This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
isn't istanbul's population (without surrounding urban areas) bigger than moscow? 88.66.27.100 ( talk)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please make the first mention of billion an in-site link. -- 82.170.113.123 ( talk) 03:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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
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
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
Jpickar ( talk) 23:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Australia is most depressed at not being invited to the party. 2birds1stone ( talk) 04:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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 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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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
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)
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 [1]. 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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Human's are not the World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.234.66 ( talk) 01:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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:- /info/en/?search=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?
Smokey TheCat 12:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
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.
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)
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:
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 01:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
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."
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)
> 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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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 04:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
@ 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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
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:
There may be others, of course. Amiwikieditor ( talk) 15:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request to
World population has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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, with 0% population immunity, might world population go down? WordwizardW ( talk) 01:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request to
World population has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please use this list in the "See also" section.
Feel free to take some of this list or reorder, etc as you deem fit.
Extended content
|
---|
|
Thanks you . 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 13:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
World population has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
They got that from UN. Please change my mistake. - MathHacked ( talk) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
There are four terms in the article:
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)
This
edit request to
World population has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
20:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)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.
This
edit request to
World population has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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.
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)
This
edit request to
World population has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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 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)
"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)
This
edit request to
World population has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
Xkdhd4956 ( talk) 09:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
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)
This
edit request to
World population has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update the first sentence. Source: https://www.census.gov/popclock/ Superconductr ( talk) 19:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
World population has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
set world population population to 8 billion 90.254.6.254 ( talk) 08:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)