Talk:Population reduction

Untitled

Hello. I generally do not think there should be disambiguation pages for generic two-word terms, such as energy increase, budget control, organization management, or population reduction for example. Unfortunately the latter term was actually used as the title of an article (one which I have just moved to Population reduction theory). So in this case I have created this disambiguation page - and my suggestion is for it to remain here for a while at least.

The background to the situation is that my suggested deletion of the original article failed. And although I don't really understand what the 'keep' voters envisaged would be the right way to sort this situation out (and I note that none of them has made any effort to do so), I speculate that it may be against the spirit of that outcome to not at least have something residing at this page, and at least some way to get from here to the article that was saved from deletion.

I could have just left the redirect in place, but for the same reason that the renaming was necessary, it would be wrong to have a redirect for the term "population reduction" to an article about a purported conspiracy theory where no evidence has been provided that anyone other than the original author refers to the purported theory by that name.

I hope that makes sense. Open4D (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation was needed

In response to the removal of the "citation needed" tag by this edit, I am not personally going to make any 'counter-edits' or anything, but I thought I should explain my reasoning, and maybe someone might agree with me.

I am aware that disambig pages should generally not make contentious assertions and therefore should not require references. However, even though the term 'theory' or 'conspiracy theory' can of course be a semantically correct way of describing something that the original author synthesized one day, in my opinion calling something a 'theory' or 'conspiracy theory' without qualification, in an encyclopedia, genuinely implies a degree of notability to the average reader. So a reference is required at the position that I suggested, to assert notability.

Or should I not have included "Population reduction theory" in the disambig page at all then? Well, I explained my reasoning for doing so above. In short I am trying to make the best of a slightly bad situation.

I know this argument about the word 'theory' sounds a bit weird, but think about it. I would argue that 'concept', 'idea', 'ideology', 'invention' and 'religion' all share the same property of having impicit connotations of notability when used unqualified in an encyclopedia. Open4D (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, the claimed "theory" needs a reference or should be removed from this disambig page.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Euphemism for genocide

The article says that one of the meanings is "a euphemism for genocide, sometimes used by perpetrators of genocide to disguise their actions". I have serious doubts that this was actually ever used as an euphemism for any historical genocide; in any case, it should be clarified and sourced. 94.241.95.133 (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)