Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement/Archive 1

{talkarchivenav}}

See also links

There are an awful lot of "see also" links in this article. I can't (at first glance) tell their connection to the article. Can anyone explain? -- Tetraminoe 11:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

7he homepage of the site covers these topics; do to the choice of voluntary genocide regarding religion and so on. There is no real need to keep most of them. Personally I think the enforcement regulation of China’s “one child” law would prove more useful rather than the voluntary relinquish of valuable genetic evolutionary growth. You have to have to have a reasonable level of uncorrupted mutation (function with out needing pills) and earn the right to breed. Plus artificial insemination would solve problems when one parent is unfit to breed. I think that would have a stronger impact toward the goal rather than the current voluntary system. MajinPalgen 13:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• I removed them all except "childfree" although there might be other relevant ones that weren't on the list. -- Blorg 14:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  

Abstinence?

Can someone show mere where VHEMT recommends abstinence? Not breeding is different then not having sex, and I am sure the VHEMT people recognize and acknoledge this. Jdufresne 20:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, they don't recommend abstinence. --AnonBob

They don't seem to recommend it but they don't seem to deny it either. On the VHEMT homepage FAQ the question "Do we have to stop having sex?" is listed but the answer is fairly ambiguous and we are never given a "yes" or "no". - Xvall

On this page [1] is "We should "quit screwing around" when it comes to contraceptives, but we sure don't have to quit screwing to quit breeding as the headline might imply." No, VHEMT isn't for abstinence, or at least Les Knight isn't. And because I can't be fucked logging in, and because I am adding an external link, I have to put in some weird word ("ninthshife" I think and now "swungargue").

NPOV

I've added a NPOV tag to this page... mainly because of this sentance: "Indeed, this suggests that he promotes the sterilization of young children in his zeal to help the environment." ...but there are several more examples, including some minor issues with the way things are worded. --TeN 18:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The first word is "Voluntary". Forced sterilization wouldn't fit under this description, so I doubt very much that they are advocating this in any way. --AnonBob

"Organization"

I've noticed a lot of instances of the word "organization." Be careful with this word. VHEMT claims to be a movement and never claims to be an organization. I have corrected this in the article. For more of an explaination see the vhemt website. Jdufresne 01:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

npov issues in general

This article reads like a promo shot for the place. Remarks about posting at the website if you think you've a valid reason, reminding users to note the first word is voluntary, etc. That needs to be changed around a bit. --r. 07:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Attempted to correct this by rewording the article to refer only to the website with NPOV. Things get too confusing otherwise. It seems to me that there is definitely some level of organization to VHEMT ('it' makes presentations and is represented on television programs) but adherents contend otherwise. I also removed what seemed to be non-encyclopedic commentary and speculation. Icenine0 05:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep this article NPOV

Please feel free to add information to this article, but remember to adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines and keep things "encyclopedic." Commentary and direct suggestions to the reader are discouraged. Icenine0 19:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Is VHEMT really just a website?

This article states that VHEMT is a website. From the opening sentence Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, or VHEMT ("vehement"), is a website that calls for the voluntary extinction of the human race. (Emphasis mine) Is this all VHEMT really is? I think this is selling VHEMT a bit short. Shouldn't we call it a "movement"? I would change it myself but some people seem to think this article is POV, so I'll run it by other people before making a change. Jdufresne 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There was some discussion here earlier about calling VHEMT an organization, which it apparently isn't. People were calling it a concept, but, in that case, it was unwieldy to make comments about VHEMT the website, its owner, and any of its actions. Lastly, "movement" is usually either applied retroactively -- where a historian recognizes a broad-ranging trend -- or, presently, where a significant group of people organize (make an organization) for a common effort.

Whatever VHEMT is, it's definitely a website, so that's what I ended up sticking with as most appropriate. Icenine0 00:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Advertisement

Wikipedia is the only way these individuals are known to the world. Seriously.

Not true, I found them through the Darwin Awards. Seriously.

I also found them through Wikipedia. Maybe we are advertising their site too much for free? --Taraborn 22:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I found them from a CNN article. [2] --Benjam47 20:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled across their website ten years ago in high school while researching controversial topics for a project. They've been around a while and are definitely older than Wikipedia. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

External links

• Stop Terrible Human Over Population Disasters (eCards website to limit human population growth)
• WiseArt Cybernetics (On-line artistic slideshow about limiting human population growth)

Hallo Joyous! I have a question about your message: You ask me not to add inappropriate external links to wikipedia. When I compare the 2 links I added to other existing external links on certain webpages, I see that the 'appropriate' links (i.e the ones you leave alone), are also links to external -third party- organisations, such as our European organisation (STHOPD) is too. Our non-profit organisation works with volunteers and stands for certain principles which are similar to the 'appropriate' organisations on the webpages concerned, such as: Decreasing human overpopulation in an ethical way, having no children, warnings about the worldwide consequences of overpopulation such as the destruction of ecosystems. Please explain to me what would make our links appropriate. Friendly regards, 213.84.166.83 18:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC) MetaMouse.

I'm moving in ...

I've decided to take over the task of cleaning up this article and fix it up and stuff. That means I could be making large changes. If anyone objects, then now is the time to do so. But considering the lack of activity recently ...~AFA ^ʢűčķ¿_Ю 13:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, so there just hasn't been activity on this talk page ... But whatever. I'm going to be bold! ~AFA ^ʢűčķ¿_Ю 13:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

ecosystems. Please explain to me what would make our links appropriate. Friendly regards, 213.84.166.83 18:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC) MetaMouse.

This Sucks!

NPOV my foot! This article seems to me to be about as anti-human, misanthropic, and near nihilistic as one can get. One does not need to be some kind of religious conservative or fundie to like humans; I happen to think humans are the most important thing ever. You don't see no other species trying to become extinct "for the sake of the environment". That's just as mindlessly altruistic as commiting suicide for "God"; there really is no difference logically. To me, a true liberal is a truly selfish humanist; save voluntary extinction for the self-prostrating ascetic religio-conservative types! Shanoman 22:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the article or the organization? If the first, please provide proper examples. If the latter, please do not post such material on talk pages. Richard001 06:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said, "Shanoman". These "people" are a huge threat to the Human Race. They should all be thrown in a prison in Antarctica to protect our species. It's a logical choice. Any other species would protect itself in the face of threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.164.227 (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

They aren't a threat to anyone. The only way their scheme could would is if they got everyone on the entire planet to agree to it. The probability of this is mind-bogglingly low.--RLent (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, the key word is "voluntary", they have stated repeatedly that it's just an idea and they're not interested in forcing anyone into anything.Thee darcy (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is indeed fairly NPOV. Whether they're a "huge threat to the Human Race" (very dubious given their weak military posture) is irrelevant. Superm401 - Talk 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with the first guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Shanoman, as a self-professed liberal humanist who explicitly states that he hates misanthropy and nihilism, I would suggest that you are perhaps not quite the right person to judge the encyclopedic neutrality of this article. As far as I see it, it is fairly NPOV: It just references facts about VHEMT, an existing movement, which are even sourced in the article. That is the purpose of an encyclopedia. Nowhere does the article itself express agreement with VHEMT's ideology or actions, nowhere does it state explicitly that the human race should die out or any such thing. Besides, it has been referenced several times that VHEMT is strictly opposed to ANY violent means to achieve their goal, it relies solely on voluntary abstinence from breeding - something that many career-minded and hedonistic people do, because they see children as a burden, a nuisance. Those people frequently are self-professed humanists...Meanwhile, VHEMT even distinguishes between those who support the idea of human VOLUNTARY extinction and those who think that that indeed would go slightly too far (I consider myself to belong to the latter group). So, my point is: just WHERE the heck is this article misanthropic, "near nihilistic" (as if that term were an insult) etc.? Can you please provide a source for your perception? Your approach, seemingly demonizing misanthropy, nihilism, perhaps even sound criticism of humanity, is far more POV than this article could ever be, I'm afraid.

Oh, and by the way, "I happen to think that..." is not a valid argument in encyclopedic debate, because, frankly, no one is interested in what a specific editor thinks. I might think, for example, that all of us in reality are not humans, but little worm-like creatures in a gigantic tank plugged into a kind of virtual reality system - which I do not, but even if I did, this would be of no concern to the encyclopedia. I would simply not be able to change the article Human to something describing a small, worm-like creature.

The point of my rant is: this is an encyclopedia, we have sources, the sources reference the content of the article. Where is your problem?

BTW, on a side note: Before you accuse me of being a child-hating misanthropic pig (not that I care): I absolutely love and adore children, more so than adults. However, this does not change anything about the fact that the Earth IS suffering from overpopulation and that the consequences will be extreme if nothing is done about that. Vargher (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

added Criticisms

They don't seem to adequetly address the issue that eventually a stellar or non terrestrial event will inevtitably erase all life on earth thus there struggle would seem basically futile. What is the point of saving something that is doomed to be destroyed ? On their site (http://www.vhemt.org/scififantasy.htm#comet) they state "CURRENT" endevors into threat evaluation. They do no adequetly predict what type of programs will be in place in 100 or 1000 years for asteroid avoidance or destruction. Nor do they attempt a prediction how radically different technology may be in the future. This indicates that their agenda may not be for the benifit of life , biodiversity , and earth but some other goal. The only potential salvation of earth from a destructive non-terestrial event would have to be technological. Making the statement that technology today is not adequet ignores the point that time passes and technology becomes better infact it might be worth taking into account expontial technological growth which they don't even cite. 68.11.47.71 13:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Rafe 08:00, 5 June 2007

Quite obviously VHEMT is directed for European so called white people. Read the VHEMT front page: Which languages are present there? They are Belarusian (Belarussian), Català (Catalan), Deutsch (German), English, Español (Spanish), Français (French), Italiano (Italian), Nederlands (Dutch), Norsk (Norwegian), Polski (Polish), Português (Portuguese), Romanian, Russian, Slovensky (Slovenian), Suomi (Finnish), Svenska (Swedish). I can tell you that they are all languages of white peoples. I see there on the VHEMT www-page a racist agenda against whites. "Would you white people please die off to extinction?" 195.148.75.83 19:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms should be sourced

This is a reply to the section above. While a 'Criticisms' section is fine in the article, the material in it should be backed up by reliable sources - i.e., don't just say 'some critics say...' (an example of Weasel words), say who says that, and give a link to prove it. I can think of all kinds of ways to criticise VHEMT, but I haven't added them, because I am not a reliable source.

