![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 23 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Katie.wheeler10. Peer reviewers:
JWdeisney,
SandraaaL.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 16 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jmm00007.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 18:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Overpopulation (biology) → Overpopulation – When I came across the page Overpopulation, it was a redirect to Human overpopulation. Since overpopulation is a more general concept than this, I attempted to G6 the page and replace it with this article (which was then titled Overpopulation in wild animals but which I have now expanded). The speedy was declined as "not a clear G6" by User:Secret, who recommended either a talk discussion or a dab page. I created a dab page, intending to leave things like that, but it was then tagged under WP:CONCEPTDAB by User:R'n'B. I don't think that there's another article that could reasonably be moved to the name Overpopulation. I don't feel strongly in either direction; I'm just starting this discussion to resolve the contradiction. Sunrise ( talk) 18:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of a section that has a "main" link is to summarize the main article, in this case " Human overpopulation". It isn't a place to branch out, that just risks creating a WP:FORK. I've therefore boldly replaced the contents with the lead material from the main article. If it's a bit too short as a summary, a few more sentences can be added based on the materials and citations already in the main article, mentioning that you're copying if you copy. If the main article isn't adequate, then it should be improved, and reflected in the summary over here. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 05:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Overpopulation:
Did you know that there is a black dress sect whose primary is the renascents of all animal extinctions resurrected into ' human ' beings?
There is also a black dress sect that decided that it would be best to wipe out the entire planet, there being too many rats, mice, cows and pigs, not to mention chickens, whom would be resurrected into ' human beings '.
Now you know where your overpopulation comes from, a sublimal want to have cows turn into 'humans' to maybe reverse climatic change, or would that be to stop pig roasting ...
An opinion to the above stated (a professor emiritus): "I don't think so, I think they want female cows to have some normal time with their kalfs, before they are both slaughtered for beaf WITH androgens, for the army steroid dependency folks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.92.241.163 ( talk) 18:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Population explosion. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 2#Population explosion until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
11:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
@ C.J. Griffin:: Okay, my edit summary about Ehrlich was not polite. Maybe you are a fan, in that case I'm sorry. This guy is a very fringe author, in my opinion. For some reason his opinions have been splattered all over Wikipedia. I will try to be less annoyed with his theories, but this article is supposed to be about the (scientific) ecological theory of overpopulation, for example as it related to overgrazing, not to propagandise the 'deep ecology' movements' belief that most of humankind must die. There is already an incredibly long article on that subject. His beliefs are not the definition of overpopulation, they are one rather extreme definition.
You further state that the text is long-standing. No, it isn't. It was c&p'ed from the Human overpopulation article in 2017. And even if it were "long-standing", that doesn't mean it's correct. 1 + 1 does not equal 3, no matter how many times you repeat it. I will restore the non-contentious edits I made, such as misleading wikilinks and removing references which do not mention the subject matter at all. The website you added confuses the meaning of carrying capacity. By definition, we reach carrying capacity when the population growth begins to decrease because there are no longer sufficient resources. Ergo, the website is wrong, as the human population is still growing.
Remember, although someone may hold specific beliefs dear, Wikipedia is not meant to "right great wrongs". This is the problem here, the text would like to insinuate that there are too many people on Earth. This is contentious. Regards, Leo Breman ( talk) 20:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
"Human population has exceeded historical natural limits, with 1) the development of new energy sources, 2) technological developments in aid of productivity, education and health, and 3) an unchallenged position on top of food webs. Humans remain Earth’s only species to employ technology so as to change the sources, uses, and distribution of energy forms, including the release of geologically trapped energy (i.e. coal, petroleum, uranium). In total, humans have altered nature at the planetary scale, given modern levels of human-contributed aerosols and gases, the global distribution of radionuclides, organic pollutants and mercury, and ecosystem disturbances of terrestrial and marine environments. Approximately 17,000 monitored populations of 4005 vertebrate species have suffered a 60% decline between 1970 and 2014, and ~1 million species face extinction, many within decades. Humans' extensive 'technosphere', now reaches ~30 Tt, including waste products from non-renewable resources."
