From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


seems strange for an article on population to ignore malthus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Thomas Robert Malthus should have his own article on Wikipedia.AlexanderSoul (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Searching commons for world population, population and crowd brings up some pictures and graphs which may be useful for this article. I have picked a few, but there are others there to choose from Astrokey44 00:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Less developed countries[edit]

Maybe we could talk about why third world countries have a higher fertility rate than developed countries (birth control, culture differences, education diffences, etc)? Flyerhell 10:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checks on population growth[edit]

This topic could be an entire page onto itself. Here's what appears to be a good reference: For human population growth, see also: 18:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason there is a "See Also" link to 1907 world populations..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumguy8800 (talkcontribs)

It does relate to population. Is there a reason not to have it there? ---- Astrokey44|talk 12:54, 8

December 2005 (UTC)

logistic growth[edit]

The link to logistic growth provides an article with diagrams that do not appear to match the population growth diagram in the population article. The population article diagram appears to provide actual population growth of human population; the logistic growth article diagrams provide a math-based theory of growth, which, thankfully, the Earth is not currently achieving. -hmains

A little human-centric[edit]

No mention of endangered species or extinction?? Are humans going to exist forever? --BRIAN0918 13:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree somewhat. Added links to small population size and extinction in 'population decline'. May a population become extinct, even if a species survives somewhere else? If a total world population of a species disappears, then it is definitely globally extinct. Melianis 10:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of wild populations referred to as "extinct," even when members survive in zoos and private homes, etc. Wish I could find a citation. Cuvtixo (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China: Example of Population overshoot[edit]

In this article, someone mentioned that overpopulation was mostly caused by immigration. Is this true of China? Is this true of the United States? Sandy June 04:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC) No. Doesn't make sense. should be removed if not already Cuvtixo (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult in China and Japan as the people there always used to avoid most contact with foreign people. In the U.S. it's different as the country was founded by immigrants and the U.S. government always stimulated immigration until the 50's-60's, when they started to have problems with it. exukvera 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. U.S. government imposed various restrictions on immigrants from specific countries starting with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 List of United States immigration legislation. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 discontinued quotas based on national origin, while preference given to those who have U.S. relatives. For the first time Mexican immigration was restricted. Whether the gov't officially or unofficially stimulates immigration is a different question!

China is complicated, partly because boundaries have changed and also because many different ethnicities live in different areas. One could say Taiwan had a lot of immigration, although others would call this Chinese people moving within China. Essentially, "overpopulation" is an arbitrary term. I suppose when nearly the entire population dies (from starvation or disease) within one generation, that is definitively overpopulation, of course then it pretty quickly stops being overpopulation! Cuvtixo (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec Example[edit]

What are you saying? This is VERY unclear and confusing.

India Example[edit]

The Indian example which simply states that in the late 50s and early 60s there was the first official state birth control program has no reference and to merit inclusion this needs the 1970s policy which I have added. Perhaps due to its impact on politics and the arts it is much better known to me than the Chinese one child program and is equally important to include. Adam37 (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Countries by Population[edit]

The chart appears to be out of date (Russia has surpassed Bangladesh). See another chart on Wikipedia in this article which gives 2005 UN estimates as its source. Should this article's chart be updated?Italic text population of math is the ,sdfjioyg

Revision As Of 23:40, 21 June 2007[edit]

I changed the text "On October 18, 2012 at 4:36 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, the Earth will be home to 7 trillion" to say "7 billion". After checking the history, I see minor revisions throughout the article from the last revisor. One of them happens to be changing "denotes a breeding" to "deonates farty breeding". Others are changing dates and numbers by small amounts. I recommend changing the article back to before the revision was made?

Yes, I noticed the same thing. I'd support reverting it. 06:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Mattias[reply]
Okay, since no one stated any objection, I've backed out those changes made on 23:40, 21 June 2007. 07:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Mattias[reply]

I think those exact times should be removed. They CAN NOT be exact, you can´t pinpoint the 6500000000 birth to one exact minute. This is just bullshit. I don´t know why the United States Census Bureau is doing this. The day alone should be enough (It probably is wrong, too).

how many is everyone?[edit]

i seem to remember a figure, and i'd like to find it again, of how many people have ever lived on earth. that's 6.5 billion plus all that have died. i suppose it's a silly cocktail-party-conversation kind of number that's mostly meaningless, especially when you get into the definition of human-do we count the neanderthals? in any case, i wish i could find it; if anyone knows at least post here.

nearly 2 minutes later and never mind! it's under world population, around 106 trillion :) . 21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The population of India and China[edit]

The population of [India] and [china] is very high. Bothe toghether cover 60 percent of the worlds population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence is awkward[edit]

The intro is currently:

In sociology and biology a population is the collection of people or individuals of a particular species. A population shares a particular characteristic of interest most often that of living in a given geographic area. In taxonomy population is a low-level taxonomic rank.