If, as it turns out, it's very difficult to find sources for criticisms of VHEMT - that doesn't mean such criticisms don't exist. It simply means the movement/organisation/whatever is not currently notable or widely known enough to attract much public criticism. Terraxos 21:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Different Ideas and Scenarios

I moved this stuff to the talk page. It makes no sense and is unreferenced. --192.167.204.11 (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Some VHEMT members think that those who say a human extinction will bring a new birth to the planet's biosystem is just an Utopian idea. They affirm that this viewpoint belongs to a naive and classicistic reasoning. Nature is an entropic structure in itself, humankind is a product of its own. To any wider perspective, (e.g. existential sciences like anthroposophy) the universe is a functional, ordered construction and humanity is its purpose. It is a fundamental part of it according to the human instrumentality. Therefore human extinction would lead to a cosmic paradox. At all events they consider themselves VHEMT supporters/volunteers because a hypothetic state of inexistence would be better than a catastrophic and painful existence for every creature.

The idea that non-existence is a better state than existence is a very curious one, as it tends to be stated by an existing person who chooses to continue existing. It used to be that the idea of it "having been better if I was not born" used to be reserved for statements of the utmost misery, now it's used very casually. If someone seriously thinks that death is preferable to life, and to not have existed in the first place is still more preferable, then why are they not immediately choosing to die, and end this allegedly horrific existence?--RLent (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrected facts

The User: Albmont is stating false information about VHEMT.

"These EXIT Times" (VHEMT publication 1991) was in print before 1995.

To transition from print the VHEMT website was established July 1996.

SOURCE:

http://vhemt.org/les.htm

http://vhemt.org/vas.htm

http://vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm#vhemt

In addition, it's not appropriate for Albmont to use an innuendo ("fanatical") in his statement. And Albmont is implying that the VHEMT ideology happened after 1995 - his implication is false. (Talk Page Guidelines / Source #1)

SOURCE #1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable

• Do not use the Talk Page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The Talk Page is for discussing improving the article.

Skyeking (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you fixed it. Cool. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of ideology

Has there been any criticism of the ideology? If so, this should be mentioned in this article. NtheP (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Origins

The movement started in July 1996 (according to its own site), however, in David Brin's 1995 book Brightness Reef a similar fanatical group is featured (in an alien planet). Albmont (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Are you asserting that the group was inspired by that novel? If so, do you have sources to verify that? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No criticism?

This is the kind of topic that must have been criticised a hundred times, yet there's no mention in the article about that? The article reads as if it's about a non-controversial topic, when it's one of the most controversial ideas I've ever heard of! (I just discovered this today.) If anyone has sources criticising this movement, I think that would be a good addition. Spock of Vulcan (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What's to criticise? More seriously, anybody who needs to have the criticisms spelt out is unlikely to be able to read. So, no need. HairyWombat (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Do not use the Talk Page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The Talk Page is for discussing improving the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable

Skyeking (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I googled and found some criticism, but the quality requirements of Wikipedia form the greatest obstacle. --Uikku (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a CNN article that covers VHEMT while also presenting some criticism that ought to satisfy Wikipedia's quality requirements. -- Jagerman (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The member Uikku is referencing UNreliable sources, which is prohibited by Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

• Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content POLICIES...
• Any material lacking a RELIABLE source may be removed...
• The most RELIABLE sources are usually peer-reviewed journals, books published by university presses, university-level textbooks, magazines, journals, books published by respected publishing houses, and mainstream newspapers.
• Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an Article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the Talk Page.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-July/050773.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars

Skyeking (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability and single-source

This page appears to pull its information almost entirely from the subject's own site, with few outside references to establish notability. While the organization may have sufficient notability, said notability is not indicated by the article as it currently exists. Jagerman (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is continued at the USER Talk Page of “Jagerman”.

Skyeking (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? This is the discussion page of the article. Jagerman's talk page is about Jagerman. Uikku (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA VIOLATION by Uikku. This discussion is continued at the USER Talk Page of “Uikku”.

Skyeking (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've amended my comment above to remove the potential conflict of interest claim; it was minor and did not belong on the talk page. My apologies. The remainder of my concern regarding the material being almost entirely single-sourced from the subject's own site still holds, however.

Jagerman (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel that, as my responses very directly concern improving this Article, a reply to requests posed by Skyeking on my talk page belong here.

FIRST (re: Skyeking's work undoing legitimate vandalism to the page): Great. Undoing vandalism is commendable, and I agree that many of the edits have been vandalism. (I fail to see how this pertains to my actions, however, unless the claim is that my change was vandalism—but as I interpret Skyeking's discussion, I do not believe he is making such a claim).

SECOND (re: various statements of mine):

"organization"—my choice of words here is not particularly important. My reference is to the VEHMT web site, which is, in my mind, a "formal organization" even if the movement beyond the website itself is not organized. Again, my charge is that the article, aside from the media coverage section, references only the website of the movement for its information.

"sufficient notability"—If there indeed are sufficient claims to notability to the movement (note that this must be evaluated separately from the notability of Knight himself), finding additional material citing the purpose and goals of VHEMT ought to be relatively easy—and that is exactly the improvement sought through the own-source banner. The article should be based on how VHEMT is itself perceived and interpreted by reputable sources, not how VHEMT wishes itself to be perceived via its own claims on its own website.

"notability not indicated"—I am not arguing for the deletion of the article. Media sources, as you indicate, are sufficient to justify the article's existence, but are not sufficient to overcome the notion that all of the real content in this article is based, often word-for-word, on the movement's own website. There is an inherent bias expected in that type of source, and it is this bias which I feel justifies the single-source header. The article needs to discuss the movement from a neutral point of view, not from the point of view of the spokesman and founder of the movement. Note that the website might in fact be neutral in its claims, but it is reference from other reputable sources discussing the movement that justifies this neutrality, not the popularity and claims of the website itself.

Additionally, I had other claims to a potential conflict of interest that I have retracted as they indeed do no belong to the article's Talk page, and [[User:Skyeking|Skyeking] has claimed that he is not in a conflict of interest.

EDITOR [[[User:Skyeking|Skyeking]]'s] REQUESTS:

1. Request to remove section from Article Talk page: I have amended the section to remove claims that did not belong on the Talk page. I have left the remainder of the talk page section, however, and added this response, as it does very directly concern improvement of the article: the article needs sources outside the movement's own site backing up its claims regarding the movement. As myself and others have claimed, this is exactly the sort of discussion that belongs on a Talk page: it directly concerns improving the article. Attempting to hide it from public view detracts from that potential improvement of the article, and would be inappropriate.

2. Request to remove single-source banner from Article: Skyeking's responses do nothing to justify the removal of the banner: the fact remains that the article references only the movement's own site for the majority of its content, which is the fundamental reason for the single-source banner, and is a point that Skyeking has thus far not disputed. References 10 through 14, the only non-own-website references, as used in the article, primarily support the claim that the organization has media coverage and, therefore, serve as a justification that the organization has relevance, but do nothing to back up the claims of the rest of the article. If, in fact, these, or other, references do back up the other claims in the other sections of the article then they should be used instead of VHEMT's website references. As the page currently exists, I feel the banner is justified and I oppose its removal.

Jagerman (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

COURTESY NOTIFICATION:

Hopefully, within 72-hours I will have time to respond to the portion of Jagerman's arguments (interpretations / illogical arguments) that I disagree with. In addition, I question some of Jagerman's other statements. Therefore, at my USER Talk Page, I will provide further clarification (logical arguments)--- because it's important for Editors to "...interact with and understand those with whom they are working.” (WP:UP)

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, well here's two more sources that cover VHEMT: one from CNN and one from Fox. As for the existing sources, it would be good to get either a transcript or the original video for the Hannity & Colmes source; the Carlson video already has a transcript, which is good. The Snider interview is irritating as a source as it's over twenty minutes long, but oh well. Hadrian89 (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Good, so someone should change the article material to pull from those sources instead of VHEMT's website, thus solving the single-source problem. The CNN article itself also presents some criticism of the movement, which would also be usefully included in the article (as earlier article discussion sections have mentioned and requested) to accurately indicate that this is not, contrary to its presentation in the article, a non-controversial idea.

Jagerman (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Jagerman. There is NOT a single-source problem. Jagerman hasn't presented any valid (Wiki Policies / Guidelines) arguments supporting his claim of a "single-source" problem. Jagerman's statements are merely "subjective" and I disagree (88-percent) with most of his statements. My arguments with Jagerman are continued at my USER Talk Page.

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The most obvious policy violation is WP:SELFPUB (Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves) point 5: "the article is not based primarily on such [self-published] sources." The current article is based primary on a self-published source (namely, the VHEMT website). I am proposing addressing that violation.

Jagerman (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Jagerman's interpretation of Rule #5 (as applied to the VHEMT Article). My arguments with Jagerman are continued at my USER Talk Page.

