Jump to content

Talk:World population/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

306 or 305 Million?

I thought that the US population was at least 306 million not 305 million.

Can someone explain what happened?

Maybe you thought wrong?--Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be right. It's almost 307 now. This moment the number is projected to be 306,969,472 compared to the present number in the table of 305,924,270. U.S. POPClock Maybe the USCB recalibrated their population clock since the current entry. By comparison, the latest UN estimate/projection of the US population for 2008 is 311,666 thousands. World Population Prospects DanniDK (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

TFBCT1 edits

You haven't explained why you reverted my changes twice, nor have you replied to me on your talk page. Please check the sources. Your figures are vastly incorrect and seemingly from thin air. The sources do not support the figures you keep reinserting. Sbw01f (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I see the problem here. You're basing your figures off the CIA factbook while leaving the sources the same. FYI the CIA figures are extremely inaccurate (they're just projections) and shouldn't be used in place of official government figures and official censuses. That's why the List of countries by population article doesn't use CIA figures, nor do any country articles. Sbw01f (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Thanks for requesting a third opinion. I've checked the page history and see you were both in violation of the three revert rule. Given that neither of you has edited this page in a few hours, I won't that further, except to point out that I will issue warnings or report users who violate that rule in the future. At this point, since only Sbw01f (talk · contribs) has written on this talk page, I can't really offer a true "third opinion" except to say that, given there is no reply, you are welcome to make your edit, per WP:BOLD. (EhJJ)TALK 01:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As it's only been a few hours since your "edit war", I suggest you wait a day. Also, make sure your edit summaries are clear (not just "reverting"), as WP:AGF prohibits reverting edits without just cause. (EhJJ)TALK 01:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for not having updated on this page sooner. Unfortunately, I've had a variety of system related problems.

I've made a few changes again, using yet an additional source to backup some blatant errors within the population statistics. These sources are independent population clocks which are more accurate than some "Official" Pop Clocks which can be biased, political or just unsophisticated and usually under counted. The countries which I have corrected, or updated with current population clocks, hence current statistics, are Indonesia (which was under counted by 10mil), Mexico, Philippines, and Egypt. This required one change in ranking that being Egypt. Multiple sources have backed up the increases and the change of rank. I did not change the population of India; however, every source I've encountered including, http://rumkin.com/tools/population/country.php?CCODE=IN, puts the population at 1,158,000,000. Wikipedia is under counting by (15 mil). I'm not sure why? Other than the incorrect country Pop Clock. These are the issues.

The situation regarding changes and reversals. I've been updating the page for about 3 months and have only had this problem within the past week or so. I stopped updating because it seemed useless, but I realize that that is not the case. Thank you. TFBCT1 (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My issue was that you were changing them all even without updating their sources. So I could only guess that you were copying figures from the CIA factbook which is a terrible source for demographic figures, especially in non-western countries where they might not have first hand access to statistics. On your next update could you please put whatever source you're using in the source box? Thanks. Sbw01f (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just curious

I just went to the http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop site and changed the date to the farthest it projects (2037) and it says the world population will be 10 billion before 2040, which would seem to mean this "Since births outnumber deaths, the world's population is expected to reach nearly 9 billion by the year 2040" incorrect. Or is this site not as trusted as the other estimates?

I'm just curious, does that statement I quoted use the UN estimate or something else?

68.51.41.46 (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement about the 9 billions has two references as well ([2],[3]), so the current statement is not incorrect. Click the "Info" button at "your" site: the author seems to use a simple regression based on past data, so it is probably not as trustworthy for the exact values so far in the future (he says himself that even past data are not exactly met). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Image help

If someone familiar with this subject has the time, this image:

could use some help. — Reinyday, 21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Reinyday - I'd like to help but am not quite sure what you mean by "this image could use some help". Please could you explain in more detail what you had in mind. If I'm able to help you then I will. All the best Barryz1 (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I think I see what you're saying. I'm quite busy today but if I get the chance I'll have a go at creating a revised version of my (chart showing decreasing years for population to double each time) but based on these figures to show time taken in years for each incremental billion (as opposed to time taken for population to double, which is also of great interest). I'll post it here for your review once it's ready. -- Kind Regards Barryz1 (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Reinyday sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I've spent some time not only looking at improving the axis annotation etc. but also noticed that since the original was devised and uploaded by El_T the estimated dates for both past and forecast milestones have been refined. I therefore also updated the bars themselves. I added a bit of colour and some shading to make it easier to see which are "actuals" and which forecast (and have also indicated how the forecasts have moved as some people may find this of interest).

Finally, I've also made an alternative version with the bars in reverse order as I expect some people will find it more nature for the y-axis to increase going up rather than down. Anyhow, both are now uploaded so everyone who'd like to use them has a choice.

Here they are...


I hope they are the sort of thing you hoping for? Please let me know if they are not, or if you would like me to further modify or try to enhance them in any way. Meanwhile I've updated occurrences of original version of time_between_each_billion-person_growth.svg with updated version of time_between_each_billion-person_growth.jpg

(Please see also comment on original redo request).
-- Kind Regards, Barryz1 (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

lilyan

lilyan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.43.193 (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative design of doubling table

Starting at 250 million Starting at 375 million
Population
(in billions) 		0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 0.375 0.75 1.5 3 6
Year 950 1600 1804 1927 1974 2025 1420 1720 1875 1959 1999
Years elapsed 650 204 123 47 51 300 155 86 40

What do you think of this?--Noe (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Noe, I think your table is great and can see it adds a futher useful insight into the rate of population change over the last few hundred years. I see you've added it after world population#milestones which makes sense, however I felt it perhaps useful to add a further sub-heading to keep it organised and make it easier for others to find and refer to.
One minor error I noticed..... you stated the elapsed time for the increase from 1.5 to 3.0 billion (1875 - 1959) was 86 years. Either the dates you have quoted are slightly incorrect or your maths is as I make it 84 years. Sorry, otherwise it all looks fine at a glance. I've changed the figure to 84 but please check this and correct whatever else was wrong - I can't be sure as you haven't cited your source data (my next point, in fact)...
It's ESSENTIAL for you to cite your exact source for every figure you have used (or of course the single source if they all came from the same place) as otherwise I'm sure it cannot be accepted or remain for long. Some people refer to either UN or US census figures, for example see for graph 1950 - 2050 forecast and for table 10,000BC to 1950AD but I can also see the table above yours already uses World population estimates. The figures you have quoted seem to more or less match but are certainly not the same for every year plus I can't see where some of your data, e.g. for 950AD actually came from. These discrepancies need explanation and resolution.
I was so taken with your table I decide to make a graphical presentation of it! I've added this for now alongside your table, however please let me know once you've checked your data carefully (and clearly cited your source references) and I'll happily update the chart to match.
(previous graphic now replaced with all-new verion; please see below).
Let's hope most other people agree - apologies if they do not. All the best Barryz1 (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I also agree the new design for the table is better. You should go ahead and include it in the article. About the graphical representation. If we think that's necessary, I would suggest to split the graph in 2. Right now it is not clear that we have 2 starting points differentiated by the colors. It looks like one continuous graph which is not what the data represents. --McSly (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi McSly - the idea of the graph was to show (visually) the consistent reduction in the time taken for the population to double and of course as 0.375 is a little more than 0.25 then each of those "doublings" will come after the equivalent ones for the 0.25 "series". In terms of time-sequence the bars on the graphs are correct and the two series, though interleaved, are identified by different colours. Even if people didn't understand there were two series the bars are in the right order and valid in themselves as "stand alone" indications of the number of years taken to double the population for the figures stated in the annotation. Whilst Noe's table picks out two "series" all the data comes from a single "continuousseries" anyhow (for example, though not show, there could also be a bar fitted into the right space to show the population doubling from 0.8 billion to 1.6 billion etc)!
I agree, however, that perhaps the graph is a little over-ambitious in trying to achieve so much and as a result might be slightly confusing..... perhaps we can leave it there for the time being as it has value (it's factually correct, assuming Noe's table is right, and does show what has been happening). It would be nice to get more feedback from other users/editors. I'll look into improving it's design over the next day or so (either adding better annotation or perhaps re-jigging it slightly).
I was also thinking of creating a similarly formatted graph to illustrate the "milestones" table immediately above it. That chart would of course show the population doubling and at shorter intervals (hard for most people to visualise exactly what’s happening just from reading a table of figures).
--- All the best Barryz1 (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've now changed the billion milestones table and the doubling table to the new design, where elapsed times are staggered.

