Talk:List of countries by total fertility rate

message: This table had been split halfway, at the 2.1 fertility rate point, with the following comment:
The following countries have sub-replacement fertility.
This is not correct and probably violates WP:NPOV. The replacement fertility rate depends on child mortality and has not been calculated for most countries. It is roughly 2.1 for Western industrial countries where child mortality is low, but that is more of an assumed number than a hard barrier. If we want to distinguish sub-replacement fertility countries from super-replacement ones, then we need another column for the actual threshold fertility rate for each country. It's not going to be a simple line midway through the table. --Yannick 04:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This page would be really interesting if someone were to port the standard deviations over. I'll have a look at the sources once I click "save page". Then will have a look into how to implement this improvement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.43.244 (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics

message: User 222.150.65.85, could you mention the sources you have used for your last edit? That data seems to differ from other 2005 data. Sijo Ripa 19:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last edit, user 222.150.65.85

message: * not logical, as per previous post
* a bloody pain to renumber every time a country goes up or down the chart
* does it really tell us anything useful?
* is there any reason why non-sovereign territories should not be numbered?
* invites unnecessary bias arguments over what is or isn't a sovereign country.
I vote to scrap it.
Kransky 01:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Perhaps we should have a top 10 / bottom 10 chart apart from a list. That should be more logical. Eraowia 12:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lets get rid of ranking

message: I put this in because no comparison of fertility figures for two years can be found anywhere else on the web. Year 2000 seemed to be a logical year to add, as the rest of the list is going to have to be updated every two years with older figures lost. Showing the significant changes in fertility between 2000 and the present year adds to the usefulness of the list. (Mollwollfumble 09:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added list for year 2000

message: See this  the article says that Xiangyang district of Jiamusi city (Heilongjiang Province) have a TFR of 0.41. Can anyone believe it? it is one-fifth of the replacement level. (Axxn 18:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just one part of one city.  It probably has a rather abnormal population (mostly male, or mostly female, or mostly elderly).  But yeah, that's pretty crazy.   <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Haplolology</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 02:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If the Vatican were included I bet it'd be pretty close to 0.  <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Haplolology</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 02:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TFR depends on number of births per women... So I agree with you on Vatican... A few dozen nuns there with no children... TFR  of 0. But the first part... If it is mostly male pop., it don't make any difference... because number of males are not used for calculating TFR... Only number of females... Even if the population is 90 males with 10 females and 12 children, the TFR will be 1.20(12/10)... not 0.12 (12/100)... The second case... If the population is mostly elderly... TFR is total number of births during the entire lifetime... So 80 year old women who had 2 children when she was 20 or 22 will have a TFR of 2.00... Well I am not a statistician... Somewhere is a mistake... it is very difficult to trust Chinese Census...  Axxn 11:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese insanity at its peak 

message: The color of Mexico in the map is wrong, the correct color is blue..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.177.74.56 (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mexico

message: I understand that the CIA Factbook is used as the basis for most of the table, but what is the policy here on using other more accurate or recent information sources? For instance, the 2000/2006 rates now shown for Canada (slightly above 1.6), which are from the factbook, disagree with the probably much more accurate numbers produced by Statistics Canada (here, and here), which clearly indicate the total fertility rate has been around 1.51 for the past decade, a full 0.1 point lower.Westacular 17:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy on Information Sources

message: Is there another reference for the 1.22 birthrate in China in 2007 claimed in the CIA factbook table? I cannot access the link [6] given. For such an extreme difference to both CIA factbook and UN figures (CIA gives 1.75, UN about 1.7) there should be a good reference, otherwise this figure should be deleted. --129.70.14.128 (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire UN table does need updating to the 2008 revision. However, please don't change just one figure. If you want to change it, do so for the whole table. I will eventually get around to doing this if you don't get to it first. --Polaron | Talk 14:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rate for China 

message: I have updated the table to 2008. Could someone please check it? 
Is it necessary to list every tiny French Island?
:: Is it necessary to list the USVI ? Guam ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.93.5 (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA 2008 DATA 