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Jagerman has a point in that most of the references point to the subject's web page, and that's a primary source. It looks like there are plenty of 2ndary sources out there, so I've begun incorporating reliable sources into the text of the article. The tone needs work as well, but for the time being I'll focus on sourcing. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:EAR

There is a discussion about this artcile at WP:EAR#Mostly single-source article — Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Re : Notability ; Discovery Channel documentary

I would like to open the discussion regarding notability. This article is notable enough for mention. Knight, the founder, was part of a documentary on Discovery Channel regarding population, and he has appeared on Fox News. That is a lot more than many other organizations and people on this encyclopedia, so I say it is hypocritical to delete it for a supposed lack of notability.--Screwball23 talk 03:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Other stuff exists isn't a good argument for notability. But I think there are enough references to establish notability. Better to confine the conversation on the afd page tho. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Feedback requested on current version

Between Orangemike and myself, the article has been substantially overhauled. It still needs work, but I figure this is a good time to solicit some feedback on the current revision. I think it still needs expansion in the criticism section, and I'm trying to figure out how we can distinguish Knight from VHEMT better--he's pretty much the only representative I've found in mainstream news sources. What else can we do to improve this article? Thanks in advance for any help, --Nuujinn (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Your (and Orangemike's) efforts at cleaning up the page are much appreciated; the page is in substantially better shape now than it was a week ago. I've added a line to the criticism section from a CNN article on the often-used carrying capacity assumption used by Knight in many of his interviews (e.g. from the referenced CBC article: "Because as long as there is one breeding couple of homo sapiens, we will be right back where we are [now]… We are just incredibly fecund.")

Regarding separating Knight from the movement, I'm not sure it's all that useful: as far as I can tell, Knight doesn't have sufficient notability on his own to warrant an article: the only reason one would typically have heard of Knight is through his spokesmanship of VHEMT.

One thing that I'm not sure about, however, is the first line of History: "VHEMT was founded by Les U. Knight of Portland, Oregon in 1991." While he may have founded the name, newsletter, etc., there's an unresolved dichotomy here between the general movement—which presumably predated Knight and VHEMT—and the VHEMT organization (publications, newsletters, website, etc.). It might be useful to make this clearer in this history section if, in fact, this was a movement that Knight joined and formalized, rather than a movement that he founded. Of course, this would need some sort of reference, and I'm not sure where to look (perhaps one here from VHEMT itself, if it exists, would be appropriate and useful). —Jagerman (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the complime--Nuujinn (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)nt. The impression I'm getting from the news coverage is that Knight did start VHEMT, but that his view is the movement per se started a long time ago, the first time someone decided to not have children because of overpopulation. Of course, in this vein, certainly the Zero Population movement precedes VHEMT and one could argue in western civilization it started with Malthus. Interesting reading tho. And you're probably right, Knight seems to be intrinsically bound to VHEMT. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is looking good atm, much better than when I last dropped by a month or so ago. Well done all. Hadrian89 (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Even as someone who sees the merit of the ideas this article describes, the inclusion of Altruism in the "See Also" section kind of seems like a biased addition.  Aar  ►  00:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection if you wish to remove it, by all means be bold! --Nuujinn (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I DO object to the removal of Altruism from the "See Also" section --- regardless of Aar statement that he/she "...sees the merit of ideas..." --- my argument is that Aar has a biased viewpoint. Also, I disagree with Nuujinn's statement "...be bold." Yet, I am appreciative of Nuujinn's efforts in revising the VHEMT article - "Thank You" Nuujinn. :-)

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Skyeking, can you please elaborate as to the nature of your objections? If you have an objection to the removal of the template, we must surely take that into consideration. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, what do you mean by "template"? The article link Altruism was brought into question by Aar (yourself??) without any elaboration or substantiation----merely a subjective statement. Therefore, if there is to be a lengthy discussion about editing the article link Altruism then I prefer to have said discussion at my User Talk Page-----I have established a discussion area for our conversation regarding this issue.

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Skyeking, yes, link, my bad. But Aar is the editor that objects to the link to Altruism. My comment was that I do not object, and that is because I do not have strong feelings one way or another. Also, discussion of this issue should remain here, since it is about the article's content and will be easier for other editors to fine. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The objection was indeed brought up by myself, an entity separate from Nuujinn. I brought up this concern because associating any movement at all with Altruism seems to be a biased addition, as VHEMT may or may not be considered to be an example of altruism depending on the person being asked. I realize I'm probably committing some sort of logical fallacy by arguing using this example, but to me putting Altruism in the "See Also" is much like putting, say, Truth or Reality in the "See Also" for Christianity. I have no personal feelings regarding whether it's removed one way or another, as frankly I simply don't care about the subject matter of the article; I am merely questioning the logic behind the link. If you, as someone who is probably much more knowledgeable than me in the field of voluntary human extinction and the definition of altruism, feel that the link is appropriate, then I have little more to say.  Aar  ►  22:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've read the first sentence of the Altruism article, which states that altruism is the "selfless concern for the welfare of others," I think this movement is kind of a direct contradiction. Then again, I suppose it all hinges on one's definition of "others," and whoever added the link (you?) probably thought it out well enough.  Aar  ►  22:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I object to both the Altruism and the Morality links being included. Including them is POV.--RLent (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

RLent, can you please be more specific as to the nature of your objection? How is including the links to these other topics POV? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

PREAMBLE

November 9, 2010 statements (Nuujinn / RLent) were moved to this chronological position. Please maintain continuity of this discussion by chronological date. Otherwise, is a disruption of the continuity and others (myself included) will not be able to easily follow the discussion. Also, my request for this chronological format is because of medical reasons (privacy). I am thankful for your compliance with my “ease of understanding” request.

To RLent:

First, I applaud your diligence about editing, and your forethought about posting your comment to the Article Talk Page vs. controversial editing of the Article.

Unfortunately, your objection is merely a subjective statement without any elaboration or substantiation. So, if there is to be a lengthy discussion about editing the article links Altruism / Morality then I prefer to have said discussion at my User Talk Page-----I have established a discussion area to continue our conversation of your subjective statement-----Source Link: “You can always take a discussion to E-mail or to your User Talk Page.....”

Also, I have previously presented logical evidence at my User Talk Page about why the removal of the article links Altruism / Morality does not improve the Article. That discussion was held at my User Talk Page because of medical reasons (privacy). Therefore, I would be thankful of your tolerance to hold our discussion at my User Talk Page.

In conclusion, I also question your previous soapbox comments (VHEMT Article Talk Page---May 7, 2008 / July 29, 2008 / December 14, 2009 / February 17, 2010).

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Putting links to altruism and morality is a POV attempt to give the impression that VHEMT is altruistic and moral. Let the reader decide for themselves if it is moral or not, the article shouldn't judge it for us. What should and what should not be in the article should be discussed here. You seem to think that it is obvious that VHEMT is altruistic, but this is by no means clear. Some people would find VHEMT immoral, but I would be against a link to immorality as well. And what could possibly be more misanthropic than an organization which says that homo sapiens ought not even exist? Yet I'm not pushing for a link to misanthropy. The belief that reproduction is a selfish act does not mean that judging this group can be judged to be altruistic by anything vaguely resembling an objective standard. --RLent (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

RLent, please refrain from attributing intent to the actions of editor, best to focus on content, not the contributor. I have not got strong feelings one way or the other, but I fail to see how inclusion of these links is anyone more than a pointer to similar topics. I think it is safe to say that VHEMT does claim to be altruistic and moral on a global scale, so I have no objection to the inclusion of the links. If you can point to a source that indicates either immorality or misanthropy, I'm happy to add those links as well. I imagine that the latter would be relatively easy to find, not sure about the former. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This article currently has five links: Altruism, Antinatalism, Childfree, Morality and Total fertility rate. Even if we were to grant that VHEMT is moral and altruistic, that doesn't justify the links, we would have to then go about adding these links to every article where someone claims the subject is moral and altruistic. I have no intention of editing the article, it would just result in an edit war anyway.--RLent (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I just rolled back an ip's edits of RLent's comments, posting a note here in case it was them in a logged out state.

RLent, no offense, but looking at your contributions, it seems you rarely edit articles. Is there a guideline or policy you can point to that supports your view? I confess I've never been involved in a discussion of "See also" wikilinks. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

NOTICE:

RLent is intolerant about my medical condition (privacy), and he/she has chosen to ignore my request to conduct our written communication at my User Talk Page. Regardless, I will copy and paste (quote) his/her statements from this Article Talk Page to my User Talk Page Section----and I have responded to his/her statements.

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not intolerant of anyone's medical condition. It is simply that the discussion of what should and should not be in an article belongs here, not tucked away in someone's talk page.--RLent (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no "simply" about my medical condition----and yes, you are intolerant of my medical condition. In addition, your implication about me ".....not tucked away in someone's talk page."----is unreasonable and deceitful. Other Editors can easily reference our (you and me) discussion at my User Talk Page. All web browsers have the capability to open numerous web pages at the same time. And I assure you, our discussion will not be convoluted at my User Talk Page vs. this Article Talk Page.

In conclusion, this particular dialogue with you (and inclusive of YOU) is a perfect example of what should be discussed at my User Talk Page. Therefore, a courteous and reasonable person will conduct discussions at my User Talk Page---other Editors have done such.

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Your "medical condition", whatever that might be, should not determine what other people can say whilst discussing improvements to this article. You do not own this article. Please don't accuse people of being intolerant and deceitful.

