Talk:World population

message: The maths in this sentence are a little in error:
 Approximately 4.49 billion people live in these ten countries, representing around 56% of the world's population as of July 2022.
Immediately above this sentence, the table shows 4,501,267,379 people and 56.22%.  Could 4.49 be changed to 4.50, and 56 be changed to 56.2?  Of course 56 is correct, but I think it would be better to use three significant figures with both numbers. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the incorrect value. However, I think for the purposes of this table, 56% is very appropriate. Updating this kind of figure (which is here intended just as a rough reference) regularly to maintain three significant figures accurately would be significant workload for unclear encyclopedic benefit; I would hope that people are not expecting exact figures from the phrasing of that sentence :) Actualcpscm (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2023 

message: Any reason for the 0s for the Americas in the first row of Past population? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it correct that reliable sources set the population of the Americas to 0, where as all other continents (possibly excluding Oceania?) had non-zero populations at that time? If reliable source say so, but do not otherwise give numbers by continent that far back, the table makes sense as it is. Nø (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  But do you think is there a difference between 0 and Nul? I think that Nul implies we don't know, whilst zero means we are certain. The current reference doesn't  explicitly specify zero
25k years may be the current [estimate], but Indigenous_peoples_in_Canada#Paleo-Indian_period has 15 KWakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past population zeros 

message: I made these comments on the Commons talk page for the first chart "File:World-population-1750-2015-and-un-projection-until-2100.png".
I have several issues with this chart:
* The description says, "by OurWorldInData, from various sources", but does not cite the raw data or the raw data sources. The data must be provided and sourced, just naming a large data repository does not suffice.
* The datapoints from A.D. 0 to A.D. 1000, especially from 0 to 500 A.D., appear to be significantly lower than consensus, though without data and sources this is difficult to dispute. 
* While the linear scale does visually demonstrate the "hockey stick" population pattern, it makes the graph unreadable; population before 3000 BC is indistinguishable from zero and other datapoints are hard to read accurately. Hockey stick graphs should use a log scale on the Y axis to convey population change. It would be reasonable to have two graphs though, one with a linear Y scale for visualization and one with a log Y scale to convey information.
* Graphs should ideally use vector graphics.
I would like to see this graph updated and replaced on the pages that include it. Q653724854 (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to make a similar comment. At the very least, the inability to distinguish pre-BC population from 0 makes the figure not much useful. Thenightaway (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with chart 

message: Under "Global demographics", you should add "Arabic (362M)" in The world's most-spoken languages section, after "Spanish (534M)" and before "French (280M)". Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic 172.97.243.243 (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. WanderingMorpheme 22:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2023 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_population&diff=prev&oldid=1190798337 is the edit. It was reverted for allegedly being a point that doesn't belong in the lead section. Your thoughts please. Also, if it doesn't belong in the LS, how about somewhere else in the article? 
The article repeatedly talks about living human beings, and deaths of living human beings, all the while acting on an unstated assumption: that fetuses (and/or embryos and/or zygotes) are not living human beings. And yet most people on the planet, as well as a good few Americans would claim that life begins at conception. So there is a paradox.
About half of the US is anti abortion, and so a good few of the readers of Wikipedia (most of whom are Americans, I think) are presumably anti abortion, and many of them would claim that abortion is murder because life begins, they claim, at conception. And I've not heard anyone claim that any of the population statistics whether national or global are wrong, and they would be *very* different if every zygote were counted (or estimated) as a living human for census purposes because for every live birth there are I think several spontaneous or induced abortions or zygotes that fail to implant successfully in the wall of the uturus, sometimes because the zygote has a genetic defect.
My point is that many, if not most of our readers would claim that a fetus is a living human being, and yet the article tacitly denies that by saying that there are eight billion living human beings. Including all living fetuses, embryos, and zygotes the figure would be higher. And the figures for deaths per year would about *double*, at a guess, if you included all deaths, induced or natural, of those three. All I did with my edit is resolve the paradox by stating that regardless of whether fetuses are living human beings, for the purposes of censuses, they are defined as not being living human beings. The fact that few people have in the past noticed that there is a paradox here, is all the more reason to draw attention to it, and clarify it, I would have thought. Readers will be grateful, IMHO. Polar Apposite (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a very apt use of the term "paradox".  A paradox typically involves something that is seemingly self-contradictory. At best, the different interpretations of what should count as a "person" presents an ambiguity as to what the numbers in the census represent.  This would also create a dilemma as to the practical matter of accurately counting fetuses as well as the pragmatic issue of asking a question which might be considered to be very invasive. Fabrickator (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edit clarifying about fetuses was reverted. Can we discuss, please? 

message: LuizMelo58 (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done:  Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format, taking care to describe the exact location in the article where the requested changes are to be made.  Spintendo  22:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2023 

message: I would like to change "China and India" to "India and China" because India is now more populous than China. Person43632 (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Shadow311 (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2024 

message: As of 2020, the global sex ratio is approximately 1.01 males to 1 female.[75] REMOVE OR ADD NEW SOURCE
Is an unsupported claim, with no proper source. ((The cite to this is unreliable and its source leads to an error page of the CIA website.)) FredericktheGreatest (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced this with a direct CIA world factbook citation. Jamedeus (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2024 

message: The article is "World Population". Nowhere near the top of the article does it even say what the current world population is estimated to be. There should, ideally, be a single giant ticking number at the top.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.73.113 (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The second sentence of the article is  Belbury (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giant number 

message: The articles says that it took 222 years to reach 8 billion. This is wrong. 1804 plus 222 is 2026. We are obviously not in 2026 but 2024. The number should be corrected from 222 to 220. 176.223.173.211 (talk) 06:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Eight billion estimated to have been reached in 2022, so the correct number is 218. Fixed. Thanks for catching this! CAVincent (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong number