Talk:Paul R. Ehrlich

Watchlist request

Paul R. Ehrlich biography is currently biased and has been vandalized with bias since 2003. Ehrlich is Stanford population biologist warning of overpopulation in bestsellers such as THE POPULATION EXPLOSION (1990). Look at long history of edits since 2003: Religious extremists against birth control, who deny existence of overpopulation, repeatedly vandalize with propaganda slanted against Ehrlich. I edited a dozen times before giving up. Current version is still biased POV: Biography barely mentions five decades of Ehrlich's accomplishments or other books written by Ehrlich. For instance, he is world's foremost expert on butterfly population dynamics. Biography is overwhelmed by several paragraphs of "criticisms" of overpopulation theory. Criticisms should be limited to one paragraph, yet criticisms can be found in every sentence throughout biography, and CRITICISMS section is biggest section of biography, and centered on webpage. I re-wrote it several times but religious extremists repeatedly vandalize and revert. It should be re-written with more objective point of view and include subject's five decades of accomplishments. It needs warning flags and should be locked to prevent future biased vandalism. 209.78.98.26 22:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Could we please have some citations to support this assertion:

The U.S. fertility rate dropped from 3.4 children per woman in the early 1960s to 1.8 by 1975, and many credit Ehrlich's influence for helping to bring this about. One man cut fertility in half in a decade? That sounds like a tall boast. Please, exactly who credits Ehrlich with significant responsibility for this achievement? Willmcw 23:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"many credit Ehrlich's influence for helping to bring this about" does not equate to "one man cut fertility in half in a decade". The history of ZPG on the Population Connection website credits a number of factors including ZPG (which Ehrlich founded), The Population Bomb (which Ehrlich wrote), the popularity of the "stop at two" message (which ZPG promoted), along with many other factors independent of Ehrlich's influence, in making birth control much more widespread. Kaibabsquirrel 03:37, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In other words, ZPG credits themselves, their founder, and an entire progressive coalition with helping to accomplish the fertility reduction. Let's change it to indicate what ZPG actually says. Willmcw 04:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Willmcw and think that the changes made have improved the NPOVness of the article. Jacob1207 18:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wager between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich

Mention of the wager between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich does not belong under "critics". It was a famous incident in Ehrlich's career and deserves separate mention. And of course, it has an article of its own too. -Willmcw July 8, 2005 23:06 (UTC)

I would say it does belong under "critics" because it pertains specifically to Julian Simon, who was a critic of Ehrlich. If you really think it is all that important, a separate subsection directly under where Julian Simon is mentioned would be okay - but since it already has an article of its own I don't see why it needs any further mention here other than a wikilink. Kaibabsquirrel 9 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)

pretty famous come-uppance. Buried at the bottom. Should have brief mention as well as link. TCO (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This sentence: "Economists later showed that Ehrlich would have won in the majority of 10-year-periods over the last century.[29][30]" is not very well supported. Neither citation refers to a peer-reviewed journal article. Citation [29] is to a New York Times opinion piece and [30] is to a GMO quarterly letter. GMO is a "global investment management firm". I strongly recommend removing this sentence from the article in the absence of a firmer basis for support.

Recent additions

I still think the recent additions, except for any verifiable cases where Ehrlich himself retracted anything he wrote or said, belong under the "Critics" section. Maybe the section should be changed from "The critics" to "Criticism" but my point still stands. Ehrlich is among those singled out by the wise use movement (as well as followers of Lyndon LaRouche, Ayn Rand and so on) to try and discredit, because those groups reject environmentalism and especially the notions of overpopulation and population control in their entirety, so any attempt to insert anti-Ehrlich bias or proclaim he was "wrong" is automatically suspect in my eyes. I'm trying to assume good faith but there is no reason why any "Ehrlich was wrong" material belongs anywhere in the article except a special section that is devoted to criticism of Ehrlich, otherwise it smacks of POV. I removed the Ron Bailey link in particular because he is a leader in the Wise Use movement which would automatically discount him from being an impartial source on Ehrlich.