Such discussions should, ideally, be here. It is neither unreasonable nor deceitful to expect an article's talkpage to be the place where people discuss improvements to the article. Moving comments to your user talkpage makes it difficult for people to follow the discussion, and can only increase worries about an ownership problem.

bobrayner (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

NOTICE:

Refer to Skyeking’s User Talk Page Section for clarification about many of Bobrayner’s questionable statements----one example, his confusion about the difference between ownership and stewardship of an Article. WP:OWN

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of italics for "voluntary" in lead section

I removed the italics from the word "volunary" in the lead sentence of the article, because I don't believe it appropriate to emphasise the word here. Skyeking restored the italics, saying that "Use of italics (word: voluntary) complies with WP:MOS / MOS:TEXT---"voluntary" (key word) applies to the VHEMT philosophy." I still assert that italics should not be used for "voluntary". VHEMT may emphasise the word as an important part of their philosophy, but I don't believe that Wikipedia should emphasise the word - we should merely state the facts, not "make a point" or "stress a contrast" (to paraphrase MOS:TEXT#Emphasis). The sentence is not a direct quote, so MOS:QUOTE does not require us to copy their emphasis. Can we have the opinions of others please? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you did not revise the word “extinctionists”---it was italicized. So, as my compromise to you, I revised the word extinctionists to regular text---as the tradeoff for using italics on the word “voluntary” (key word for reader understanding)---and you had also removed the italics on the VHEMT motto.

Regardless of your questionable assertion, it is logical to use italics for the word voluntary (key word for reader understanding):

SOURCE LINK:

“Italics may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence when the point or thrust of the sentence may otherwise not be apparent to readers....”

Skyeking (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've split Skyeking's original post of 23:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC) - which covered italicisation of "voluntary" and quotations around "extinctionist" - into two, with the latter as a new section below. The two items are independent of each other, and should be discussed separately. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the italics from the VHEMT motto to comply with WP:MOSQUOTE#Italics which explicitly says "For quotations, use only quotation marks ... not italics". Although the motto is in italics on http://vhemt.org/, it is not in italics on http://vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm or http://vhemt.org/motto.htm. I presume that the italics on the main page is simply a styling issue for that page, rather than something intrinsic in the motto itself.

As far as the word "voluntary" is concerned, as I initially stated, I don't believe that Wikipedia should be "making the point" - especially not in the introduction. Since we appear to be diametrically opposed on this, I suggest that we wait for the opinions of others.

While I appreciate your attempt at compromise, I don't believe that we should be "trading" off one issue against another (eg italic voluntary vs italic motto vs quotes around extinctionists. The issues are independent and should be discussed - and negotiated or compromised on - independently, each on their own merits. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There's been no discussion on this for a while. I still think that the italics should not be there. Mike R appears to agree, but declined to comment here (I did ask.) So it appears to be two against the italics (Mitch Ames, Mike R) and one for the italics (Skyeking). Skyeking, do you still insist that the italics should be there? If so, I propose we request a third opinion or ask for more comments. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree we do not need the italics. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

NOTICE:

Due to my medical condition (privacy) I am copying Mitch Ames statements (dated January 11, 2011) to my User Talk Page.

And I have responded to his questionable statements.

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

We appear not go be getting any closer to resolving the disagreement ourselves, so I've created a WP:RFC to ask for some help. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC: should the word "voluntary" in the lead sentence be in italics?

Resolved

 – Thank-you to all for your participation. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Mitch Ames asserts that the word "voluntary" in the lead section of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement article should NOT be in italics, but Skyeking says that it SHOULD be in italics. Mitch Ames and Skyeking are unable to reach agreement on this matter. Full details, including each editor's reasons for their stance, and discussions to date - are available from the article's talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think the word should be italicised. The MoS suggests that italics should be used either to clarify unclear meaning or to emphasise contrast. In this case, the sentence is already clear and the presence of the word 'voluntary' is sufficient emphasis in and of itself. One would not write 'the red apple' because the word 'red' itself, as opposed to its absence, is enough. 203.38.78.228 (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

NOTICE:

Due to my medical condition (privacy) I am copying 203.38.78.228 statements (dated January 19, 2011) to my User Talk Page.

And I have responded to his/her questionable statements.

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

[Edited this post to remove unrelated grumpiness.] Using italics inside the name of the organization makes the article more confusing. Italics are not to be used to point out what some or another editor thinks is an important word, especially given that previous statement. Shii (tock) 03:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

In regard to Skyeking's method of discourse, I am sympathetic due to personal experiences, and would ask that we refrain from speculation as to the nature of their medical condition in deference to Skyeking's expressed desire for privacy. I would also suggest that we do not ignore other editors--rather, we assume good faith and do what we can to work with other editors. I do not see Skyeking's actions as disruptive, myself, and I think so long as that remains the case, we do what we can to accommodate his/her needs. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Shii says "Using italics inside the name of the organization". However the dispute is not about the word voluntary in the name of the organisation (which is not italicised). It is in the phrase "a movement which calls for the voluntary gradual self-extinction". Mitch Ames (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I still think this is simply an arbitrary choice of important words. We could just as easily emphasize gradual. Shii (tock) 02:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

One possible solution to this dispute is to remove the italics from the lead sentence (where I believe it is inappropriate editorialising), but add some extra text to the Criticism section. This new text could point out that some people are opposed to VHEMT and "assume that VHEMT ... must hate people and ... want everyone to commit suicide or become victims of mass murder" [3], but that VHEMT counters this criticism by stressing that "The Movement is voluntary" [4] (their emphasis, not mine). It would be reasonable and appropriate to emphasise the word voluntary in that text, because it would be a direct quote, and the reason for that para/sentence in our article would be to point out VHEMT's emphasis. As well as resolving this dispute, the additional text should (in my opinion) improve the article. Skyking, do you have any objections to this solution? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

NOTICE:

Due to my medical condition (privacy) I am copying Mitch Ames statements (dated January 22, 2011) to my User Talk Page.

And I have responded to his questionable statements.

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Skyeking, I'm find it difficult to assume good faith, when you persist is using phrases such as "his questionable statements", "your tactic of offering questionable proposals (sidetracking this editing dispute)", "your generalized discussion has not focused on the main topic". I am presenting what I consider a valid reason as to why I think the italics are not appropriate. I've cited a specific reason [5], and quoted a specific applicable policy, and offered a solution that directly addresses the issue of emphasis of the word "voluntary". Your steadfast refusal to negotiate or compromise on this specific matter is not helping to improve the article. (Previous compromise is acknowledged, but as previously mentioned, is not applicable here.) Continual references to selected sections of policies and quoting dictionary definitions is not a discussion. We clearly disagree on our interpretation of the policies. However it appears that four other editors (Nuujinn, 203.38.78.228, Shii, Mike R) agree with my reasoning, while none appear to agree with yours. I know that "RfCs are not votes". but you might consider the possibility that your opinion is wrong.

Perhaps if you were to join the collective discussion on the article Talk page, as per the normal and generally accepted Wikipedia process, we might get a bit further toward consensus. A "collective" discussion includes more than two people. Splitting the discussion into multiple independent conversations between you and one other person, as you do by moving things to your talk page [6][7][8][9][10][11] is disruptive and rude, especially after repeated requests[12][13][14] not to do so. WP:EQ and WP:CIV are both two-way streets. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that I've got that off my chest, back to more productive talk...
Skyeking, your main arguments appears to be that MOS:TEXT#Emphasis says "Italics may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence when the point or thrust of the sentence may otherwise not be apparent to readers..." and thus I deduce that you believe that "the point or thrust of the sentence may not otherwise be apparent to readers". However I refute this argument on the grounds that the point of the article's lead sentence is not the "voluntary" nature of the self-extinction. The point of the lead sentence is the existence of a movement with a certain objective. As Shii pointed out, in the context of the lead sentence the word "voluntary" is no more important than (for example) "gradual". As I previously suggested, addition of an extra paragraph to the Criticism suggestions would provide an appropriate context in which to emphasise the word "voluntary". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mitch "my fellow Editor" (friendly intent, smiling face). Have you read WP:No angry mastodons? You are in a "fight" mode and it would be rude of me to "add fuel to the fire". Therefore, I am suspending my conversations with you (2-week suspension). P.S. Be aware that I am not in a "flight"(f-l-i-g-h-t) mode---but my viewpoint is that we both need time to “smell a rose and look at the trees” (friendly intent, smiling face).

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

MEDICAL CLARIFICATION (Skyeking medical condition): The following Editor (203.38.78.228) is not Mitch Ames (i.e. if Mitch Ames forgot to login then an IP Address would be used for signature).Skyeking (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I don't understand the conversation style you're employing by threading each reply to a dedicated sub-page. Certainly I mean no disrespect towards your medical condition, whatever that may be, but in a similar vein for my own sanity I would prefer to reply to you here.

You quoted the MoS as stating “Italics may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence when the point or thrust of the sentence may otherwise not be apparent to readers....” and then indicated "That sentence states “...draw attention...important word...thrust of the sentence...”". I believe you missed a critical modifier in the sentence, that being the word 'when'. In simple terms, the meaning of the sentence "I will go to the park" is completely altered if I were to append "...when pigs fly" at the end. Similarly, the sentence in the MoS suggests that emphasis may be given to words when (and perhaps only when) the point or thrust is not otherwise apparent to the reader. I contended in my original response that there is no such ambiguity in the lead sentence and that, as such, emphasis is not necessary.

You suggested that my viewpoint does not assist readers because italics are intended to assist readers and by not supporting them in this case, I am somehow of a mindset that is counter-productive. Naturally I disagree with this. In my opinion, the reader is best assisted by being presented the relevant information such that they can determine for themselves the importance of various facts without being instructed or guided to think in a particular way by the article. Emphasis in this case is outlining an implicit--rather than explicit--contrast - nothing 'involuntary' is mentioned in the lead, so why is it necessary to add stress to the word 'voluntary'? In what way might a reader misinterpret the words 'voluntary gradual self-extinction' that the words 'voluntary gradual self-extinction' would somehow clarify?

In English, unstressed adjectives are perfectly acceptable means of providing distinction. Applying emphasis to an adjective tends to imply that the user should consider the word more significantly than they would without the stress. I don't believe that's appropriate in this case. 203.38.78.228 (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello 203.38.78.228

Regarding my medical condition (privacy), you have my heartfelt “Thank You” for your tolerance of my written communication style (medical format). And I greatly appreciate your considerate phraseology.

