Talk:List of sovereign states by sex ratio

Table doesn't sort

Has anyone noticed this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.87.2 (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Something's...wrong

i dont think that is right

88.105.55.70 (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean?

88.105.55.70 (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Islam bad for women?

Except for British Virgin Islands, Nauru, Vanuatu, and Bangladesh, only Muslim nations seem to go against the trend of an increase of women amongst the elderly. Why? Also although there are a few Christian nations (British Virgin Islands) animist nations (Vanuatu, Nauru) Buddhist nations (Bangladesh) Hindu nations (India) atheist nations (China) with a serious imbalance (1.03 or higher in my opinion) most of these appeared to be Islamic. No offense to Muslims, but why? What's going on?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.177.7 (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Bangladesh is a mainly Muslim nation -_-. But to your point, I suppose immigration plays a role there. Look at the ratios for the former Soviet Muslim-dominant countries, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan. None of these have odd ratios. Why? Because immigration from poorer countries don't come to these countries. In the rich Arabian nations, immigration from South Asia plays a significant role in the population distribution. --Hamster X (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In Andorra the sex ratio at birth is normal 1.05 but very high men in working-group (108 men per 100 women in group 15-64 compare with 101 men per 100 women in same group in neighbour countries such as France and Spain) and especially in age over 65 (around 99 men per 100 women compare with 70 men per 100 men in France and Spain).Cristiano Toàn (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC). The other reason led to the different distribution of population by sex in Arabian nations is the life-style of men, with the sharia law forbit alcoholic food thus the early mortality due to drinking-related such as liver cancer, cardiovascular is lessened.Cristiano Toàn (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification...

Does the number in the table represent male or female? It's not exactly clear from what I can see. Supertin (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote from article: "The human sex ratio is the ratio of males to females in a population." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.187.84 (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE

Found a new updated source from the CIA; https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html

Please change the whole page with some new info.

Thanks. 88.105.55.70 (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Updated 9/13/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.190.21 (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What does a sex ratio of 5.06 in China translate to? I am a layman. Please explain. Obsessions28 (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It translates to a typo, I guess. Should be 1.06. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.186.100 (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

New Discussion

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 12:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Title of page is incorrect

Listing is not "by sex ratio" but alphabetical by country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.254.1 (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a list of sex ratios by country. Why hasn't this problem been addressed yet?--108.124.20.244 (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

2010 Update

It needs updating as there is new information available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html from the C.I.A. 86.176.128.184 (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nepal and Bangladesh

Nepal and Bangladesh have sex ratio of less than 1. Why are they colored blue in the map?

'Cause clearly the people who made the map harbor anti-Muslim prejudices. 177.40.190.87 (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

China numbers crazy...

5.06 for total, 0.23 for one of the age groups. Thease are crazy nonsensical numbers that have nothing to do with the numbers in the source. More than one number being totally off is a bit suspicious. I've now changed the China numbers to the ones in the 2011 CIA Factbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.186.100 (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I can imagine that in China, few female births are actually reported. So while 5.06 might seem a very off number (over five males born per female). The families that have a female infant carried to term and reported properly would be few at best. 74.15.59.195 (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Diffrencences

what is more accurate CIA or WDB ? Wanshiranui (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

WDB is more accurate in my due diligence, CIA is okay in some cases. If you want the most accurate numbers google up the census office of each country, since birth records are created and kept for passport/school admissions/ etc; this is now common in many countries, and done every year. And if you do research it out for many countries, you are welcome to improve this wiki page by adding in respective census office numbers. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of colour in maps

In the uppermost map, red means more females. In the others it means more males. D'oh.

SelectSplat (talk)

The map is hopelessly wrong, it doesn't match up with the actual numbers whatsoever.--90.200.42.37 (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Equal

What does equal number of males and females? I doubt this is possible.--2.245.187.254 (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong data about Northern Mariana Islands

In the table: under 15 - 1.1, 15-64 - 0.85, over 65 - 1.08, Total - 0.74

Doesn't make any sense, does it?

