User:Gonzalm6/sandbox

Evaluating Articles And Sources

The article I picked was "The United States Census Bureau". As I was reading the article I came across something interesting. I don't know if it necessarily distracted me, but I didn't know their headquarters was located in Maryland. This whole time I thought they were part of Washington D.C. As I kept reading the article it was all straight facts which I don't think were bias. The article was essentially neutral due to the fact that it was all relevant information. If I had to pick a bias it would most definitely be the way they use their data. In the data section of the article they mentioned the used of the data is to decide where more houses, hospitals, and public facilities would go. The only reason why I said this was bias is because they're going to give it to the bigger population, and not those who are really in need of it. A viewpoint that is overrepresented is the data. I might've actually gotten a little distracted by this, but its shocking. I remember learning about food desserts, and just places who don't have an easy access to healthcare. All because data doesn't show a good representation of their needs. Based on the citations I would say the links work just fine. The links are basically background information to some facts which I think are necessary. Each fact is referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference. The information basically comes from straight facts from The United States Bureau. The article has basically no pinions its all informational. Some information seems out of date based on how long ago it was, but the census is every 10 years. I think previously there was a lot of bias or non relevant information because on the talk page there was an argument going back and forth about the article actually getting shorter.

Contributions To Article The Population Bomb

In the article we right away see a description of the book. Then it goes to context, and then we see two parts where theres nothing but criticism. I think the book needs a summary and just more information about the book. There's more reasons into why we shouldn't read the book than they are reasons to read the book. Essentially I want to add a summary and an about the author section. It is important to know who the author is, so we spot out biases as we go throughout the article. On the talk page a lot of people would agree there's a lot of irrelevant information, and more description of the book is necessary. A lot of bias is represented in the article which I hope to change by adding more facts.

My article is The Population Bomb

I want to use the following sources: Edit Wikipedia Article
 * The actual book "The Population Bomb" by Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich
 * A magazine review by Smithsonian
 * A wikipedia article about Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich

The Population Bomb is a best-selling book written by Stanford University Professor Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich (who was uncredited), in 1968. It warned of mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Fears of a "population explosion" were widespread in the 1950s and 1960s, but the book and its author brought the idea to an even wider audience. '''Speculations of overpopulation grew once America was aware of food crisis. Under the too many people section of Paul's book he explains, "Americans are beginning to realize that underdeveloped countries of the world face an inevitable population-food crisis" (Population Bomb) .'''

The book has been criticized since its publishing for its alarmist tone, and in recent decades for its inaccurate predictions. The Ehrlichs stand by the basic ideas in the book, stating in 2009 that "perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future" and believe that it achieved their goals because "it alerted people to the importance of environmental issues and brought human numbers into the debate on the human future."

The Population Bomb was written at the suggestion of David Brower the executive director of the environmentalist Sierra Club, and Ian Ballantine of Ballantine Books following various public appearances Ehrlich had made regarding population issues and their relation to the environment. Although the Ehrlichs collaborated on the book, the publisher insisted that a single author be credited, and also asked to change their preferred title: Population, Resources, and Environment. The title Population Bomb was taken (with permission) from General William H. Draper, founder of the Population Crisis Committee and a pamphlet issued in 1954 by the Hugh Moore Fund. The Ehrlichs regret the choice of title, which they admit was a perfect choice from a marketing perspective, but think that "it led Paul to be miscategorized as solely focused on human numbers, despite our interest in all the factors affecting the human trajectory."

Early editions of The Population Bomb began with the statement:

Much of the book is spent describing the state of the environment and the food security situation, which is described as increasingly dire. Ehrlich argues that as the existing population was not being fed adequately, and as it was growing rapidly it was unreasonable to expect sufficient improvements in food production to feed everyone. He further argued that the growing population placed escalating strains on all aspects of the natural world. Ehrlich explains, "However most Americans are not aware that the U.S. and other countries also have a problem with overpopulation" (Population Bomb). '''Paul focuses on how unaware we are about the problem throughout the book and focuses on America's ignorance. Ehrlich voices, "Rather than suffering from food shortages, these countries show symptoms in the form of environmental deterioration and increased difficulty in obtaining resources to support their affluence" (Population Bomb)'''.

