Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

"volunteers" and "supporters" in the lead paragraph
Most of the new version looks good, but I don't like this sentence in the lead paragraph:

There are two problems:


 * It's too vague. It implies - by "while some ... by not reproducing, others ... are not committed to total extinction" - that the "others" (the "supporters") do reproduce. Do they or don't they reproduce? Do they think others should reproduce? The sentence doesn't tell us.


 * Given that VHEMT only has one ideal/goal - human extinction - I don't see how anyone can logically "support some of the movement's ideals" but be "not committed to total extinction".

It looks like this sentence was an attempt to address my (now archived) Talk page issue Location of "categorization" sentence(s) about (VHEMT's categorization as "supporters" and "volunteers"), but I don't think it works. I have previously mentioned that VHEMT's definition of "supporter" - which is what the sentence in the lead paragraph apparently alludes to - does not make a great deal of sense (to me). I suggest that we drop any attempt to use VHEMTs "volunteer"/"supporter" terminology (except for the existing note [C], which does not attempt to paraphrase their definitions) and reword sentence something like:

Mitch Ames (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about this too. Are those who support the concept of population reduction (but are not voluntarily working towards extinction by not reproducing) rightly characterized as "proponents" or "supporters" of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement? Seems like lots of people may support the general "concept of population reduction" but may have never heard of this movement. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that never made much sense to me. It's a bit like saying, "If you've never killed anyone, you are a member of the Voluntary World Peace Movement". On another note, I've always wondered about their view of total extinction. I mean, sure there are a lot of people on the earth now--maybe too many--but what if we got the population down to 1,000 people in an African jungle--would extinction be the only moral option then? But alas, that's a bit out of scope here. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, Mitch's suggestions seem fine to me. I'll make the change from his second box. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

removed video: Focus Earth: Too Many People
I have removed the video Focus Earth: Too Many People from External links, because: (I believe that the article is now stable enough that my previous request to keep all references (including unused) no longer applies.) Mitch Ames (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It was a dead link. Following the link gave a page that said "This Discovery web site is down for scheduled maintenance. We expect service to resume shortly." but it has done for several weeks now, and the site itself is OK, it's just the one video that is missing. I searched the video site and cannot find that video.
 * 2) As I previously mentioned, the video does not mention VHEMT or Knight at all.

Proponents who don't support extinction
(in response to item 1 of above ...)

I suggest that we should simply delete this sentence from the lead:

and modify the Ideology section something like this:

Obviously we need to fix the who, and (without access to it) I don't know whether reference [4] still applies. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

VHEMT in India
I found VHEMT is present in India. Should this blog be listed in the External Links section? -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  01:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I added it--we're a bit heavy on the ELs as it is, but I guess the worst case scenario is that a reviewer will as us to take some out. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Footnote about punctuation
This edit makes it seem like we are quoting Knight saying "that is what they are". That's not a direct quote from Knight. "That is what they are" is a paraphrase of a statement of Knight's by a writer for The Economist. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, but I still think that we gain nothing by re-paraphrasing. How about we simply remove the quotation marks, ie:


 * This avoids the re-paraphrasing, remaining true to our source, without appearing to (erroneously) quote Knight directly. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm fine with that as a compromise. I tend to worry a lot about close paraphrasing, perhaps more than I should. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Knight's statement that the concepts have existed through history is not trivia
In this edit the statement that "Knight believes that the concepts that he promotes have existed in some form throughout human history" was turned in to a hidden comment and flagged as "trivia". I don't believe that statement to be trivia - Knight is making a significant point that he was not the first to think of the concept of voluntary human extinction. That statement should be included in the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have no problem keeping that in the article, but is there a good place for it? I couldn't think of anywhere it would really flow. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've restored the text. I've left it where it was for now, but we can move it if appropriate. (Better for it to be visible in the "wrong" place, then not visible at all.) Mitch Ames (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

First para of Reception is Knight's opinion, not "reception" by others
The first paragraph of the "Reception" section:

appears to be about Knight's opinion, not (as one would expect), other people's opinion of VHEMT. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's his opinion about their current, and future likelyhood of success, so that does somewhat tie into their reception by others. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * One might reasonably claim that the paragraph is Knight's response to the group's reception, but then it should appear after the text describing the reception by others, not at the start of the section. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Beginning, end, I don't really care. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Les U. Knight's vasectomy
Should this be mentioned in the article, especially because the reference says "his convictions led him to get a vasectomy"? -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  04:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The bit about getting a vasectomy as a result of his view of overpopulation is already in the article, not sure if it needs another citation. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Scholarly book
Here is a scholarly book published by University Press of Kansas which discusses VHEMT. As can be seen from the snipet, it is probably about a survey of VHEMT supporters. It will be solid information to the article, but someone need to read the entire page in a library which is not possible in google snipet.