As for the division into two subsections, I'm indifferent.

As for the addition of graphics, I think they are relatively difficult to understand for lay readers, and add nothing. What, exactly, does the horizontal axis represent? - I used to have a graph here showing 1/population as a function of time (see here); I (personally) found that very enlightening, but it had to go for pretty much the same reasons - and I agree with that decision. The essence is really contained in the statement "Note how, during the 2nd millennium, each doubling has taken roughly half as long as the previous doubling" - and here, one sentence says more than a thousand pictures.

As for sources to the numbers in the table, that's what I created the World population estimates for. Since then, the numbers in those two tables have gotten out of sync, but I'll leave to others to fix that.--Noe (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi Noe, thanks for querying the design of my chart (especially the horizontal axis). It set me thinking and as a result I decided to completely re-do it as a proper graph with annotation rather than simple bar-chart. I hope the resulting curve is a lot clearer and more useful/meaningful now?
(Also, I hope this now addresses McSly's earlier concern that the graphic is showing two series interleaved as you can now see that whilst the numbers are generated from two distinct series all results should fit closely to the resulting curve as population growth is a continuum rather than sequence of jumps or separate steps).
I know there are more statistically or mathematically minded people who are perfectly capable of looking at and interpreting tables of figures but for most people it is generally hard to properly grasp things like rates of change or absolute ratios from the numbers alone. For these people (which I believe are in the majority) a reasonably well designed graphical representation can be a great help.
I have of course looked at World population estimates (and did mention it in the first place) but when you visit that page it does not appear to provide data for 950 AD, for example. I'm not doubting your word about the accuracy of your figures (or validity of their sources) and anyhow can see they more or less fit the data citied. All I'm saying is I still can't see where some of your numbers came from. Did you perhaps interpolate between data for years 900 and 1000 or something?
A final point... I noticed you've undone my previous minor edit in (I thought correcting) your figure from 86 to 84 for the years-increment in doubling the population from 1.5 to 3.0 Billion (stated in your table as 1875 and 1959 respectively). Clearly 1959 - 1875 ≠ 86, it =84 so there is something wrong and we're back to where we where. Out of interest I googled for these figures just to see if there was an reasonable explanation for the discrepancy.
What I found on [1] was;
Beginning with 250 million around AD 950 and ending with 8 billion in 2027
The world population was doubled by the following years (doubling times in parentheses):
AD 950 (650) 1600 (202) 1802 (125) 1927 (47) 1974 (50) 2027, 
---
Or (beginning with 375 million around year 1420): 
1420 (300) 1720 (155) 1875 (86) 1961 (38) 1999.
which looks remarkably like your table except they quote 1961 instead of 1959 (but 86 years for the increment) as the estimated date that World Population reached 3 billion (and 2027 instead of 2025 for 8 billion). Maybe this is where the discrepancy crept in? Would you like to use 1961 or 1959 as the estimated milestone? According to the normally preferred UN figures, .e.g. see Box 3 on page 8 of their report The World At 6 Billion the year is actually 1960, so perhaps neither previous dates & figures were correct!
I still like your table (even more now you've tweaked it) but think it's important to get all of the numbers right and also explain where they came from. --- Kind Regards, Barryz1 (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I interpolated the AD 950 figure - that might deserve a footnote in the article. I haven't looked into the 84/86 issue; it was by accident I reverted your edit. The text you found through google was written by myself - in this article, a while back, before the wiki-tables were included. So it must be from some mirror. If you read the piece you found through Google, it was a bit clearer at this point. - I'll leave it to others to fix the numbers in the tables and/or World population estimates.
As for your graphs - to be honest, I still don't think they contribute more insight than the verbal statement I quoted before. Like with my reciprocal graph, one may gain insight by DOING them, but for others to UNDERTSAND them subsequently is a bit harder.--Noe (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the explanation, Noe - much appreciated. Very interesting that the Eco page was based on your original contribution... a bit ironic in a way that despite the ever doubling population it turns out (at least in some ways) to still be a small world after all!
I understand your points about descriptions and tables of data verses pictures. Even so, perhaps it makes sense to leave both (provided valid) so people can have a choice and anyhow, despite the overlaps, each adds something the other lacks. All the best -- Barryz1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

... By the way, my original idea with these data could be shown by this table (or by a graph of 1/P vs. time). However, that would be wp:OR.

Starting at 250 million Starting at 375 million
Population
(in billions) 		0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 0.375 0.75 1.5 3 6
Year CE 950 1600 1804 1927 1974 2025 1420 1720 1875 1959 1999
Years elapsed 650 204 123 47 51 300 155 86 40
Year BA -1080 -430 -226 -103 -56 '-'5 -610 -310 -155 -71 -31

... where "year BA" is "year Before the Asymptote", projected from data from 2nd half of 2nd millennium to be around 2030. Note how the years BA halve and halve again, suggesting an accumulation of infinitely many doublings to take place before 2030. Of course, this will not happen.--Noe (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi Noe, your updated table certainly adds an intriguing dimension. I've only just seen it and haven't had time to l study or think about it properly yet. I'd be delighted to try plotting it graphically as you've suggested - in fact I'm intrigued to see how it would look. I agree we need to respect all WP policies and should avoid wp:OR, however let's reserve judgement on that for now as pushing the frontiers a little through innovative presentation of known facts (being careful to cite sources and not make unnecessary additional statements) may still be safely within acceptable limits. When I can find some time later today or perhaps tomorrow I'll post a chart here for you and we can decide later what, if anything, to use it for. -- Kind regards, Barryz1 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Such a graph was in the article a while ago, but was removed as original research. If it is to be re-added, some other source must be found. - It's still in Commons, and in an archived discussion (Talk:World population/Archive 1#Reciprocal population).--Noe (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to the archive talk page. Although I have seen your reciprocal population graph before I don't remember reading the accompanying discussion. Both the background you explained and actual science/maths is truly interesting.... I'd like to mull this over the next few days then get back to you. Thanks again. Kind Regards, Barryz1 (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Noe - just a quick note to say I certainly haven't forgotten this but unfortunately I haven't found any time to look into it as yet. I hope to get around to it in the next week or two..... kind regards Barryz1 (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a stupid question

I have read the article on World Population, and have been reading similar ones in the past, again and again and frankly, something is not adding up. Finally, today I saw the Birth Rate table and made the following, simple calculation (please note that I am not a mathematician). In year 2000 the table says, the fertility rate of the World was 2.8 (i.e. births/woman). It does not clarify whether or not these are children that are born and stay alive, or we should consider death rates as well to derive to a correct conclusion. Nevertheless, I made the following calculation. Let's say that half of the population of earth are women, which means that if in year 2000 the world population was indeed 6 billion, then 3 billion were the women. If you apply the ratio of 2.8 births/woman, at that given time (and again assuming that these rates are actual and not projections) then starting from year 2000 and under the false assumption that ALL 3 billion women could give birth to children, then a total number of 84 million children would be born in - at least - the 7 years to follow. True ? Please note, that the ratio for year 2008 has dropped to 2.61.

