005)) | Haub [PRB] (1995, (2002)) | Maddison (2001) | Tanton (1994) | Kremer (1993) | Biraben (1980) | McEvedy & Jones (1978) | Thomlinson (1975) | Durand (1974) | Clark (1967) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
estimation | original | original | citing UN estimates | original | original | maybe original but citing McEvedy & Jones and UN estimates | citing McEvedy & Jones and UN estimates | original | original | maybe original but citing Carr-Saunders and UN estimates | original | original | |
−1,000,000 | 0.125 | ||||||||||||
−300,000 | 1 | ||||||||||||
−50,000 | two persons | ||||||||||||
−25,000 | 3.34 | ||||||||||||
−10,000 | 4 | 4 | 1-10 | ||||||||||
−8000 | 5 | 5-10 | |||||||||||
−5000 | 5 | 5 | 5-20 | ||||||||||
−4000 | 7 | 7 | |||||||||||
−3000 | 14 | 14 | |||||||||||
−2000 | 27 | 27 | |||||||||||
−1000 | 50 | 50 | |||||||||||
−500 | 100 | 100 | |||||||||||
−400 | 162 | ||||||||||||
−200 | 150 | 231 | 150 | ||||||||||
1 | 300 | 300 | 230.820 | 150 | 170 | 255 (270-330) | 170 | 200 | 270-330 | ||||
14 | 256 | ||||||||||||
200 | 190 | 256 | 190 | ||||||||||
350 | 254 | ||||||||||||
400 | 190 | 206 | 190 | ||||||||||
500 | 206 | 190 | |||||||||||
600 | 200 | 206 | 200 | 237 | |||||||||
700 | 207 | 210 | |||||||||||
800 | 220 | 224 | 220 | 261 | |||||||||
900 | 226 | 240 | |||||||||||
1000 | 310 | 268.273 | 265 | 254 (275-345) | 265 | 275-345 | 280 | ||||||
1100 | 320 | 301 | 320 | ||||||||||
1200 | 450 | 360 | 400 | 360 | 384 | ||||||||
1250 | 400 | 416 | 350-450 | ||||||||||
1300 | 300 | 360 | 432 | 360 | 400 | ||||||||
1340 | 443 | 378 | |||||||||||
1400 | 350 | 374 | 350 | ||||||||||
1500 | 500 | 437.818 | 425 | 460 (440-540) | 425 | 440-540 | 427 | ||||||
1600 | 555.828 | 545 | 579 | 545 | 498 | ||||||||
1650 | 500 | 545 | 545 | 500 | 516 | ||||||||
1700 | 603.410 | 600 | 610 | 679 | 610 | 600 | 641 | ||||||
1750 | 791 | 795 | 720 | 770 (735-805) | 720 | 700 | 735-805 | 731 | |||||
1800 | 978 | 900 | 900 | 954 | 900 | 900 | 890 | ||||||
1820 | 1,041.092 | ||||||||||||
1850 | 1,262 | 1,265 | 1,200 | 1,241 | 1,200 | 1,200 | |||||||
1870 | 1,270.014 | ||||||||||||
1875 | 1,325 | 1,325 | |||||||||||
1900 | 1,650 | 1,656 | 1,600 | 1,625 | 1,633 (1,650-1,710) | 1,625 | 1,600 | 1,650-1,710 | 1,668 | ||||
1910 | 1,750 | ||||||||||||
1913 | 1,791.020 | ||||||||||||
1920 | 1,860 | 1,813 | 1,968 | ||||||||||
1925 | 2,000 | ||||||||||||
1930 | 2,070 | 1,987 | 2,145 | ||||||||||
1940 | 2,300 | 2,213 | 2,340 | ||||||||||
1950 | 2,555.948,654 | 2,535.093 | 2,521 | 2,516 | 2,524.531 | 2,400 | 2,516 | 2,527 | 2,500 | 2,400 | 2,499 | ||
1955 | 2,780.413,010 | 2,770.753 | 2,766.752 | ||||||||||
1960 | 3,039.962,148 | 3,031.931 | 3,020 | 3,038.332 | 3,019 | ||||||||
1962 | 3,136.636,618 | 3,131.974 | 3,036 | ||||||||||
1965 | 3,346.090,254 | 3,342.771 | 3,327.615 | ||||||||||
1966 | 3,416.212,203 | 3,396.148 | 3,288 | ||||||||||
1970 | 3,707.183,055 | 3,698.676 | 3,700 | 3,682.507 | 3,693 | 3,637 (3,600-3,700) | 3,600 | 3,600-3,700 | |||||
1973 | 3,936.068,571 | 3,913.482 | |||||||||||
1975 | 4,082.959,684 | 4,076.080 | 4,060.793 | 3,900 | 4,000 | ||||||||
1980 | 4,446.260,631 | 4,451.470 | 4,440 | 4,430.445 | 4,450 | ||||||||
1985 | 4,842.981,705 | 4,855.264 | 4,824.495 | 5,000 | |||||||||
1990 | 5,272.635,763 | 5,294.879 | 5,270 | 5,253.262 | 5,333 | ||||||||
1995 | 5,680.970,858 | 5,719.045 | 5,760 | 5,668.520 | |||||||||
1998 | 5,917.751,492 | 5,907.680 | |||||||||||
1999 | 5,994.573,609 | 5,978.401 | |||||||||||
2000 | 6,070.587,733 | 6,124.123 | 6,060 | 5,750 | |||||||||
2002 | 6,221.194,426 | (6,215) | |||||||||||
2005 | 6,447.427,283 | 6,514.751 | (6,477) | ||||||||||
2006 | 6,523.764,154 | (6,555) | |||||||||||
2007 | 6,600.411,051 | 6,625 | |||||||||||
2008 | 6,677.602,292 | ||||||||||||
2010 | 6,832.877,668 | 6,906.558 (6,843.645-6,967.407) | 6,790 | ||||||||||
2015 | 7,223.520,264 | 7,295.135 (7,127.009-7,459.289) | |||||||||||
2020 | 7,600.527,594 | 7,667.090 (7,363.824-7,966.382) | 7,500 | 8,000 | |||||||||
2025 | 7,954.961,913 | 8,010.509 (7,568.539-8,450.822) | 7,965 | ||||||||||
