Talk:Population Research Institute (organization)

Citations

Almost all of the citations in this article is from a progressive pressure group called "Media Matters for America" (which owns mediatransparency.org). This is completely unacceptable and the sources is not credible at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.17.236.234 (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that Media Matters isn't a reliable source besides your bias against "progressive" organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.191.225 (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

NaturalNews.com as source

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this are opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers."

When using "NaturalNews.com" as a source for showing criticism of the PRI, this is precisely the case. The source shows the opinion exists, not that is is right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvgama (talk • contribs) 00:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Natural News is not an acceptable source for anything on Wikipedia, so thisd all seems kind of irrelevant. Guy (help!) 09:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Moved essay/commentary from main article to here

I moved the following from the main article; some content has been revised and added to the article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The reality of the population problem is that our global population growth has been exponential and continues to rise. Not only is the number of individuals increasing but so is the amount of consumption per person, this increases our human impact on the Earths limited resources. Technology has been able to increase our ability to acquire food and resources for our growing populations; however it is not succeeding in entirety. Only the wealthy nations are able to acquiring enough food to feed their people, the majority of people on this planet live in hunger.

Other instances of human population growth exceeding carrying capacity has occurred on Easter Island (Suggested reading Easter's End by Jared Diamond). The result of this occurrence was mass starvation, cannibalism, anarchy, and an immediate population crash from starvation. By opposing all methods of population control The Population Research Institute is hindering the resolution of our biggest problem population growth.

Even if you agree with this organizations limited perspective on population growth you may wan to think again before contributing.

Please review how this organization spends its funds view: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/10080.htm (President Steven W. Mosher recieves 13.15% of their budget, giving another meaning to "Putting People First") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.43.26 (talk • contribs)

Homophobic as well

They describe "homosexuality" as being one of the ills, alongside "prostitution" and "gang warfare" that happens in places like China due to population control.50.194.115.156 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Criticism about scientific inaccuracy of PRI claims

The fallowing redaction:

"PRI's stance on overpopulation and the arguments for "Overpopulation is a Myth" have been described as deceptive and in contradiction to the scientific consensus on the subject."

has been repeatedly reverted to:

"PRI's stance on overpopulation and the arguments for "Overpopulation is a Myth" have been described as deceptive."

under the allegation that the UN report cited does not criticize PRI.

While it it obviously true that the UN report does not criticize PRI's stance (it doesn't even mention it), that misses the point of the citation.

It is true and indisputable that critics have stated that PRI's stance are deceptive and in contradiction to the scientific consensus on matters of population growth. This criticism may be fair and accurate or unfair. It is, thus, very relevant for this matter that this Wikipedia article cites a reference regarding what the scientific consensus on this matter is. The UN report does indeed present a very different picture than the one PRI presents. This is factual, objective and very relevant for the subject matter. There is no reason do deny this information to the readers.

[The previous unsigned comment was posted by Jvgama (talk · contribs), 13:50, 21 March 2020‎ (UTC)]

The long version is better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

To add to the reasoned arguments, here is a relevant analogy: in a discussion of the International Flat Earth Research Society, the statement that its beliefs are in contradiction to the scientific consensus on the subject is well-sourced by any scientific source stating that the consensus is that "Earth is approximately an oblate spheroid of average diameter 12,742km, whose equatorial diameter is 43 kilometres larger than the pole-to-pole diameter". It is not necessary for the source to explicitly refer to the beliefs of the IFERS—why would they bother? Pol098 (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Assuming that sources exist for a claim does not dispend of the necessity to identify and then reference them properly according to WP:RS. We ought to counter the insinuation that the UN study covers the PRI-critical statement which it is cited for. The real critic here edits the article.

It fits into an ongoing series of problematic contributions. For exemple, Pol098 has removed the sourced notion which documented the overall result the Charity Navigator's evaluation gave to PRI, 2 of 4 pts. The Flat Earth comparison is not a sign of a respectful and good faith approach to the matter, either. –Joppa Chong (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling I agree. Guy (help!) 11:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The overall 2-star overall rating is calculated from the "Accountability & Transparency" and "Financial Performance" ratings (the Charity Navigator Web site explains the algorithm) and adds nothing to them. I removed it as redundant, but have reinstated it, clarifying that it is derived from the headings, as there is an objection. Pol098 (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate this good start to rearrange the content, go on. I assisted and made clear that 2=~(1+2):2 would be a misconception. –Joppa Chong (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Joppa Chong You need to stop reinserting promotional and badly sourced material. Perhaps famioliarise yourself with WP:RS? For example, the Center for Family and Human Rights (newsweekly) is clearly not a reliable source. Guy (help!) 11:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I would not deem these badly or promotional, and you didn't clearly object to things like additional sourcing when we talked about the matter recently. As such, it is evitable to cite them, however there are more important aspects waiting for improvement. –Joppa Chong (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Being "promotional" isn't the only disqualification for being a RS. That particular article is an editorial opinion piece that barely mentions PRI. The headlines found in the publication in general show a disinterest (or even scorn) for reliability and fact-checking. It isn't acceptable for citing in Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Scorn? Don't think so. The News Weekly article you refer to is not meant to cover it alone and can be left out. I must say though, it even mentions PRI's overpopulation myth debunking dedication, unlike the IAP, (old cite UN) and the Guttmacher material cited in the Criticism section where it would be needed. –Joppa Chong (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Joppa Chong, News Weekly is simply not a reliable source. The article you llinked aboive shows why. Guy (help!) 09:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The ncrregister article's source is the NRI itself.