EVEN if NO ONE died inbetween years 2000 to 2008 and we did not have any invasion from some other planet that we are not aware of, there is no way in the world that the 6 billion of 1999 would become - as the table states - by March 2009, 6.75 billion. At worst it would be 6,084 billion, which again is incorrect because people did die and ofcourse my assumption that all 3 billion women could give birth to children is totally incorrect as well.

Where these figures are coming from ?????

This is my stupid question Alice Baldessera AJBaldi (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How did you get at 84 million children?? 3 billion women each having 2.8 children leads to a theoretical number of 8.4 billion children being born to those women alive in 2000. (However, since this takes into account the whole lifetime of the women, many of these 8.4 billion children were born before 2000 or will be born after 2008.) So, an approximate 1 billion births in 8 years seems reasonable, leading to a pop. increase of some 700 million. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The ratio 2,8 is a percentage and not a factor, i.e. it is 2,8% or 28 children per 1,000 women. I had the same concern myself, but this is how it is. In fact this 2,8 ratio is an actual figure (if we assume that the population figures are correct) of how many alive children at a specific point in time "correspond" to women who are at the same time in their child-bearing years. There is an inbuilt mistake in determining this ratio, and frankly I have not given it much thought on how that mistake could be corrected. Furthermore, applying a ratio of past facts to future probabilities, has (as we all know) yet another - huge this time - inbuilt mistake. Even if your assumption of appr. 700 million was correct, it would refer not to a decade but to the total lifespun of those couples, at a given time, who have not as yet have any children. My assumption is that if this would be the case, we would be talking for a period of at least 18 to 20 years and not a decade. On the other hand, out of this 6 billion population, 27% - as they say - are under the age of 14, therefore not likely to have children, even in the less developed countries. Women in fact are less than men (contrary to what I thought was the case) and furthermore out of the total number of women alive, a third is within the statistical parameters of fertility, which again is just a table of population breakdown by age, since we have no data telling us what percentage of these women have already have children and therefore should not be taken into account for our estimations. Another crucial factor is the population spread by country and the depentability of the economy of the specific country in agriculture, like China for example. For the farmers of China and hence China itself in the long term, this rule of 1 child per couple valid for all Chinese, would maybe solve the problem of global population growth, but would create a huge problem to them. To make a long story short, my question still stands. Finally, I must say that I don't consider these tables of population count accurate, since we all know that even in the most developed countries it has proven a huge task to count populations, let alone those countries (India and China included) who do not have sufficient mechanisms in place to do so. Alice BaldesseraAJBaldi (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There are more boys conceived, but more miscarried. Despite this there are more boys born. Men on the whole die younger (as older adults). In all-age figures, the larger number of young boys balances the fact that there are fewer old men. In some countries there are many more women, because of losses of men in wars and dangerous occupations. In others, women might die younger, often from complications of childbearing. In yet others, where populations are strictly controlled (eg China) there are many more births of boys, the preferred gender if only one child is allowed.
The annual birth rate (say 2.6 children per 1000 women) is based on women of child-bearing age (generally taken to be 15 to 45) not of all females. So to calculate this, you'd need to find country by country figures that detail the age groups of the populations. On all-world figures, the birth rate is given as a basis of comparison between nations, not as a basis for calculations.KoolerStill (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a complex subject and definitely not a silly question! There are several articles that may be worth taking a look at; firstly you could try Sex ratio, then maybe more specifically Human sex ratio. It's interesting that many people believe even having only a slightly higher ratio of young males to females in any particular country or society is likely to result in social unrest often leading to wars when this is on a large enough scale - see for example youth bulge. There again there are those who see such a "youth bulge", i.e. disproportionate number of boys to girls as an opportunity for ecconnomic prosperity! For example see Middle East Youth Bulge (personally I have my doubts about that particular theory). - - - Kind Regards, Barryz1 (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
AJBaldi said: The ratio 2,8 is a percentage and not a factor, i.e. it is 2,8% or 28 children per 1,000 women. That's not correct. It's the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) = average number of children per woman (not per 1.000 women!) during her lifetime (well - more or less, as it is a hypothetical rate which is based on age specific fertility rates of one year which are applied to a hypothetical cohort of women). As the TFR refers to a time span of 30-35 year (i.e. the fertile period of a women's life) you cannot directly derive a number of births per year from this rate. Today, the TFR (world) is approx. 2.6; the number of births per 1.000 people per year (crude birth rate) is around 20; the number of births per 1.000 women aged 15-44 per year is approx. 85. 141.30.136.22 (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

World population peak, and population at year 3 000

Is it true that the population of the world will peak at 10 billions at year 2070, and can we tell what population we will have in year 3 000? If the peak at ten billions is in 2070, will that mean that the world population will never be larger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.232.65 (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. The quick answer is, no, it’s not “true” as the future hasn’t happened yet so we cannot know anything about it with any certainty!
The more detailed answer is that the idea the world’s population will somehow peak at 10 billions at some point is only a reasonable guess made by various people based on looking carefully at available data and trying to analyse and model it to try and predict what will happen in the future. If it does happen then it could be any time in the future, not necessarily in 2070. Note for example that until recently some people forecast the 9 billion milestone would not be reached until 2054 but more recently those forecast have been brought forward to 2040 (some 14 years earlier) as population seems to be growing faster than those people expected.
All that is known with certainty is the total population of the world is currently at the highest level it has ever been in human history and that it is still growing very fast indeed. The rate of growth is not quite as high as it’s ever been (that was achieved briefly in the 1960s when the growth rate peak at around 2.2%, see graph, however just because it has fallen for now (and for some time) doesn’t necessarily mean that it will continue to remain at the current level let alone fall further. It is also possible it may increase again, perhaps returning to previous levels or maybe even exceeding them.
Take a careful look at this graph (US Census figures) noting that everything in the future is purely an estimate. Perhaps surprisingly, even data for past years is just an estimate because nobody has actually gone around the world counting every person in it at any time (although for some years in some countries there have been reasonably accurate – but never perfect – censuses made). The key column of figures to look at on this table is “annual growth rate”. All future predictions depend on this figure steadily falling (and being consistently below 1.0 from 2020 onwards) which is vital if these models are to prove valid.
Whilst annual growth rate may be falling for now (and has been since 1984 when it last made a small rise before continuing to fall) there is no guarantee that it will do so as currently forecast.
Alternatively some man-made or natural cataclysmic event (or series of events) could occur that dramatically reduce population. I’m not suggesting this will happen, only pointing out it is possible. Mankind has certainly experienced this before (for example the Black Death during the 14th century).