2030 | 8,285.870,884 | 8,317.707 (7,727.192-8,913.727) | 8,110 | ||||||||||
2035 | 8,595.981,287 | 8,587.050 (7,828.666-9,368.004) | |||||||||||
2040 | 8,885.308,363 | 8,823.546 (7,871.770-9,829.962) | 8,580 | ||||||||||
2045 | 9,151.850,047 | 9,025.982 (7,857.864-10,297.036) | |||||||||||
2050 | 9,392.797,012 | 9,191.287 (7,791.945-10,756.366) | 8,909 | 9,294 | |||||||||
2100 | 9,460 | 8,250 | |||||||||||
2150 | 9,746 | ||||||||||||
2200 | 8,250 |
Estimates before 10,000 BC seem unmeaningful, for the obscured definition of human beings (Homo sapiens, the genus Homo, or all fossil Hominids). Estimates after AD 2050 are also not trustworthy.
Estimates by UN PP (2006) and UN ESA (1999) can be combined as UN estimates. Estimates by PRB (or Haub, 2007) and PRB (or Haub, 1995) can be combined as PRB estimates. At least Kremer's estimates should not be cited. I think Ponting's estimates are also too similar to those by McEvedy & Jones. Aurichalcum ( talk) 13:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Aurichalcum ( talk) 14:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
HYDE 3.0 may be another good source for the population estimates. http://www.mnp.nl/en/themasites/hyde/index.html Aurichalcum ( talk) 08:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I shall revise the table tomorrow as follows:
Year | USCB
(2008) |
PRB
(2007) |
UN
(2006) |
HYDE
(2006) |
Maddison
(2001) |
Tanton
(1994) |
Biraben
(1980) |
McEvedy &
Jones (1978) |
Thomlinson
(1975) |
Durand
(1974) |
Clark
(1967) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1950 | 2,555,948,654 | 2,516,000,000 | 2,535,093,000 | 2,528,313,293 | 2,524,531,000 | 2,400,000,000 | 2,527,000,000 | 2,500,000,000 | 2,400,000,000 | 2,499,000,000 | |
1955 | 2,780,413,010 | 2,770,753,000 | 2,767,727,535 | 2,766,752,000 | |||||||
1960 | 3,039,962,148 | 3,031,931,000 | 3,035,624,545 | 3,038,332,000 | |||||||
1962 | 3,136,636,618 | 3,155,862,958 | 3,131,974,000 | 3,036,000,000 | |||||||
1965 | 3,346,090,254 | 3,342,771,000 | 3,351,348,699 | 3,327,615,000 | |||||||
1966 | 3,416,212,203 | 3,420,389,193 | 3,396,148,000 | 3,288,000,000 | |||||||
1970 | 3,707,183,055 | 3,698,676,000 | 3,696,590,163 | 3,682,507,000 | 3,637,000,000 | 3,600,000,000 | 3,600,000,000
–3,700,000,000 |
Aurichalcum ( talk) 09:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The column for Aubuchon (2014) appears to be estimates created by just some guy with his own website. The source given is http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm, he says he gets his figures from "US Department of Commerce, plus other research. There are many estimates of population for various time periods. The reporting categories change over time, introducing discrepancies that must be resolved. I have selected the numbers which are the most consistent among experts in the demographics field." In other words this is just an ordinary person with no academic background who has compiled a list of estimates from other sources and "selected" the numbers which he thinks are the most "consistent". Here is the authors page about himself http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/author-bio.htm, now don't get me wrong I'm sure he's a very smart guy who has read books on the subject, but he is just not a legitimate source for Wikipedia (indeed in many other parts of his website he mostly uses information from Wikipedia). His list is just a personal estimate, not an academic, peer reviewed publication. So I really think that the Aubuchon (2014) column should be removed from the article. -- Hibernian ( talk) 17:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I have just seen that the Rosenberg (2014) column is also not an actual academically researched dataset, it's just a (very vague) estimate from some random website. It uses the same figures as the actual proper sourced estimates and just rounds them up. This was added by the same editor that added "Aubuchon",
User:King1257 (
talk /
contribs). This also should be removed. --
