Talk:Human population planning/Archive 1

co2?
66.41.190.64 16:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC) ALEX I'm surprised that global warming discussions (I have no opin here) even bother with gases and how I drive my car. Seems the real issue, if you believe the globe is warming, is population.

What is Proper Delineation?
Hi Everyone. Have been thinking of different ways to incorporate more population control information into Wikepedia and have some ideas here for organization. What do you all think about it? Some of these would be individual articles and some of course would just would be topics within an article. Looking forward to your feedback. Mike Latham. MLatham53

Population Levels Control

Family Population Levels Control xxxxx Historical Family-Population Levels Control in China xxx Modern Family-Population Levels Control in China xxx Historical Family-Population Levels Control in India xxx State Population Levels Control xxxxxx Historical State Population Levels Control in China xxx Modern State Population Levels Control in China xxx Historical State Population Levels Control in India xxx Modern State Population Levels Control in India xxx

OR Population Levels Control

China Population Levels Control xxxxxx _Historical Family-Population Levels Control in China xxx _Historical State Population Levels Control in China xxx _Modern Family-Population Levels Control in China xxx _Modern State Population Levels Control in China xxx India Population Levels Control xxxxxx _Historical Family-Population Levels Control in India xxx _Historical State Population Levels Control in India xxx _Modern Family-Population Levels Control in India xxx _Modern State Population Levels Control in India —Preceding unsigned comment added by MLatham53 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Population control trough eugenics
Is it possible to have a section called "Population control trough eugenics" or something in which it is mentioned that population control measures can be combined with eugenics ?

KVDP (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: i'll already include it, you may add references, ... later

Population control and nation-wide economical savings
It has been documented in a great number of publications and reports worldwide that nation-wide population control would feature allot of savings for the economy.

I added this article section to the page; still requires mor references, ... dough. Please improve the section and look for references. Thanks. PS: as it is way too important to delete (it can help countries), don't delete it in any case (eg if you think its not up to wikipedia-standard). In stead, as mentioned, improve the section.


 * I tried adding the following section

Savings for who?
Population control works great as a theory, but it has to be remembered that those who would vote on such measures are just as usually those who would receive the most benefits.

Case in point: Gosney and Popenoe tell of a women, born in Turkey, who had two insane sisters and had had an insane brother who committed suicide. She had lived in California with her sickly tailor husband, and they had seven children. When asked if the would be willing to be sterilized, she consulted her husband, and then said no, that they received aid from the state for each child, and if they had two more they would receive just enough aid to live without working. So she didn't wish to be sterilized.

There was no insanity in that answer. It is probably the most realisitc argument that has appeared against sterilization. But sound as the argument was from the woman's selfish point of view, it could have little weight with a taxpayer or with a parent whose child might marry one of the prospective nine.

That is an extreme case, of course, but the question is in order: Is it permissible for anyone who is a burden on his fellow citizens to increase that burden by reproduction?

- excerpt

My point is, we can try to pass population-control laws, but you have to remember. Before a law is passed, someone has to vote on them. There is a very good likelihood that the voters on a population control issue are BENEFITTING from their current ability to make babies, my article was SUPPOSED to be a case-in-point. Why was it removed? Randomblink (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It makes a bunch of unsourced claims (e.g. that Pop control works great in theory), it represents a local view (e.g. those places where policies are enacted by vote), it seemed more like somebodies opinion or commentary (POV), and it was not clear what the point was (far too much irrelevant detail - family background, etc.).
 * It needs something to be an example of. There is nothing in this section of the article indicating that this is a wide-spread or significant aspect of population control.  So far the example is much larger than most sections of the article, so would give undue weight to this aspect.
 * That some people benefit from population growth should be easily established. Consider for instance property developers, those who profit from cheap labor, etc.  They are often better financed, better organized and more politically connected than somebody like the woman in this example, so are likely to have more influence on policies.  This example would need a lot of context around it before it would be clear that it gives appropriate weight to this aspect.
 * From your explanation, it sounds like the issue you are trying to address is matters of population policy implementation, rather than economic benefits/costs of population control, so might be more appropriate in a different section. Zodon (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't the phenomenon you are trying to cover pretty well covered/exemplified by the Tragedy of the commons? Zodon (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is US Title X relevant here?
Why does the US Title X family planning program warrant any more than a brief mention here? As far as I have been able to find its focus is on the personal side - reproductive rights (e.g., assuring access to family planing) and reproductive and preventive health services. While this may have impact on population, it isn't clear that population control is part of its intent. A neutral citation showing connection to pop. control would help. Zodon (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Massive Cuts
I've cut rather a lot of text that was either conjecture, or based on unreliable sources. I'm not saying that the text is wrong, but it was simply not supportable with the sources that where available. The worst part was the lists of people, when you make claims about these, you have to adhere to WP:BLP, which means that the sources/references need to be good reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since many of the organizations you cut are or have been active in population stabilization it is not obvious that wholesale cutting is appropriate. If you want better citations, putting in citation needed tags would be more helpful.  (Once it is gone, new editors won't know there is something needs fixing.)
 * It isn't clear how BLP applies to many of the people whom you deleted, since they aren't living. (A quick peek at the pages on the relevant people reveals that many of them confirm the listing made here.)  Restored the ones that (per Wikipedia) aren't living, if you think further citation is needed for those people suggest adding cn tags.  The other living people (needing references) are in this edit.   Zodon (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As said in the text above - the text may be correct. But the sources where not reliable. I have nothing against the list if its sourced adequately. Neither do i have any objections to listing people (historic or living) as long as it can be documented (in reliable sources) that they where for (or against) population control.
 * The major problem here lies in the sources - who where to say the least horribly inadequate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * From a quick check on some of the organizations listed - it seems that whoever collected it, confused population control with family-planning. While there may be a connection between these, family control is voluntary and most certainly can't be put under a text saying that they support "heavy pressure on governments for mandatory population control" - i'm cutting that list once more - please put those back that you yourself can support the inclusion of, and (optimally) a reference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm - seems you've startet to find references for them - so i'll leave it alone. Just cut per family planning mentioned above. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Genocide
Could genocide be a form of population control?67.180.237.81 (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not usually.
 * Genocide indicates systematic destruction of a particular group. Population control is usually not intended to eliminate the population, just to control the number (e.g., slow growth, stop growth, controlled decrease to a sustainable population, etc.)
 * Genocide is usually applied to some other group, whereas population control generally applies to the population as a whole. (e.g. Genocide might be applied to some other group within a country, population control would be applied by the country to itself.)
 * As a practical mater, genocide is usually applied to a minority, and thus is less likely to be effective at reducing or stabilizing population. (Natural increase in the majority population, especially if they have additional resources liberated from the minority population, would tend to replace the numbers reduced by genocide.)  Zodon (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference - CultureQuake
I'm new here, don't know all the conventions about placement, etc., so I'm just dropping this in here. In addition to referenced already cited, there's a new book that could also well be mentioned, _CultureQuake_ by Chuck Burr (2007:Trafford Publishing). Guess I should establish an editing id but haven't yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.69.153 (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Population control movement section
I have added this section to provide some more context. It may be expanded, restructured to fit better into the article. The History section really needs citation!--SasiSasi (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it. You have lifted several paragraphs directly from the book (which is a copyright violation), and because the sections where too heavily based on a single reference (see WP:WEIGHT). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I have rewritten and added another source. There are two big block quotes, which I think will be fine. Let me know if any sections are still to close to the original and I rewrite.--SasiSasi (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I removed a big chunk of it which still seemed pretty biased in a bunch of points (e.g. claims that population control was overall guiding principle for international policy (in any period), the implication that population programs had adequate funding, assertions that certain organizations were involved in population control (as compared to other aspects of family planning/reproductive health, etc.), overemphasis on human rights violations (yes they occurred, but need to provide context/comparison, positives as well, percentages), vague allegations of unsafeness against the IUD and Depo, etc.)
 * Given the seriousness of the material here, should really have some higher quality sources (e.g. peer reviewed, etc.). Knudson backs up some of her items with citations, that would be a place to start.
 * But mostly it is a problem of balance - people tend to focus in on the problem areas, and presenting just problem areas exacerbates that problem.
 * I am willing to try to help improve it. Zodon (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for it, both sources confirmed the emphasis. But there must be other sources. Also, as per wikipedia guidelines Knudson can be used as source. Its certainly better than having a badly written, totally unref history section. I am not sure why this is reinstated, whats with the weight in that section?--SasiSasi (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

History
Agree that the history section needs references. If preferred we can move it here for work until refs are found. Could you be more specific about what find questionable about the weight there? Is it that it needs expanding to cover more cultures? Zodon (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Its not really a history section, its three random instances were "population control" may or may not have been practiced or advocated. It looks very much like original research and in terms of weight, I do think it gives a lot of weight to two historically relatively minor instances. Also, as it is it gives the impression that population control has been practiced since ancient Greece, which may or may not be the case (depending on how one defines "population control").

