Talk:World population: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:57, 16 January 2013

Ecology B‑class Mid‑importance

	Ecology portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Sociology B‑class Mid‑importance

	Society portal 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment B‑class High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

The UN number in - d*mn quick!

English is (now) known to be a global language, one that tourists especially know very well and "belonging" to 2 - 4 Bn people, loosely and by my own estimate given fast expanding Internet (Glo Network and so on) all users combined, primary and secondary: I want the UN counter (that speaks for everyone) IN. It is here: http://7billionactions.org/ . (Yes, we still miss the US commitment to the UN, but they have indeed signed Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, still though in the World, cluster bombs and mines, all "maiming well"!) 84.202.100.86 (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC), removing a slight, "false accusation". 84.202.101.225 (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White people only 12% of the population?

The world population is seven billion. 10% of that is 700 million, so 12% is something like 850 million. There are 730 million people in Europe, of which only about 30 million are non-Europeans. So, 700 million white Europeans plus 220 million White Americans= 920 million people. Then you have around 200 million White Latin Americans, which then places the white population above one billion. I can't even access the source that says whites are 12% of the population. It has to be bigger than that.

The Universe Is Cool (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)The Universe Is Cool[reply]

There actually seems to be no source given for the "12-13%" statement; possibly someone added just the "Germans, French and English" mentioned in the "reference" footnote, which might explain the discrepancy. But do you have references for the numbers you give here? I would expect the number of white Latin Americans to be much smaller, for example...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White Latin Americans number around 200 million. There are over 220 million White Americans. That's over 400 million people plus the 700 million Europeans. The number of white people easily exceeds one billion.

The Universe Is Cool (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)The Universe Is Cool[reply]

Why not erase the whole skin-notions whatsoever, as they are so "conspiring" and rather use "ethnicity" such as Euro-Americans for these "white" Americans? Any good? 109.189.208.182 (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with the conversation? My point is people of European descent number over one billion and easily surpass 12% of the world population.

The Universe Is Cool (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)The Universe Is Cool[reply]

Billion fallacy in second sentence of article

I don't seem able to edit that first paragraph of content, but there's a very slight (though significant) fallacy. It says:

As of today, it is estimated to number 7,044,445,200 billion by the United States Census Bureau (USCB).

But that's not the case. It should read "7,044,445,200 people" or "7.044 billion". 7 billion billion people would be far more than this world could handle.

Jpickar (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Jason[reply]

Yeah, that was some IP's test edit/vandalism. I've fixed it now. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks!

Jpickar (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Population by continent

Australia is most depressed at not being invited to the party. 2birds1stone (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect/confusing continent identifications

1. The section entitled "Population by region" is very confusing. Continents (e.g. Asia and Europe), are compared to Regions (e.g. "Northern America" and "Oceania"). It is apples and oranges.

2. The table on the right says, "Top ten most populous (%)". Most populous what? It lists North America and Asia, which are continents, and Latin America and the Middle East, which are not continents. And only six of the ten entities are numbered.

3. The table on the right shows "Asia" and underneath it "+ China". There are several other "+" signs, which should be bullets, not the symbol for addition.

4. In the table on the right, the population of "North America" does not include Central America, as it should, because (presumably) Central America is included in "Latin America". And the footnote to "North America" mistakenly defines it as "US, Canada, Mexico".

5. In the table on the right, under "Europe" is "ex-Soviet Union". Since the Soviet Union no longer exists, it is hard to see how this matters anymore.

96.228.5.215 (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC) treplag[reply]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 English is (now) known to be a global language, one that tourists especially know very well and "belonging" to 2 - 4 Bn people, loosely and by my own estimate given fast expanding Internet (Glo Network and so on) all users combined, primary and secondary: I want the UN counter (that speaks for everyone) IN. It is here: http://7billionactions.org/ . (Yes, we still miss the US commitment to the UN, but they have indeed signed [[Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons]], still though in the World, cluster bombs and mines, all "maiming well"!) [[Special:Contributions/84.202.100.86|84.202.100.86]] ([[User talk:84.202.100.86|talk]]) 22:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC), removing a slight, "false accusation". [[Special:Contributions/84.202.101.225|84.202.101.225]] ([[User talk:84.202.101.225|talk]]) 11:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
-== Billion ==
-{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
-Please make the first mention of billion an in-site link. --[[Special:Contributions/82.170.113.123|82.170.113.123]] ([[User talk:82.170.113.123|talk]]) 03:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
-:{{ESp|n}} per [[WP:OVERLINK]]. &mdash;<span style="color:#808080">[[User:Kuyabribri|'''KuyaBriBri''']]</span><sup><span style="color:#008080">[[User_Talk:Kuyabribri|''Talk'']]</span></sup> 13:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
-::I understand your point, but billion is very a important term in this context and is used throughout the entire article, and in numbers, billion has a long and a short scale: 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000,000. I do think at least one in-site link would be justified. --[[Special:Contributions/82.170.113.123|82.170.113.123]] ([[User talk:82.170.113.123|talk]]) 20:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
-::I'd support the OP's request; "billion" is indeed an ambiguous term because of long/short scale issues.--[[User:Roentgenium111|Roentgenium111]] ([[User talk:Roentgenium111|talk]]) 14:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
-:::{{ESp|pd}} I've added one link for the first use of [[1000000000 (number)|billion (to the short scale)]], but I'd like to see a [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] before I add it in anywhere else. '''[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]''' ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 11:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 == White people only 12% of the population? ==
@@ Line 50: / Line 40: @@
 [[User:The Universe Is Cool|The Universe Is Cool]] ([[User talk:The Universe Is Cool|talk]]) 09:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)The Universe Is Cool
-== High rank of total population ==
-In table "Countries ranking highly in terms of both total population and population density", the criteria 15M and 250 people/km^2 were chosen without explanation.
-IMHO it would be more interesting to display a list of "dense" countries from a short-list of the really big ones, say above 50M. (25 countries have over 50M people as I'm writing these lines).
-According to this suggestion the implication is that Pakistan, Germany and Italy would replace Taiwan, Sri Lanka and Netherlands in the table. Their densities are approx in the 200-230 range which is not a great difference relative to UK and Viet Nam (250+).
-What say you?
-[[User:Eric car|Eric car]] ([[User talk:Eric car|talk]]) 23:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 == Billion fallacy in second sentence of article ==
@@ Line 74: / Line 56: @@
 == Population by continent ==
 Australia is most depressed at not being invited to the party. [[User:2birds1stone|2birds1stone]] ([[User talk:2birds1stone|talk]]) 04:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)