Talk:National Security Study Memorandum 200

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gerald Ford, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Gerald FordWikipedia:WikiProject Gerald FordTemplate:WikiProject Gerald FordGerald Ford articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

On Alex Jones radio show[edit]

alex jones discuses this on his infowar show today 3/5/2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.223.88 (talk) 08:46, March 6, 2009 (UTC)

Link to the actual report requested[edit]

Can anyone actually link to a governmental source for this document? I cannot find one easily, but as it stands now, the link to population-security.org doesn't really count as a primary. 169.234.240.204 (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an actual .gov site that I found in 5 seconds. I am guessing you didn't even google for this or you would have instantly found it. http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/nssm/nssm_200.pdf 24.217.131.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

That's not the report just a memo about it. Full report still classified. Popish Plot (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen countries ...[edit]

... are named in the report. Listed here are 14. What about and where is Upper Slobobia?

Dubious summaries and interpretations[edit]

The summaries of what is in this report and its motivations are highly suspect if you look at the actual PDF. The actual text talks extensively about the negative economic impact for poor countries themselves of high populations, which is practically the opposite of the claim here about them posing "a danger to wealth accumulation". Similarly, the quote about young people being more likely to be anti-establishment is there, but in the context of a discussion of the social problems caused by population growth, including political instability; not, as implied here, in the context of protecting US interests from attack by this radical youth.

The entire "Key insights" section in this article cites no references at all; and such section which do cite references don't discuss their reliability, or even name them inline when quoting from them directly. I think the whole article needs a thorough overhaul. - IMSoP (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At first I was going to disagree, as the memo is very clearly about considering US interests and the international order first, and to disregard sociological and other concerns. Nevertheless there is editorializing, e.g. "The memorandum and subsequent policies developed from the report were observed as a way the United States could use human population control to limit the political power of undeveloped nations, ensure the easy extraction of foreign natural resources, prevent young anti-establishment individuals from being born and to protect American businesses abroad from interference from nations seeking to support their growing populations."

Were observed by whom? This is extrapolation and editorializing. Perhaps shortening to something like "The memorandum and subsequent policies developed from the report were used to shape US policy in population control outside the United States."

We could look for similar editorializing. If agreed we can implement, I'd like to improve the article. desmay (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even "used to shape US policy" is a claim that needs to be backed by references; it's also pretty vague - what policies can be traced to it, with what effect? If you want to improve the article, you should start by finding some reputable sources, and looking at how they characterise the memo and its impact, rather than trying to interpret it yourself.

As for "disregarding sociological and other concerns", the Executive Summary has 39 numbered points; 4 are about "Political Effects of Population Factors", including but not limited to impact on US / international interests; the 14 points *before* that are entirely about sociological and other impacts on the areas of rapid growth themselves.

Maybe the elements regarding US interests are particularly "important" in some sense, e.g. for their influence on policy or political thinking; but again, we need to quote reliable sources saying so, not assert it as "Wikipedia's interpretation". - IMSoP (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what both of you are saying. This article is pretty bad, lots of places where the author doesn't cite references or inserts their own interpretation into the article. Jogarz1921 (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fertility of Nigeria[edit]

The statements concerning Nigeria are lacking significant outcomes. Just compare the fertility rates with other African states. Nigeria was in the time after that Memorandum one of the highest growing countries even in Africa. Before it was less growing. A11w1ss3nd (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]