The first sentence is awkward. I suggest:

A population is a collection of individuals that share a particular characteristic of interest, most often that of living in a given geographic area. In biology a population is a collection of individuals of a particular species. In sociology a population is a collection of people. In taxonomy population is a low-level taxonomic rank.

Comments? Suggestions? Questions? --Unflappable (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presently it reads
In sociology and biology a population is the collection of inter-breeding organisms of a particular species.
While the definition is technically correct for sociology, the term almost always refers to human beings and not other "interbreeding organisms." I suppose sociologists might refer to domesticated animals, but organisms seems much too broad a term. Cuvtixo (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The chart described as "Time taken for each billion people to be added to the world's population" doesn't seem to make sense. It indicates that 123 years passed between 1800 and 1930 and that 33 years passed between 1930 and 1960. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has to do what years estimates were made. World War I and II, for example, depopulated areas of the world quickly. Census figures for various years need to be taken into account, and these weren't always made at regular intervals. Cuvtixo (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the lead 'In biology', which only seems to make the intro awkward as discussed here, and is an unnecessary precursor. As discussed in Talk:Evolution, these 'In ______' precursors are only necessary when differentiating them from when the word is often used in a different context. Furthermore, it implies that this term is only used in biology, which it is not. DanEdmonds (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

population pryamid of canberra ACT australia[edit]

hi everyone. i really need to find the most recent population pyramid for canberra ACT australia asap. if you know the numbers, or a website or even have one to send that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC) kevin mckay 282-8387[reply]


This page has been the target of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amgoldb (talkcontribs) 18:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

panget naman joke

Populations, land area, and population density[edit]

I found mistakes concerning this information. My concern is a section of a talk page Population density. hello (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future predictions[edit]

"In the future, world population has been expected to reach a peak of growth, from there it will decline due to economic reasons, health concerns, land exhaustion and environmental hazards. There is around an 85% chance that the world's population will stop growing before the end of the century. There is a 60% probability that the world's population will not exceed 10 billion people before 2100, and around a 15% probability that the world's population at the end of the century will be lower than it is today. For different regions, the date and size of the peak population will vary considerably."

I don't like this part, in my opinion it should be made clearer who says this and that it's just an estimate. Maybe even be more specific in the text on what the estimates are based since technological progress and diseases have had such a huge impact during the last few centuries. --LM 2010-01-02. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd sentence is bizarre[edit]

"Individuals within a population share a factor may be reduced by statistical means, but such a generalization may be too vague to imply anything."
(What the hell?)
--Tyranny Sue (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another incomprehensible sentence is the last in the "Control" section: "To control of population structure,it measures through efficient mixed-model association (EMMA) method, which corrects for population structure and genetic relatedness in model organism association mapping." These garbled sentences should be rewritten or removed. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest to re-title the topic to....[edit]

Population (human) to distinguish Statistical population -- (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of human population management is being re- hilighted here again....[edit]

due to the mis-management of the site by the wiki-admin

-- (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing the population control sections?[edit]

"Population" is a concept looked at from many different angles: population dynamics, population distribution and population control are only 3 of many options. Yet the latter is treated in this page very substantially. Although this is a notable subject for its own article (and it has), I think in this page to give due weight to all concepts, we should either

  • treat more population related concepts (in short single paragraph texts) and bring the two population control paragraphs currently in this article down to that size
  • remove the population control input here completely

I have a slight preference for the latter option... L.tak (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed the stuff was very poorly organized. But that is absolutely not an acceptable motive for removing it. Of course population control is related to population. Your edit was destructive. It didn't even leave a see also link to Human population control. The useful stuff should of course be moved, rather than destroyed. Please do not destroy more in Wikipedia! I have made the obvious reparations. --Ettrig (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Why are all the pics of Taiwan? There are a wider range of places than that... [[brimstone]herris

which Taiwanese pictures did you see here? I didn't see any!L.tak (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets split the article[edit]

The article refers to human population. We should split it into "Population (biology)" and into "Population". First paragraph is about population in biology. Teilolondon (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. danielkueh (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

population growth has slowed but this page says the opposite[edit]

I noted that this page says "The last 50 years have seen a yet more rapid increase in the rate of population growth". However, this is not true. As can be seen here population growth has been slowing in the last 50 years. The wiki page should be changed. Citingsources (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

section describing forecasted population growth is direct quote from source[edit]

There is a problem with the section that says "There is around an 85% chance that the world's population will stop growing before the end of the 21st century.[11] There is a 60% probability that the world's population will not exceed 10 billion people before 2100, and around a 15% probability that the world's population at the end of the century will be lower than it is today. For different regions, the date and size of the peak population will vary considerably.[12]"