I am not offended by your personal choice to reply at the Article Talk Page. Sometimes, due to my medical condition (privacy), I may need to copy your statements, post them at my User Talk Page, and then respond to you (medical format) at my User Talk Page---if I do such I always post a “Notice” at the Article Talk Page.

You have persuaded* me and I concur with your arguments (course of reasoning) that the italics should be removed from the word “voluntary”. So, I have removed the italics (proof of my concurrence).

-*-use of logic, reasonableness, courtesy, educational statements, sequence of argument, continued consideration of my viewpoint, and much more.

Due to your invaluable RfC assistance this editing dispute has been resolved (Closed), and you have provided me a moment of comfort because of your thoughtfulness about my medical condition (privacy). Thank You. Thank You.

Best Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Quotation marks around extinctionists

In addition, now you are using quotation marks for the word “extinctionists”---you are claiming it is not a word. Here are examples of the word extinctionist:

• Wiktionary Definition.
• Google (common usage).
• Article Reference #1.

Are you going to remove the quotation marks from the word extinctionists? If not, why not?

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not just me saying that "extinctionist" is not a word. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary doesn't include it. Neither does dictionary.com or Oxford Dictionaries Online. Wiktionary does not cite any references (although it should) so I don't know how reliable that entry is. I also don't know what - if any - policy Wikipedia has on treating Wiktionary as a reliable source. Article Reference #1 quotes Knight from VHEMT and Sayers from a similar group using the term - but that's hardly an independent source for validity of the word. Most of the Google hits I found for the word had a different meaning, so I'm not convinced that's a good indication.

In short then - I still don't believe it is a real word, and so it should be left in quotes. But again, I suggest that we wait for the opinions of others before making changes. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the fact that proponents of the philosophy actually need to "call themselves 'extinctionists' " (with or without the quotes around that one word) - and that we need to state that fact - rather suggest that it's not a real word. If "extinctionists" was a real word with a well-defined meaning, they wouldn't need to "call themselves" it, and we wouldn't need that sentence because it would be self-evident. One possible solution to our disagreement would be to delete the entire sentence - I'm not sure that it really adds much to the article anyway. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly a neologism, but it has fairly widespread usage, see extinctionism and extinctionist via Google Scholar, and this from Google books. Clearly the term is used by a number of reputable researchers. I have no opinion on use of italics, but would suggest that we provide some explanation of how the term is used. The Urban Dictionary may be a place to start. Also, please note that the Independent does not quote the term in this article. I do not claim to know how much weight that should carry though. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the sentence "Proponents of its philosophy call themselves 'extinctionists' ", because:

• The cited reference doesn't actually make that claim. There are references to extinctionists, but nowhere does the article say that [anyone] calls themselves 'extinctionists'.
• VHEMT's website doesn't say this either. The closest they get is "A large portion of today’s Volunteers were vehement extinctionists before they learned of the title 'VHEMT'."[15]

One might assume that at least some VEHMT proponents call themselves extinctionists, but to state that [all] proponents do is probably a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the modified sentence ("some proponents ..."), because even that is not supported by the references. Can someone point to any specific sentence that explictly says that proponents (as opposed to others) call themselves extinctionists? Mitch Ames (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have to ask why this is an issue for you. The name of the group is the voluntary human extinction movement. The independent article refers to extinctionists twice. The web site for the group refers to it's members as having been extinctionists prior to joining. So we have references for the term used in connection to the group. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's an issue for me because I'm a stickler for accuracy, and I don't think that the original sentence was verifably correct. Your new version is much better, and so I thank you for that. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review question

I have a question above (transcluded from Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement/GA2) regarding this articles stability that I would like to address before getting into the review. AIRcorn (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Will reply at review. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well written article!

Responding to a request for copyediting, I have reviewed your article. I am new to the guild (so maybe others would find more), but I found very little to fix. The most notable being only a vague pronoun reference; the rest of the article looked very good. Well done to all the involved editors (please note, I didn't read for content errors, only for style/grammar/etc). Pronouns generally refer to the most recently used noun. The pronoun I replaced ("their") would have referred to "Population Action International" based on that, which I don't believe was the intent.

I did/do have a little problem with the same sentence in the lead that it looks like you're stuggling with above, as well as the second reference in the Ideology section, that starts with "Though not all of VHEMT's members favor total extinction...". It seems that a Movement that lists extinction as its goal would expect its members to support the only plank it has for policy. I'm not sure how to clean up that contradiction. Possibly remove that aspect entirely? Or if there is enough source material, maybe flesh it out a little more within a small section of its own? Anyway, I hope I was at least a little helpful to you, if not, feel free to flame my talk page! I will leave the copyedit request at the Guild, since I didn't find very much, and it might not hurt to have at least one more experienced editor look it over too. -- ^Despay_re (^tal_k) 05:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue of whether all "members" support extinction is one we have struggled with in the past. Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement/Archive 2#Not "gradual", Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement/Archive 2#Location of "categorization" sentence(s).
Mitch Ames (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

Thanks to everyone who has worked on this article thus far, getting it up to GA is a real achievement and it was a real team effort. Barnstars all around, etc... I'd like to try to keep improving the article and try for FA sooner or later. A lot of the FA process is obscure prose/MOS issues that we'll need outside help for, but what are the potentially unresolved content issues in the article now? Thus far I see that people have commented on:

1. The issue of whether there are "moderate" members who may not favor extinction and how to present that idea [16].
2. How to handle the subsections [17].
3. Whether it's being oversold as a true movement [18].
4. Also, I'm a bit unsure of whether I've summarized the pieces from the Journal of Animal Studies and Psychoanalysis and Society.
5. The FoxNews link is coming up as dead for me, is that just temporary or do we have to fix it?

Any suggestions on good ways to fix these? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Dead FoxNews link

The link was dead for me also. A bit of poking around suggests that they have changed the format of their URLs (from story/numbers to section/date/story-name) suggesting that it is not a temporary glitch. I tried searching their website, but couldn't find the story, so I've updated our article's reference URL to a Wayback Machine archive link. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Oversold as a movement?

I don't believe it is just "how Les U. Knight feels about things". Photos at the bottom of this page illustrate that others agree with him. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Next step FA?

Thank you all those who worked hard to promote this interesting article to GA status. I will propose nominating it for FA status. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, just noticed Wikipedia:Peer review/Voluntary Human Extinction Movement/archive1 --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do hope it will be nominated for FA soon. It will be tough though, WP:FAC is a demanding place! Hopefully a thorough Peer review will help us get a lot done on it. Thanks for your help thus far! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for marking it as a GA, the bot usually does that but didn't this time for some reason... Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The peer review is over. Now you should nominate it for FA. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 20:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, looks like that's the next step--hope it goes well. I'd like to wait until the Alexis Bachelot FAC is over before we nominate this one, so I won't have too much on my plate at one time. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Should these be included?

Should these be included:

• the following in the Organization and promotion section: SOURCE [19] Barre Montpelier Times Argus

• "VHEMT has made a number of cartoons to spread its ideology."

• the followings: SOURCE [http://www.wnd.com/2008/05/63755/] WorldNetDaily

• Knight believes "We’ve already exceeded Earth’s carrying capacity for humans"

• VHEMT wants to increase the societal status of women by giving women choices other than motherhood.

• the following in the Reception section: SOURCE [20] Spiked (magazine)

• Sociologist Frank Furedi writing in Spiked has described VHEMT as a "Malthusian environmentalist group".

• the followings: SOURCE [21] Spiked (magazine)

• Civil liberties activist Josie Appleton described VHEMT as a "cheerful and respectable" group.

• Alan Weisman in The World Without Us has described VHEMT founder Les U. Knight as "thoughtful, soft-spoken, articulate".

Thoughts? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 00:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I added the Times Argues piece--I would prefer not to add the WND piece, I don't believe that it qualifies as a high-quality reliable source (per WP:WIAFA). See this on the reliable source noticeboard for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of Spiked before, but it's used as a source on The World Without Us (which is at featured status), so I guess it's ok. I'll see if I can work it in as a source. I recall seeing a piece in Grist (magazine) a few days ago, might want to dig that back up too. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Knight as founder

72.228.189.184 and then Lycurgus have just removed the statement that Knight is the founder of VHEMT. I think this should stay, as it is cited the 3rd party reliable sources [22] & [23]. On his website, Knight does claim that he is "not the founder of VHEMT, I just gave it a name" & "not the leader of VHEMT: we’re all leaders—leading the way to a better world for all life". It may be worth noting Knight's stances in a footnote, but it seems contrary to the well-sourced fact that Knight started the group that is known as VHEMT. Note that our article does say: "He believes that this idea has been held to by some people throughout human history"--so I assume what he means is that he gave this idea a name "VHEMT" although he clearly started the group. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

He says he didn't found but editor Mark Arsten insists he did

How is that the Wikipedia process working? Is it some imbecile shit about "secondary sources"? If the guy says he only named it, and explicitly says that he didn't found, and does so on the official website of the subject of the article, how do you keep saying that he's the founder as a flat fact? Edit's I made to attempt to correct this reverted. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not changing it because I think he is wrong, please see WP:RS and WP:V for more information. Knight is a reliable source for his own opinion, but for facts we should stick to 3rd party sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I added a note to the page about his opinion, when sources conflict it is best to note what they both say. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mark Arsten on this, per WP:SECONDARY. I've reworded the note to make it more precise (I didn't like the word "argue" there), by quoting Knight. I've also added inline cites (to existing refs) that he is the founder. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