Here is the recent addition as it stands, and my specific points of criticism: In that article, Ehrlich predicted that the world would experience famines sometime between 1970 and 1985 due to population growth outstripping resources, and declared that the battle to feed humanity was over. His predictions would prove false, though. The oft-cited cause of these famine aversions is the "Green Revolution", as it was called by the U.S. Agency for International Development in 1968 [1]

Ehrlich has stated that despite his other work, the predictions of his first book are regularly cited as proof of extensive flaws in the environmental movement. [2]

1. "His predictions would prove false, though." This makes it sound like all of Ehrlich's predictions proved false. Specifically, which ones? The world *did* experience famines between 1970 and 1985, specifically in sub-Saharan Africa, so that one didn't prove false.
2. My understanding of the Green Revolution is that it is widely considered a failure because of its reliance on monoculture, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides.
3. An earlier revision of the article said that Ehrlich removed some of his predictions from later editions of The Population Bomb. Which ones? I have seen two editions of the book, the original and a later 1970s edition, and the only thing I remember him revising was a section which he clearly stated were "scenarios", not predictions. Kaibabsquirrel 9 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)

Need sources

We need some sources for these two claims:

"According to Ehrlich, the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 years because of pesticide usage, and the nation's population would drop to 22.6 million by 1999."

Sources for these?

Providing weblinks to anti-environmental sources, hate groups, and cornucopians is not sufficient. (e.g., Reason Magazine, Ron Bailey, Ron Arnold, Julian Simon, Bjorn Lomborg, and their ilk.) I want to know where Ehrlich said these things and exactly what he said and in what context.

Unless somebody can source these directly to Ehrlich books by title and page number so the exact quote and context can be looked up, I am going to delete them. Kaibabsquirrel 02:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• This sounds a lot like Kent Hovind's wager to "evolutionists". He gets to define what is considered irrefutable evidence (in your case, defining what is considered anti-environmental), so he always wins. Anyways, it took me 30 seconds on Google to find the answer (why you chose to delete rather than investigate, I'm not sure):

  Paul Ehrlich wrote these predictions in an article titled "Eco-Catastrophe!" in the magazine Ramparts, September 1969, pages 24 to 28. [1] [2]

I have read the article from Ramparts (it is accessible through a google search from the site asp6new.alexanderstreet.com) and I found a reference to the 42 years old life expectancy, but not to the 22.6 million population by 1999. Sounds like that was made up.Ithaka84 (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• What does this possibly have to do with some creationist attacking evolution? I'm trying to keep anti-environmentalist pseudoscience (as well as the mis-use of legitimate science - such as Borlaug's work - as a platform for attacking environmentalists) out of Wikipedia just as I would want to keep creationist pseudoscience out of Wikipedia. What I was asking for here was a specific reference from Ehrlich's own writings where he actually said these things? It was a fair question, given that the person who originally added them to the article has a history of adding dishonest, out of context, and nonexistent quotes he attributes to people he is trying to discredit. Kaibabsquirrel 02:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, both of those links you provided are anti-environmentalist slanted articles. Kaibabsquirrel 02:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for defining them as such. Get the back issue of the magazine through your library's interlibrary loan service (they'll get anything for anyone), if you want to know for sure. --brian0918™ 03:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Where is I=PAT ??

This article seems to leave out large sections of Ehrlichs work. What is his scientific interest? What happened with Simons? Where is I=PAT. This article needs a more complete coverage of events. This too limited to get a good picture of this person who made several important contributions to science and to the discussion of environmental science issues.

• See The Population Bomb article. Alan Liefting 04:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Biography needs Wikipedia Webmaster/ Moderator Lockdown

As of December 2005 this biography is still slanted against this great ecologist. Dr. Paul Ehrlich has been a respected Senior Professor of Population Studies at Stanford University for over three decades. This bio makes him sound like some weird insect specialist shouting "Everyone will die at age 42...."