This is a direct quote from an article in Nature. Right now, a direct quote without saying it is a direct quote, is plagiarism. I'm going to fix it so it's a summary. Also, the first part, cited as coming from 11, is actually a report about the story published in nature. I'm going to fix that too, so they both use the Nature article as the source. Citingsources (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias towards human population[edit]

I'm pretty new to this (as contributor, not user), but it seems to me that this article has drifted so far off the general topic that, apart from the opening para, it can barely be considered to cover the general concept of Population. Almost all of the information in the article relates to human population, covered much better in the article 'World Population', and in that sense one might as well delete this article entirely as an (inferior) duplication.

'Population' is a broad concept in biology and sociology (and statistics, though arguably that shouldn't be conflated), and I believe this article should reflect that. Looking back (5 years or so!), there used to be sections on population dynamics, population ecology etc. which have been removed, leaving a very narrow view of what we mean by the term population. I agree with previous contributors who suggested we should reduce the sections on world human population, (human) population growth, (human) population control etc. to brief summaries (linking to the respective main articles), and add many more sections to round out this topic.

Would take a major re-write, so thought we should discuss rather than me attempting a hatchet job - maybe I'm biased myself, coming from an ecology angle - would appreciate anyone's thoughts --PondBob (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section: world human population[edit]

The number for the total world population has an incorrect format, and so looks very bizarre. (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. Elockid (Talk) 19:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


DEFINATION OF POPULATION All members of species living in an area DEFINATION OF COMMUNITY Populations living and intrecting in an area


DEFINATION OF POPULATION All members of species living in an area DEFINATION OF COMMUNITY Populations living and intrecting in an area


Both of the images are outdated. Are there more modern images? Buscus 3 (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Bizarrely this user (Melcous) reverted all my edits claiming they are not improvements. This is clearly false and vandalism. For starters I uploaded and replaced the very crude definition for "population" from with a proper population genetics source (Relethford). I then expanded and cleanup a lot of the population genetics section which was mostly inaccurate or misleading and added a section on the problems of population demarcation. To just revert all this and claim it is not "improvements" is pretty trollish. Ralph Roadrash (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ralph Roadrash: Hi Ralph, this is the second time you've called me a troll, rather than trying to engage in a constructive discussion. To your comment on my talk page, I'm happy for you to look further into my editing history and you will see that I mostly do a lot of copyediting and reverting of vandalism - clearly not "trolling" behaviour. Your edits may contain factual information, but perhaps discussing them here before making them would have been advisable. For example, the opening sentence of an article should be a clear, concise introduction to the topic for a nonspecialist reader (See WP:BEGIN), so I would suggest using the term gamodeme in this sentence is not helpful. Further, the simple definition of the topic now includes the logical difficulty that a "gamodeme" is something that has a higher tendency of interbreeding than "other gamodemes" which makes no sense. The second sentence is poorly worded - "This does not though mean" is terrible grammatically - nor does it help clarify the definition for a nonspecialist reader. Those are just some of the reasons I would suggest reverting the opening paragraph to what is was previously. I have not done so again because I do not wish to get into an edit war, but I would suggest you or some other editor might like to try and fix those issues (among others) rather than immediately assuming bad faith on my part. Thanks. Melcous (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously are poorly read in regards to population genetics. Ralph Roadrash (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the talk page of Melcous you will see other people complaining Melcous has reverted their edits for no reason. This person is not even an admin, yet goes around reverting everyone. It is clearly an abuse of this site. What they posted above is also false. ""gamodeme" is something that has a higher tendency of interbreeding than "other gamodemes" which makes no sense" - is obviously wrong since that is the definition of a gamodeme e.g. as I've reworded "whose individuals have a higher tendency of in-group mating than with other gamodemes". So Melcous reverts 29 of my edits over this? Anyone can see this is a clear troll. Ralph Roadrash (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"rather than trying to engage in a constructive discussion" - says the person who reverted 29 of my edits for no reason. lol. If you had a problem with gamodeme in the opening, that = only a very few of my edits. Instead you reverted all 29, including a whole page of text below. You deny being a troll, but reverting nearly 30 constructive edits without reason was obviously done to provoke a response.Ralph Roadrash (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection Request[edit]

@Materialscientist: Hello, Can you make this page a semi-protected page? I saw the edit history and alot of IP addresses edited and virtually every one of them got reverted. Winterysteppe (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odd text above contents box[edit]

Any idea what the following text means? It's above the contents box.

"Please note real population is 1 (Sonia Marnoto) as the rest of us are her imagination.*" (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Julia204.115.183.4 (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]