From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Geography (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Sociology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Demographers needed[edit]

I need help from experienced demographers at Demographics of Islam. For one thing, I'd like to round off the numbers, which are ridiculously precise. I also need better sources for religious affiliation. Please come over and take a look. Zora 14:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

VOTE!! - HDI in Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template?[edit]

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template:

(1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;
(2) Rank of country’s HDI;
(3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?



E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

On Demographics vs. Demography[edit]

If you go to the name Demographics on Wikipedia, you'll find a clear declaration that the term demographics is often confused with the term demography. But Wikipedia perpetuates this mistake every day.

If the term demographics is often erroneously used in place of demography, why do Wikipedia editors and contributors keep generating these "Demographics of . . . [country name]" articles? There are so many of these, and I am too unskilled to try to address this, that somebody needs to take charge and produce a renaming and a redirecting of links throughout the site.

Demographics is a media and advertising term. It is not a term that describes either a scientific field (demography or, more broadly, population studies) or the "population" (colloquially the "demography") of a given society or region.

Every one of those "demographics of . . ." articles should be changed either to "Demography of . . . " or "Population of . . . ", except for articles on the "demographics of media audiences" or something akin to that in which the jargon of that business can be recognized.

This is a plea for somebody to take charge and fix this minor but burgeoning abomination.Mack2 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Net migration[edit]

Net migration is only briefly mentioned once under the heading "Basic demographic equation", even thgough is is one of the main factors in determining a population's numbers. I have my geography schoolbook here. I quote:

If the number of immigrants into a country is greater than the number of emigrants, net migration is positive; if the emigration rate exceeds the immigration rate, net migration is negative. --Nin 12:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

One Child Policy[edit]

If China maintained the one child policy then in 700 years the 1.6 billion projected Chinese would reduce to under 1000 people. 600 years ago the Chinese population was only 50 million Chineses. If the world adopted a one child policy then the world population would be sustainable. However a change to the Chineses policy of fewer, spaser and longer would have to be made. Instead one child but with early marriage, early child bearing, and strictly only one child this would solve the problem of reducing population. Also it would solve the sorrow that comes when the loss of that one child comes when the parents are both infertile due to older age. Instead to preserve fortility the solution is having an early marriage to produce an early child. This would mean that the child would grow up to marry age and have a child themself while under the watch of fertile married parents. If however the child should died in the first 16 years then the parents are still fertile and able to have a second child to replace the deceased while in the age bracket of 38-39 years. Early marriage and early child bearing adds in a factor of redundancy. This redundancy safeguards genetic lines from tragety. Early to marry and early to bear is one possible future state of human fertility that would be sustainable both phenotypically and genotypically. However it requires strict one child adherance. The polcy would promote early to marry, early to bear, makes a women healthy, wealthy and wise - but only if one child is every had in a life time. The only other alternative to this is to make marriage dependant on the male paying a dowary to his wife of 2.22 ounces of gold if he lives in a city and the same weight in silver if his premanant address is in the village or rural area. A fine of 1 ounce of gold for adultary that grows expanentially for each offence paid by both male and female if proven. This adds in the reward and punishment and a just society around marrage and child bearing as well as de-urbanizing the city of population. the maximum ammount for dowary is 13 ounces of gold or silver depending on the permanant residence of the male. A promosary note can be provided in the absence of the full amount to the wife.RoddyYoung 11:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Demographics vs demography confusion[edit]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia itself has perpetuated this confusion between demography and demographics through its many many articles on the "Demographics of France," "Demographics of Australia," et al. At some point, a Wikipedian may wish to devote some time to changing all these articles and links to read "Demography of . . . .