Therefore it should be fairly clear that nobody can say with great certainly what the population will be in 50 years time, let alone in the year 3000 (as you asked). All that can be done is to work hard at providing the best estimates and forecasts possible, relying on a lot of assumptions and some lateral thinking.
In answer to your final question, “will that mean that the world population will never be larger?”, again nobody knows. Some people believe that considerably more intensive land use is possible (for example covering vast areas of currently under developed parts of the world with towns and cities) and that technologies such as Vertical farming, etc. can be developed and utilised to feed all of the people living in them, thus enabling populations many times larger than at present (perhaps 10s if not 100s of times larger) to be “comfortably” supported (for example see this article by Walter Williams written in 1999). Whether this is possible, let alone desirable, remains to be seen. I expect that many people (myself included) would be highly concerned by such ideas.
See also introduction to main 'Population' article in which various different predictions are outlined together with estimated probabilities of their likelihood.
I hope that goes some way to answering your question? – All the best, Barryz1 (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes but if humans moved to mars or other planets, there would be more resorses and room to expand, just like a virus :-0 :-/ 83.108.232.65 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Virus? Pah! Name one life form that does not expand into any available nitche. Algr (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
AHHH, but then that would be "Human population in Universe" rather than "World Population". I am sure Wikipedia will add an article or two for that, when the need arises. The few humans currently spending some time in Space are counted as residents of the World (ie of Planet Earth) because they are only visiting in Space. KoolerStill (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
What about the people in the air? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Graph to be added

What is wrong with this graph? Creationist:

I have plotted the actual data that is listed on the website. Fitted a exponential fit to them with an accuracy of more than 99%.

The graph perfectly predicts the great Flood as written in the book of Genesis in the Bible.

I would say that this is a valid estimation and has more accuracy than the 10000BC curve. The longer in time you go back, the less certain you can be of the relationship.

The plotted graph even predicts the introduction of penicillin as to change the slop of the curve.

Arne Schwarck (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, a few things about the chart. First, if it's supposed to represent past values for the world population, the graph is cannot possibly "predict" anything. Second, the values are completely wrong. For example your chart give a population of 200 thousand for the year 0 while the data in the article say that the population at that time is in fact 200 million so it's wrong by a factor of a thousand. The rest of the numbers you used look equally wrong. But more importantly, the Bible may be a good source for religious information, it's certainly not the case for scientific information where for a lack of a better word, it's completely useless. Please read the policy on reliable source and on fringe theories. The policy on undue weight may be useful as well. --McSly (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the proof of the accuracy of the bible, http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml

Here are all the scientific facts from the bible, http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

All the data from 1750 upwards can be taken as factual. This has been done. Remember the graph is log scale. The R² values show that the exponential relationship in the region of 1950 to 2008 is valid within 1% of diviation. From 1750 to 1900 the prediction of an exponential relationship is even more valid. What evidence is there that this exponential relationship changes? During the world wars there is a slight deviation but nothing significant. The introduction of penicillin is a big factor in lifespan and just by coincidence it was found to be about 1932, which does seem to be accurate.

For more evidence go to http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php and have a look at Seminar Part 1 - The Age of the Earth.

The graph poposed in the article "Population (est.) 10,000 BC–2000 AD." is so badly out of scale that it is not possible to get any insite into the graph, "Population (est.) in log y scale" does have a better scaling but does not include the actual data as data points. With my plot, the actual data points have been plotted and the best fit has been used, quite accuratly. You can try plot it yourself and you will see that it is extreemly accurate to use a exponenital fit. But on a cartisian axis the values are difficult to see and comprehend. Therefore the log liniear scale allowes the graph to be viewed as a linier relationship and can be easily compared.

Any estimate made before 1000AD is always going to have inaccuracies. My graph only proposes that the exponential reationship be enforced and by coincidence does coincide with the Bible. Arne Schwarck (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, you are not addressing my points. The data in your graph is factually wrong. Again the value you gave for the year 0 is 200,000 while the real value stated (and sourced) in the article says 200,000,000. This is not "having inaccuracies", this off by a magnitude of a thousand. The Bible cannot possibly be considered a reliable source for matters of science. And last thing, if you are trying to interpret the data predict a relationship, that's original research, which is not acceptable here. --McSly (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a modified version adding the points listed in the article, can it now be added?

So I assume you are a evolutionist? How come that religion can be posted on wikipedia and creationists views are just deleted?

Arne Schwarck (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, first this article has nothing to do with evolution. It's about demography. It has no more relationship with evolution than with particle physics. I say that with all possible respect, but you should look up what evolution is and what evolution is not because I don't think it means what you think it means.
Now about the changes you made. I'm sorry but this is still wrong. The value points you added are not "Wikipedia estimations, Evolutionest ?[sic]" they are values based on recorded facts. For example, the Roman census has a population of more than 4 millions for the year 8 BC. Now that may be not completely accurate given the tools available at the time, but it shouldn't be too far off. And more importantly, this is recorded history, not estimations. This value is only for the roman empire. Your graph says that the population of the whole world for the same period was only 200,000. The value you provided is 1) without source and 2) demonstrably wrong. --McSly (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Arne seems to be defining 'evolution' as any system that says that the universe is older than 6,000 years. In other words, factuality. If we're going to include a graph based on the Judeo-christian-islamic claims, then we'd have to include one based off traditional Chinese claims, and Hindu claims. Christianity does not magically trump other religions in a secular encyclopedia, but scientific evidence trumps all religions. Zazaban (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The last link in Eternal Links (World Population from the US Census Bureau in an interactive Excel dashboard) leads to instructions for making Excel Dashboards, and only has one tiny token population-related graph.

IF someone knows of a relevant page in that site, could you please link to it directly? otherwise I think it should be removed. KoolerStill (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Although it may be an interesting site, its relevance to the subject of world population seems very limited. I don't think advice in the art of visualizing trends in world population belongs in this article, not even as an external link. DanniDK (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Population in ancient times

Hello,

The figures for world population in ancient times seems preposterous; surely even if the mutations that gave origin to the human race developed in a small population (and 1,000 still seems too small even for that), the population would have stayed at 1,000 for decades, not millennia, or we would have gone extinct.

Furthermore, the population of Ancient Egypt between 3000-2000 BC had to be much larger to sustain such a complex, pyramid-building civilization (MINIMUM in the hundreds of thousands, and that is just one part of the ancient world).

According to the competition (Encarta):

"Some scholars estimate that only a few hundred thousand people lived in Egypt during the Predynastic period (about 5000-3000 bc). Others believe, based on archaeological evidence and reevaluations of how many people the floodplains could support at the time, that the area had a much higher population. In any case, the population had probably risen to close to 2 million during the Old Kingdom (about 2575-2134 bc)."

My appollogies for not committing myself to finding the right figures or researching how these figures got here! But I thought I'd at least give anyone interested a heads-up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.45.249.139 (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


An interesting question and something I often think about myself. Just a thought though - you might perhaps have misinterpreted the table of data as it has a scale in thousands and so is showing 2,000 thousands, i.e. 2 Million. The further back in history we try to go the more speculative these figures become, and difficult to estimate (and justify with evidence). There are plenty of conflicting theories and published figures. Take a look for example at World population estimates quoting McEvedy & Jones (1978) as showing the World Population growing steadily from an estimated 4 million in 10,000BC to 150 Million by 200BC whilst Biraben's slightly more recently published figures (1980) show an estimate of 230 Million by 200BC. That's quite a difference! - - - hope that is of some help? Kind Regards Barryz1 (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
:: Considering there is space available for the table to extend in compensation to the digits required for billions of numbers, I see no reason to scale it by the thousands. It would be more clear to just give the actual numbers; not all readers have a trained eye to catch the header which gives the scale (as unfortunate as that may be).
72.172.206.62 (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation added

Hello, I recently added an reference to the article,as you can see by my edit here. I also changed some wording. Feel free to play with the wording. The reference added was [http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Near-East-3000-330-Routledge/dp/0415167620 this book] by Amélie Kuhrt, page 695. I also used some info from the Census in Egypt article, which I imagine has its own realiable sources. If you disagree with the realiability of the source, please leave me a message. --– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 08:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The world population has been growing continuously since the end of the Black Death around 1400.[2] There were also short term falls at other times due to plague, for example in the mid 17th century.