Regarding "population control. Their initial response to overpopulation was the colonization movement" that is very vague... is colonialization now population control, or is any human migration because in response to resource situations now "population control". According to the intro "Population control is the practice of limiting population increase, usually by reducing the birth rate" if we stick with this definition migration because of overpopulation is hardly population control. Also, "As the number of available sites decreased, the Greeks - beginning with the Cretans - turned to pederasty," this is very vague as well and suggest that Greeks turned to pederasty primarily for population control purposes, (as far as I am aware there is much more to be said about the practice of pederasty in Greece).

It would be great if we could find some sources on population control pre- 20th Century, the attitudes towards it etc (the population control movement covers roughly beginning to mid 20th Century). According to Whaley Eager it was generally accepted that a growing population was central to a society's military and economic strength before the 1960s. It would be great if the history section could explore this further.

Generally I am in favour of removing unreferenced material from the article, especially in this case were the material is not of great quality in the first place. As per Wikipedia policy all content in articles needs to be verifiable and especially claims that are subject to dispute should have intext citation. I think there is a lot or merit in that.

I guess more generally there is more to be done in terms of defining what "population control" actually means, this would help to define the boundaries of the article.--SasiSasi (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made a start on the history section. Its currently only based on one source, but its an improvement on what was there before and can be expanded. I have referenced all main points so that it can be combined with other sources. Also, some of this may be cut down. Because of copyright issues we can not be too close to the original wording, but that raises issues of language (specific words etc). The section still needs copyediting.


 * Also, the 18th and 19th Century is still missing (that will be an additional section), which should come soon.--SasiSasi (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Whaley Eager gives no references to back up their view. As a summation of some 5,000 or so years of history and a few times that of human pre-history, it is superficial to say the least.  For instance, resource factors are very different in a hunter-gatherer society than in an agricultural one.  It also totally ignores such episodes as the clearences in Scotland, the practice of transportation, the Irish potato famine, the age of emigration, the younger son problem, etc.
 * Human population has gone through a whole series of ups and downs. Whether population increase is military might and economic strength or overcrowding, poverty, starvation and destruction depends a lot on the resources available.


 * Snippet from the history section that was deleted, but might be useful to expand global coverage.

"In China, among the proponents of population control were Han Fei (ca. 280–233 BC) and Hong Liangji (1746-1809)"


 * Nice start on the history. Zodon (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Merged from We two, ours one
We two, ours one article merged: See old talk-page here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnilep (talk • contribs) 16:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

euthanasia and infanticide
The infanticide was removed (this is really no common method° as for euthanasia, this should remain as people with severe disabilities (which are increasingly allot as people grow much older) this should remain. Also, people wounded from wars (eg Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia) with no more family, or forced to starve or worse (live with severe pain, live in human-unwearthy condictions; anyone seen victims of Hissein Habré?) could have benefit in an easy death (which due to overpopulation actually benefits not only them, but the world as a whole). Due to reincarnation, they can have a better life in a next body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.167.105 (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Opposition section
This section states that the catholic church is opposed to population control policies, followed by a quote from the pope against abortion. The problem is that population control is about more than just abortion, making the quote seem out of place. This section should either be deleted or replaced by a more coherent description of the opposition of population control. 83.250.228.157 (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move to "Human population control"

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reasons:

1. For clarity & consistency across related Wikipedia article titles (see for example Population density and Population ecology, both of which refer to all organisms, not just humans) and related article subsections (see for example the subsections Biological population densities and the subsection Human population density within the article Population density, and Human population growth rate within the article Population growth);

2. To distinguish it from current or future articles (or article subsections) dealing with non-human organisms (including plants, insects, animals, e.g. cane toads, etc, etc);