I tried several times to edit this article with a more accurate biography, and each time, the same neocon extremist blogger reverted article to his own hateful inaccurate version. This ability to distort biography is a flaw of Wikipedia.

I have reviewed WikiQuote page, and these quotes are accurate as of December 2005-- I have tapes of these lectures from PBS and National Public Radio. Problem is prose of main article. Part of problem is Ehrlich's famous big-mouth. In heat of debate he often says deliberately alarming things for dramatic effect. Such alarmist claims should not be mistaken for scholarship. He is an easy target because it is easy to quote him out of context in such debates. I could write a more accurate article myself but I know that same neocon extremist would just vandalize it again.

To get a better definitive biography and meaning of his work I would say Ehrlich himself or his wife or staff should write it or approve it-- then Wikipedia should lock it to prevent further neocon anti-ecology vandalism.

Your comments are not based in reality. First, this article has rarely been edited since the summer. Second, I don't see who this "neo-con blogger" is or where he has made a habit of reverting your edits. Third, I don't see where yo've ever edited this article. Fourth, your suggestion for moving forward is entirely inappropriate and violates everything that Wikipedia stands for. -Willmcw 22:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This biography is a lot better today than it was a year ago. I still feel article content focuses too much on Ehrlich's "failed predictions" rather than his basic warning about ecologically sustainable Carrying Capacity. By steering content towards his failures, one still gets the impression that he was basically wrong, just some extremist shouting "We're all going to starve and die at 42!" If he was such an extremist, Stanford University would not have kept him as tenured professor for three decades, he would not have won so many awards, and would not have found an audience for so many books. In fact, Ehrlich is basically right*: Our species should live within our ecological Carrying Capacity based on the I=PAT formula and voluntarily stop at two children per family. I feel his basic message should be more obvious, considering it is the single most important message of the 21st century. (* Quite right! It is the facts that are wrong)

Such a message, that we should stop at two children, is controversial and serves as a lightning rod for his enemies. Ehrlich's message is correct but I readily admit Ehrlich has a big-mouth--When Ehrlich rants on public lectures and forums, he often shouts alarmist exaggerations and glaring howlers for dramatic effect.

Search "Overpopulation" on Yahoo and the top result is Overpopulation.com, a neocon extremist group which openly claims "overpopulation does not and will not ever exist!" Its Discussion chatroom is filled with hateful threads against Ehrlich and ecologists.

My running battle with a neocon occured in December 2004: Click Article, click History, scroll to December 30 2004: I was 63.231... and neocon was "TDC." Take a look at User Info for TDC: He describes himself as a "neocon troll" who vandalizes websites. Ehrlich's biography at that time said absurd stuff like, "Ehrlich, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU ruined America's population." That's troll vandalism. I tried to get rid of it a few times then gave up. Neocon troll won that battle.

Other neocon I disagree with is Willmcw. If he advocates "neo-confederates" as his User Info suggests, he is blood enemy of Ehrlich and ecologists. Willmcw wanted to place the bet with Julian Simon in its own section for maximum emphasis. This bet was Ehrlich's biggest public blunder, proving Ehrlich could be hoodwinked by the Cato Institute, Julian Simon's neocon think-tank. Any economist could see that harvesting natural resources is getting easier due to improving technology. Ehrlich was a fool for taking that bet. Anyone who wants to emphasize that bet is no advocate of Ehrlich. There is no mention of Ehrlich's second bet proposed in 1990's which focused on species biodiversity and habitat, which Simon refused to accept.

My last point, that Wikipedia is vulnerable to troll vandalism, is sad but true. Due to a recent famous Wikipedia biography scandal involving troll vandalism, my university just sent notice to all students, informing us to no longer use Wikipedia as a reference or resource in our papers, because content cannot be trusted. Due to troll vandalism, Wikipedia is now reduced to a minor diversion away from quotable Internet research. I don't see any solution except for Wiki webmasters to lock content when needed. As long as trolls are allowed to vandalize entries with subtle subversive point of view, any controversial article remains highly vulnerable to vandalism.