The reference is:


 * Richard J. Ellis, The dark side of the Left: illiberal Egalitarianism in America, University Press of Kansas, 1998, p. 383. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  04:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Damn, I can't believe I missed that one. I pulled up the preview on Amazon, not a ton about the group--but a couple interesting tidbits I can stick in the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Les U. Knight
Is his real name available anywhere? And any idea why does he use pseudonym? -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  08:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think his real name is "Les Knight" and he added the middle initial after becoming an activist. I can't recall where I read that though. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Very few English names begin with U (particularly male names). I have seen it suggested that the name Les U. Knight might be a pseudonym indicating "let's unite", but I have no evidence for that either... Equinox ◑ 04:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Frank Fured "quote"
The Reception section includes this:

The use of "stating" followed by a quotation may be misleading. Furedi does not state "VHEMT [thinks] the worst about the human species" or similar. The ref actually says: (I've added the bold here; it's not in the original)

Furedi might be implying that VHEMT thinks the worst about the human species, but this quote is a long way short of stating that they do. I suggest a reword of our article is required. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the issue, but feel free to rephrase the sentence anyway. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

VHE and Tolstoy
I wonder if someone could add a section about Tolstoy's similar argument in The Kreutzer Sonata --CaritasUbi (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is interesting, I wasn't aware of The Kreutzer Sonata--I'll check it out. Unfortunately, we could only add it in if sources have connected the two (WP:SYNTH). Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the book and I could not find anything related with human extinction. The novella is particularly about celibacy. GoP T C N 17:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to Chapter 11. Yes, it's about celibacy, but the protagonist responds to the question of whether universal celibacy wouldn't lead to the end of the human race.--CaritasUbi (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The arguments are also present in "Путь жизни" (a quote compendium by Tolstoy): http://az.lib.ru/t/tolstoj_lew_nikolaewich/text_0540.shtml#466, although that would fit the antinatalism article better. --AVRS (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

US based? Citation requested
Given that "Being VHEMT is a state of mind" and VHEMT claims millions of supporters world-wide, I suggest that we need a citation for it being a "U.S.-based" movement. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That was added in by someone earlier today, I just removed it. Besides, it says Knight is an American in the second paragraph anyway. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No controversy?
Can it be really true there is no controversy on this subject? (The article does not mention any, and it is presumably comprehensive.) &mdash;208.54.87.198 (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Notable criticisms of the group are presented in the "Reception" section, there's no real reason the article has to have a section titled "controversy" since that's part of the group's reception. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As has been stated, the "Reception" section shows various reactions to the VHEM ideology. This article has passed the featured article evaluation. No article is perfect. I suggest that anyone who disagrees substantially with the FAC evaluation should take it to FAR and list complaints there. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says that major controversies should be summarized in the introduction. Someone should do that, please. 70.59.24.75 (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The last three sentences of the lead discuss the group's reception, is there something of note you think is left out? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

pull-quote under "Ideology"
Greetings.

Recently I added the following directly under the 'Ideology' subheading. We’re the only species evolved enough to consciously go extinct for the good of all life, or which needs to.

It was removed on grounds with which I don't agree (no offence intended here, Mark!), i.e. that it fell afoul of WP:MOSQUOTE. As a pull-quote, it seems to me to be perfectly compliant with the aforementioned guideline, and moreover I believe that it improves the article by (1) summing up VHEMT's ideology succinctly, and (2) adding visual interest to the page.

As suggested by our colleague Mark Arsten, I'd like to find out what other editors think of this. I appreciate hearing any feedback and viewpoints. Thanks very much. --  TyrS  chatties  13:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've never really liked those broad quote templates, a smaller box-out might be more aesthetically pleasing (such as Quote box). However, I think the quote is a good one to use. GRAPPLE   X  13:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * MoS says per WP:MOSQUOTE under Blockquotes: Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the cquote template, which are reserved for pull quotes). MathewTownsend (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the quote is relevant and appropriate. I also agree that the pull quote format is not nice, and that quotation or quote box or quote would be better. On a related formatting issue, I don't think we need both the external link and the ref link (as visible in this version). The ref is probably better, in which case the inline link to the VHEMT home page is unnecessary. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your replies, Grapple, Mathew and Mitch!
 * I've just been looking at the examples under Quote box, and thought that perhaps following might be agreeable? I personally quite like the fat-ish quotes, since they add something different, visually, but I guess they don't have to be there - let me know what you think.