3. To combat subjective humancentric systemic bias and linguistic inaccuracy. (Assuming and implying incorrectly that the word "population" only meaningfully, or primarily applies to humans does not reflect well on Wikipedia in terms of objectivity and encyclopedic tone.) --Tyranny Sue (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A query: What are the current articles that this article needs dismabiguating from?  We don't need to deal with future articles per WP:CRYSTALBALL.  A point: I'll assume that humancentric bias charge is serious and simply say there are no apparent reservoir of non-human readers to be slighted by the current title and nothing of this is mentioned at WP:BIAS.  —   AjaxSmack   00:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The humancentricity thing isn't about slighting anyone per se, it's more that the title rather embarassingly (for Wikipedia) implies/displays an ignorance of the biological sciences (& their recognition of more than one species on the planet). I'd call this an instance of perspective bias. But I've tweaked the intro paragraph wording, so that will do for now, I guess.
 * As to future articles, I wasn't aware of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Point taken.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are no other articles on non-human population control, why the need for a move? There is no ambiguity.  —   AjaxSmack   02:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, request withdrawn.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I put the request back on the table. This is a good change. Population control, in general, refers to many things beyond just human population control. Deer, rodents, and other mammals are frequently in the news for population control measures. This type of control is important and article worthy. The topic (population control) and sub-topic (human population control) both should have articles and the titles suggested above are the logical choices. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support population control generally refers to controlling animal populations. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As you might have noticed, I have moved the article and created Animal population control. I didn't find this discussion until after I had already moved the article and put this article on my Watchlist. Anyway, since that's already done, hopefully that should settle this. Gary King  ( talk ) 19:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Methods Section
To say that any government/country/ world organization use starvation, famine, pestilence,plague or war as a means of population control is preposterous, instead these should be listed as things that cause population reduction rather than list them as "Methods" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinner458 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

US section?
I don't see how the US section is relevant here. It describes Title X, which is family planning, not population control. Family planning involves a personal desire to have (or not to have) children that generally has nothing to do with population control, so it doesn't really apply here... If no-one objects after a few days, I'll remove the section (if I can remember why this page is on my watchlist). --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 17:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Population control of Christians vs. population control of Muslims
Is there any evidence to suggest that Christians have felt the effects of population control at a higher rate than in the case of Muslims ? People in the West may not notice it, but in many countries, there is a birth rate rivalry between Christians and Muslims. One of the most recurrent criticisms against birth control is that it is sectarian in its very nature and that it targets certain ethnic groups, such as African Americans. Poor people are especially targeted, but wealthy people may also make use of it. ADM (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please show evidence of such rivalry. Looking at the graphic, it appears to be more geographical than political. Furthermore, I fail to see why religion should matter on this topic: it is global in scale. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The listed reference is controversial and is over 30 years old.
The article is mostly opinion with a smattering of vague assertions without citations. This article needs serious scientific attention. Mbabane 01:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right this article needs refs but I'v been looking round for such and the fact is it is quite hard to find books on the subject that do not date from the 70s when it was a really hot topic.Dejvid 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * even research of the 1970's remains valid. Overpopulation is still an issue even in the 2010's, and will remain so. Whats your point? --71.245.164.83 (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary Research
A portion of the Contemporary Research is a contribution from a student in Spring 2011 Conservation Biology (Bill Platt) at Louisiana State University. Any feedback on the contribution by the community will be appreciated. BJC 15:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Headline text
collI've thought of something interesting. Aren't countries that allow citizens to smoke and drinking at whatever age a deceptive method of population control?--Secret Agent Man 01:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the "History" section is, while interesting, lacking in references. --- Thanks, Andre. It seems a bit less POV-ish after your edit. I might put back the external Cato link, though.


 * Other groups such as the Inuit have traditionally killed older members of the population when they become unable to fend for themselves. It is sometimes said that warfare may be regarded as a unconsicous population control measure by a population.


 * Although infanticide and other killing is morally repugnant, there is evidence that human populations have used infanticide as a population control measure in the past, and that it may be being practiced today in countries such as India and China.

Give me a cite for these claims, and prove that these alleged correlations implies causations --Rotem Dan 14:19 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Haiduc, please don't distort historical facts to satisfy your personal agenda. Thank you.

no country is "silent" on the issue of birth control--UNFPA/WHO/IFFP/World Bank are all over them. the nssm is highly controverisal, because, as amy goodman pointed out in the multinational monitor/boston globe, developed nations view the "problem" of population in developed nations from the perspective of their own interests/convenience. so while a new person in a developed nation puts a much larger strain on world resources than a dozen new persons in a developing country, population growth is only seen as problemmatic in the developing nations, and only by the developed nations... Cindery 12:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Cindery: Overpopulation is a far bigger problem to people IN developing countries than to people outside of them. The classic example: It's hip to want to fix African starvation, but when an environmental biologist points out that their birthrate exceeds their food production and carrying capacity, people scream "genocide! racist!". It's quite literally at the point where nobody can win because developed nations with the ability to give these countries birth control are discouraged from doing so by black power groups and fundamentalist christians on the basis that they're "preventing babies". It's also not a matter of merely increasing their wealth because even in nations with GDPs equivalent to the US and Europe, the unemployment rate would tank the entire economy if we were all averaging 7+ children who reached reproductive maturity. All of this said, I'm wondering how you simplified the situation to that of Europeans being the "only" ones who view it as a problem? This reeks of Alex Jones conspiracy theory stuff... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.219.4 (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Arne Naess
Shouldn't it be mentioned that Næss has proposed, as Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke writes, "that the earth’s human population should be reduced to about 100 million." ?