'''Ehrlich does a really good job throughout the text by informing us what is wrong and what needs to be done. He informs us by breaking up the world into two groups. Ehrilic states, "The first group, making up about two-thirds of the world population, coincides closely with what are known as the 'underdeveloped counties' (UDCs)" (Population Bomb) . Paul then explains to us what the second group is, "The second group consists of of the 'overdeveloped countries' (OCDs). OCDs are modern industrial nations, such as the United States, Canada... They consume a disproportionate amount of the world's resources and are the major polluters" (Population Bomb) . Throughout the text we see him bring up facts of how population is growing and what needs to be done.'''"What needs to be done?" he wrote, "We must rapidly bring the world population under control, reducing the growth rate to zero or making it negative. Conscious regulation of human numbers must be achieved. Simultaneously we must, at least temporarily, greatly increase our food production." Ehrlich described a number of "ideas on how these goals might be reached." He believed that the United States should take a leading role in population control, both because it was already consuming much more than the rest of the world, and therefore had a moral duty to reduce its impact, and because the US would have to lead international efforts due to its prominence in the world. In order to avoid charges of hypocrisy or racism it would have to take the lead in population reduction efforts. Ehrlich floats the idea of adding "temporary sterilants" to the water supply or staple foods. However, he rejects the idea as unpractical due to "criminal inadequacy of biomedical research in this area." He suggests a tax scheme in which additional children would add to a family's tax burden at increasing rates for more children, as well as luxury taxes on childcare goods. He suggests incentives for men who agree to permanent sterilization before they have two children, as well as a variety of other monetary incentives. He proposes a powerful Department of Population and Environment which "should be set up with the power to take whatever steps are necessary to establish a reasonable population size in the United States and to put an end to the steady deterioration of our environment." The department should support research into population control, such as better contraceptives, mass sterilizing agents, and prenatal sex discernment (because families often continue to have children until a male is born. Ehrlich suggested that if they could choose a male child this would reduce the birthrate). Legislation should be enacted guaranteeing the right to an abortion, and sex education should be expanded.

After explaining the domestic policies the US should pursue, he discusses foreign policy. He advocates a system of "triage," such as that suggested by William and Paul Paddock in Famine 1975!. Under this system countries would be divided into categories based on their abilities to feed themselves going forward. Countries with sufficient programmes in place to limit population growth, and the ability to become self-sufficient in the future would continue to receive food aid. Countries, for example India, which were "so far behind in the population-food game that there is no hope that our food aid will see them through to self-sufficiency" would have their food aid eliminated. Ehrlich argued that this was the only realistic strategy in the long-term. Ehrlich applauds the Paddocks' "courage and foresight" in proposing such a solution. Ehrlich further discusses the need to set up public education programs and agricultural development schemes in developing countries. He argues that the scheme would likely have to be implemented outside the framework of the United Nations due to the necessity of being selective regarding the targeted regions and countries, and suggests that within countries certain regions should be prioritized to the extent that cooperative separatist movements should be encouraged if they are an improvement over the existing authority. He mentions his support for government mandated sterilization of Indian males with three or more children.

In the rest of the book Ehrlich discusses things which readers can do to help. This is focused primarily on changing public opinion to create pressure on politicians to enact the policies he suggests, which he believed were not politically possible in 1968. At the end of the book he discusses the possibility that his forecasts may be wrong, a fact which he felt he must acknowledge as a scientist. However, he believes that humanity will only be better off if it follows his prescriptions, so that even if he is incorrect it is the right course of action.

The book sold over two million copies, raised the general awareness of population and environmental issues, and influenced 1960s and 1970s public policy. Category:Evaluating Articles

''' I like a lot of these additions/changes and they make sense; however, could you include some more information from some of the sources you suggested in the last part of the assignment? - Prof H '''

''' Peer Review comment: The additions you've made to the article, especially the ones to the intro, make the article stronger. Spelling and grammar are great'''. '''I would be careful on the amount of direct quotes you use, even if they're from the book. I think one of the training modules mentioned that it is always best to paraphrase in your article. Besides that, everything you've done so far looks great! -Vanessa K.'''

You're right, I just reread through it and I am going to rephrase some of my quotes.