Talk:List of countries by population growth rate

message: Can we please get over using the CIA World factbook as the ultimate source for all? Their statistics are frequently wrong. 80.200.220.231 (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2006‎ (UTC)
:they tend to inflate the populations of the west bank and gaza, but other than that, what better source would you have in mind? 151.201.7.217 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2007‎ (UTC)
::Data from the countries themselves perhaps? According to Eurostat population growth in the EU was over twice as large (about 0.4%) than what the CIA Factbook claims it to be. Official Belgian statistics put population growth at 4 times higher than CIA does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.200.219.114 (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cia 

message: I just added the 2007 CIA data. A bit sleepy when doing so, so feel free to correct any errors or omissions if you notice them. (Of course you'd do that without my having to ask, anyway, right?) Adlerschloß 04:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New statistics 

message: Is the term 'population growth' a good name for the article? Sadly, the world's population has and does continue to grow, but it can't for many more decades, and then the assumption of growth over decline will become as absurd as calling this List of countries by population decline seems now. Surely we should call it List of countries by population change. Richard001 (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: Let's use more than just the UN data. Many other lists, such as countries by population, work well with a range of sources, and I see no reason why we can't do the same now. The UN data is often seriously out of date for NZ, and I don't doubt it has flaws in other cases. By all means we should use the UN figures where no other reliable ones exist...Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Data

message: I started a temporary article in order to updated this article's data to 2008.--ClaudioMB (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The list currently uses UN data (which is generally more reliable for less developed countries) that uses the average growth rate for 2005-2010. If you wish to add CIA estimates, please create a separate table within the article. --Polaron | Talk 19:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I saw the graphic and automatically thought the data was from CIA. I don't see any reason to add CIA estimates. I'll ask to delete that page. But, if the article uses one source, then the graphic should follow it. I believe that graphic should be removed and replaced only by one that uses the same source. I'll try to make a graphic using that source. --ClaudioMB (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating article

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 11:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Discussion

message: A population growth rate is not constant. For example, if we calculate the growth rate every year, I expect differences between the annual growth rates (probably not large, but still a bit). The values given by the CIA and the UN are likely to be average growth rates. If that is the cases which years were used to calculate the presented averages? I think this article will be more complete if there is some more information on how the growth rates were calculated. 128.97.244.42 (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is the growth rate estimate? 

message: For those of you, who are interested in the population growth I'll repeat here my two posts, that accidentally appeared on the Irreligion talk page:
:Unfortunately imagination has nothing to do with NPOV :-) Take the CIA Factbook as an example: birth rates minus death rates are not equal to population growth, and if you add net migration this divergence gets even worse. Population counting is a trivial matter, but I was quite surprised to see this in the CIA data, which I have previously considered a very reliable source :-) And if you look a the situation with religion percentages calculation - it is much more complicated: it is based on polls, and any census differs from the Gallup Poll only by the size of the population sample. But the main drawback remains the same: which question is being asked, you ask population the correct question, you change the result. And in each country a different question can be asked. And censuses appear in different years. So it is not very correct to compare this information, isn't it? So better add it to the list, not replace the Gallup. Regards! Emilfaro (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting: with the 23 April 2009 update, the CIA has corrected all the mismatches, but Afghanistan. The population growth rate strangely does not include 2.1% of population immigration (relative to present situation; this makes almost 700'000 people a year). What the hell they go there for? To grow poppy or to fight the troops? (The mistake for Montenegro of 1.1% could be simply, because they have forgotten to include it in the migration list. Mistake for Niger of -0.06% does not include emigration, and the one for Western Sahara of -0.02% is again because it's not on the migration list.) For all other countries the mistake is 0.00%, so it makes the Afghan misrepresentation look really strange... Emilfaro (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan! 

message: What is the real growth of population in Qatar? 0.96% or 9.56 %? One must have made a wrong calculation since the latter is ten times greater.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.99.164.4 (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I beleive there is some mistake. In the same year 2009, CIA World Factbook ranks qatar at 130th with 0.96 growth rate while World Bank places Qatar at first position with 9.56% growth rate. Pls check and rectify. Ismail --97.103.114.37 (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check in the introduction, it is clearly mentioned how the World Bank Population growth rate is calculated. It is based on the de facto definition of population, that means all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship are generally considered part of the population of the country of origin. There are a lot of expat workers in Qatar and it is continuing to grow and that's why the population growth rate is very high compared to the other statistics which are not based on the de-facto definition.Rejoice talk 12:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qatar? 

message: Is this correct?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obryanlouis (talk • contribs) 18:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  69.69% growth in Vanuatu 

message: What is the difference?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.124.7 (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of growth rate as 1 and 0? 

message: Somalia exists two times in the United Nations list, with different values.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.95.19 (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somalia 

message: Is Zimbabwe's growth rate correct in the CIA table? It's at number 2 with .89 population growth. My suspicion is that the growth rate is correct due to the other two tables having similar growth rates. If it is correct then it should be moved above Haiti and Kyrgyzstan. Is there a simple way of doing this, or will all the entries between 2 and 125 have to be renumbered?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonflare82 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zimbabwe 

message: shouldn't be more interesting direct links to the demographics of the country? - 88.171.76.213 (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless links to country articles 

message: The data points included are somewhat misleading because they include migratory numbers.  While this gives total growth rates, excluding illegal immigration, those numbers can vary widely due to political decisions and doesn't reflect the natural growth rate.  Including separate data for native growth rates would give a clearer picture of where the growth is occurring vs where it's ending up.  Data sources are available: UN 2015 data
I think it's important to show this data due to the significant change it has on the data for some countries.  Canada as an example for the 2005-2010 period has a natural growth rate of 0.39% which is far removed from the 1.13% listed due to the high level of immigration (0.74%).
In addition to the above, the absolute numbers should also be included for similar reasons.  The % of growth for China in 2005-2010 is listed as 0.54%, seemingly very low.  However, the data for that period shows that 0.54% represented 31.7% of the global population increase not including the annual -329,000 emigration.  This gives a distorted picture of where growth is occurring.  69.196.171.85 (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This information exists at a separate page i.e. List of countries by natural increase. Jay eyem (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data is somewhat misleading 

message: Data is clearly wrong by a long shot.  Simply check Canada.  An immigrant country.  Population never declines.  Current estimated population is north of 38 million.  Census in 2016 gave something over 35 million.  None of the values presented give growth rates that match current or past population growth here.  Can't even imagine what errors there are for high growth areas like Africa without solid data to refer to.  I don't know who at the U.N or the CIA is doing these analyses, but you might want to address this in the heading. I'd bet that Australia, U.S. etc. are also off.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.174.216 (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data is pure bunk 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 00:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: As has been mentioned several times previously on this talk page, the CIA figures seem to be wildly inaccurate, which is surprising since calculating the population growth rate isn't rocket science. Unless someone can explain (in the article) why the CIA figures are so ridiculously divergent from reality, I think we should just remove them. Nosferattus (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. However, many alternative sources are no better than the CIA, and UN only publish figures over a period of several years it seems, and much of this data is questionable even though the overall quality? 2A01:E0A:2E6:96F0:705D:AA66:8380:7B5C (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose removing CIA figures