Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mediation request

FINAL UPDATE:
Mediator (Bobrayner) statement (quote):

"PhilKnight, thanks for closing the case. I had been waiting for 207.61.241.100 to contribute, but we can only wait so long. Thanks, everyone, for your time. ;-) bobrayner (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)"

This Mediation Cabal case was "Closed" on September 26, 2010.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

QUESTION:
To those who have edited (or interest in) the VHEMT Article, "What are your thoughts about closing this Mediation Cabal Case?"
In addition, the same question applies to the case Mediator (Bobrayner).
My choice is to "Close".
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The mediation was closed. bobrayner (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

See also - Essure

I disagree with the inclusion of Essure under "See also". I've no particular objection to that article per se, but why is it any more notable than, for example, Tubal ligation, Hysterectomy or Vasectomy? I suggest that Sterilization (surgical procedure) covers the general topic (which is relevant to this article), and that we don't need to list any specific method of sterilization here (the method is not relevant to the VHEMT topic). Mitch Ames (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

COURTESY NOTIFICATION:

Hopefully, within 72-hours I will have time to respond to Ames's arguments (course of reasoning)---I do question most of his statements. So, at my USER Talk Page, I will provide logical arguments and further clarification (Wikipedia Policy & Guidelines)---because it's important for Editors to interact with and understand those with whom they are working.

P.S.

"Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a 'See Also' section..." (WP:ALSO)

Hence, when M.Ames added his wikilink "Sterilization (surgical procedure)" to the See Also Section he created a redundancy, and doing such is not recommended by Wikipedia's Manual of Style (Guideline)----"sterilization" (wikilink / Purpose Section) is already in the body of the article text.

Yet, as my compromise to M.Ames I did not remove his wikilink----and I merely reinserted the "Essure" wikilink.

Justification (compliance with Wikipedia Guidelines):

The Essure method is not commonly known, therefore it is justified to include the "Essure" wikilink because it enhances a reader's knowledge and improves Wikipedia.

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE:

I have revised the "Purpose" section of the VHEMT Article because:

• Nuujinn's "sterilization" (wikilink) linked to general information---instead, I revised that wikilink to specific information (proper context = human beings).
• unclear sentence context---so, I clarified the phraseology by using "compulsory" (wikilink has proper context).

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've changed your "compulsory sterilization" as two separate links (to compulsory sterilization and Sterilization (surgical procedure) respectively) to a single link to the "compulsory sterilization" article as I believe that the latter is clearer, and more consistent with MOS:LINK#Link_specificity and (to a lesser extent) WP:ASTONISH. Thus the inclusion of Sterilization (surgical procedure) in See also is now consistent with WP:ALSO.

I maintain my stance that including Sterilization (surgical procedure) is sufficient, and that listing specific methods is not relevant to the VHEMT topic. Yes I know that WP:ALSO allows for "including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question", but Sterilization (surgical procedure) covers that adequately. The VHEMT article (including See also) is to inform "readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible", but the topic is VHEMT, not specific methods of sterilization. The reader interested in methods of sterilization can easily follow the links from the Sterilization article to any or all of the different methods as they choose. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

COURTESY NOTIFICATION:

Hopefully, within 72-hours I may have time to respond to M.Ames's arguments---certainly, I question most of his statements---inclusive of his highly questionable edit/revision (May 15, 2011 - 03:48 hours).

CAUTION:

M.Ames, your revision (May 15, 2011 - 03:48 hours) is intentional manipulation of the situation.

Hence, I question that your edit was in "good faith". So, I reverted your highly questionable edit.

And, your subjective interpretation of Wikipedia Guidelines is merely based upon your highly questionable edit/revision.

So far, you are unwilling to compromise. Why so?

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

My original disagreement was with the inclusion of Essure in the See also section, however the discussion appears to diverged into one about other links (Compulsory sterilization, Sterilization (surgical procedure)). Part of my reasoning for not including Essure under See also is the inclusion of Sterilization (surgical procedure), but the latter is now also under dispute. Given that (so far as I see it, at least):

• The inclusion or not of Essure depends on the inclusion or not of Sterilization (surgical procedure) - because the former is one of several specific instances of the latter - and
• The inclusion or not of Sterilization (surgical procedure) is independent of the inclusion or not of Essure,

I request that we:

• Suspend any discussion of Essure's inclusion or removal until after we have resolved the matter of Sterilization.
• Discuss the issue of Sterilization in the separate section below, independently of the issue of Essure.