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: I happened to check the rate for Brazil on the UNdata site, which looks to be the source for this table (I checked for other countries, and it matches), and the data for Brazil is different there. It looks like here it was copied from Argentina, as both were equal. I'm changing the data for the provided there. Leonardo (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rate for Brazil 

message: Where does the CIA factbook get its data? I know it's very wrong for Norway. It should be 1.96 and on the rise Norwegian Bureau of Statistics CIA has it at 1.78 and falling. 
These numbers are interesting from a scientific point of view, indicating effects of welfare policies etc. But if they are somewhat arbitrary, it really makes no point.
What it is the general impression out there?
Surponder (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts on CIA factbook. 

message: Information for TFR tables (2011): According to unsudanig.org, Chapter 1, page 3 (http://unsudanig.org/workplan/mande/reports/docs/national/South%20Sudan%20HIVAIDS%20integrated%20report%20with%20UNGASS%20indicators.pdf), South Sudan Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is 6.70 children per woman, one of the highest in the world. Total Birth Rate (TBR) is 50.5 per 1000 people, although with a high infant mortality, 150 per 1000 live births, also one of the highest in the world. Bird Vision talk 20:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Sudan Total Fertility Rate (TFR) 

message: Has anyone information about TFR for Sudan (North Sudan) in 2011? Because if TFR of Sudan in 2010 (according to CIA World Factbook) was 4.93, on average, but South Sudan population was at least 20% (there are no exact census data about South Sudan population, more estimates) of the total population of the country and had a higher TFR (6.70) than North Sudan, and today is an independent country, then the TFR will be lower in Sudan by itself in 2011, even if Sudan (North Sudan) has the same TFR in 2011 than had in 2010.  I think Sudan (North) has a TFR more similar to Egypt than to South Sudan, although higher than Egypt. Abyei area, South Kordofan (mainly Nuba Hills) and Blue Nile States (ethnically, cultural and linguistically closer to South Sudan, and to hold popular consultations to determine if they join South Sudan or North Sudan), Darfur and Red Sea regions maybe have higher TFRs than other regions of North Sudan (linguistic majority arabic regions). Bird Vision (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The TFR for Sudan is 5.6 in 2010 according to the lastest estimates. Mightymights (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sudan (North) Total Fertility Rate (TFR) 

message: so i edited japan and Andorra, too much vandalism here, the cia facts are cia facts they shouldnt be changed only because some sources say something different, its unfair to the other countries, you can always add the sources at demographics of japan article. In Cia its clearly says 1.21 children https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html?countryName=Japan&countryCode=ja®ionCode=eas&rank=218#ja also the dude deleted Andorra cuz he was too lazy, obviously vandalism, plz do something admins. 
Besides that the first link was for 2010 while cia is for 2011 and the second doesnt work anymore.--Akin12255 (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  japan has 1.21 

message: Why is the Vatican State not in the list?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.127.117 (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question!! ;) --Oddeivind (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vatican State 

message: There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Lists of countries and territories - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 18:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: According to 2012 CIA World Factbook. Brazil has a fertility rate of 1.82!!! and not 2.16
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.49.20.225 (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazil wrong fertility rate 

message: It's odd but the data in CIA World Factbook 2012 List for Total Fertility Rate by country and dependent territories: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html, are clearly different and contradicts the list shown in Wikipedia for the same year... We can check this information. All the list needs to be reviewed and changed.
The note has another contradictory statement as compared with the source (CIA World Factbook 2012):
"Note: the only recognized and independent countries that are missing from this list are Vatican City and South Sudan. The latter became independent on July 9th, 2011."
Actually, Total Fertility Rate (TFR) in South Sudan is mentioned for 2012 as 5.66 per woman in CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/od.html, "People and Society" section or in the "Country Comparison List": https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html?countryName=South Sudan&countryCode=od®ionCode=afr&rank=8#od, were South Sudan is ranked in the 8th place.
There is a problem here that needs to be solved, it will take some time, but this information needs to be corrected!
Bird Vision (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong information and need to review and change all the ''2012 List by the CIA World Factbook'' 

message: I have corrected the list based on the CIA World Factbook 2012: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html; 2012 List for Total Fertility Rate (TFR) by country and dependent territories.
Let's hope that there is no more contradiction between information of the original sources and information showned here... Improving Wikipedia is always a good task!
Bird Vision (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction of the ''2012 List by the CIA World Factbook'' 

message: Some colours of countries on the map need to be changed.Bird Vision (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map based on the ''2013 List by the CIA World Factbook'' 

message: The UN Data from 2009 should be updated to reflect the 2012 revision here
http://esa.un.org/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2012_HIGHLIGHTS.pdf
And the World Bank data from 2010 should be updated with the figures from 2012.J0815 (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN, World Bank Updates Needed 