By the way, I only wrote this one "biography needs lockdown" discussion. Above criticisms come from other people. Anyone familiar with Ehrlich's work would find this current biography slanted towards his failures. I won't bother fixing article, since some neocon will just erase my fix again. Adios Wikipedia.

The Population Bomb

I have moved all the references to The Population Bomb book to its own page since one exists. Alan Liefting 04:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

Five years later, and this is still an extremely biased article. I will be tagging it so the casual reader will at least have some notice that it is slanted. W E Hill (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made some modifications to the article, but I still believe it is not balanced because of cherry picked quotes from the Population Bomb and biased or very limited sources such as the 2 or 3 page review of the Population Bomb found in the Knudsen's book, Knudsen's feminist POV and the fact that she is judging the book nearly 40 years after it was written. Other sources such as Tierney are also biased but in a more ideological way -- which of course is worse. Nonetheless, I believe have made the article a little more balanced and objective.W E Hill (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove the tag because you have shown no cause here. ► RATEL ◄ 03:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the tag. The history of talk page documents considerable concern over slanted coverage within this article. While some of the older comments reflect a concern that the versions at the time were overly negative, the current version significantly underrepresents the preponderance of negative coverage about Ehrlich's track record as a futurist. (Here and here for two examples that showed up in a cursory google search.)
Even more worrying, the current version of the Overpopulation debate section contains extensive quotes of Erhlich's rebuttals to his critics without ever explaining the criticisms. A man who had deliberately put himself into such controversy deserves to have that controversy adequately covered. Rossami (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it reads as if his wife took the suggestion up this page to write it herself. If it was ever POV against the man, it's certainly swung too far the other way at this point. Also, it's funny that the wager is barely on this page, not on Holdren's page at all, and has its own section on Simon's page (and Simon's page includes a much less significant wager he lost).Demigord (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian short site about this malthusianist

This Brazilian short site: [Catolicismo] talks a little about this malthusianist.Agre22 (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

Here is the hateful rant against Ehrlich this Catholic against birth control wants us to read, and you don't need to speak Spanish or Portuguese to figure out this gist:

"PAUL EHRLICH: Ecologistas radicais pedem o extermínio da humanidade: Grupos radicais anti-vida estão explorando o pânico gerado pelo alarmismo ecologista. Numa reunião de cúpula paralela em Barcelona, a humanidade foi transformada em réu, segundo as informações de “El País”. De acordo com Roger Martin, da Optimum Population Trust, ONG que postula a limitação da população mundial, o planeta tem cidadãos demais “emissores de CO2”. O teorizador Paul Ehrlich [foto], da Universidade de Stanford, pediu uma radical diminuição da humanidade, apelando a controles planetários da natalidade. Defendeu ser “insensato que EUA tenha 280 milhões de habitantes. Não precisamos de mais que 140”. Afirmou ser muito difícil reduzir a população por “métodos humanitários”, e atacou os políticos que temem reduzir a população para não serem acusados de defensores do eugenismo nazista."

THANK YOU Agre22. I have been reporting vandalism ruining Ehrlich's Wiki biography since 2003. I always maintained that the vandals were Catholics against birth control, and Agre22 absolutely confirms it. I bet Agre22 is the Catholic who wrote that Brazil paragraph.

SO you see Wikipedia must constantly guard against vandalism of biographies vandalized by the subject's worst enemies. This is why Ehrlich's biography has been vandalized full of inaccurate quotes taken out of context, outright lies and extremely biased POV.