Mitch Ames (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent to my previous post, I notice that you have changed the explanatory text for the Essure entry to include "non-surgical". If it is indeed non-surgical, then one might argue that its inclusion is independent of Sterilization (surgical procedure). However:

• Essure is still listed in the Sterilization (surgical procedure) article. Perhaps you should consider removing it. Although it might make more sense to rename the article to Sterilization (medical procedure).
• From VHEMT's perspective it doesn't matter whether the procedure is surgical or not - what matters is that it is Sterilization. And I still assert that we don't need to list specific methods.

Nevertheless, the discussion will probably be more useful after we've sorted out #Linking of Compulsory sterilization, Sterilization (surgical procedure). Mitch Ames (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continued under #Inclusion of Sterilization (surgical procedure) and Essure under See also below. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Linking of Compulsory sterilization, Sterilization (surgical procedure)

I maintain that my change (and again) from:

• "compulsory sterilization" as two separate links (to compulsory sterilization and Sterilization (surgical procedure) respectively)

to

• a single link to the "compulsory sterilization" article

is correct and appropriate because the latter is clearer, and in particular the single link is consistent with:

• MOS:LINK#Link specificity - "Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context". The context here is explicitly compulsory sterilization, not a surgical procedure. In particular, the cited reference does not mention surgery at all. I suspect that Mr Knight does not support compulsory chemical castration or flooding the world's water supplies with hormonal contraception either.
• MOS:LINK#General points on linking style, 5th bullet point - "... avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link ... Consider ... omitting one of the links, or using a more specific single link ..."

If you still disagree, please explain which part of the guidelines you think I'm misinterpreting, and how you would interpret them. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Sterilization (surgical procedure) under See also

Renamed section to match ongoing discussion Mitch Ames (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Sterilization (surgical procedure) and Essure under See also