As for the unenvironment one, while good for a statement of fact about overpopulation, seemed to be synthesis and followed already existing criticism so I don't object to its removal on second thought. —PaleoNeonate – 00:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, well, this is a step forward. The two footnotes in Guttmacher's are too little. Maybe other critical material looks better apt. The NCR article credits report authorship to the correspondent Sabrina Arena Ferrisi, and it is not just an interview. Imho, only annex/testimonials are credited by the end remark. –Joppa Chong (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Joppa Chong, the statement "We ought to counter the insinuation that the UN study covers the PRI-critical statement which it is cited for. The real critic here edits the article." is very unclear. What are your arguments against the inclusion of a source that presents projections for future population growth that contradict PRI statements about future population growth? It is very relevant for this section of the article because it backs PRI's critics claims.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvgama (talk • contribs) 16:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Consider signing your comments, please. Remember the News Weekly source was criticised and removed, although it backed the statement cited. In contrast, the UN cite referencing material which does not mention the Population Research Institute was restored again without changing the sentence. So the wrong insinuation of criticizing PRI persists. I never demanded to exclude the source if somebody wants a possible reformulation, but for now, the cite remains misleading. –Joppa Chong (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, critics may claim PRI's statements are contrary to our scientific knowledge whether they are or not. But it is very relevant, after a statement of fact about the existence of such claims and the relevant sources (by those who made them), a statement of fact about the validity of the criticism and the relevant sources (and one of the best sources for the scientific consensus regarding the population growth projections is the UN report cited). Does anyone know of a better source? Anyone can criticize any organization for making claims that are contrary to scientific consensus, but it is very relevant to present the scientific consensus for the reader to know whether or not the criticism has merit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvgama (talk • contribs) 16:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

You already know the scientific consensus on population control: the PRI is against it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The be a bit clearer: the PRI is against the consensus. (Also against population control, but that is not the point here.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:FRINGE, WP:RS and WP:GEVAL. —PaleoNeonate – 14:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate WP:FRINGE, WP:RS and WP:GEVAL are great policies and they are the reason why the UN report reference should be maintained in the article. PRI subscribes to the fringe theory that UN estimates are grossly overestimated. So, when some critics acuse PRI of presenting information that is contrary to the scientific consensus, not adding what that scientific consensus is would create a false balance. Following those guidelines is precisely the reason why I believe the reference to the UN report (and the statement that PRI presents information that in contradiction to the scientific consensus) should be maintained in the article. This omission would be less informative at the best, deceptive at the worst. Irason (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The function of the UN material cite, criticizing PRI although the source doesn't mention it, is now fulfilled by the IAP cite. We need more accuracy. How about a "See also" section wikilinking IAP statement on population growth and Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits? Joppa Chong (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The function of the UN material cite was not to show a criticism of PRI. It was to meet WP:RS and WP:GEVAL policies. Critics of PRI argue that PRI claims regarding population growth are at odds with the scientific consensus on the matter (human population growth projections), and therefore it is important for the article to cite what the scientific consensus is (and UN projections seem to be a good way to do it, do you propose any alternative?), in order for the reader to evaluate if the criticism has merit or not. Irason (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Jvgama, the cite suggested that PRI was criticized by the UN material, what was not the case. Also bear in mind that "Overpopulation is a Myth" is a PRI slogan missing proper citation. –Joppa Chong (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

"'Overpopulation is a Myth' is a PRI slogan missing proper citation" - what do you mean? Irason (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean the verbal quote not backed by the fuzzy sources in the 1st sentence of the Criticism section we talk about. The lede relies on this information, too. Joppa Chong (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

- https://overpopulationisamyth.com/ - "Copyright © 2010–2020 Population Research Institute. All rights reserved." If the problem was the lack of a reference for the claim that PRI has stated that "overpopulation is a myth", I will change this first sentence to add it. I will also maintain the institutions that criticize this stance, and, in line with WP:RS and WP:GEVAL wikipedia guidelines include the UN report that shows that, according to experts on the field, human population is still rising. Irason (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

In order to comply with WP:RS, we should prefer independent secondary sources, not a primary one like PRI's own. The Guttmacher source which can be attributed as pro-abortion rights provides a collateral, limited feedback on PRI's rejection of population control approaches. It is furthermore too sloppy to equate "Overpopulation is a Myth" with a denial of global population growth. Joppa Chong (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"'Overpopulation is a Myth' is a PRI slogan missing proper citation" - If one states that an entity has made a given claim, and someone asks a reference for that claim, the best reference is the entity's one claim. It is really very strange that the same person claiming that some reference is required for the claim that PRI has stated 'Overpopulation is a Myth' is now claiming that PRI's statements should not be used to do so. I really hope someone else participates in this argument, as such inconsistent stances are baffling me. Irason (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no need for a verbal PRI quote in this context, that was careless editing leading to several problems as mentioned. The section is named "Criticism", hence PRI's stance gets mainly relevant where it has responded to critique. Also, RS policy preference matters and must not be selectivlely applied or disregarded. Joppa Chong (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)