Talk:Malthusianism

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Manchester School

The article linked to is about the Manchester University Department of Social Anthropology founded in 1947. Obviously far too late for Malthus. Is Manchester capitalism what is meant instead? Rojomoke (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Freyheytlid (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I suggest that we merge Neo-malthusianism into this article. The idea was already floated on that talk page two years ago on the suggestion that the two terms are used more or less interchangeably and that the two (low quality) pages overlap significantly. There may be a difference in the terms beyond a simple separation into "old" and "new" adherents of similar theories, but I cannot find it... Peregrine981 (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having noted no objections, and having done a bit more research, I will proceed to move the page. Neo-malthusianism and malthusianism seem to be more or less inter-changeable, with neo simply indicating a "modern" proponent of the same basic idea. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrophobia

The Neo-Malthusians was a major group in the Hydrophobia game. Should some information on the game be included?--72.19.122.235 (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worht noting in the fiction sub-section, although it may be considered Trivia. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use/mention error

This article is about malthusianism. It's not about the word malthusianism. Therefore the first sentence in the article is wrong. Malthusianism does not "refer" to stuff. This is not Wiktionary.

Someone should write some bot or something, to go through the entire English Wikipedia. This mistake is found all over the place here, and it's just not at all good language. In any article that's about a topic, and not about a word, it's nonsense to just throw out the common phrase "refers to" without thinking. This "use mention" topic, which I think it's called, should be in red font at the very top of the style manual, or something. :) --109.189.231.146 (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes movements are labelled after the event, so sometimes it is useful to use 'refers to'. The first line of the article is fixed now. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"unchecked population growth is "exponential""

Shouldn't we use the word Malthus himself used, or at least mention it - "geometrical"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbgold (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

use of the word arithmetical

this could be replaced by the more commonly used term "linear" to make the article easier to digest for people who arent already familiar with the term arithmetical 80.5.128.19 (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate chart

I've removed a chart that wrongly represented Malthus. I contacted the creator of the chart but have not heard back, so I've "been bold" and taken it out. - Metalello talk 20:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Malthusianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Malthusianism. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Focus of this article

This article is a bit of a mess. It seems to be that the article cannot decide what it is actually about. It suffers from problems related to WP:REFERS and WP:NOTDIC. Basically, we need to move the focus from obsessing about the many different definitions of words and change it to focus on the progression of the ideas and movement. Ashmoo (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity War

I noticed that Avengers: Infinity War is listed in the "See Also" section. Should it be there? Everything else there feels like relevant extensions to the topic of population, economics, and resources. Infinity War, however, is just a fictional work involving an antagonist with similar beliefs to Malthusianism. Compare this to other links in the See Also section, which includes articles that touch on population growth to broaden understanding and observe its place in history. How does Infinity War, which barely touches on the idea beyond serving as a villain's motive, stand on equal ground to these links? Other articles certainly don't do this either. Nihilism does not use the "See Also" to link to Kefka Palazzo or Final Fantasy VI, Social Darwinism does not use it to link to the Sith or Star Wars. If anything, these subjects, including Infinity War, belong in popular culture sections, or an "In Film" section in this case, rather than being lumped into the same category as relevant extensions of the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:DA80:990:AC5F:D897:83DD:FF7F (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Malthusian in character"?

Are concerns about resource depletion and energy consumption "Malthusian in character"? The article contains the sentence: "Many models of resource depletion and scarcity are Malthusian in character: the rate of energy consumption will outstrip the ability to find and produce new energy sources, and so lead to a crisis." But is this Malthusian in character? Yes, it is about the rate of demand for something essential outstripping its supply. But it is not about population outstripping food supply. The latter, not the former, was Malthus' concern.

Aarre (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Population control" link

The link at the end of the first paragraph leads to population control, which is about controlling the population sizes of animals specifically, and doesn't mention humans. Looking at the history of edits, it used to have the same displayed text but lead to the eugenics article, which appears to be the actual original intention and makes more sense contextually. Would it be okay to change both the link and the text to be eugenics? Keeping the text but changing the link to human population planning as linked later in the article is also an option. I don't have access to the cited book, it does appear to mention both eugenics and the phrase "population control".

--Professionalmartian (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandmo?

Why is this inline? Should this be a reference? 97.94.241.50 (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big pop

Vb 112.196.133.253 (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Malthusianism"