Let's say I hate Catholics: Should I be allowed to vandalize the Pope's biography? Should I be allowed to say Pope Benedict is a Nazi who sanctions Catholic priests to rape little boys throughout the world? Of course not. Yet Wikipedia allows me to do that. We need to lock down biographies so that enemies such as Andre22 are not allowed to pollute biographies with vandalism and misquotes. 205.175.115.153 (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible mistake in bibliography

I believe that the titles of The Population Explosion and The Population Bomb have been reversed with respect to their publication dates. In my memory, Explosion was first, Bomb second. I could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.15.3 (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Crowd Photo

Propose removing the crowd photo about half way down, which shows what looks like an event or concert. It is somewhat irrelevant to the article, since the article is about overpopulation, and not about event-related crowding. World population increase doesn't bear very directly on the frequency, quality of organization, or attendance of rallies, concerts or events. Tellingly, the CBC recently noted that "If you gathered everyone on Earth to watch a concert and packed 'em in at one person per 4.5 square feet —a dense crowd, based on the basic crowd-calculation rule worked out by University of California professor Herbert Jacobs — the general-admission audience would cover about 2,926.5 square kilometres. That's about 51.7% of the land area of PEI." And PEI is a tiny speck on the world map. This reinforces the point that concert-level crowding is not really at issue in discussions of current or near-future world population, making the picture misleading in this context. Ref: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/10/27/f-population-big-numbers.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbough (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough point, although I think you are being a bit too literal. I would suggest that you find an alternative photo to illustrate the topic of overpopulation, and we can replace it. Thanks for your input, Peregrine981 (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Many of the photos seem to have no relationship to the subject of the article, and look like generic photos added simply as unnecessary illustrations. These in include photos of a crowd, of cattle, of grain, and of a logged forest. I suggest they should all be removed.  Will Beback  talk  02:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. According to WP:PERTINENCE "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions, rather than favoring their deletion—especially on pages which have few visuals." Since we don't have many pictures of the author himself, I think that these pictures illustrating the topics discussed in the text are better than having no pictures. It is a relatively lengthy article, and the pictures improve the accessibility of the article IMO, without injecting a POV. Of course, if you have better pictures to suggest please go ahead. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"...directly related to the article's topic..." The topic is Paul R. Erhlich, not cows feeding. If we don't have photos which are significantly and directly related then we shouldn't add pictures which don't meet the standard. There are plenty of articles with no pictures at all. That's not a problem.   Will Beback  talk  18:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the topic is overpopulation. The pictures are related to the issues discussed. I don't see what is gained by removing the pictures. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

---

"In the 1950s and 60s fears about the consequences of overpopulation were widespread. Crowd assembled to view the 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay, Shenzen, China"

Not only is the image not related to the subject of the article, but the caption appears as a non sequitur. - 101.169.85.56 (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try to find a crowd photo from the 1950s or 60s then. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

A wager with Julian Simon

Washington Post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-why-doom-has-not-materialized/2012/08/17/fcf89ed6-e7fb-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html?hpid=z2 mentions a wager /contract between Ehlich and the economist Julian Simon, who in 1980 made a wager in the form of a complex futures contract. He bet Paul Ehrlich (whose 1968 book “The Population Bomb” predicted that “hundreds of millions of people” would starve to death in the 1970s as population growth swamped agricultural production) that by 1990 the price of any five commodities Ehrlich and his advisers picked would be lower than in 1980. Ehrlich’s group picked five metals. All were cheaper in 1990. The bet cost Ehrlich $576.07. But that year he was awarded a $345,000 MacArthur Foundation “genius” grant and half of the $240,000 Crafoord Prize for ecological virtue. Perhaps the info on the wager and its outcome should be added... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.25.95 (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Final sentence of lead

This sentence correctly summarizes what the article has to say about The Population Bomb, and reflects the sources cited in the article: "In the years since, some of his predictions have proven to be correct and some to be incorrect, but he stands by his general thesis that the human population is too large and is a direct threat to human survival and the environment of the planet."