In other words, it HASN'T been growing continuously since the Black Death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.180.217.90 (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Israel population at time of Jesus is over 500 thousand

the world's population was much higher. also there's no evidence that man existed before 10 thousand bc. the population growth rates are unrealistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.236.119 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you really have to say such things? Such vast stupidity is plain embarrassing.

Worlds most populous countries list.

Germany and the EU are on the same list. The EU should not be included on this list.Zappa777 (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The EU is not a country but rather an organization of countries. It should not be on this list.Neutralis (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

London

Is it just me, or it is hard to believe that 3/4 of the children in London died before the age of 5? The reference is a book written in 1926.. [12] The percentage of the children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730-1749 to 31.8% in 1810-1829.[13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.199.223 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

EU

I removed the EU from the "Most populous countries table" being it is not a country. If we want to have a depiction that shows the most populous trade organizations and multinational alliances, then we will have to pull together the data and build a new table - but the EU is not a country and its inclusion in the table is superfluous. Neutralis (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


this page is a perfect example of wikipedia bias

how can you consider all the historical records useless ? every culture had a strong religious connection. nearly all records even non biblical point to a young earth. certainly looking at population estimates eyewitnesses should have a say. graphs that have 1 person on the earth for 100 thousand years should already be discredited. even those graphs make it more sensical that man has only been on the earth for less than 10 thousand years. all those graphs make fairy tale assumptions that man produced asexually, didn't feel the need to reproduce for most of his history, there was only one gender. the bible hasn't been 'disproven'. there are many more assumptions that are made in the models depicted here than what would be consistent with a biblical view. 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talk • contribs) 21:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the hilarious parody of a stupid person! Made my day! Andrew Ellard (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

'According to population projections, world population will continue to grow until around 2050.'

In the opening paragraph, it is alleged that 'According to population projections, world population will continue to grow until around 2050.', but in the graph below there is an increase to be seen between 2050 and 2150. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.242.17 (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The graphs are simply based on statistics of current growth rate, they are not cold hard fact. Zazaban (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

150 Million People In China in 1644

I strongly suspect whoever typed that part was drunk at the time, judging by the fact that all chinese archives point to around 400 million in the 1740s, and they have no reason to lie, I am pretty sure it would be at least 350 million in 1644, because china fought several minor civil wars in the 100 years in between, a lot of natural disasters (floods, locust swarms, drought, etc.) and had a couple of minor typhoid outbreaks, accounting for a total of, say, 10 million people dead. And at the beginning of the Ming Dynasty it was somewhere close to 100 million, because the Chinese did not reproduce THAT fast! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.140.189 (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Confusing lead image

The population-density-by-country lead image seems OK. It is easy enough to read straightforwardly. However, the other image, File:WorldPopulation.png, seems more confusing than helpful. I know how to read it, but the normalization to 100% population makes it hard to know what artifact to read or ignore. For example, the dramatic feature seems to be a relative decline of Asia 1850-1900. But why is this? Did the population actually decline there? Stay constant? Increase, but just not as fast as elsewhere? The chart seems to add more smoke than illumination. LotLE×talk 22:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The recognition of Taiwan as a country is still arbitary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.122.76 (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Quinn

If you want to know the real cause of population growth and learn why nothing we are doing NOW is going to help curb the population explosion please read Daniel Quinn's Novel "Ishmael". The population is directly connected to food production. We are in trouble if we don't change our minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.8.146 (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

/Vote for removal of this comment, heh. Obvious and blatant commercial for a book. --84.26.78.183 (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Decreasing Population

Did anybody notice that a few weeks ago the Census Bureau said the Population was 6.82 billion, then about a week ago it was 6.8 billion and now its only 6.791 billion? Has population peaked and is now declining? If this is not the case why is the Census Bureau's population figure decreasing so much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.181.241 (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely the population is not declining. But perhaps the figures are revised down due to newer estimates. Could also just be the Wikipedia entries that are changed because of e.g. rounding or older USCB figures replaced with newer ones. But the ACTUAL population is growing steadily at ~70 millions according to USCB and UN estimates (and every other estimate I have seen).DanniDK (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Very interesting observation. Zomputer (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

i know of this in october i read that monthly projections world population would hit 6.8 billion milestone in December. but now they are saying this will take place in Febuary which is 2 or 3 months later. world population is not declining. what is going on is that world population growth is slowing down dramatically with the slowing of population growth . i think that us getting 7 billion in 2012 might be doubtful. i think that humans are having fewer children its still possible that population could slow even further and population wont hit 7 billion till early 2013.

Necropolis 99.51.212.6 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The world population growth isn't necessarily slowing down. It might just be that their estimate was a bit wrong. --84.26.78.183 (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Northern America

Why does this article treat "Northern America", consisting only of the USA and Canada, as a unique continent? The split of "Northern America" and "Latin America" is arbitrary and improper. I can understand that there is a racial/cultural/historical distinction, but it is not appropriate considering the article is comparing continents - Africa, Asia, Europe... where such distinctions are not considered. (If they were, these continents could be split in dozens of different ways that are equally arbitrary.) These continents are considered using the traditional geographic separation. Thus, I feel that "Northern America" should be replaced with a more appropriate grouping, i.e. North America, which consists of USA, Canada, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, while South America would replace the non-continent "Latin America" and would consist of the countries that are ordinarily and obviously considered to be part of that continent. 24.201.152.89 (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree the division seems strange. I would definitely support a change to using actual continents rather that "cultural" pseudo-continents. Of course, you need to find sources to support the actual data for the better division.LotLE×talk 05:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's articles on North America and South America provide exactly that data. 76.71.210.67 (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the grouping terminology is socially contrived; however, it is not within our purview to correct social wrongs or impose visions of 'the way things ought to be' based on philosophy. It is not to us to discriminate truth but to represent referenced 'fact' -which is, often, not the same thing. Additionally, however repugnant the prejudice embodied by the grouping, it is representational of a distinct -and cite-able- social climate. Lastly, the terminology used here is for the convenience of and service to the article topic- that does not mandate we arbitrate information based on interpretations of geographic lexis used to describe topics in other spheres, such as geology/Earth science.Mavigogun (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

this division is bad because unlike europe, africa, asia and oceania the populations of north and south america are not available. i understand that this is more of a cultural division than one based on the continents but why the special case for the western hemisphere? i'd like to know the population of each continent before each cultural division is examined.--67.253.50.25 (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this should be done based on continent to remain consistent with the rest of the data and format, before social and demographic subdivisions (although we could still include those as well if that was a point of contention.) We see the inclusion of the entire country of Russia in the European population figures (when of course a vast portion, although less populated is not part of Europe) and at the same type North America is divided up piecemeal. This would be like, removing The Baltic, The British Isles and Scandinavia from European figures and creating arbitrary subgroups based on longstanding regionalism. The Wikipedia article on North America lists its population at 528,720,588 and I believe that is the direction we should go with this article. Neutralis (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Day of 7 Billion