I have moved the above from main space to here, but seems there are not many people observing this page. However the problem seems real (also mentioned in a thread above), and affecting dozen of articles, which seem to discuss demography, not demographics, but are named with 'ics' word. We should address it and consider renaming the relevant articles and categories.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like "demographics" is an acceptable term for articles like these. Here are the definitions of the two words in question from Oxford's dictionary:
  • demographics - (plural noun) statistical data relating to the population and particular groups within it
  • demography - (noun) the study of statistics such as births, deaths, income, or the incidence of disease, which illustrate the changing structure of human populations.
Perhaps when naming articles like these, we should ask ourselves something like, "Is the subject of this article the 'Statistical Data of France' or the 'Study of Statistical Data of France?'" Is the article about the statistical data itself or about studying the statistical data? Jecowa 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Back in the days when these articles were created they consisted only of statistical data copied from the CIA World Factbook, many of them still do. If I understand correctly, such statistics are rightly named demographics. But ultimately we want Wikipedia articles to go deeper than just listing statistics so I support moving them to demography. --Bjarki 21:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No, such statistical data aren't rightly named "demographics." They are just "population statistics" or 'demographic statistics." Use of the title "Demographics of [Canada]" for such articles is inappropriate. It's certainly not conventional among demographers themselves. The term is just a media analysis or public opinion research term, and should not be confused with demography.--Mack2 02:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree. The word "demographics" is now quite well established to mean a statistical summary of a population. Demography, on the other hand, is a science. It deals with cause-and-effect relationships, explanations for why demographic variables change, structures and functions. The distinction between the two words is both useful and commonplace. —Aetheling 19:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Not to get too ad hominem here, but have you actually read any textbook on demography that uses the term demographics as you say is "now quite well established"? It's not established among demographers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Assuming that Oxford English dictionary is correct (and that "Demography" is the study of "Demographics"), this discussion is about wikipedia conventions. Titles in demographic texts are different that titles in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedic titles tell you what an article is about, not what an article is. Thus an article titled "Cat" is not a cat, but an article about cats. Whereas among demographers, the heading "Demography" might very well describe a section that is demography, in Wikipedia, the heading "Demography" implies an article about the study of demographics, which would imply an article about prominent demographers etc.--gwc (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course, this article is indeed about Demography. I was talking about the "Demographics of such and such" articles. --gwc (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mention of Nathan Keyfitz[edit]

Should there be mention in this topic on Nathan Keyfitz? "Nathan Keyfitz, Professor of Demography and Sociology at Harvard University (1972-1983), is a leader in the field of mathematical demography and a pioneer in the application of mathematical tools to the study of population characteristics where vital statistics and census data are incomplete." [unsigned comment by Bill.albing, 7 Aug 2007]

  • Nathan Keyfitz probably should be mentioned here, but I think it would be even more useful to create a separate biographical entry for him on Wikipedia. As one of the towering figures of 20th century demography, he easily qualifies in terms of notability. Incidentally: Bill, you should sign your comments (use four tildes, Wikipedia will replace them with your login name and a date) —Aetheling 19:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Body Language as a Concept in Demography?[edit]

While analyzing body language in groups of people is not a new concept in the field of sociology, I would like to know from experts in the field of demography if sampling the body language of populations is considered a new concept in their field. I have been talking with many people who are familiar with the method of analyzing standardized measurements of peoples’ body language - taken with developments in biometric technology, geographically. Jasonbengiat (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Mike, No. I don't. I thought that I would be able to get some, but I wasn't. Still, could you look at http:// and tell me what part of the methodology hasn't been validated? If you cannot refute the methodology, then maybe the problem is that my entry needs a different name and belongs in a different place in Wikipedia. Can you advise me as to 1) what type of study this should be described as, and also 2) if and where in Wikipedia a study involving this type of methodology belongs? Jasonbengiat (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Without third-party references, the material has no place on Wikipedia. (And a discussion board, especially one maintained by the inventor of the field of study, is not a reliable source.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I can provide third party references for sciences that involve measuring peoples’ body language, sampling populations, and mapping data. Really, that is all that is involved. It could get fancier, involving mathematical methods and studies in complexity, but that is it in a nutshell. I find it hard to believe that I am the first person to combine these know methods. That is why I am asking you to name the science that I am describing, so that I can identify it properly and find out where it belongs in Wikipedia, if it is not already written in Wikipedia. The way I see it, I have reinvented the wheel. I see you as a person who sells tires - who is going to tell me that my theory have already been named and described – or something similar to it has been named and described. I don’t see how a study that uses such well-known methods can be considered a new science. Maybe you will be able to lead me to a place in Wikipedia where the topic has already been named and described, and from that point I will be able to do more research. Jasonbengiat (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So, basically, what I need to know is if comparing the body language of people in different places, populations, cultures, etc with standardized measurements is done in any accepted science and is considered a valid method. Jasonbengiat (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reproductive tables/fertility schedules[edit]

I note there is no article on this topic. I have one on survivorship curves in the pipelines and noted this omission. Reproductive tables are basically the opposite of life tables: they are an age-specific summary of reproductive rates of a population. Should I create an article on this subject too? I don't see anything attempting to link to the subject though (unlike survivorship curve, which has several links from 'missing articles' pages), so it will be an orphan if I start it (I suppose I could add see also links from one or two articles). Richard001 (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Population ecology[edit]

