Talk:List of countries by infant and under-five mortality rates

message: It would be nice if this page were arranged in the same way as List of countries by life expectancy, with the good countries at the top, the contries disambiguated from the regions, and the map colored the same way.  Strait 06:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: The link to the publication at the bottom is broken - New link seems to be:
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/WPP2006_Highlights_rev.pdf
Firewing1 01:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: Should this be updated to the current 2006 data published by Save the Children? If so I'll retype it when I have the time.
http://www.savethechildren.org/index.asp
http://www.savethechildren.org/publications/SOWM_2006_final.pdf?stationpub=000000&ArticleID=&NewsID=
In the SOWM report they refer to data in Unicef's State of the World's Children 2006 report, this table. The data's not "as new" as the yearly World Factbook estimates: Unicef gives a 1990 and 2004 juxtaposition. It would be more appropriate to present Unicef figures, but this is my opinion. I haven't gone through other figures to see where the differences are, but the obvious that came to mind, Iraq, is given by World Factbook at around half the figure Unicef gives.212.149.208.130 03:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update for 2006 data? 

message: Is it possbile to update Austria ? It doesn´t have 4,7 it has 3,5 in the first half of 2006 and it had 4,1 for the year 2005
Does Angola have the highest infant mortality rate? Is it from least to greatest or greatest to least? Help me. Fclass 15:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update for Austria 

message: At the bottom of the page is a list of 2007 infant mortality rates in Portuguese.  Should this be translated or moved to another section?  Or perhaps removed entirely?
DominanChic 01:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese Information at the Bottom 

message: CIA World Factbook has 2007 figures. Someone undid my update saying the change wasn't discussed, yet failed to actually start a discussion about it. Well here's the discussion, does anyone have any objections? If not I will re-upload the updated table.
Sbw01f 03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CIA Factbook data is not accurate for many less developed countries (they look fine for the more developed ones). The UN figures are more in line with those published by national census authorities in general and also track with figures from the independent Population Reference Bureau. The figures in the UN table are an average for the years 2005 to 2010. So, yes take this as an objection to using CIA data rather than UN data. --Polaron | Talk 03:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is not concerning you that all CIA fb figures are also estimates? In fact i am not against adding CIA fb estimates as third column, but i totally refuse to delete UN data from table. --Jklamo 04:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The CIA does not at all publish their methodology unlike the UN. That still doesn't explain why even their past figures for the less developed countries do not match those countries' own estimates. --Polaron | Talk 05:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And that means the UN is making statistics up? How does the CIA "measure" infant mortality rates for a given year? How do you know it is not a projection based on past data? Do they conduct their own surveys? If so, we should be able to look them up. The problem is they never do say what their methodology for their numbers are, unlike the UN, which tells you which particular primary sources from which year the numbers were obtained. They also say if adjustments were made based on AIDS or civil war, etc. and what particular model was used to calculate future estimates. I don't trust any statistics that aren't backed up by methodology. The CIA numbers might be useful as a last resort in the absence of any other more reliable source. But if we have a better source, let's use that. Would you be happier if I use the 2007-only UN figure rather than the aggregate? Also, what's wrong with putting both tables in so the readers have a choice? --Polaron | Talk 13:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries.  Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Discussion

message: The value for European Union cannot be right. All of the higher population countries of the EU, except Poland, have significantly better values than listed for the EU entry. The average, based on population, must be much better. It is nonsense to average just the 27 EU countries without considering their population figures.
--92.151.175.65 (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU value cannot be right 

message: Many countries don't include infants in their "live birth" counts until a specific amount of time has passed since the birth, or until the child reaches a point where it is "thriving" in technical terms.  Other countries include in their count all births where the baby draws its first breath, reguardless of any other factors.  In the same circumstances, other countries would classify these as "still births."
This should probably be noted in the introduction of the article, or in footnotes for every contry that has critera beyond the group with the least stringent definition of a live birth.
173.85.41.138 (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Live Birth" definition varies by country 

message: How can Indian ppl r so shameless to change their data from 50% to 30%? Shameless  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalidshou (talk • contribs) 11:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shameless 

message: According to the page here: http://www.sdplatform.com/Haber.aspx?HID=3989 Turkey's infant mortality rate dropped to about 10 or 1%. There is more accurate data available on the Secretary of Health's webpages also, maybe someone should go through the data...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.88.181 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey 

message: Other column sorts appear to work as expected, but for some reason the 1985-1990 column sorts alphabetically not numerically - thus any country whose figures go over 100 will come before any country with single digit figures (given that none are under 2.0).
Jorvikian (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting Oddity 1985-1990 

message: Looking at infant mortality statistics for the world's countries, every country has experienced a decline over the last several decades - until we reach the last three years, and now we suddenly have an increase for every single country... at least I didn't see any exceptions, although I may not have looked closely enough. Regardless, even if there are a few countries that have not had an increase in infant mortality in the past few years, the vast majority clearly have.
You'd think that such a sudden change in infant mortality trends would be big news. I have spent over an hour on Google trying to find ANY article on the subject and could not find a single one. It makes me wonder if these recent statistics are wrong. And if they're not wrong, why isn't this being talked about? Does anyone know what's going on here?
198.84.234.230 (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Let's remove the last column, it adds nothing and only confuses the readers. I like the shades of grey though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.189.170.170 (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have added a note here, explaining the role of the last column, in order to prevent further confusion. --DancingPhilosopher my talk 12:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

text: *Yes, before it said "last three average" without making clear whether it was referring to the last three years or last three columns, in a way that was leaving room for confusion. --DancingPhilosopher my talk 08:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The last column

message: Was there ever a legend for the shades of gray in the last table?
--Timeshifter (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the legend for the shades of gray in the timeline table? 

message: Reference now also links to archive for 2016 numbers:
*https://web.archive.org/web/20171019041424/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2091.html
That is the latest archive still using 2016 numbers. See overall archive with all dates of archiving:
*https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2091.html 
--Timeshifter (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA table. 2016 archive, and 2017 numbers