According to the Census bureau, reference 51 [1] the day of 7 billion is projected to be in July of 2012, not February of 2012. Probably just an update from them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettjor (talk • contribs) 23:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

well world population hit 6.8 billion on Febuary 1st 2010 this is a much later than we original thought would happin. did you know that in the 1960's we thought that 7 billion would come in the year 2000? population growth has been slowing down over the past 40 years. do the math if we have 6.8 billion now that means we would need 200 million to reach 7 billion. so its not possible for 7 billion in 2010 or 2011 casue the growth is very slow. so that opens for 2012 but if the slowing growth remains constant i would cast doubt on the 7 billion time. im sure that we could hit that number as late as a october 2012.

necropolis20 99.51.212.6 (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to clarify title

The title should be changed to "World human population" to distinguish it from any current or future articles about world populations of other organisms.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move to "World human population"

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: Not moved. Station1 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

World population → World human population —

Simplified reason stated in previous section.
To elaborate a bit: this move would be intended to combat systemic bias in the form of totally subjective humancentricity, as well as to promote accuracy & clarity.
As there are obviously massive numbers of non-human populations in the world, the current title on an article dealing only with humans and to the exclusion of all other populations implies & assumes incorrectly that the word "population" can only meaningfully apply to humans.
--Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

All those reliable sources are not encyclopedias covering every aspect of human knowledge, including the biological sciences, they are materials written in the context already of human population discussions, so no clarification is needed in that context. In the the much wider context of an encyclopedia that covers every area of knowledge, more clarification is, in fact, needed.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
There's no article World animal population, or anything similar, so this move is redundant, as are your many [2][3][4][5][6] "clarifications" to population related articles. 90.213.196.210 (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Simply claiming that these clarifications are redundant is not any kind of objective argument. The real problem seems to be unexplained personal objections to the fact that the term "world population" can apply to any organism.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. No clarification needed. Population usually refers to human population and is the first thing that usually comes to mind. We don't name articles like List of countries by population to List of countries by human population. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 19:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but "usually refers to" and "the first thing that comes to mind" (i.e. your mind, presumably) are completely personal and subjective assumptions. Wikipedia - covering, as it does, all areas of knowledge including the biological sciences - requires a much higher standard of consideration & understanding when it comes to our nomenclature than that. (And I'm not arguing to move the 'List of countries by population' article title, which invokes by its inclusion of the word "countries", obviously human geopolitical constructs and thereby strongly implies that it refers to humans only.)--Tyranny Sue (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No. A quick google search on the first ten pages shows absolutely nothing about the biological sciences. You keep going, I don't see anything resembling the biological sciences. The term for population in biological sciences is very rarely used outside of that field. The World Population article from Britannica doesn't have anything to do with the biological sciences. Britannica is reliable encyclopedia that covers biological sciences as well but their article for World Population is the same as Wikipedia subject wise. Also, Columbia Encyclopedia's article about population which also resembles the world population article does not refer to the biological sciences. Looks like there's also a very strong implication that world population refers to human population and is not completely personal and subjective, it's the more accepted idea of what world population is. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 04:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
No. The fact that Brttanica and other more conventional sources don't have a committment to an inclusiveness and breadth of view/understanding reflecting a balanced and equal treatment (or awareness) of definitions from within both the biological and social sciences is no reason for Wikipedia to unthinkingly follow their example in this regard.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The above comment nonsensically assumes that the naming of Wikipedia articles should have more to do with the personal natures of Wikipedia editors than it has to do with the material itself, which is a totally bizarre fallacy. Please provide an objective argument instead of such baseless rubbish.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • To further clarify re. the systemic bias, it's a perspective bias whereby a narrow, limiting assumption from within the social sciences has been chosen/prioritized over a broader, more inclusive definition from within the biological sciences. Wikipedia, embracing both sciences as it does in its scope, should show an awareness of both, when a definition overlaps both.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Flamarande (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for scientific terms. Biological or statistical physical usage of "population" is rather limited in scientific papers or textbooks. On the other hand, human demographic usage of population is not limited to social science.Aurichalcum (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Huh? "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for scientific terms"? Seriously?!--TyrS (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Another doubling sequence

There are two tables in the article showing years for population to double, beginning at 375 millions and 500 millions, respectively. Based on the UNDESA estimates, one might cover all of the 2nd millennium by starting a table at 310 or 312.5 millions. Here is what it would look like:

Starting at 312.5 million
Population
(in billions) 		0.3125 0.625 1.25 2.5 5
Year 1007 1607 1848 1949 1987
Years elapsed 600 241 101 38

Would it be a good idea to replace the 375 millions table by this one?--Nø (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference Bug

Looking at the page just now, the "Further resources" section ends in, "...GeoHive interactive world atlas.[95]". However, there are only 94 references in the reference section immediately below, and the linked-to reference is number 94. A quick edit attempt shows the reference is coded correctly (there is no 94 or 95 hardcoded in the wikitext). Checking further, "[44]" (in the "Estimated world population at various dates (in millions)" chart) links to reference 44, while "[46]" (in the "Rate of increase" section) links to reference 45, and there is no "[45]". Is this a bug in the page, or did the page trigger some deeper bug? Winged Cat (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


Update for Population Increase Graph

The graph at http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldgrgraph.php is by the U.S. Census Bureau (International Data Base) and is current as of December 2009. It could, and should, be used to create a replacement for the current version (it being one of the four graphs linked to in the "Rate of Increase" section, listed as "Increase rate 1950–2000 " but showing data through approximately 2005 or 2006) ; take the portion of this newer graph that start in 1950 and end in Dec 2009, as the new graph. The information on how the trend has continued during the last 4 or 5 years is very important, relevant, and the graph should be kept timely. Harel (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

1900's

"Europe’s population doubled during the 18th century, from roughly one hundred million to almost two hundred million, and doubled again during the 19th century." It appears somebody doesn't know the difference between "19th century" and 1900's. --AGF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.104.162 (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits by Kmarinas86

Recently, user:Kmarinas86 has made a large number of edits without useful edit summaries and without any posts here on the talk page to explain his actions. It is unreasonably difficult to assess the value of these edits. Some are minor, some are a major restructuring, and along the way, at least one good section has been lost.