message: The CIA table lists both the West Bank, and Gaza (Both part of the 'State' of Palestine).  The link (generated, apparently as part of the flag display mechanism) goes to the State of Palestine article rather than the more correct WestBank article. Also, the State of Palestine article claims population of 4.6 M while the total of G + WB = 4.2 ... is this error reasonable (it seems high to me)? The link should be to West_Bank, not to the State, regardless of current politics, or the CIA table should be modified and these two combined (note that there are various other CIA tables used in Wikipedia that do the same thing, so combination might cause side-effects).173.189.78.173 (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request - West Bank 

message: Can anyone explain me why e.g. Australia has positive natural increase (5.58)  and negative fertility rate (1.77, less than 2)???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_increase  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.143.157 (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagreement of <font color="#56a9d6">natural increase</font> and  <font color="#66cc99">fertility rate</font> 

message: The article seems to make at least one incorrect statement, and present data/sources confusingly. The World Bank list published in 2016 seems to be based on 2015 data (not 2014 as the article says), while the table's heading should indicate the data year, not the publication year, so it's definitely not 2016—and the source isn't specified in/near the table at all. The data is not consistent with either 2014 or 2015 WB data; where did it come from? The table also had a number of edits so it's not properly sorted, and this is also a problem because if it's the World Bank list for year X, it should not be updated unless the entire list is updated in one go. Can an editor who frequents this article have a look? —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Bank lists 

message: Russia is marked twice in the first list.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.131.45.153 (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Apparently, the shooter's manifesto references this article.--🐦DrWho42👻 05:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very unfortunate. X-Editor (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

text: The Christchurch Mosque shooter used it in his manifesto too back in 2019. AlikeTurkey (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2022 Buffalo shooting]] 

message: Israel is twice on the first list: once with 3.49 and another time with 2.9. Grillofrances (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: Regarding diff: This article presents statistics from the United Nations Population Fund and the World Bank. Both provide fertility rate statistics in terms of births per woman. It is factually incorrect to change the unit to births per birthing person while retaining the per-woman values, just as it would be incorrect to change the unit of a list of speeds from kilometres per hour to miles per hour while retaining the kph values. (Obviously births per woman is not equivalent to births per birthing person: if in a group of 10 women one has 10 children and the other 9 have zero, the births per woman is 1 and the births per birthing person is 10.) Cheers, gnu57 14:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop your woke nonsense; the rest of the world still recognize Biology and only women give birth or biological females which would include Trans men or biological females identifying as Non Binary. So No only women per birth not birthing person. 196.249.92.215 (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Woman" vs. "birthing person" 

message: The value listed for the population replacement rate, at 2.1, is only applicable to the developed world and is not referenced in either list given. The accurate replacement rate on a global level is higher, closer to 2.3, and should be changed to reflect a global perspective. 155.188.123.47 (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is wrong to only reflect developed countries here. Maybe we should have two different values, one for the developed countries and one for the whole world. However, according to ESPENSHADE et al., even in 2003 "A majority of the world's countries - and all of the more developed ones - have replacement-level total fertility rates within 0.1 of 2.1", therefore it makes sense to compare the majority of the countries to the value of 2.1 or values close to 2.1. I think a good choice would be to have the median replacement value to compare if an individual country is above or below  and to have the world replacement value as well. The question is also to what purpose the list is used -- if you are comparing individual countries to the replacement value, then using a median is a reasonable choice, but comparing the world fertility rate to the 2.1 value is problematic.  --hroest 17:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

text: PS: a good explanation of the phenomenon is visualized in this figure which plots the replacement fertility rate as a function of life expectancy, where the value approaches 2.1 for high life expectancy but can be substantially lower for regions with lower life expectancy. --hroest 18:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value for "population replacement" 

message: The page has 2023 data of cia tfr list.Please chanye it with the 2024 version 2409:4060:2E94:45C8:0:0:BE49:2102 (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update the cia 2024 list 

message: INED (https://www.ined.fr/fr/publications/editions/population-et-societes/tous-les-pays-du-monde-2022) and Gapminder (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-born-per-woman#sources-and-processing)  are based entirely on UN data, i.e., those two are simply old UN data. Perhaps these two lists should be removed from the page? EL72HzB2cJ (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant lists