This number he calculated is far lower than the number proposed by others. KVDP (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Abortion?
Can someone deliver some statistics supporting the inclusion of abortion as a form of population control? It's also present in the "opposition" section of the article. No doubt many Catholics and Mormons oppose population control as well as they do abortion, but semantically, they're very separate topics and opposing abortion does not necessarily mean opposing population control. From the statistics I've read in the past, abortion has almost no significant bearing on population growth. Women would have to be averaging multiple abortions per lifetime for it to have even a thousandth of a fraction of the impact of conventional birth control, economic factors, etc. I myself am neither "pro" nor "anti" abortion, but I am very interested in population control and think it should be emphasized how separate these issues are. As it stands, abortion is just sort of lazily heaved into the article as a synonym if not inherent quality of population control. It cheapens the overall discussion. Also: Infantcide? Shouldn't there be something emphasizing how statistically irrelevant that is to the concept of population control, which came into public relevance many centuries after infantcide ceased to be an option? I'm sure someone is getting my point here... An article defining population control in the modern human context needs to define it a little more clearly than "anything which reduces life to non-life, regardless of actual affect on the population", which is what it reads like currently. Going by the current list, I could rationalize car accidents as a form of population control. Technically I would be right, but it wouldn't be very encyclopedic in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.219.4 (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it is!!! well known fact by Kissinger, Memorandum 200 has this info on page 114:

"-- No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion." It is well known data. In fact, it promotes population control in poorer classes. Link to the Memorandum: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf Also, I'm surprised there is no special chapter about homosexuality, it is a well fundamented case for population control too, whether it be naturally occurring or culturally. --190.134.103.244 (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of Entire Article
This article seems to be biased and does not maintain neutrality. For example, in the summary, the editor says China and other programs "have resorted to coercive measures." This claim is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the section "Views on Population Control" was also marked as not neutral in Feb. 2013. 70.38.98.231 (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Coercive measures refer to the one child policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.74.99.62 (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow I guess I never realized the subject of human population control has somehow been defined(even outside of wikipedia) into such a narrow topic. I wonder how that happened. I suppose if the word population originally referred to the numerical value of populations then it makes sense that this is simply how the usage has developed/evolved throughout the eras. While other measures of "population control" as I myself tend to regard the term are in actuality given more distinct terminology such as "government",propaganda and "crowd control". Well I suppose this explains alot toward what I can see is some editor's inability to acknowledge how some government interventions and policies in population "management" are not elements of control, while others are, and how facts are so easily slanted by institutional programming on this subject. Well this kind of compartmentalization of knowledge and understanding does probably account for a more organized and sterilized body of knowledge and helps keep wikipedia itself somewhat manageable despite its tendency(by having so meany editors with so many different perceptions of citation and attributable authorship) to reveal the natural ambiguity of truth and definition. eg Would a formal education on the subject have better prepared me personally for the apparently popular (based on google search results and this wikipedia article at least as far as I know) and probably institutionally/dictionary supported narrow definition of the terminology as referring only to the "size" of a population if some humans taken steps to reduce(only reduce?) it and not including any measures taken to "control" every aspect of a "population" and its activities including education,propaganda,labor rights and marriage and consent legislation? In the real world I myself will not be able to be so naive to accept the idea that government and institutions' lawmaking, city planning, and zoning measures(even automobile traffic and public transportation route planning) aren't more often than not typically part and parcel to a system of population planning and distribution tactics, but I suppose we should be thankful the subject hasn't yet been notably broadened to that level or at least not referenced so here on wikipedia or many dictionary sources. The conspiracy theory can of worms would likely open wide and well with notable resources to draw from. Probably, as has been the case in some other wikipedia articles, forcing the regular article editors and watchdogs to become a feuding system of relevance and significance judiciaries..but not today. Today I am apparently alone in my ignorance of the surprisingly limited meaning/definition/scope of this term. Oh well I have misused the term, score one for the otherwise ignorant punk kid I've been arguing with in a web forum who googled it first :) I would suggest one thing though. Perhaps someone could provide some reliable sources as references to explain/verify the IMO/POV extremely narrow definition of the term. Or is it such common knowledge that It needs no source material? Just to be clear I am not being sarcastic I am genuinely surprised about this fact and the oversight on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoNetMedia's Alfred O. Mega (talk • contribs) 18:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Population increase
More information on, and possibly a section devoted to, artificial population increase would make this entry more complete. Several contemporary governments implement policies encouraging reproduction and many use their tax codes to encourage family formation. Additionally, though the research and evidence are paltry, there is information regarding historic programs of population increase. If population control is, as this entry defines it, "the practice of artificially altering the rate of growth of a human population", then those practices intended to artificially increase populations should be given equal consideration, if not equal space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.156.31 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--greenrd (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Cancer industry
Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy and many surgeries are a way to cull the population. Cancer isn't killing people but these "therapies" are! Unbelievable that there is no mention of this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:B95E:54AB:AFFD:61C1 (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We would need reliable sources to cover this conspiracy theory of yours - and even then, it would probably be considered a fringe theory and not suitable for inclusion in this article.--greenrd (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Iran contradiction
The article claims that Iran "successfully" reduced its birth rate from the late 1980s, but the new text I've just copied from the Natalism article says that Iran encouraged married couples to have as many children as possible to replenish huge population losses after the Iran-Iraq war. I don't think these can both be true because the Iran-Iraq War ended in the late 1980s! Which one is true?--greenrd (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human population planning. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128072311/http://www.sinoptic.ch/textes/recherche/2006/200608_Rocha.Pascal_memoire.pdf to http://www.sinoptic.ch/textes/recherche/2006/200608_Rocha.Pascal_memoire.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