Closed discussion
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
Should the specific sterilization method of Essure be listed in the See Also section? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC) If the words "compulsory sterilization" in the VHEMT article link to the article compulsory sterilization - as per my reasoning above - then it is quite reasonable to list Sterilization (surgical procedure) under See also, because in accordance with WP:ALSO: Surgical sterilization is relevant to VHEMT (as a means of abstaining from reproduction) That article is not linked elsewhere in the VHEMT article Mitch Ames (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC) SKYKING'S SUMMARY (as needed it applies to other Sections above): For me, suffice it to say that M.Ames's verbosity has become confusing. And, I do not understand why he is unwilling to compromise. So, my summary decision is that I am justified to defend my "...editorial judgment and common sense." (WP:ALSO)---and diametrically oppose deletion of the wikilink Essure (See Also section). Because said wikilink complies with Wikipedia Policy/Guidelines, and is an intrinsic part of VHEMT concepts, I diametrically oppose M.Ames umbrella argument to delete said wikilink. The actuality of his umbrella argument is that it hides uncommon information (Essure System)*, and doing such is a serious disservice to females (males too)---whereas that uncommon information ("Essure" wikilink) should be immediately available to Reader's who are probably unaware that such a "nonsurgical" procedure for females exists. The common surgical (invasive surgery) procedures have existed for numerous decades, and are common knowledge. So, my adjuration to everyone, and my fellow editor M.Ames, is to "Please" allow one exception (Essure) to the umbrella argument. Why? Because the majority of Reader's assume they already know about "Sterilization" (wikilink) and they will not mouse-click that wikilink, in turn they will suffer the serious disservice........ -*-(November 2002 - FDA first approved use of Essure System) Emphatically, I do not agree, (name of person) is to arbitrarily and without further discussion delete or revise the wikilink "Essure" (See Also section). To do such is edit warring---and my recourse is to immediately revert such an edit, and contact an Administrator. P.S. With Editor civility, I recognized that M.Ames once again revised "compulsory sterilization" (Article body text)----however, I reserve the prerogative to edit it. Wiki Regards, Skyeking (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC) I still disagree with the inclusion of the specific procedure Essure as a See also entry. The mere fact that it is "uncommon" isn't sufficient grounds for inclusion. It's not the place of this article to provide direct links to every uncommon fact - only the related facts, ie sterilization in general, not specific methods thereof. Likewise it is not our job to advertise one specific procedure over another. Nor is it our position to decide what sterilization methods the reader may or may not know about. In short, I believe we should list either all methods (which I don't think is appropriate), or no methods (not helpful), or link to article(s) on the general topic of sterilization, and let those articles list the individual methods. Essure is not, as you claim, "an intrinsic part of VHEMT concepts" - I can't find any reference to it at all on their website. One point that you did raise is that Essure is non-surgical, whereas our current sterilization article - which does mention Essure - is Sterilization (surgical procedure). I have suggested on that article's Talk page that the article be renamed to "Sterilization (medical procedure)". This might benefit our readers who might be looking for non-surgical Sterilization methods, whether browsing from VHEMT or elsewhere. You might care to comment on that proposed rename on the Sterilization article's talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC) COURTESY NOTIFICATION: Hopefully, within 72-hours I may have time to respond to M.Ames's context box* statements ("Request for Comment" section)---certainly, I continue to question all of his statements. Yet, for now, I can provide two answers: First, my summary decision is that I am justified to defend my "...editorial judgment and common sense."(WP:ALSO) ---and I diametrically oppose deletion of the wikilink "Essure" (See Also section)---said wikilink complies with Wikipedia Policy/Guideline (WP:ALSO). (Proper context) Essure is intrinsic to the VHEMT concept(s) of "permanent birth control"---to state otherwise is erroneous. Remember, M.Ames is offering an umbrella argument that prohibits (prevents) any exceptions to HIS rules**. Such is contrary to Wikipedia Policy/Guideline because Wikipedia allows exceptions to Wikipedia Rules, in fact "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." Second, it is highly questionable to rename the Article title "Sterilization (surgical procedure)" ---the Editors of that Article "logically" (and correctly) used "surgical" because that term is a specificity about the human sterilization procedure (surgical operation). Readers are not going to be dissuaded by the term "surgical"---and I seriously question M.Ames supposed Reader benefit about "medical". Therefore, I diametrically oppose any change to that Article title. -*-Definition of context box: Phraseology used in a manner that is ambiguous, or a predisposed format that includes false comparisons, guesstimates, supposition (unsupported by policy), improbable/extreme examples, buzzwords (negative context), false authority, unauthorized speaking for others ("we" / "our"), exclusion of facts, or data (information used to reason or make decisions), and so