Talk:Total fertility rate

Untitled
why 5 should be multiplied to the total of ASFR?

Map illustrating this article
The svp map File:Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg illustrating this article is not sourced, and furthermore seems to contains errors (France and Ireland have a fertility rate over 2 children/woman, Iceland is under 2..). Can someone provide a correct and reliable source for theses rates ? Zeugma fr (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC) I can see that the fertility rate dipped as a result of the availability of effective contraception but is starting to climb again as there is a evolutionary counter response with the selection of people who won't use contraception. I guess mainly people with extreme religious beliefs. That seems to be one of the main things that is changing the US. Change the genetics and you change the behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.16.152.212 (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Calculation?
How is this calculated? Is there a test? Do they do studies in across the world to measure this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nibinaear (talk • contribs) 15:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what this article is saying.
This article needs a lot of clarification --67.40.121.83 (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2nded. To be specific, I think it would be important to put TBR into terms that people can actually understand. For instance, if I am some nation and I have no immigration and my TBR is less than 2, is my population automatically falling? If not, at what raw population-count does a TBR of <2 result in population decline? What mathematical equations can be used to represent this set of solution fields for varying initial population and varying TBR? — Koyae (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Conservative POV
In the "Factors" section is the sentence "[The review] pointed out that significant factors for low fertility rates include instability of modern partnerships and value changes," which, rewritten in familiar conservative terms, is 'People are having fewer children because of our crumbling institutions and morals' and therefore represents a conservative POV. How should we neutralize it?

Duxwing (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Total fertility rate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120607191518/http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/DB01_Period_Indicators/WPP2010_DB1_F01_TOTAL_FERTILITY.XLS to http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/DB01_Period_Indicators/WPP2010_DB1_F01_TOTAL_FERTILITY.XLS

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Fertility map 2,3 equilibrium frontier
It is considered that with the current survival, the 2,1-2,3 is the fertility rate for population equilibrium. More than 2,3 children per woman produces a population grow. The map should resalt this key limit for understanding. If a fertility age is around 22 years, a key limit is the fertility rate that produce double fertil population over that time (¿7?).

--46.6.62.91 (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Birth rate map 2,1 divisory
The Birth rate map should have 2,1 childs/women as main color separation, as it is the equilibrium divisor limit (growing vs lowering population).

46.128.226.134 (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Fertility Rate Map
I replaced your map chiefly because it was a raster map (which are favoured by Wikipedia guidelines) but I also completely redesigned it to give a more even distribution to the various fertility levels so that it would be more useful to the viewer. I also used what I consider a more reliable data source due to the specialised nature of the PRB and a history of minor inaccuracies in the CIA World Factbook.

Could you provide some rationale as to why you think your map is more suitable for this article than mine please? I would appreciate you addressing each of these three concerns. Thanks, --Korakys (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Consolidate Two Sections Into One
I propose to merge the "World extreme lows" section into the "Lowest-low fertility" section. They both deal with the same topic. Joe Bfsplk (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Consolidate Two More Sections
I propose another combination of sections, this one combining “Developed or developing countries” and “Factors” because they both are discussing factors affecting fertility. The draft of this new section is (link deleted) in my sandbox. It is essentially a copy of the lead of the “Fertility factors (demography)” article, a much more extensive discussion of factors that affect fertility, plus some of the existing sections. Let me know what you think. Joe Bfsplk (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

About 10 of you have read this proposal and I have seen no objections, so I am going to go ahead with the changes. Joe Bfsplk (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Map is misleading
The map’s colors should more clearly describe the countries’ relations to the critical value of replacement: 2.0. Currently, the gradient is not effective at conveying this relativity. 2600:8803:C40B:F900:E094:2BD0:D6E:F1AE (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

why tfr is only applied to woman
tell me! 2404:8000:1027:85F6:EC82:A8BA:30DE:66C8 (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Total Fertility Rate: Pronouns and Sex
In response to @2a04:ee41:3:b14e:3475:7afe:2143:e763's undo:

Two separate topics to address: pronouns and woman vs. female.

On pronouns, the CIA Factbook, which we rely on for definition and a good portion of statistical sourcing, uses they/their when referring to this group. We should stick to source and MOS:GENDER indicates they/their as well when legibility is unimpaired.

On woman vs. female, this one is more contentious, but my understanding is that this article is discussing fertility rates in relation to biological sex (ie. female). Woman as a term, while not cleanly defined in literature, is often accompanied by discussions of gender identity. We ought to use the more neutral, less ambiguous term. HeyTomek (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I will redo my edit. Please discuss dispute here before undoing. HeyTomek (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

article bias
"Taken together, these projections indicate that the human population will achieve zero growth sometime in the second half of this century." This whole entry is about the continuously changing fertility rate. The article illuminates that fertility rates are declining and will cross from a growing global human population to a declining global human population. This sentence about "achieving" (a bias laden word) "zero growth" contains no useful information and implies an end-state, rather than a transition point. 205.220.236.233 (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

article bias
"This would stabilize world population sometime during the period 2050–2070." This statement is inaccurate and inconsistent with the information in the rest of the article which shows an ongoing trend of global human fertility decline. The article illuminates that many nations have a fertility rate that is below replacement and, consequently, have a declining population, that is, the human population of nations have not experienced a "stable" population anymore than the global population will eventually "stabilize." This is a biased word in a biased sentence that has no imperical support and adds no useful or accurate information to this entry.

I believe what is meant is something like, "Projections of world human population indicate the transition from long-term growth to long-term decline will happen during the period 2050-2070." 205.220.236.233 (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)