 * Thanks! --  TyrS  chatties  14:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * p.s. I think it's worthwhile to use the fat-ish quote marks in this instance because (1) it emphasizes the fact that this is a quote, which I think is especially important since it's from the primary source, and (2) they add visual interest. If no-one objects in the next 24 hours, I plan to put the quote back in in the above format.
 * Thanks very much. --  TyrS  chatties  03:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest deleting the width parameter. I don't with the current settings, on my screen the quote is split over two lines, wasting vertical space, while simultaneously having unused horizontal space on each side. Using a single line (default width) would be more efficient, without lessening the visual impact. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Mitch, thanks for the suggestion. I just previewed the quote box with no width parameter and it stretches it across the width of the page (see below), which to me looks strange, and like a waste of space in the sides of the box. How does it look on your screen?

Perhaps a different percentage might work on your screen? Please let me know. Thanks! Sincerely, --  TyrS  chatties  09:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As per the documentation the default width for centred is 100%. The space is no more "wasted" with 100% than with any other % - it's just "wasted" in colour! But yes, it is no aesthetic. Probably best (and simplest) to use the default alignment and border, as I have done here. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Mitch,
 * Sorry, I haven't responded, I've been away for a bit.
 * About the width percentage, no problem, I'll fix it now. :) --  TyrS  chatties  00:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Earth First
What does the statement that "The 1995 survey found that 36% considered themselves members of Earth First! or had donated to the group in the previous five years"? Who are Earth First, and is that 36% of supporters of VHEM?203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "Who are Earth First..." - the term Earth First! in the article is a link, indicated by the text being in a different colour (typically blue, but it may depend on your browser). Click that link, and your browser should take you to an article about Earth First!, which should answer the question of who they are.
 * "... is that 36% of supporters of VHEM?" Yes - the article says "The 1995 survey...", ie "the" referring to a specific survey. The previous paragraph mentions "A 1995 survey of VHEMT members", which presumably (in the absence of any indication of a different 1995 survey) is the same one that found 36% etc... Mitch Ames (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020
The WP:URFA/2020 initiative to review all featured articles promoted 2015 or earlier has come here. Considering the history of this talk page, it's of relatively little surprise that this response is a FAR notice. Issues observed include:


 * Significant coverage concerns. The "Ideology" section makes up a substantial proportion of the article (~700 words to a ~250 word lead and ~1000 word remainder across three sections), making the largest part of the article by weight an uncritical and uncontextualized summary of the group's positions. "Reception" is structured as to lump virtually all incorporated negative coverage in a single paragraph, pulls incredibly cherrypicked positive quotes from articles that in some cases (like the former) barely discuss the subject, and "rebuts" criticisms with quotes from the movement's founder.
 * Significant tone concerns. This mostly ties in and overlaps with the previous section -- the cherrypicking is particularly egregious -- but several examples stand out as especially tone-related, like the footnotes (A and B in particular) and the huge quotebox girding "Ideology".
 * Scope problems. The only (extremely outdated) estimates in the article for "how many people are actually associated with VHEMT" are a couple hundred people. The movement is (and is backed up by both included sources and more up-to-date ones) essentially a nom de guerre for Knight. This is shoved into the "Organization and promotion" section and quickly moved away from in favour of a self-promotional statement of "millions of people" -- Knight's guesstimate for "how many people are childfree"? The article tries very hard to present a mailing list as a mass movement, but it's disrupted by the actual numbers.

This article was promoted in 2012 after a fairly short FAC (and PR) that mostly dealt with minor prose issues rather than addressing content and tone, but still brought up without resolution some of the same issues discussed here (representing sources as more pro-VHEMT than they are). One of the supporters later seemed to treat criticism of the article as inherently ideological. The GAN also brought up, without further investigation, the "VHEMT/Knight essentially synonymous" issue by way of how it was presented in the prose.

Given the subject is an extremely small organization mostly notable for self-promotion, it's tricky to determine a clear route to improvement. FAR seems necessary in this case to introduce uninvolved editors experienced with current FA standards; a close check for source-text integrity is especially indicated, given the issues already discovered regarding out-of-context quotes. Vaticidalprophet 08:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * A lot of the article sources are not high quality RS like interviews with promoters, Spiked, and fox news. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)