This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Thomas Robert Malthus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Forty years ago our then Science Teacher told us, whilst discussing population dynamics, that Malthus estimated that there had been so many flies on the planet that if they had not decomposed, their bodies would have covered the entire planet in a layer some ten metres high. This particularly gross image has stayed with me throughout the decade.
It seems the section on Corn Laws in the lede is contradictory. Here's what it reads "He supported taxes on grain imports (the Corn Laws), because food security was more important than maximizing wealth". It seems like decreasing taxes would lead to better food security, not raising it. 72.76.83.63 ( talk) 00:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, he was horrifically wrong on this, like almost everything else this clown ever wrote. I'm genuinely disappointed in this wikipedia article for not being clearer that this guy was one of the most wrong people in history, along with Marx et.al. Aujoz ( talk) 20:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
This article has a lot of trolled/vandalized edits in it, it should be protected so that not everyone can edit it. I can't tell which information in it is authentic or not. It needs a review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.82.143 ( talk) 10:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Especially the section on "The Malthusian controversy", which appears to be original research and is full of [number] that aren't actual footnotes. -- Jibal ( talk) 21:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The grammar is so confusing in the article too. Like I cannot understand what certain sentences mean because of the way it’s phrased. Rhayailaina ( talk) 09:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)