on...... Key Note: Do not assume that my definition of context box is an evaluation of M.Ames's statements---instead, simply apply said definition when reading (evaluating) his statements------and mine. Yet, I did find some of these errors in M.Ames's statements. -**-Explanation: My use of "HIS" is not shouting---the capital letters are harmless emphasis, not shouting. And, "HIS rules" do not improve the Article, nor do his rules (i.e. hiding information) assist Readers. P.S. I am not aware that any of the Article Editors disputed (revise/delete/oppose) your wikilink "Sterilization (surgical procedure)" ---See Also section. So, why did you assign an RfC (WP:RFC) about said wikilink? Remember, my observation was not to "oppose", my statement was/is,(quote) "Yet, as my compromise to M.Ames I did not remove his wikilink----and I merely reinserted the 'Essure' wikilink." Wiki Regards, Skyeking (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC) In reply to Skyeking's statement that Essure is an intrinsic part of VHEMT's concepts: VHEMT was founded in 1991, but Essure was not approved until 2002. What was VHEMT doing for the first 11 years if such a vital part of their "concept" did not even exist? If Essure is so intrinsic to VHEMT's concept, why is there no mention of it on their web site? Suppose that the US FDA and equivalent regulatory authorities across the world decided that Essure was unsafe and banned it. Would VHEMT change their concepts? Ideas? Policies? Anything? No, they would not, because Essure is not an intrinsic part of any of those things. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC) In reply to Skyeking's "definition of context box": WP:RFC is a well defined process for asking for other editors' input when existing participants cannot reach agreement - which is apparently the case here. (Your words "diametrically opposed" spring to mind.) I've followed that process. My summary for the RFC (visible here) - "Should the specific sterilization method of Essure be listed in the See Also section?" - is as neutral as I could make it. Your "definition of context box", while full of negative connotations, neglects to mention exactly which of my "phraseology ... is ambiguous" or exactly what "false comparisons, guesstimates, supposition ..., improbable/extreme examples, buzzwords" I used, or what "false authority" I claimed, or which of my words where "unauthorized speaking for others". Please enlighten me (and other readers here) as to the precise words, phrases etc in the RFC that you have a problem with. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Regarding renaming the Sterilization (surgical procedure) article: I mentioned my proposal to rename that article because I thought you would be interested. However any discussion about that rename belongs on that article's talk page not here. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC) In reply to Skyeking's use of the words "HIS rules": I stated my disagreement about a single entry (Essure) on the See also list, and I stated my reasons for that disagreement. I expressed opinions, but I don't recall saying anything that was intended to be a "rule" (other than citing existing WP guidelines, where appropriate). For my benefit, and for the benefit of editors who may wish to participate in this discussion, Skyeking could you please state exactly - ie quoting my words - what you mean by "HIS rules". Mitch Ames (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC) In reply to Skyeking's "Sterilization (surgical procedure) ... why did you assign an Rfc about said wikilink": The RFC is about Essure, not Sterilization (surgical procedure). You may recall that I explicitly requested that we discuss Sterilization and Essure separately (precisely to avoid this sort of confusion), and created separate sections for that purpose. You chose to continue the Essure discussion under this section "Inclusion of Sterilization under See also", so - rather than haggle about where we should discuss things - I followed your lead and renamed this section accordingly. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC) COURTESY NOTIFICATION: Hopefully, within 72-hours (possibly longer) I may have time to respond to M.Ames's general arguments (context boxes), questions, and requests---certainly, I continue to question his statements (context boxes). My summary decision remains the same. P.S. Mitch, I've stated numerous times that I am not disputing your addition of the wikilink "Sterilization (surgical procedure)" ---keep it, I never said otherwise. In turn, my "...editorial judgment and common sense."(WP:ALSO) remains the same about the "Essure" wikilink---you have not persuaded me that it is vitally important to delete said wikilink----please remember, the "Essure" wikilink complies with Wikipedia Policies/Guidelines. Wiki Regards, Skyeking (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC) P.P.S. Definition of intrinsic: belonging to a thing by its very nature. Belonging to a thing (i.e. VHEMT concepts* of "permanent birth control"*) by its very nature (i.e. "Essure" is permanent birth control). -*-"Prestigious Awards for Reproductive Responsibility" Link to "Prestigious Awards..." http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm It is obvious that "birth control" is intrinsic (belongs) to VHEMT concepts---inclusive of "permanent birth control". Mitch, I do not agree with your questionable context box ("VHEMT was founded in 1991...of those things."