Talk:World population: Difference between revisions
Assessment: +Anthropology: class=B (assisted) |
|||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
:::[[WP:ERA]] suggests consistency of use of style within Wikipedia articles. It does not dictate consistency within Wikipedia as a whole, and it certainly doesn't suggest consistency with external sites or resources. <font color="#8b4513">[[User:Mindmatrix|Mind]]</font><font color="#ee8811">[[User_talk:Mindmatrix|matrix]]</font> 21:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
:::[[WP:ERA]] suggests consistency of use of style within Wikipedia articles. It does not dictate consistency within Wikipedia as a whole, and it certainly doesn't suggest consistency with external sites or resources. <font color="#8b4513">[[User:Mindmatrix|Mind]]</font><font color="#ee8811">[[User_talk:Mindmatrix|matrix]]</font> 21:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Total number of humans who have ever died by the sword? == |
|||
> An estimate of the total number of humans who have ever lived ... ranging from app. 100 billion to 115 billion, with a mean value of 107 billion as of 2011... |
|||
It would be important to further elaborate on that value in the article. How many of them died naturally or violently? Some people allege more than half of all humans who ever lived, died at the hand of other humans and homo sapiens is actually homo belligerens. |
|||
On the other hand such a claim appears technically impossible, since truly large armies could not be amessed and transported in the pre-railway era, so the maximum amount of carnage was significantly limited, despite the intent of monarchs and stratagems. |
|||
Yet, until circa 1870, wars and epidemics walked hand-in-hand and most victims of war fell not from weapons but contaminated food and water supplies, shortage of food/water as well as diseases contacted. Thus natural/violance deaths may be difficult to sort apart. [[Special:Contributions/79.120.175.13|79.120.175.13]] ([[User talk:79.120.175.13|talk]]) 00:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:50, 8 November 2015
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World population article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 100 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Anthropology B‑class | ||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
Haub's "40.1%" claim needs removed
This part is inaccurate: "His estimates for infant mortality suggest that around 40% of those who have ever lived did not survive beyond their first birthday."
The article mentions infant mortality, but the numbers are only representative of one time period (a very generic time period at that)
"Infant mortality in the human race’s earliest days is thought to have been very high—perhaps 500 infant deaths per 1,000 births, or even higher. Children were probably an economic liability among hunter-gatherer societies, a fact that is likely to have led to the practice of infanticide."
Using that as a basis for the 40% claim is wrong.
It's also important to note that the he says this in reference to the idea of projecting the number of people who have 'ever lived':
"Any such exercise can be only a highly speculative enterprise, to be undertaken with far less seriousness than most demographic inquiries."
The growth is definitely slowing now
2010, the date of the headline graph, is quite a long time ago. This http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/beyond/beyondco/beg_03.pdf is more recent and less ambiguous. This graph:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Population_Growth_1750_-_2050_sourced_by_the_World_Bank.jpg seems quite clear. Would other editors object it replacing the current article headline graph please?
SmokeyTheCat 12:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but the graph is not displaying altho I uploaded it. Do I have to wait for the image to be validated or am I just a stupid old man baffled by the technology? Help, please!
- Well, in the absence of any response here I have replaced the graph. I am aware that this is far from perfect but the best I can do. SmokeyTheCat 09:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, is there any indication that the license for that pdf is compatible with wikipedia? Also adding the image like this on the page breaks the layout. --McSly (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe not but I am just concerned that the current graph gives readers a false impression. There is no way that the upper or lower lines on it are accurate. Only the middle line is right. Population is rising but the rate of rise is slowing. Human population growth is very predictable as we know well how many children women will have on average and how many of these will survive. Human population is set to peak and will not reach 11 billion as the more accurate graph shows. Surely this truth is more than important than the layout of the article? The layout can be changed anyway. SmokeyTheCat 09:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- The layout problem is a detail and can obviously be fixed. My main point is the copyright of the image. There is no indication whatsoever in the pdf file that the image could be used here. And not surprisingly, it is up for deletion. --McSly (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe not but I am just concerned that the current graph gives readers a false impression. There is no way that the upper or lower lines on it are accurate. Only the middle line is right. Population is rising but the rate of rise is slowing. Human population growth is very predictable as we know well how many children women will have on average and how many of these will survive. Human population is set to peak and will not reach 11 billion as the more accurate graph shows. Surely this truth is more than important than the layout of the article? The layout can be changed anyway. SmokeyTheCat 09:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, is there any indication that the license for that pdf is compatible with wikipedia? Also adding the image like this on the page breaks the layout. --McSly (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, in the absence of any response here I have replaced the graph. I am aware that this is far from perfect but the best I can do. SmokeyTheCat 09:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
COI
A contributor to this article is citing his own work, per the box above. Needs to be reviewed for NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Somedifferentstuff - i see - you took the "box above" to mean literally just above this section. I was referring to the "connected contributor" tag at the bottom of the yellow box way, way at the top of this page, which actually refers to conflicts of interest (COI). Sorry for being too terse - that is my bad. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Jytdog, when you said above, I didn't go far : ) ...... No worries. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- fixed it here. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Jytdog, when you said above, I didn't go far : ) ...... No worries. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Error in Copy
The fifth paragraph down(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population) contains this text, " Northern America, primarily consisting of the United States and Canada, has a population of around 352 million (5%)" I believe the United States population is approximately 352, which would mean nobody is living in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Variable1980 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Not to mention Mexico (amazingly, also part of North America)'s population is approximately 122 million compared with Canada's approximate population of 35 million. 204.99.118.9 (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Use of ERA style
I attempted to change era from BCE/CE to BC/AD throughout the page to reflect the consistency of use of the latter style in academic references. However this was undone by AUS0107 citing WP:ERA rules. Rules which suggest consistency is best to avoid confusion and ambiguity.
- The subject of the article is secular, and BCE and CE are already in use in the article. The academic references you are referring to may have their own standards for era names, but within the context of the article itself, I see no reason to change to BC and AD. Aus0107 (talk) 06:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- ERA rules suggest consistency and should tie up with academic references. If the article is based on references then there IS every reason to keep consistent otherwise it looks a bit schizophrenic and diminishes Wiki as a source of reliable, evidence based information.86.7.253.227 (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- WP:ERA suggests consistency of use of style within Wikipedia articles. It does not dictate consistency within Wikipedia as a whole, and it certainly doesn't suggest consistency with external sites or resources. Mindmatrix 21:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Total number of humans who have ever died by the sword?
> An estimate of the total number of humans who have ever lived ... ranging from app. 100 billion to 115 billion, with a mean value of 107 billion as of 2011...
It would be important to further elaborate on that value in the article. How many of them died naturally or violently? Some people allege more than half of all humans who ever lived, died at the hand of other humans and homo sapiens is actually homo belligerens.
On the other hand such a claim appears technically impossible, since truly large armies could not be amessed and transported in the pre-railway era, so the maximum amount of carnage was significantly limited, despite the intent of monarchs and stratagems.
Yet, until circa 1870, wars and epidemics walked hand-in-hand and most victims of war fell not from weapons but contaminated food and water supplies, shortage of food/water as well as diseases contacted. Thus natural/violance deaths may be difficult to sort apart. 79.120.175.13 (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)