I understand that demography is a subfield of population ecology, but it doesn't seem to be nested within Category:Population ecology in any way. Richard001 (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is very anthro-centric. The term demography has been used for many years to refer to other species and even parts of an organism, such as demography of leaves on a tree. For example: Reich, P. B., Uhl, C., Walters, M. B., Prugh, L. P., & Ellsworth, D. S. (2004). LEAF DEMOGRAPHY AND PHENOLOGY IN AMAZONIAN RAIN FOREST : A CENSUS OF 40 000 LEAVES OF 23 TREE SPECIES. Ecological Monographs, 74(1), 3-23.

I recommend some clarification in the introduction for biologists looking for a more inclusive article on demography.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

KimberHM1 (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)=== merge and redirect to demography ===

Merge This is article is much lower in quality compared to demography. I'm not sure much can be done to fix it, and suggest that it makes more sense to redirect to that page. Declanscottp (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge I believe there's a strong amount of redundancy between demographics and demography, making a merge appropriate. It's true that these are two different concepts in a dictionary sense, but they're as highly interrelated. I think they complement each other well in providing readers with context. Demography is the study of population, and demographics is what such studies produce. Vcessayist (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose the merge: "Demographics" remains a colloquial term for "demographic data," and is used especially by people working in advertising, market research, the media, and polling. Professional demographers scarcely ever use the term "demographics". One could verify this by doing a scan of mainline professional journals in demography, e.g., Demography, Population Studies, and Population and Development Review. What WP has done in providing a section labelled "demographics" in every country article (rather than, say, the label "demographic profile") is to apply jargon from market research and the media, not the professional terminology of the field of demography.~Mack2~ 07:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Merge and move I was opposed at first due to the slight difference in meaning, but after looking at both articles I suggest (if this is feasible—I've done some merges and some page moves but never both together yet) merging Demographics into Demography and then moving the page to Demographics (the more-common word—this will probably entail first deleting the redirect resulting from the merge). I may be able to help if needed. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I strongly Oppose this solution. Demography is an academic field devoted to the scientific study of population. Demographics is not an academic field. It is not a science. People don't take courses in it in college. Demographics are certain types of population data, not a field of study. They are typically synoptic, descriptive data summarizing a few key characteristics of a population, audience, or subjects/respondents (participants) in a study or report. It would be a serious mistake to retitle the current "Demography" article as "Demographics."~Mack2~ 04:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge. As clear cut a case as I've seen of namespace muddling. Note mack2 has voted twice above, there's only 1 opposing voice ATM. Don't see why mack2's position can't be accommodated and this merged into the other, especially if e's going to do it.Lycurgus (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Nope and here's why. Please note my opposition to the last proposal was motivated above all by the proposal to "disappear" the topic of demography and to use the supposed "more common word." That is about as misinformed as one can be. Demography is a scientific discipline. The "more common word" ("demographics") is not a scientific discipline. That kind of proposal is akin to saying Wikipedia doesn't need an article on "meteorology" because "the more common word" is "weather forecasting". Nope.~Mack2~ 02:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Move on, you're the only voice opposing the move and everybody is saying the merge target should be demography. Lycurgus (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it's like saying that an article on "meteorological" should be merged with "meteorology." "Demographic" is an adjectival form of "demography," and "demographics" is indeed just slang for "demographic information," which is information having to do with "demography." Merge it already. Nnebeel1 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't Merge, They are two different words in the Dictionary so they should be two different articles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Merge Demographics & Demography are basically two forms of the same word. It's like seismogram and seismograph. They are different words, but they have very similar definitions. It is a science and the result of said science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:AD00:CE9:999:CA56:D377:2F51 (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge topics under Demography; keep Demographics as sub-heading. Demography is the scientific collection and study of demographic data, which the majority of non-scientists refer to as "demographics." Use the merged topic page as a vehicle to educate readers on the difference.

  • Merge Agree, merge with Demography; have small subsection explaining the use of the word "demographics" as a colloquial term for demographic data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this approach. Demographics as section within Demography article, with reference/link to the present "Demographics" article as the main article on the topic "demographics". What I opposed before and still oppose is that the title of the original article on Demography be changed to Demographics. Among other things, WP renaming an entire academic/scientific field would throw professional demographers into a tizzy.~Mack2~ 15:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge Perfect idea. Simple, yet genius.
  • Agree, merge. Why hasn't it been done yet? ----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)