I have for now reverted all these edits, and hereby invite Kmarinas86 to explain his project.--Nø (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No material was actually removed: Before (60,374 bytes) After (60,456 bytes)
Comparison of before and after: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_population&action=historysubmit&diff=364136280&oldid=364094915
Before: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_population&oldid=364094915
Issues
  1. Section "Population figures" is not the only section containing figures, and it has a focus on history. Therefore, it should be labeled "History".
  2. Section "Population figures" contains information concerning ancient, medieval, and modern eras. Due to relatively more public interest in the modern history of population, not to mention its distinct differences from population growth in the past, separating it using subheadings will spare readers uninterested in the older history some time in sifting through the text to find information about modern population growth. Alienation may provoke the otherwise interested reader to avoid the section "Population figures" entirely.
  3. Section "Population growth tables" and "Rate of increase" are in separate sections. Both are subsets of population growth.
  4. Section "Distribution by region" speaks of only one kind of distribution (i.e. population not population density). Therefore the title of the section is overly broad and should be renamed to "Population by region".
  5. Section "Population density" is under "Most populous nations". However, the word "populous" refers to the number of inhabitants, disregarding the area of habitation.
  6. Sections with the word "nations" should rather refer to "countries" not "nations". The distinction between to the two should be clear for anyone who has taken classes on globalization.
  7. Section "Milestones" concerns a restricted case concerning increases of world population by increments of 1 billion, and is it therefore better to make note of this fact. Because many people will likely be interested in these milestones, this section ought to be located near the top of the article where it is more accessible. The same is true for the content in the section "Distribution by region".
  8. Section "Forecasts" mixes forecasts of population growth and the issues of scarcity as it relates to limited resources and poverty under the same heading. Forecasts of population growth would actually fit under the section discussing population growth. There should be a separate section concerning scarcities.
  9. Sections "Ethnicity" and "Demographics of Youth" both concern demographics of a population and thus are distinctly unique from the subject of population size (or even population density). Therefore, a section entitled "Demographics" is justified, under which "Ethnicity" and "Youth" are subheadings.
  10. Section "Models" discusses "mathematical approximations" of population growth which are not to be confused with sophisticated models of underlying factors which can be combined to estimate population growth. More accurate models of growth are not limited to "mathematics" but also take into consideration "demographic transitions" which cannot be reduced to ideal mathematics.
Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 15:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kmarinas86 - thanks for your reply!

I haven't studied it in detail (and I won't have time to do so; I hope others will), but you're right; the section I thought had gone missing (the one with tables for population doublings) was still there - but, in my opinion, misplaced. It is related to the section you called "Mathematical approximations" (which I'd prefer to call "Mathematical models"), and it still said, quote: fitting the hyperbolic growth model mentioned above, though the models were in fact mentioned below.

Now that we have your your post explaining your work, I have absolutely no objections to you reverting my revert, but I think it would have been better if you'd given some brief edit summaries for your many edits, so that others whatching the article could more easily verify that your work is in fact improvements.

Cheers, --Nø (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Food Prices

In the section on food price increases - perhaps we should note that the food price spikes during 2008 were caused by government mandated ethanol use in the US which used up quite a bit of corn. As it is it implies that high fuel prices caused the food price spike, while in reality it was an unintended consequence of ethanol blending requirements. Don't have a source in front of me for this but I'm sure there is one. Ignignot (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Food prices are high because oil is expensive. Ethanol is minor compared to the oil/natural gas inputs required to till the land, fertilize it, irrigate, transport foods, cook and prepare foods. The ethanol thing is smoke and mirrors. As oil disappears, food gets very expensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a reference: http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2007/12/misery-of-high-cost-of-oil.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Another reference: http://www.foodpricetruth.org/facts.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wotnow's recent work on milestones

I've added the following to User talk:Wotnow#World population:

Hi wotnow.
I've only taken a superficial look at your recent changes to World population (the milestones section), but it seems good, and I'd like to point something out to you that you may not be aware of: This section used to be next to the doubling sequences section, and both sections used to reference the page World population estimates. I think the reference to that page should be re-added to the milestones section, and I think some of your recent work would be more appropriately transferred to the estimates page.
--Nø (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

--Nø (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Pandemic

The Black Death is referred to as a "pandemic", whereas the smallpox that killed 90% of New World inhabitants is referred to as a "local epidemic". That doesn't seem right. ... or am I reading it wrong? Either way, it could be cleared up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnebulon (talk • contribs) 04:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get your figures from? smallpox killed 20-60% (usually rounded to 35%) of those infected, so for that figure to be correct every single person in the new world would have needed to be infected and the death rate would need to be much higher. -ross616- (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I have just reread the article and I think you may be getting confused as it was responsible for an estimated 90% of Native American deaths in the New World, NOT 90% of the total deaths in the New World -ross616- (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Graphic is wrong

The first image on this article is wrong. The 2004 UN report says population peaks at 9.22 billion in the year 2075. It never gets to 14 billion as in this image. Thanks. --Againme (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an estimate, there is no right or wrong until it has happened, and the one you are referring to is the high estimate, the medium estimate reaches roughly 10 billion in 2075 then begins to decline. Also notice that it only says 14 billion in the year 2100 on the high estimate -ross616- (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone notice it also reads "Millions of people", rather than "Billions of people"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.200.157 (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

yes that's correct since it gives the numbers up the side in thousands, there certainly aren't thousands of billions of people in the world but there ARE thousands of millions (billions) -ross616- (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for a diagram

A world population pyramid (structure by age and sex) would be a great addition to the article. --Eleassar my talk 21:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Largest ethnic group

The largest ethnic group on earth is Caucasian, not Chinese. Seethakathi (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. The link to "Caucasian" doesn't even go to an article, but to a disambiguation page. The term doesn't even have an accepted anthropological definition. Unless a reference can be provided, this will be reverted. 209.6.89.252 (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
You first sign up for an account (it's free) before warring here.Seethakathi (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't signed in at the time. Nevertheless, the Caucasian "fact" is wrong. Please cite a source before making this claim. Or even better please define what this "Caucasian" ethnic group is.Konchevnik81 (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Please don't add this Caucasian claim unless 1) a definition can be provided of what this "Caucasian" ethnic group is, and 2) some external reference can be provided. I don't want to get into an editing war, and if a conclusion cannot be reached on this discussion page, then I will have the article flagged and get a moderator to resolve the issue.03:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konchevnik81 (talk • contribs)
Furthermore, as a gesture of good faith I tweaked the original Han Chinese statement to remove any questionable language, and added a link to a reputable source: the World Factbook (cited throughout this article). The Factbook's China page states that 91.5% of the population of the People's Republic of China is Han Chinese: this works out to about 19.6$ of the world population. This is also consistent with the [Han Chinese] page in Wikipedia. So if any further changes are to be made to this article please bring it up in the discussion section first. Thanks.Konchevnik81 (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I will not add the Caucasian claim until I find a ref. But I have also commented out the Chinese claim as the link seems irrelevant and proves nothing. Infact I found another link on the same Web site stating that only 12.65 per cent of the human population speak Mandarin Chinese. Seethakathi (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Very true, but the country page for China states that 91.5% of the population of PR China is Han Chinese (the July 2010 total estimated population being 1,330,141,295): 1,330,141,295*91.5% = 1,217,079,285; this works out to about 19.6% of the 2010 estimated total world population, and doesn't even account for the Han Chinese in Taiwan, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, North America, etc. The percentage of Mandarin speakers is lower because many Han Chinese speak Yue (Cantonese), Min, Hakka, Wui and other dialects. Also, if you don't mind I'm unmasking the sentence: in general wikipedia lets claims be questioned on its pages, but information should not be hidden from other viewers. I'll water down the statement more to remove the "single biggest" claim.Konchevnik81 (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

percentages by region

the percentages quoted at the start are incorrect. world population is almost 7 billion so a total asian population of 3 billion means the proportion living in asia is about 43.5% not 60%, and the 40% quoted as living in india and china is probably incorrect too. is this a simple error or am i missing something? total population percentages by region (asia + africa + europe etc) only adds up to about 80% too. does someone have the correct figures? cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixcef (talk • contribs) 20:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Valid point.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 14:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The Population by Region numbers for North America are also incorrect. It states that North America has 352 million. Later in the article, it says that Mexico had a population of 112 million in 2009 and the USA has a population of 311 million. Adding that to Canada's population of 34 million, North America has at least 457 million people. This would be 6.6% of the world population, not 5% as stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.4.225.30 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