In any case, as far as the larger content of the encylcopædia is concerned, the main issue is the conflation of Antihumanism in the sense of more or less openly misanthropic organizations of varying kinds with a narrow academic topic. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Finally noting that I'm passively subverting the dominant wiki paradigm here in as much as truth is trumping process. One forgets how sweet that is, you have to ply the other thing so damn much. It's clearly his org although obviously he didn't originate the concept. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Knight might be a kook but it seems to me that he is thinking more clearly about the status of VHEMT than Mark Arsten. On the VHEMT website, Knight says that VHEMT is not a formal "group" or an "organization". That seems right: there are no members. You can't join it. It has no group structure. There are no officers, just a spokesperson, and only one of those. They don't hold meetings. There don't seem to be any VHEMT events. Knight sells VHEMT T-shirts and you can tatoo the logo on your arm (or whereever), but those things don't make it a "group". Knight says it is a "movement". It has "volunteers" and "supporters". "Movement" is in the name. Knight says he is not the founder of the movement, which existed before he came along. He just gave it a name. At best it is an "informal" group, but those generally don't have "founders" either. Some "sources" say that it is a group and that Knight is the founder, but what are their sources? What makes them better sources about VHEMT than Knight?98.229.134.2 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the article? It contains statements like "VHEMT functions as a loose network rather than a formal organization,[11] and does not compile a list of members." and "Knight refutes the assertions that he is the founder, saying that "I’m not the founder of VHEMT, I just gave it a name."" Mark Arsten (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the article. Notwithstanding what Knight himself says, the article states, at the start of the second paragraph, "VHEMT was founded in 1991 by Les U. Knight." This contradicts what Knight himself states. What makes you and opinion columnists in the press more reliable about VHEMT than Knight himself? What were their sources? He states that VHEMT is a movement whose existence preceded his naming it, which happened in 1991 when he started sending out his newsletter. Starting to send out a newsletter is not "founding" a group, so it would seem to me Knight must be correct when he stated he didn't found a group, and that VHEMT is not a "group".That various observers have inaccurately referred to it as a "group" does not mean that it is. As for "loose network", who knows what that means? People who shop at the same supermarket and chat with each other in the checkout line are a "loose network", too. 98.229.134.2 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:V: reliable 3rd party sources are given the most weight here. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. But you need to think about what makes a source "reliable". A source isn't reliable simply because he is writing a column in a newspaper or a psychology journal. A reliable source is a person in a position to have knowledge and no reason to conceal or distort it. Reliable sources regarding facts are people in a position to know the facts, such as direct participants in the events of interest, or people who have investigated the facts through documents and direct other sources. Do you know that the sources you are relying upon had investigated VHEMT? It doesn't seem to me that those writers were reporters of fact. They were opinion columnists engaging with Knight's ideology and not very interested in what exactly VHEMT was. As for the person writing an article in the psychology journal, he was not a reporter of fact either. He seems to have been far more interested in the psychological state of the supposed VHEMT "member" than in the details of VHEMT. He doesn't even bother to mention in what respect "N", the person he interviewed, was a member of VHEMT, or how he came to meet her. 98.229.134.2 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as "what makes a source reliable", we do have a guideline on that (identifying reliable sources) and it states "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". You may not like it, but that's the way things work here and you're wasting your time trying to convince me otherwise. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You are cherry-picking these Wikipedia policies in order to make it seem that all these matters are closed and that the article must stand as written. WP:RELIABLE has lots to say about reliable sources. A source is not reliable just because of where it is published. The guideline also states: "the reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable." Opinion columns in the Guardian are not as reliable as the news articles. When a Guardian columnist calls VHEMT a "group" or a "movement" when his obvious main interest is to comment on the ideology it represents, that is not as reliable regarding facts about it as a new report would be. Where did these opinion columnists get their information about VHEMT? Did they do any reporting? I've now read a lot of those sources, and none of the writers indicate they did any reporting. Their aim is commentary. The one exception is the psychology journal paper, but there the goal was a psychological profile of an alleged VHEMT member and little is said about VHEMT itself. Is there a single news report in your list of references? I don't believe so because if you had been able to find a news report, I don't think this Wikipedia article would be so devoid of basic information about its subject. 98.229.134.2 (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, but you're claiming that The Economist & The Independent are not reliable sources, and that is ludicrous. You're welcome to keep claiming that, but again, I think you're wasting your time. Feel free to take the issue to the WP:RSN or WP:DRN if you want more opinions. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Worst featured article ever.

Seriously, is this a joke? This article is by far the worst featured article of all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.42.247 (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I know. This is just scary. Zach Vega (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to sound like this is my first week as an editor, but is there anything else we could have buffed up to featured article? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• I agree, worst featured article ever! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• I agree too, this is not at all up to the par. I've been using wikipedia for a good source of information for more than 5 years. (I didn't have an account until recently though) :)Brendon is here 12:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Please, Brendon, explain to me and the FAC reviewers involved why their discretion was not well-advised here. I'd love to be able to better my judgment so I don't lend support to well-written and valid, yet mildly controversial articles again. GRAPPLE X 03:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I'll tell you what's not up to par: Brendon111's obnoxious eyesore signature. Aren't there rules covering that sort of thing? HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was an April Fool's Joke until I checked today's date.--138.88.62.138 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Same here. It's not good for wikipedia, you know!!! I sometimes ask myself is Wikipedia failing? :)Brendon is here 12:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about Wikipedia, but your signature certainly fails. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

So sorry, Mark, I didn't notice that I was stepping on ground which you had already covered, and better than me, at that. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You are forgiven :) Mark Arsten (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a high-quality article written on a worthy cause, which contributors have put their own hard work into; which means it's no worse than any other featured article we've had on the main page (except that bloody 2008 US election gimmick). GRAPPLE X 01:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words GrappleX, getting this to featured status took a lot of work. My only fear is that by giving them publicity we're inadvertently causing the extinction of humanity—and even worse—the end of Wikipedia... Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

One can only hope. GRAPPLE X 01:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty well put together to me. If you are simply offended by the topic, might I remind you that Wikipedia is not Censored.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 02:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Worst FA of all time? Give me a break. While this strikes me as an absolutely bonkers idea, the fact is, had it not been on the Main Page I would never have learned about this--and I'm glad I did. (And yes, I too can see how this seems like an April Fools joke.) HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If this group mandates voluntary human extinction, why haven't they all offed themselves yet? *snicker* Spartan198 (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Their motto is “May we live long and die out” --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 03:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

VHEMT's website answers the question: Why don’t you just kill yourself?. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, wikipedia, put interesting articles in the Featured Article list, not this crackpot tripe. I do agree with them on one point. VHEM members should not breed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.222.153.116 (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This article looks more like a candidate for deletion than featured article material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.134.2 (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Aha. That would be why previous deletion attempts have resulted in unanimous support to keep the article. Get over it, some people don't want to have kids. OH NO. GRAPPLE X 13:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No, we should keep this article and make fun of this Les guy.That's the whole point of why it's here. I rest my case.--Da Dashz (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If this nonsensical article was made "Today's featured article" for a joke, or is intended to poke fun at the "people" who belong to the organization, then, er, well done. Hardly "encyclopaedic", though, is it?........ DropShadow (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:WIAFA. GRAPPLE X 15:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I too do think this article really stands out among featured articles. Not because of the groups ideology, which I don't view in a negative fashion at all, but because of the article as an article. The topic of the article isn't interesting or significant, since the group is very small and has no influence. The article has little concrete information about the group, instead it seems too lengthy for such a topic and features too many minute details about the groups ideology etc, and it does a poor job at summarizing the topics it discusses. Also the article's structure has flaws; among them the lack of images and other media (which are required in the featured article criteria. All things considered it's an odd choice for a featured article. 85.77.83.6 (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to nominate it at WP:FAR to have its status removed, but good luck with that... (BTW, you might want to read WIAFA again before you do so) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• I too agree if this is a featured article, then Wikipedia's standards have taken a nose dive. Or at least a hefty bribe.--Subman758 (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • We did take a bribe. I'm spending my share on my no-kids. GRAPPLE X 17:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, you guessed it, I gave GrahamColm over 9000 wiki dollars to promote the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Self-hating liberals just had to have their way... --Gadolit (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a great example of the wikipedia elitism that is ruining wikipedia. The vast majority of contributors to this talk page dislike the article, however most of these contributors are not big-time editors. A tiny minority of big-time editors are extremely defensive and pulling out all the wikipedia rule books (including whether a person's signature is appropriate) to criticize their opponents. Yes, there are guidelines for a featured article, but they are just guidelines. All of us must realize that picking a featured article is in some sense a matter of collective opinion--no checklist of guidelines will ever determine whether an article deserves to be on the front page of one of the world's top websites.

This is a symptom of widespread wikipedia elitism: only the small minority of big-time editors who've memorized their wikipedia policies can actually influence the processes that determine the major aspects of wikipedia. However, any minority left to their own devices (especially one comprised of people who must be quite disconnected from real life or real academia) is eventually going to act in ways that the overall populace would find ridiculous. This is one of those cases. This is a ridiculous choice for a featured article. And don't point at the guidelines, the featured article selection, or the featured article review. Its ridiculousness should be clear to anyone with sense. It's not only trivial, far too detailed, numbingly repetitious, and smugly written, but also boring, completely lacking in any form of media, riddled with unscholarly sources, and much shorter than most featured articles.

Wikipedia elitism will be the downfall of this website. Once the small cadre of big-time editors enshrouds themselves with policies rivaling the US tax code, nobody on the outside will be able to talk sense into them. This is a perfect example. 138.16.42.247 (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:FAR. GRAPPLE X 20:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Very helpful comment, thank you. I'm glad you read my post, especially the part about "And don't point at the guidelines, the featured article selection, or the featured article review." 138.16.42.247 (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Petty text walls get petty responses. If you have an actual problem with this article, and you're not just bitter because it's about an organisation you disagree with, then do something about it instead of whining somewhere that will achieve nothing. If you actually open a review at WP:FAR then someone might actually pay attention to what you're saying, but if you lack the conviction to do so then you clearly have no real stand here, just a bullshit pretence to try masking your dislike of the subject rather than the article. So either step up and do something productive or stop moaning and hoping it'll achieve anything. GRAPPLE X 01:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm also very glad you read the part of my post about "A tiny minority of big-time editors are extremely defensive and pulling out all the wikipedia rule books (including whether a person's signature is appropriate) to criticize their opponents."