This sentence, otoh, is inflammatory and one-sided and breaks the policy about WP:BLPs: "In the years since, his dire predictions have proven incorrect, but he stands by his general thesis that the human population is too large and is a direct threat to human survival and the environment of the planet."[6] The reference is to a blog post which is not a reliable source, and should not be included in a BLP. LK (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, he did make some claims correctly: there were in fact famines. There has been the emergence of new diseases and climate change. You can argue some of the details, but he was not 100% wrong, as implied by the anon's preferred wording. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

He was incorrect in his overall prediction of impending doom. Famines happen throughout history and will probably happen in the future. Saying he was right because of famine is like me saying "Winter is coming" and i get credit for being right because of a abnormally cool day in summer. On the whole the most dire of his predictions were wrong and it is not incorrect to point that fact out. Should we edit an article on the invasion of Iraq to not mention the WMDs just because we don't want incorrect predictions to be pointed out? 65.245.102.10 (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The article discusses his incorrect predictions at some length, so I don't think this is really a fair criticism. Nonetheless, have tried to make the lead more reflective of this fact. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The article should actually be renamed, Criticism of Paul Ehrlich's population theory, since most of it is criticism, including a number of sections for that purpose. This is a misuse of a biography, which should aim for neutrality. It's a poorly written biased synthesis with a lot of he/she believes," often supported with snippets from his critics and mis-statements. --Light show (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Please make constructive edits that add to the article, rather than removing sourced, germane material. Just because it is a bio does not mean that we do not include criticism, even a lot of it. The fact is that Ehrlich has been heavily criticised, and that should be reflected here. Doesn't mean you can't add other material, please do. But please do not remove sourced, relevant material. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Each edit was explained in the summary. Criticism is fine, undue weight is not. --Light show (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The abortion charge is clearly supported by the ref in that section; change wording rather than wholesale removal of abortion section; removal of Ehrlich's own defence of his "predictions" seems very odd given your charge that you think the article is slanted against him. The abortion charges are a common meme, so should be addressed by this article. The quotes removed about "scenarios" give a clearer defence of the book than anything else. Undue weight is a rather nebulous concept to prove, so I think you should rather try to add material dealing with other issue, than trying to remove material that substantively deals with the subject. This article is not overly-long. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

True, the article is not that long, and 900 words devoted to criticism of just one of his numerous books seems more than undue, and if anywhere, it belongs in the article about the book. The first subsection under "Career" is "Over-population debate," and the second is the book, The Population Bomb. I have a feeling that somewhere buried in there is something about his career, but I'm still looking. --Light show (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

So we're agreed. You'll expand the article and coverage of other aspects of his career. I'm glad that we were able to find a constructive solution rather than removing valid material. Cheers, Peregrine981 (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

And we're also agreed that this bio should not be overweight criticism or "debate" about a book, which should be in the book's article, if anywhere. I also assume you don't approve of misquoting sources or adding unsourced allegations, which violate guidelines. --Light show (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I am certainly fully in agreement with the undue weight policy. However, I think it is usually preferable to add more material to an article rather than removing potentially useful information. It is true that as this article stands it is unbalanced. But rather than removing the material I would much rather see other issues fleshed out. The problem in this case is that the vast majority of the secondary sources discuss population issues/The Population Bomb so they will naturally receive an outsized proportion of the article. Ehrlich is far better known for this issue than for his other professional pursuits, so I don't think it is unreasonable for this article to focus on that to some extent.

Regarding the specific problems you point to, why not fix the quotation rather than removing the section outright? And the unsourced allegation should more correctly be attributed to Glenn Beck (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/), but it is a fairly wide spread meme; In any case, I don't think a wholesale deletion was warranted, given this source's presence in the citations. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

PS, I'm really not opposed to making changes, and reworking the text for balance, but I'm against wholesale removals of content. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Could some content be moved to book articles?

It seems like a large proportion of this article, and the accompanying figures, are about the The Population Bomb or its aftereffects and responses, and some seems a bit out of place. The Population Bomb currently has zero images aside from the book cover. The population growth rates, and especially the photo of the 2008 Summer Olympics, seem indirectly related to a biographical, and perhaps more appropriate to articles focusing on his works. More appropriate images to include in the biography article might be figures that Erlich created or inspired himself, or say, Erlich speaking. (I get that the Olympic photo is supposed to illustrate "overpopulation", but I feel it is misleading, both in context and time). --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I've created Category:Paul R. Ehrlich on Wikimedia Commons.--Animalparty-- (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)