All these walls of text as to why humans are bad is perhaps relevant to the human overpopulation article. As far as the concept of overpopulation in ecology, it is questionably relevant. As far as I understand the concept from a practical ecological point of view, is that the concept was used to, rightly or not, say that hunting certain populations of certain animals was a 'good' thing, i.e. culling red deer in Scotland or lions in Kruger National Park: wildlife management and fisheries. If I remember the classical experiments correctly, they had to do with sheep in Australia. You seem to believe that carrying capacity (K) can be arbitrarily chosen, no, we can only approximate it from the logistic function where populations plateau, or in the case of finite resources, such as yeast cells in a Petri-dish, start to decrease. So all this stuff about humans is very theoretical, mathematically incorrect, AND there is already a ginourmas article on the subject.
"The emphasis on Ehrlich in the very beginning is also WP:UNDUE IMO": this I agree with. Why add him at all then, instead of a less contentious source.
With "strawman", you mean to say that me insinuating that adding all this activist text is "righting great wrongs" is a fallacious argument for not letting you adding all this activist text? How is that? Isn't adding walls of activist text exactly what you are doing here! I have another logical fallacy for you regarding what you wrote about Ehrlich: 'appeal to authority'. Leo Breman ( talk) 04:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, we're getting somewhere.
I want to vigorously chop up the population ecology & population dynamics articles next (in a day or two), and in those cases I did leave something in talk (apparently I find those more important subjects worthy of discussion, haha), so if you have opinions, have at it. Leo Breman ( talk) 05:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm thinking of making the lead paragraph flow better, and take out a few errors. The first of which I believe is the use of "active intervention". It implies human interaction to mitigate the problem. This is information better suited in another section in the paper, and should not be part of the definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feeble Jam ( talk • contribs) 01:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Please clarify whether overpopulation only happens with animal species, or with plant species also? Nurg ( talk) 05:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The word population is from the Latin word for people. "Human" is redundant.The entry about people should be moved to the currently disambiguation page for overpopulation. Mackerm ( talk) 21:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 23 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Katie.wheeler10. Peer reviewers:
JWdeisney,
SandraaaL.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 16 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jmm00007.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 18:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Overpopulation (biology) → Overpopulation – When I came across the page Overpopulation, it was a redirect to Human overpopulation. Since overpopulation is a more general concept than this, I attempted to G6 the page and replace it with this article (which was then titled Overpopulation in wild animals but which I have now expanded). The speedy was declined as "not a clear G6" by User:Secret, who recommended either a talk discussion or a dab page. I created a dab page, intending to leave things like that, but it was then tagged under WP:CONCEPTDAB by User:R'n'B. I don't think that there's another article that could reasonably be moved to the name Overpopulation. I don't feel strongly in either direction; I'm just starting this discussion to resolve the contradiction. Sunrise ( talk) 18:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of a section that has a "main" link is to summarize the main article, in this case " Human overpopulation". It isn't a place to branch out, that just risks creating a WP:FORK. I've therefore boldly replaced the contents with the lead material from the main article. If it's a bit too short as a summary, a few more sentences can be added based on the materials and citations already in the main article, mentioning that you're copying if you copy. If the main article isn't adequate, then it should be improved, and reflected in the summary over here. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 05:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Overpopulation:
Did you know that there is a black dress sect whose primary is the renascents of all animal extinctions resurrected into ' human ' beings?
There is also a black dress sect that decided that it would be best to wipe out the entire planet, there being too many rats, mice, cows and pigs, not to mention chickens, whom would be resurrected into ' human beings '.
Now you know where your overpopulation comes from, a sublimal want to have cows turn into 'humans' to maybe reverse climatic change, or would that be to stop pig roasting ...