---paragraph) about Essure. Definition of questionable: Open to doubt or challenge, problematic (debatable due to errors). Notes: "Thank You" for allowing my form of address; "M.Ames / Mitch"---allowing such helps me (my medical condition). Hopefully, within 72-hours (possibly longer) I may have time to respond to M.Ames's general arguments (context boxes), questions, and requests---certainly, I continue to question his statements (context boxes). Clarification: M.Ames's RfC uses correct phraseology---it is a misunderstanding to think my comments meant otherwise. Whereas, the intent of said comments was to offer an explanation about the term "context box" and its application to all Editor's general arguments (course of reasoning). My summary decision remains the same. Wiki Regards, Skyeking (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC) In reply to Skyeking's "definition of intrinsic": Wictionary and SOED include "inseparable from the thing itself" or "essential" in in their definitions of "intrinsic". Explain to me how VHEMT and Essure are "inseparable" from each other. Would either cease to exist or become invalid without the other? I think not. Essure is a legitimate method of birth control, but it is not intrinsic or essential to VHEMT's policy. The test of this - as I asked on 06:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC), and you conventiently didn't answer - is, what would happen to VHEMT and their policies if Essure did not exist? I'll answer (again) for you - nothing, because Essure is not an intrinsic part of their policy. Birth control is an intrinsic part of their policy ("... ceasing to breed ..."), but the specific method of Essure is not. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC) In reply to Skyeking's link to "Prestigious Awards...": A page on VHEMT's site that does not mention Essure. Thank-you. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC) In reply to Skyeking's "I do not agree with ... 'VHEMT was founded in 1991 ...' paragraph": Please elaborate as to exactly which part(s) you disagree with. The years are from the Wikpedia articles. If they're wrong, feel free to correct the article(s). I said that Essure is not mentioned on VHEMT's website - if it is, please provide a link to the exact page. I asked "how would VHEMT change if Essure was banned?" and answered "not at all". If you think that VHEMT would change its policy, please tell us what you think they might change it from/to. Just saying "I disagree" without telling us why does not give you a very good case. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC) In reply to Skyeking's "Clarification ... the intent ... was ... an explanation about the term 'context box' ...": Perhaps if you just tried using plain english, then you wouldn't need to "explain" your terminology. Your "explanations" appear to have many negative implications that bear no relationship to the post to which you refer (details), and might be construed as misrepresenting other people. With fewer such "explanations" you might have more time to construct a rational case, and/or address my specific rebuttals of your "questionable" claims. Certainly it would be easier for the rest of us to find your point, if we didn't have to wade through all the guff first. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Previously*, I offered M.Ames my personal definition (usage and meaning; proper context) of the word "intrinsic"---I did such because my previous** phraseology (usage of "intrinsic") had caused a misunderstanding, and that misunderstanding was due to not posting my personal definition of said word, my apologies. -*-May 26, 2011 - 04:32 hours -**-Before May 25, 2011 Yet, at this time, M.Ames is again using a dictionary definition about "intrinsic" in his current argument (May 26, 2011 - 14:05 hours)---and my evaluation is that his dictionary definition merely creates an argument that is "out-of-context" (irrelevant, misleading, and meaningless) to our WP:Discussion. IMPORTANT NOTE: It is pointless to argue about my personal definition of the word "intrinsic"---I had previously explained my usage of said word, and its logical application. So, my claim about the Essure wikilink remains justified because the Essure wiki-article is related to VHEMT's concepts about permanent birth control (proper context; Skyeking's personal definition of the word "intrinsic"). End of note. The debate (misunderstanding) about "intrinsic" is outside the RfC topic, "Should the specific sterilization method of Essure be listed in the See Also section?" Of course, my phraseology would have been (RfC topic), "Does the Essure wikilink comply with Wikipedia Policies/Guidelines?" It is simple to understand that Essure is a permanent method of birth control and VHEMT's concepts support use of permanent birth control---enough said, because the Essure wikilink is "...useful for Readers seeking to read...including subjects only peripherally related..."(WP:ALSO) And, the Essure wikilink is qualified because WP:ALSO does not require "...related Wikipedia articles..." to be specifically named in the associated Article (i.e. VHEMT Article), or in the references listed (References section). The M.Ames/Roscelese idea about Essure not being named (Article/References), is merely their viewpoint---they have failed to provide specific* Wikipedia Policies/Guidelines about their idea. -*-Please cite Wikipedia Policies/Guidelines---and for clarification, please quote specific supporting sentences; application to your arguments (course of reasoning). Hey, Mitch/Roscelese, you overlooked (exclusion of facts, or data) usage of the word "etc." at VHEMT's Prestigious Awards for Reproductive Responsibility-----"...who have chosen permanent [...] contraception (vasectomy, tubal ligation, hysterectomy, etc.)