Hibernian (
talk)
17:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok it is fixed now. Sorry for the mistake
King1257 (
talk)
20:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I see that most yearly population estimates do not go back before 1950. I am researching for a project that aims to show the effect that WWII had on world population and world mortality rates. I am finding a lot of research that uses population estimates to determine WWII death counts on a country basis, but I am having trouble finding estimates that show a timeline of the world statistics during the war. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilhalloran ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I was noticing the numbers for the Maddison Group (2010) study are totally out of whack with the numbers from any other study listed, with them reporting much lower numbers before around 1990 and much higher numbers after that point. If we extrapolate their numbers to the present, we'd get a world population of well over 8 billion, which I don't think anyone believes.
Is there any reason why we should be including them on this page? BeIsKr ( talk) 16:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I just removed them - I looked at the source and the numbers posted here are their figures for world GDP per capita, not population. Thorn ( talk) 13:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Also on this topic, the dates for this "World Population Estimates, 20 Countries and Regional Totals, 0–2000 AD (in thousands)" were out of whack with the citation ("Maddison. "Growth of World Population, GDP and GDP Per Capita before 1820" (PDF)." That looks like a rather inadequate citation to me formatwise, btw, though it works as long as the link to the pdf works.) I've changed the dates "1800", "1900", and "2000" to "1820", "1913", and "1998" because those were the actual dates who's numbers were being used and little or no population data for 1800, 1900, or 2000 was given anywhere in the pdf cited. DubleH ( talk) 04:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
World population estimates. 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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
When will we see numbers for 2016, which now is more than 3/4 completed? MaynardClark ( talk) 06:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
When will we see an essay or paragraph accounting for the differences in calculations or estimates on total world population at any particular year? MaynardClark ( talk) 06:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on World population estimates. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
How many people do scientists hypothesise there were in Britain in 10,000BC? 2.101.4.2 ( talk) 09:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to change Asia and Africa to other colors. - Gorba ( talk) 05:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Tanton (1994) is as a political piece penned by "an American ophthalmologist, white nationalist, and anti-immigration activist." Tanton incorrectly cites McEvedy & Jones (1978) for his AD 1 figure, seemingly misreading the X axis. It clearly was not meant to be a rigorous reference of historical population estimates. BarrowSys ( talk) 21:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I noticed a typo in the table under "Historical numbers", which led me to look at the last few edits & start wondering about the possibility of subtle vandalism here. (Changing numbers in a table is a depressingly easy way to vandalize a page without getting caught & the vandalism will persist for years.) Specifically, the numbers at 1700 look suspicious. So is anyone vetting the edits? I'd do it myself, but editing from an iPad does not make that easy -- as well as the amount of time this would require. If someone does this, then this page should be semi-protected to allow us to trust the information reported here. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)