An opinion to the above stated (a professor emiritus): "I don't think so, I think they want female cows to have some normal time with their kalfs, before they are both slaughtered for beaf WITH androgens, for the army steroid dependency folks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.92.241.163 ( talk) 18:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Population explosion. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 2#Population explosion until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
11:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
@ C.J. Griffin:: Okay, my edit summary about Ehrlich was not polite. Maybe you are a fan, in that case I'm sorry. This guy is a very fringe author, in my opinion. For some reason his opinions have been splattered all over Wikipedia. I will try to be less annoyed with his theories, but this article is supposed to be about the (scientific) ecological theory of overpopulation, for example as it related to overgrazing, not to propagandise the 'deep ecology' movements' belief that most of humankind must die. There is already an incredibly long article on that subject. His beliefs are not the definition of overpopulation, they are one rather extreme definition.
You further state that the text is long-standing. No, it isn't. It was c&p'ed from the Human overpopulation article in 2017. And even if it were "long-standing", that doesn't mean it's correct. 1 + 1 does not equal 3, no matter how many times you repeat it. I will restore the non-contentious edits I made, such as misleading wikilinks and removing references which do not mention the subject matter at all. The website you added confuses the meaning of carrying capacity. By definition, we reach carrying capacity when the population growth begins to decrease because there are no longer sufficient resources. Ergo, the website is wrong, as the human population is still growing.
Remember, although someone may hold specific beliefs dear, Wikipedia is not meant to "right great wrongs". This is the problem here, the text would like to insinuate that there are too many people on Earth. This is contentious. Regards, Leo Breman ( talk) 20:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
"Human population has exceeded historical natural limits, with 1) the development of new energy sources, 2) technological developments in aid of productivity, education and health, and 3) an unchallenged position on top of food webs. Humans remain Earth’s only species to employ technology so as to change the sources, uses, and distribution of energy forms, including the release of geologically trapped energy (i.e. coal, petroleum, uranium). In total, humans have altered nature at the planetary scale, given modern levels of human-contributed aerosols and gases, the global distribution of radionuclides, organic pollutants and mercury, and ecosystem disturbances of terrestrial and marine environments. Approximately 17,000 monitored populations of 4005 vertebrate species have suffered a 60% decline between 1970 and 2014, and ~1 million species face extinction, many within decades. Humans' extensive 'technosphere', now reaches ~30 Tt, including waste products from non-renewable resources."
All these walls of text as to why humans are bad is perhaps relevant to the human overpopulation article. As far as the concept of overpopulation in ecology, it is questionably relevant. As far as I understand the concept from a practical ecological point of view, is that the concept was used to, rightly or not, say that hunting certain populations of certain animals was a 'good' thing, i.e. culling red deer in Scotland or lions in Kruger National Park: wildlife management and fisheries. If I remember the classical experiments correctly, they had to do with sheep in Australia. You seem to believe that carrying capacity (K) can be arbitrarily chosen, no, we can only approximate it from the logistic function where populations plateau, or in the case of finite resources, such as yeast cells in a Petri-dish, start to decrease. So all this stuff about humans is very theoretical, mathematically incorrect, AND there is already a ginourmas article on the subject.
"The emphasis on Ehrlich in the very beginning is also WP:UNDUE IMO": this I agree with. Why add him at all then, instead of a less contentious source.
With "strawman", you mean to say that me insinuating that adding all this activist text is "righting great wrongs" is a fallacious argument for not letting you adding all this activist text? How is that? Isn't adding walls of activist text exactly what you are doing here! I have another logical fallacy for you regarding what you wrote about Ehrlich: 'appeal to authority'. Leo Breman ( talk) 04:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, we're getting somewhere.
I want to vigorously chop up the population ecology & population dynamics articles next (in a day or two), and in those cases I did leave something in talk (apparently I find those more important subjects worthy of discussion, haha), so if you have opinions, have at it. Leo Breman ( talk) 05:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm thinking of making the lead paragraph flow better, and take out a few errors. The first of which I believe is the use of "active intervention". It implies human interaction to mitigate the problem. This is information better suited in another section in the paper, and should not be part of the definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feeble Jam ( talk • contribs) 01:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Please clarify whether overpopulation only happens with animal species, or with plant species also? Nurg ( talk) 05:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The word population is from the Latin word for people. "Human" is redundant.The entry about people should be moved to the currently disambiguation page for overpopulation. Mackerm ( talk) 21:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)