North America and Latin America

North America here is mixing ethnocentric and geographic terminology, better change for Anglo America and Latin America or for the right geographical content--99.106.183.44 (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

terms should stay consistent since this is an encyclopediaZomputer (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
precision is everythingZomputer (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Billion may be confusing

It would be desirable to avoid the term "billion", as it is understood differently in different countries, meaning either 109 or 1012. --AngelHerraez (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is really an issue any more, "American style billions" is now the standard throughout the world, even in places that previously used "long billions". See Manual of Style on the issue. Also, this conversation. TastyCakes (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
TastyCakes wrote: "American style billions" is now the standard throughout the world.
That is only true for the English-speaking world - but yes, this is an encyclopaedia in English, and hence "billion" is unambiguous here.--Nø (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

graph

is there newer data available that could be used to replace the graph in the article? 2004 data seems a little old to me. plugwash (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

something is screwy with the intro

Before I logged in it said "The world population is the total population of humans on the planet Earth, currently estimated to be 3 }}}} billion by the United States Census Bureau.", when logged in it seems to appear fine. Plugwash (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

similar experience for me Pgilman (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

projections need to be updated

I'd do it if I had time, but unfortunately I don't. Maybe someone else does? Here's the linkUN World Population Projections: 2010 revision Saritamackita (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

intro

I changed wording in intro. Article defined wold population as total population of humans. Zomputer (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This definition was circular. I fixed it before and had to fix it again today. Zomputer (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Mathematical approximations

I removed hyperbolic growth (with a predicted population of infinity in 2025) because the chi-squared statistic is infinity. That is *not* a good approximation. If someone wishes to add it back, with a sourced remark on which domain hyperbolic growth *is* a good approximation, I will not object.Dr.enh (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No-one claimed it was good for extrapolation into the future. I've added it back. If people want more details than a brief mention, I suppose they should go to the cited source. I have NOT read that source myself (and I didn't put the paragraph here in the first place), but years ago I arrived at the same model myself as OR. It works VERY well for 1600-1990, QUITE well for 1400-1990, and not bad at all (relative to its inherent absurdity with the vertical asymptote around 2025 or 2032) for 1000-2000. If I added that in the article, it would be OR, but I think the brief sourced statement is fine as it is (unless of course someone consults the source and feels the paragraph misrepresents it). The model is also referenced further down in the article, so the paragraph cannot just be removed without reworking that.--Nø (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The 10 most densely populated countries/regions

I suggest to restrict the list of most densely populated countries/territories to entities above 1 million inhabitants, to remove the bulk of microstates currently in it. IMO these are not really notable since they're usually a single urban area, and have no higher pop. densities than similar urban areas contained in larger countries. (Doing this would also reduce the necessity for the "combined top" list below it, which seems rather arbitrary to me.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"In the 1970s there was a belief that 75% of all the people who had ever lived were alive in the 1970s"

Does anyone actually have documentation of this? The source attributes it to a "forgotten author." I say it should be removed unless someone can find a contemporary source which states that "75% of all the people who had ever lived were alive" --98.217.125.6 (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It was definitely "common knowledge" among some people in the 70s or 80s - but I know my assertion here hardly is a citable source...--Nø (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It may have been a belief among some people, but it certainly wasn't universally held. For instance, Arthur C. Clarke started the foreword to 2001 with

“Behind every man now alive stand thirty ghosts, for that is the ratio by which the dead outnumber the living. Since the dawn of time, roughly one hundred billion human beings have walked the plant Earth.”

It depends how far back you're willing to go when calling our ancestors "people" of course. Maybe the claim was referring to some more specific group, like "scientists"?
—WWoods (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
As far back as they were members of our human species. Zomputer (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Who's up for removing the lines in question?--98.217.125.6 (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Table update

Previously, the table showing the years in which milestones are predicted to be reached did not indicate a particular data source, and nor did it agree with any of the published estimates featured on WP or (to my knowledge) elsewhere. I have updated it with the USCB estimates (from the World Population Estimates page) and have included USCB in the table's title.Ordinary Person (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Country Population

This article gives two population numbers that are different, one in the world population by continent table (under most populous country) and one in the Largest Population by Country table. Is either correct, and if so, shouldn't it have the same number in both tables? WikiWiki (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

units

The intro states "Billions", while the illustration clearly states "Millions". Which one's correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.66.184 (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


The illustration clearly shows that in around 2005 the world population was around 6500 million (6.5 billion). I really fail to see the problem here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.128.177 (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 or 2012?

The article needs to be policed for consistency. You've got the article saying October 2011 for when the 7 billion is reached, but the Milestones chart says 2012, and there's also another 2012 source given elsewhere in the article. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No, we should report the different views (if they're from reputable sources) and attribute them clearly. The problem with our article is not this minor inconsistency in what different organisations say, it is that we do not always report clearly who is saying what. We say the global population "is projected to reach seven billion in October 2011" - but by who? Burying the answer in the following series of five footnotes isn't good enough. --Avenue (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, making note of which organisation says what is importatn, because they all use different statistical methods to come up with the conclusion. P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
And of course, any serious statistician who works with demographics of this scale would tell you the incoming data are not always fully reliable (esp not for Asia and Africa) and the margin of error overall would be at least 25 million. We may already have gone several millions past the 7 bn mark.Strausszek (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Exponential Population Growth

It is well known that the exponential is not understood properly.

Exponential population growth can ONLY occur if this occurs supernaturally.

It is impossible for normal human beings to increase the population exponentially as the birth rate and death rate would normally keep pace with one another.

But it seems that nobody has ever appreciated this. (Until now?)

This lies way outside human logic as it is designed to fulfil scripture and for no other reason.

Further proof, as if it were really needed, that the entire nature of this creation, where 'people' are half 'human' half animal based on the Great Sphinx (Abu Hol) is essentially Satanic in nature, just as it has always been.

Ian Chattan NATO SIS 80.201.241.43 (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

ianchattan @ yahoo.com

"...the birth rate and death rate would normally keep pace with one another". Nonsense. If this was the case, there would be no growth in human population. This is clearly contradicted by centuries of data and estimates. Mindmatrix 18:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

What high school student wrote the horrible unverified first paragraph of this article, and why hasn't it been deleted? 69.165.133.146 (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop insulting other editors, and check the eight (!) references given there. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

more recent data

is there more recent data available than the UN 2004 predictions used for the headline graph in this article? Plugwash (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is, I've seen it around. Those projections are terribly out of date - both the low and mid projections have been raised considerably in particular. The demographic slowdown hasn't occurred as quickly as predicted, and as a result assumptions have changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.120.151 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

world’s (human) population will reach 7 billion at the end of October

http://www.economist.com/node/21533364 A tale of three islands; The world’s population will reach 7 billion at the end of October. Don’t panic Oct 22nd 2011, from the print edition page 18; excerpt ...

Start with the link between population and violence. It seems plausible that the more young men there are, the more likely they will be to fight. This is especially true when groups are competing for scarce resources. Some argue that the genocidal conflict in Darfur, western Sudan, was caused partly by high population growth, which led to unsustainable farming and conflicts over land and water. Land pressure (Land use) also influenced the Rwandan genocide of 1994, as migrants in search of a livelihood in one of the world’s most densely populated countries moved into already settled areas, with catastrophic results.

See Planetary boundaries. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popwnote.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_population/Archive_2&oldid=1153938180"