It's clear that you're the one who is making ad-hominem attacks at me to defend your own personal intrest in this article. To be perfectly honest, I don't give a crap about this organization one way or another. I guess you think everyone who voiced complaints about this article's featured status is also personally against this organization? If criticizing the quality of writing and notability of an article were my modus operandi for trashing organizations I don't like, why wouldn't I devote my time to criticizing something that actually matters, like a political party, religion, or something that isn't completely trivial?

You also completely missed the point of my post, which is that there's no way to talk sense into the incestual club of big-time wikipedia editors who control the featured article review. I think the fact that you're taking my post so personally and replying with personal attacks shows that you're the one with bias. All my complaints are perfectly valid and you're the one who's masking some sort of personal feelings--I suspect, though, that it's not your own like/dislike of the "movement", but rather your own personal satisfaction with getting an article featured. 138.16.42.247 (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually this article contains none of my work, so my personal satisfaction has nothing to do with it. Like I say, do something or give up. Complaining here will amount to nothing, as you're clearly ignoring the actual productive process for the sake of making noise. If you have actual complaints about the prose quality, WP:FAR will hear it out; if you refuse to go there then I'm going to continue to believe that you don't actually have any conviction to your belief that this isn't of featured quality. I continue to assert that your problem lies solely with the subject because you've yet to prove otherwise; file a review at WP:FAR and point out some specifics that you feel violate WP:WIAFA and you might prove me wrong but if you're not going to do so then it remains clear that your intention is simply to kick up a stink at an article that offends or annoys you. Do something productive for a change. GRAPPLE X 02:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time believing you didn't contribute! The repetitiveness of your last two posts is uncannily similar to how repetitious this article is! (Actually I bet you're only repeating yourself because you still haven't read my first post.)

Maybe if I speak your language by repeating myself, I'll get through to you. The editors who control the featured article selection and the ones who control the featured article review are from the same clique, and the entire clique has proved their disconnectedness from reality by selecting this article for featured status. I think my posting here, which amounts to seeking support from the vast majority of us who aren't in the clique, has a better chance of accomplishing something productive. Pointing out specific elements of this article that are bad is pointless: I assert that anyone with sense would realize that this is simply a poor article. I can't believe you can sincerely argue that this article is comparable with other recent featured articles, such as General Relativity.

Do you really think all the people who've complained about this article's featured status are all making some covert attempt to bash this utterly insignificant group? Why would so many people (the majority of editors to this talk page) use the same exact "bullshit pretence" [sic] in an effort to combat an organization which is devoted to eliminating itself? 138.16.42.247 (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You're trying to lecture editors on prose and you don't understand non-US English? Pretence uses a C in Europe. And there is no "clique" involved in WP:FA, it's clearly a battleground of contention quite often; you'd know this if you did anything but mindlessly bash one article on its talk page instead of trying something productive. And check the article's history; my contributions are limited to reverting vandalism while it was featured on the main page. If you genuinely feel this should be demoted, take it to WP:FAR, point out specifics for once, or else you're admitting you don't have a leg to stand on. Simple as. GRAPPLE X 02:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Or better yet, find a website that suits your tastes better than this one. Although, I'm glad to hear that I've been promoted to the rank of "big-time editor". Do I get a raise now? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Conservapedia, you know it makes sense! Become a conservapedian. Then you can pretend Gawd will bring about the rapture, I mean extinction. Or, better still, do nothing and let natural selection take its course. Result will be the same.1812ahill (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This is

The fastest promotion to main page I have ever seen. ResMar 04:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty fast, only a couple weeks or so, I think. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is NOT encyclopedic

First of all, the concept is disgusting to most human beings. Secondly, an encyclopedia article would discuss criticisms of the concept. There would be a section, "criticisms", explaining why most people would be disgusted by it. The article is highly biased and an excellent example of why wikipedia is NOT credible. If you think most human beings would not be disgusted by it, observe here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2698165/posts?page=1

((vomit)) @ "vhemt" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.233.196 (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"the concept is disgusting to most human beings"
That does not make it unencyclopaedic - see WP:NOTCENSORED. Is the Feces article unencyclopaedic? Most people find shit disgusting as well.

"an encyclopedia article would discuss criticisms of the concept"
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement#Reception includes criticism.

Mitch Ames (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Fringe group

So why was this article featured and as best I can tell it has minimal content indicating how fringe this group is? 74.230.180.232 (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It is self-evident.--GoP_T^C_N 17:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to add a sentence at the end saying "The group has failed; the human race is not extinct.", but I resisted the temptation... Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be more impressive if VHEM offed themselves as a 'first start.' That being said, yes, very fringe indeed and I'm not sure these ... people ... should even have an article instead of just a footnote in a fringe-theorists section of an environmental article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

They already have, if you'd bothered to read beyond the article's title. Seriously, what is the problem with voluntarily deciding you don't want to have children? Could it possibly be that no one actually reads these things before they mindlessly wander on to talk pages to complain about things? No, no, couldn't be that. GRAPPLE X 18:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is a fringe group. I can't believe the editors and administrators have sunk this low on the totem poll. I can't believe this is even notable enough to be an article! As soon as this is no longer a featured article I will be putting it up for deletion. Mrld (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Go ahead. WP:FAR and WP:AFD. Good luck, because you're going to need it. GRAPPLE X 18:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think whether it's a fringe group or not has anything to do with the Featured article criteria. Check it out. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oooh fun, an Afd too? This is my lucky weekend. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's an excellent example of Antinatalism and it's well sourced, so good luck getting it deleted. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 23:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Where's the article on Les U. Knight? It seems that this "group" is no more than him -- an eccentric with a web site and a mailing list. If that suffices to make the group notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and a featured one at that, he must be pretty important. Where's his biography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.134.2 (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If you think Knight deserves a biography, feel free to register and account and start one. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no reason to think he deserves a biography as an individual, any more than he merits an article when he calls himself a "group" and creates a web site. Did you work on this article as a lark? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.134.2 (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

His "group" does apparently consist of other real people. Pictures at the bottom of this page. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, we do have detailed notability guidelines to determine who merits an article, (and VHEMT meets them) see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That is debatable. In twenty years or so, Knight has gotten himself mentioned a few times in the press. It seems as though there were a few editors on a mission to find all of these mentions. If you look at those articles, they all seem to be in the vein of "(amazing and kooky) things that people believe", rather than "coverage" of a "movement". One of the articles uses VHEMT as an example of the bizarre ways acronyms are supposed to be pronounced. I didn't read every reference, but is there anybody else besides Knight in this "movement" speaking for it, or even being quoted in the press? Most of the information in the Wikipedia article about this so-called movement seems to come from the VHEMT website itself, not the "coverage", and many of the references in the list are to that website. It doesn't seem to me that this "movement" or "organization" is much more than one guy, a logo (suitable for tatoos) and, a very low-traffic website. This article really makes Wikipedia and its editorial processes seem unhinged and out of control, which is regrettable.

Well, I'm not going to spend all day arguing about the depth of coverage with you, if you don't think it's notable, register an account (or log in if you already have one) and submit it to WP:AFD. That being said, the amount of followers, website traffic, logo tattoos etc. are irrelevant as far as Wikipedia:Notability is concerned. Also, I just counted and only 6 or so out of the 50+ citations in the article are to the groups's website. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There aren't 50+ references. There are 31 numbered references, of which 9 are different pages of previous references, and 6 are different pages on the VHEMT web site. So, there are only 16 distinct external references, over a period of more than 15 years. Every one that I have read seems to be struck by the radical nature of the VHEMT platform. But not a single one of them states that it is in any way a significant "movement". Indeed, all of these articles are opinion pieces using quotes from Knight as springboards to discussion of the idea. This suggests that the philosophical position of anti-natalism merits an article, with (perhaps) a mention of Knight and VHEMT. Indeed there is one. But it is hard to see VHEMT as more than one guy and an obscure website. 98.229.134.2 (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I never said there were "50+ references". If you're going to try to put words in my mouth, I won't bother debating with you. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You said 50+ "citations" just a couple of paragraphs ago. I didn't count "citations", but there are only 31 references, and only 16 external ones gathered from press references over the course of 15 years. Several of these are from the same press outlets on different occasions. Only a handful of media outlets account for them all. Did this article become a "Good Article" and then a "Featured Article" on the basis of the number of citations and references, or on the basis of being a well-written encyclopedia article about a real organization or movement? Some of the 16 references only mention VHEMT in passing. This is supposed to be an article about VHEMT, not about Knight, or his ideas. I cannot find one reference that is a news article about VHEMT as a "movement" or as a serious organization. They almost all seem to be opinion pieces where the writer is engaging with Knight's ideas, not covering VHEMT as an organization. The article answers no questions that you would expect about an organization or a movement. Who belongs to it? How is it structured? What has it done of note? What people or other organizations has it influenced? Apart from mentioning when and by whom it was "founded", and some speculation about just how pathetically few people are on the VHEMT mailing list, this article has none of that. That is no surprise because VHEMT is not a real movement: it is a substitite teacher from Portland who in the course of 15 years of trying has gotten a little bit of publicity for his rather eccentric and striking ideology. This article is all about that ideology and reactions to it. The editors who turned this into, first, a "Good Article", and then a "Featured Article", seem only to have been concerned about how many footnotes there were, and its grammar and diction. Wasn't it an impediment to being a Good/Featured Article about an organization/movement that the subject organization/movement is neither an organization nor a movement? 98.229.134.2 (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