There should be examples of policies in action.

 * The list of options of possible solutions of increasing population should include examples of it either in action or its success. Simply listing the possibilities may seem as inefficient. Unhiptube3 (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Natalism needs expansion
The small Natalism does not seem to fulfill a purpose, it should either be expanded or removed. Unhiptube3 (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Myanamar?
The description of this region's policy is very vague and provides no real details. This should have more documents and examples to better show the reasoning behind this policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unhiptube3 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Results of examples?
The article has many examples of population planning, but there are no given results of the policies. For example Russia had incentives for women to have children, but we are not told what happened afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unhiptube3 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

18th to 19th Century?
There does not seem to be any information of human population planning during that time period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unhiptube3 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Human population planning. 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:
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090708044535/http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell021298.html%22 to http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell021298.html%22
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090626035831/http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n2-1.html to http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n2-1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105083809/http://www.corrupt.org/act/interviews/michael_e_arth to http://www.corrupt.org/act/interviews/michael_e_arth/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917192303/http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update4ss.htm to http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update4ss.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071019032539/http://opa.osophs.dhhs.gov/titlex/ofp.html to http://opa.osophs.dhhs.gov/titlex/ofp.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Human population planning. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090801082256/http://homepage.newschool.edu/het/profiles/malthus.htm to http://homepage.newschool.edu/het/profiles/malthus.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527203213/http://www.kingston.ac.uk/environment/conf_parkin.ppt to http://www.kingston.ac.uk/environment/conf_parkin.ppt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721062432/http://statelists.state.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0412c&L=dossdo&P=401 to http://statelists.state.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0412c&L=dossdo&P=401

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Colours
1-2 children and 6-7 children are similar colours. I think would be better different colours Sirslayercort (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Why is the Iraq War mentioned?
In the section "Reducing population growth" it mentions the Iraq War as an example of a war used to reduce population growth. I think that this is wrong because although the Iraq War did reduce population, there is no evidence that it was a deliberate effort by the U.S. government to reduce the Iraqi population. 72.79.45.246 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The information about Australia is wrong
I have deleted this sentence but another editor (IP address) reverted my change. I think this sentence ought to be removed because it is unsourced (citation needed tag is 2.5 years old) and no longer correct: "Australia currently offers fortnightly Family Tax Benefit payments plus a free immunization scheme, and recently proposed to pay all child care costs for women who want to work." Words like "currently" and "recently" are never helpful in Wikipedia articles... EMsmile (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)