Talk:Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits

POV check
Can we make this more balanced? The current version of the page appears to push the author's point of view that overpopulation is a myth and that anyone trying to do anything about it is doing more harm than good. There's a reference to controversy, but no details on who opposes his view and what they say about his book. Also, the reference to "the Population Controllers" in the lead is perplexing. Who does this refer to?-- Atlantima  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 16:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I came to this talk page to say exactly this - but it appears that nothing has been done in the last four years to improve the article. Its current problems appear to include:
 * Lack of balance. Wikipedia is not a sales tool, but an encyclopaedia.
 * Lack of citations to support claims that are made in the article. "Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits is the result of years of research and dedication to this cause."  Really?  On what basis is this claim being made?
 * Over-use of the subject material. The first citation comes mid-way through the synopsis, and is simply a re-reference of something that was stated in the subject book.
 * A section titled 'Controversy and book reviews' that does not show any controversy and only presents reviews in support of the author's perspective!
 * I stumbled upon this page while browsing, and remain unconvinced that the subject actually belongs on Wikipedia. As this entry currently stands, it does not belong in an encyclopedia, and if people who actually know the subject matter cannot clean it up in the four years since the last comment then perhaps the article's subject is in fact unimportant and it should be recommended for deletion.  Ambiguosity (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree. There's no place in a neutral article for talk like the population scare ... overpopulation myth ... Mosher examines and disproves Malthus’ assumptions and flawed reasoning ... He exposes the pernicious nature ... and so on.  E  Eng  06:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I made a rather moderate cut-back after most of the article was removed. Deletion would be a major loss because Mosher's opus magnum is one of the highlights for population control sceptics, and Wikipedia does not provide much material to cover this criticism. The reviews are vital to establish the notability of the book. If someone finds a suitable negative comment published, it should be added. –Joppa Chong (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what you did is nowhere near adequate. The specifics I listed above -- and they were just a grab bag -- remain. A bottom-up rewrite seems required.  E Eng  21:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * At first, we could restore the references. The wrecking ball is not the best editing tool. –Joppa Chong (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In cases like this, it is.  E Eng  22:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I admit the article was in less than every word objective but it did not seem weird. The synopsis section focussed on the content of the work, this is not the problem. Also, the review section cannot be deemed imbalanced before knowing who maybe published a rejection of the author's views. –Joppa Chong (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I need hardly point out that the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly and The Washington Times are hardly going to have a balanced view of a book on birth control and abortion.  E Eng  23:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So we leave the interpretation to the reader, ok? –Joppa Chong (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Who keeps participating in this discussion? Still a week for objections, then—in case of no feedback—I would set the helpful coverage of reviews straight again. –Joppa Chong (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No way. That kind of loaded language is unacceptable. EEng 04:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which kind of loaded language? –Joppa Chong (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The kind I quoted earlier in this thread. EEng 05:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This critique mainly focussed on Wiki editor style. I meant the book reviews of the press which are commentaries and don't have to be neutral. –Joppa Chong (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As time goes by, we need a solution. I assume there is no one seriously opposed to restoring coverage of the book reviews. –Joppa Chong (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. There is no deadline. If you don't can't find any appropriate material, the article can remain this way indefinitely until you can. EEng 20:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind WP:NODEADLINE. We already had notable statements of certain standing. Another one to consider would be a positive but a bit ambiguous review by Sybille N. Nyeck from Department of Political Science, University of California: . If we are not presented a clear rejection published, there is no reason to suggest the article's scope had concealed critical voices. −Joppa Chong (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you just said, but judicious excerpts from that source you just linked would be fine. EEng 06:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no need to replace the published opinions mentioned, especially the Washington Post review is relevant, even The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly. However, Nyeck's stance might supplement them:
 * ″Steven Mosher has written a powerful and insightful book on one of the major issues of the twenty first century: the obsession with population growth and the powerful mechanisms put in place to control it (...) This thought-provoking book is captivating from beginning to end and the argument presents a major contribution to the understanding of why costly interventions often yield minimum benefits in the domain of population control (...) Overall, the book raises fundamental questions that leave no one untouched. It is a call to self-critique, not necessarily a summary of best practices and magical answers. In fact, the only disappointing part of the book is the last chapter in which the author proposes a way out of the population control frenzy. In this last section, the author's attention is entirely focused on Western programs to solve the aging and low fertility rate issues.″ In-Spire Journal of Law, Politics and Societies (Vol.4, No.1 - 2009).


 * Besides the restoration said, this could be something to insert, right? –Joppa Chong (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "the restoration said", but if you mean The Washington Times (not Post) with the kind of material I quoted long ago in this thread, no. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What I mean is just restoring the review section, maybe with additional material like the one I linked above. Not everyone might like the Washington Times but who won't admit it is a pound? −Joppa Chong (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A pound? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, given its weight as a widely known and read medium. −Joppa Chong (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)