At the top of this page there are links to the good and featured article reviews. You seem to be unaware of the good and featured article standards, so you can read these to educate yourself: WP:WIAGA & WP:WIAFA. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I did read the criteria for Featured Article status. Aside from being well-written, NPOV, no original research, and the usual, one of the most important requirements is that the article be "comprehensive". This is an important requirement, don't you think? There isn't much use in an encylopedia article that is neutral, well-written, properly sourced, etc, etc, if it fails to mention key points. In this case, the key point omitted from this article, which is framed as an article about a movement or organization, is that it is NOT an organization or movement. Alternatively, if it is indeed a real organization or movement, it seems there is little said in the article about the things one would expect to be covered about a real organization or movement. Either way, the article fails on comprehensiveness. When all the esteemed Wikipedia editors, reviewers, etc, were checking off the various items on their Good/Feature article checklists, didn't anybody notice that? 98.229.134.2 (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources tend to characterize it as a very small group that is unlikely to succeed, and I think that comes across quite well in the article. If you think it fails WP:WIAFA, you can take it to WP:FAR. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what "reliable sources" you are talking about. According to the VHEMT website, you cannot join it, and it is not an organization. The website claims VHEMT is a "movement". According to the Wikipedia (heard of it?), a social movement is "a large informal grouping of individuals or organizations which focus on political or social issues". VHEMT is not a movement because it is not large, which you admit yourself.A small informal grouping of individuals is not a "movement". One guy is not a "movement". A website is not a "movement". So, here we have an article on Wikipedia about a "movement" which is in reality a name under which one person promotes his views. That one guy is canny enough to realize that the media won't pay attention to Les Knight, substitute high school teacher from Portland, but it might pay attention to a "movement", even if it is a self-styled one. Unlike a real movement, the only tactic used by this faux movement is for the one guy to go on talk shows (etc) and otherwise to work the press. That's it. Shouldn't a "comprehensive" Wikipedia article about a "movement" mention this little point? 98.229.134.2 (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the article does explain the nature of the [whatever this thing is] quite well. I think this discussion is fruitless. Perhaps you would have better luck discussing this with Mitch Ames, my collaborator on the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the Wikipedia, and your collaborator on this article is the world, not one other person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.134.2 (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your revision of the lead, reliable sources do use the terms "movement" and "group" to describe VHEMT [24], or just "movement" [25] & [26], or "informal network" [27] or "group" and "organization" [28] Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Quotes, please. "movement" is part of the name, but that does not mean it is a movement. You describe VHEMT as a "movement" following Knight's description of it. However, it is not established that it is a social movement. What evidence is there of that? If it is a movement, what other organizations or individuals are part of it? Surely you agree that a "movement" has to be more than one person doing talk shows and press interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.134.2 (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You may disagree with how the sources describe it, but we follow what reliable sources say, not the opinions of pseudonymous contributors. The article in the psychological journal, the San Fran gate piece, and the Illiberal Egalitarianism book all mention members other than Knight. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a pseudonymous contributor. I'm an anonymous contributor. You could be a pseudonymous contributor, for all I know, as are most Wikipedia editors. Why a pseudonym would make my comments more valid, I fail to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.134.2 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness

Despite being, first, a "good" article, and then, amazingly, a featured article, this article is seriously lacking in comprehensive coverage of its subject. What do we learn about VHEMT from this article?

• it was "founded" in 1991 by Les U Knight, a "resident" of Portland and "environmental activist". The article does not say what form this activism took, apart from "founding" VHEMT. (From the cited sources, we learn that Knight is a substitute high school teacher, but for some reason that is not in the article.)
• it publishes a newsletter for which there are 400 subscribers, or maybe it is 230 subscribers.
• it operates vhemt.org, a website in 11 languages.
• it has published cartoons
• it has a logo.
• it sells buttons, T-shirts, and bumper stickers that say "Thank you for not breeding".
• Knight is the spokesperson for the organization and has various opinions on various subjects. If there are any other people who ever speak for VHEMT, they aren't mentioned.
• Knight's views have elicited various responses and commentary from various people.

That's it. Considering that the article is supposedly comprehensive coverage of its subject, it isn't much, is it? Compare it to the article on almost any other random organization/movement on Wikipedia. Compare, for example, to the articles on the Animal liberation movement or the Anti-whaling movement. 98.229.134.2 (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• If you don't think this meets the FA criteria, feel free to open a WP:FAR. However, it's obvious to me that you do not understand the FA criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm damn near tempted to open one myself, so that when it closes promptly as needless nonsense, there's another link to throw glibly at ignorant IPs spouting over nothing. GRAPPLE X 00:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you keep saying that I don't understand the criteria, but you never mention what it is that I obviously don't understand. What is hard to understand? Here are the critera: A FA is

1(a) well-written. It's prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.

• Fail. It isn't badly written by Wikipedia's low standards, but engaging, brilliant, and professional it is not.

1(b) comprehensive. It neglects nor major facts or details and places the subject in context.

• Fail. The article provides almost no details about the VHEMT. (See my point.)

1(c) well-researched. It is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature.

• Fail. If this is all the information available, then there isn't enough information available to write a featured article about this organization, movement, whatever-it-is.

1(d) neutral.

• Pass. It presents the views of the "founder/spokesperson" and various opposing views. It doesn't present any views by any other "members" of the movement/organization/whatever-it-is, but this is probably OK because the movement/organization/whatever-it-is says it doesn't have any members.

1(e) stable.

• Fail. All the disputes about this article have been swept into two archived versions of the Talk page, and two editors revert any efforts to change the article beyond minor word-smithing.

2. It follows the style guidelines.

2(a) a lead.

• Check. Has a lead.

2(b) appropriate structure. a system of headings and TOC.

• Check. Has headings and TOC.

2(c) consistent citations. Oh, yes, its got citations. 3. Media

• Check. Its got images.

4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail.

• Check. It doesn't go into any detail, unnecssary or otherwise.

In short, on the bureaucratic formalistic criteria, it passes. On all the important criteria, massive fail. 98.229.134.2 (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, let me see if I understand you. You claim that it doesn't use all the sources out there, and then go on to say that if these are all the available sources then it's still not comprehensive? Bullshit. Several reviewers, far more experienced (and objective) than yourself, have combed the article for prose, scope and comprehensiveness as part of this site's thorough FA vetting process. An article of obvious poor quality does not get through in a hurry, and I find it beggars belief that you feel more qualified to judge this article's standards than an experienced cadre who do it routinely. If you're genuinely concerned about the state of this article beyond selfish moral outrage at other people's private lives, then DO SOMETHING. GRAPPLE X 01:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Grapple, you were involved in the FA review process weren't you? You massively screwed up. 98.229.134.2 (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Then prove me wrong. Take your whining to WP:FAR. Do it. GRAPPLE X 01:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Somehow, your insistence that I go through that process tells me that the process is stacked. No, thank you.

If VHEMT is a real organization/movement/whatever-it-is, this article is not comprehensive. There should be a lot more detail. If VHEMT is not a real whatever-it-is then the article still fails to be comprehensive because somehow it neglects to mention this little detail.

As for "thoroughly researched", it is essentially the same dilemma: either there is information out there about this organization which was not well-researched and did not find its way into the article. Or all the available information was found, in which case one has to conclude that there isn't enough reliable information available about this whatever-it-is to write a "featured article" about it.

On top of that the article is only mediocre as regards being well-written. Brilliant, engaging, etc, it is not. It does not even start to be any of those things. Who could possibly think so? Nor is it stable. Look at the edit history. The disputes on the talk page have been buried into "archives". That this article could be passed as a feature article is almost a reductio ad absurdum of the whole process. You FA boys need to take a long hard look at your process. 98.229.134.2 (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

To be blunt: you will not affect this article's status by complaining about it on its talk page. If you genuinely believe there are problems with it, actually do something about it instead of wearing out your keyboard. WP:FAR is the only avenue by which a Featured Article will have its status revoked, and if you refuse to use that avenue then you're already admitting that you do not have the genuine conviction necessary to follow through on your whining. GRAPPLE X 01:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for providing us with your views, 98... Your opinions have been noted and will be given the respect they deserve. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

98.229.134.2 - twice you have said that disputes have been "swept into" or "buried into" archived versions of the Talk page, in a context that suggests you believe that the disputes are not being resolved. I was under the impression that those disputes had been resolved and that a majority consensus had been achieved - which is why they were archived. (I acknowledge that the results were not always unanimous, amicable or even civil; one major participant was blocked indefinitely as a result of inappropriate actions.) If there is a specific issue that has been archived but that you believe should still be under discussion, feel free to re-open the discussion. I strongly recommend that you summarise the issue under a new section on this page, with a link to the full archived discussion, rather than simply copying the full discussion back onto this page. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if the disputes were resolved or not. However, one of the FA criteria is that the article be stable. One way an FA reviewer would assess that is by looking at the Talk page. If there is a long and recent history of disputes, then the reviewer might not conclude that the article is stable enough (yet) to be a featured article, irrespective of whether the current editors claim that the disputes have been resolved. That may simply because editors who disagree have thrown in the towel or left in frustration (or been blocked). That is not the type of stability a FA should have. When a lot of the Talk page discussion has been swept into archives, the appearance of stability may be misleading. 98.229.134.2 (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to appeal to the Featured Article Director, he's the ultimate authority over the Featured Article process on this site. Who knows? He might take your side. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought that the measure of "stability" was the article's edit history, not the talk page or its history. WP:FACR seems to agree with me on this:

stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

No mention of the contents or length of the talk page.

If you think that WP:FACR needs updating or clarification (eg "talk page has no evidence of ongoing dispute" - which actually sounds like a reasonable enough criteria) feel free to take it up at WT:Featured article criteria. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)