Mass migration? With a static population it wouldn't make any sense but there are multiple reasons as to why a generation of young men could leave an island. It is only a snapshot. But if anyone has any information of the island putting it on the relevant oage would be good as there's nothing to confirm this theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.113.214.154 (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Needs consistent update per latest numbers

Per tag I just put on, see there have been a couple large updates of table and miscellaneous other updates of individual items. I guess the graphics are quite outdated, though obviously a lot of work to update those as well. Nevertheless, an important topic I'd like to get back to, but time will tell. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sex ratio at birth in Liechtenstein

The sex ratio at birth in Liechtenstein is less than the European average. The value "1.26" is wrong respectely misleading. Here the true figures:

Births at Liechtenstein

year male female

1950 131 144

1951 161 129

1952 135 168

1953 175 142

1954 152 164

1955 148 152

1956 167 150

1957 181 170

1958 205 167

1959 174 171

1960 195 185

1961 187 172

1962 182 178

1963 191 207

1964 194 192

1965 209 186

1966 188 182

1967 206 205

1968 203 228

1969 214 206

1970 232 190

1971 181 169

1972 177 182

1973 192 211

1974 160 166

1975 137 169

1976 196 151

1977 164 145

1978 156 157

1979 187 183

1980 204 189

1981 194 175

1982 199 185

1983 170 178

1984 201 204

1985 182 191

1986 171 180

1987 194 171

1988 230 186

1989 196 177

1990 191 188

1991 222 194

1992 167 208

1993 202 213

1994 191 167

1995 217 208

1996 202 203

1997 207 228

1998 176 206

1999 203 227

2000 219 201

2001 226 175

2002 204 191

2003 183 164

2004 186 186

2005 187 194

2006 184 177

2007 184 167

2008 190 160

2009 226 180

2010 165 164

2011 203 192

2012 189 168

Sum 1950-2012:

11845 boys, 11418 girls

ratio m/f: 1,037

easier to read at a glance idea

someone ought to write a script that makes all the values over 1 in the table blue and under 1 red. ya know? wouldn't that be nice? skakEL 17:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Data mismatch for China <15 year

Table indicates a male-leaning ratio of 1.17 for the below 15 year olds, while in the figure China is painted deep blue for (heavily female leaning). I guess the picture's off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.212.61.178 (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Someone seems to have calculated the total ratio wrong, it looks like they averaged the other ratios, 1.058 rounded to 1.06, rather than calculating based off total population which would be 1.027 rounded to 1.03 also the reference 404s, I am not sure which page they were trying to go on the world factbook but the above is the general page

Morph3us (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Data mismatch for EU-27, the overshoot of 1.05 in age stratum 15-24 is rather continued in the age stratum of 25-54 than the mentioned drop to 1.01

This is caused by X-linked disorders. Since women get two X chromosomes, a defect on one is unlikely to have serious effects, but men only have one. This is why men have a much higher chance of being colorblind than women. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK115561/ https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-linked_recessive_inheritance https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-linked_agammaglobulinemia https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-linked_severe_combined_immunodeficiency https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness

cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Missing_women#EU-27_about_5%_more_boys I also did some verification in the group strata 25-54 and the discrepancy is always rather 5% more males. Normally data can be found on the national statistic websites in strata of groups for every 5 years of age, not always easy to get a number for age group compounding 25-54. What would explain the spectacular drop of 1.05 in the age group 15-24 and then all of a sudden in the compounded age strata making up the ages 25-54, it would all of a sudden drop to 1.01? I know of no reason. By the way can anybody find a wikipedia article on the biological reason? I remember some scientific articles stating that indeed in the embrional stage, women embrios get rejected 5% more if the body detects something possible that is going wrong in the development of the embryo.

Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"All male" shows up at the top when sorted ascending

When sorted ascending, Vatican City shows up first because letters are considered lower than numbers. This is exactly the opposite of a logical progression; Vatican City should be the highest, not the lowest. Is there a way to do that? I could just put an infinity symbol in, but that's neither mathematically correct nor likely to solve the sequencing problem, because that's not how computers count. Maybe put a 9 in a tiny font and transparent in front of the "all male" text? Robert (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Map is wrong ""Sex ratio by country for population aged below 15." as if there would be more girls then boys which is wrong as per article itself and table ...

cf the map "Sex ratio by country for population aged below 15. Red represents more girls, blue more boys than the world average of 1.07 males/females. (2020)" - it is wrong. It is in complete contradiction to that table that shows the numbers: all countries have more boys except some islands and countries with abnormal regimes. It is just a natural phenomenon explained in the article itself. Can anybody confirm as a double check? I left a message on the discussion page of the map to the maker and also to find the source of the numbers or the map and it just reads "Own work" ... duh?, Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Fertility of females in median age

I think the article should clarify that excess of women doesn't equate to fertile women with whom family can be established. In Russia for instance there is a constant deficit of women in middle-age group. See Demographics of Russia AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

US

The map seems to show more men than women for the US age >65, but the table shows the opposite. — THORNFIELD HALL ^(Talk) 03:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)