..." Definition of etcetra : more of the same, continuing in the same way. IMPORTANT NOTE: I will not debate about semantics---such is irrelevant to our WP:Discussion ---and my evaluation of an Editor who starts such a debate is; a ploy to mislead this WP:Discussion. My common sense (WP:UCS) allows me to understand VHEMT's usage of "etcetra" (etc.); meaning all-inclusive---all forms of permanent birth control (i.e. Essure method). End of note. M.Ames "umbrella" idea is merely an opinion---he has failed to provide specific Wikipedia Policies/Guidelines that would enforce his idea. Mitch, are you authorized to speak for others (us/we)? You stated, "Certainly it would be easier for the 'rest of us'....if 'we' didn't have....." My summary decision remains the same---and I will continue to defend my "...editorial judgment and common sense."(WP:ALSO) Wiki Regards, Skyeking (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC) My basic objection to the inclusion of Essure is - and has always been - that it is no more relevant to the topic than any other method of sterilization ("vasectomy, tubal ligation, hysterectomy, etc"). While you have amply demonstrated that Essure is a valid way of achieving VHEMT's goals, you have provided nothing that distinguishes it from any of the other sterilization methods. In the interest of (Wikipedia policies) neutrality, balance and not advertising a specific commercial (registered trademark) method, we should not single out this specific method. We should list all of them, or none of them. VHEMT's core methodology is birth control (abstention from breeding), not sterilization, so we should list all of the birth control methods, not just sterilization, and not just one specific method (Essure). Frankly I think listing all of them would be ridiculous - the existing link to birth control in the body text should be sufficient for any reader interested in the topic. Nonetheless, Skyeking would you object to listing all of the birth control methods here? And if so, on what grounds? Mitch Ames (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC) There is a distinct difference between Article "body text" (core content) and a Section (i.e. "See Also" section). What is the primary difference? The majority of WP:Policies/Guidelines apply to an Article's "body text"---whereas, a "See Also" section is merely an area to list, "...related Wikipedia articles...useful for Readers seeking to read...including subjects only peripherally related..."(WP:ALSO) Yet, WP:ALSO states, "A reasonable number of [...] links that would be included [...] should be used in moderation..."---hence, to list all methods of birth control is not a "reasonable number". Regardless, I am allowed to use my editorial judgment (common sense) to select the Essure wikilink because it is the least known (uncommon; November 2002 FDA approved) by the general public (worldwide), and it is nonsurgical. Plus, said wikilink improves Wikipedia because it allows Readers (researchers) to easily discover uncommon information (vs. your "hidden"-umbrella idea). It is important to remember, "...whether a link belongs in the 'See Also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense."(WP:ALSO) With editorial respect, your "umbrella" argument (context box) remains an opinion, not enforceable by WP:Policies/Guidelines---you have failed to use "specific sentences" from such to help clarify your argument---instead, you are merely stringing together wikilinks (false premise / buzzwords / out-of-context). With editorial respect, your generalized argument (context box) about "single out" is not applicable because your logic is "out-of-context"---WP:ALSO governs what is acceptable, "...related Wikipedia articles...useful for Readers seeking to read...including subjects only peripherally related..." ---------"...whether a link belongs in the See Also section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense."(WP:ALSO) My "...editorial judgment and common sense."(WP:ALSO) remains the same about the Essure wikilink---you have not persuaded me that it is vitally important to delete said wikilink. Wiki Regards, Skyeking (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Quoting Skyeking> The majority of WP:Policies/Guidelines apply to an Article's "body text" You neglected to quote the relevant text from the specific policies/guidelines that I referred to. Here are a couple of specific relevant quotes: WP:STRUCTURE (a subset of WP:NPOV) explicitly says "Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view". This certainly doesn't limit itself to "body text". WP:NOTADVERTISING says "Wikipedia is not ... advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." Again, explicitly not limited to article body text. S> WP:ALSO states, "A reasonable number of [...] links" ... to list all methods of birth control is not a "reasonable number". On this we agree, however: S> ... Essure ... is the least known ... Citation required. Our article does not mention how well the topic is known compared to other methods. Should we add a link to condom manufacturers? I suspect fewer people know about Julius Schmid, Inc than know about Essure. S> ... it is nonsurgical. Plus, said wikilink ... allows Readers ... to easily discover ... information ... I agree with you that: Essure is non-surgical and so nominally not a Sterilization (surgical procedure). (It is covered in that article, but that article name and the inclusion of Essure in that article's body text are the subject of Talk:Sterilization (surgical_procedure)#Rename to Sterilization (medical procedure)? Readers should be able to find information - by following the existing birth control link - but the birth control article only mentions Essure in passing (under Methods in development), and not under Sterilization. But, the disagreement is how we resolve this problem. I still assert that a better approach would be to: (As previously mentioned) rename the Sterilization article (eg to "... medical ..." or "... clinical ..." instead of "... surgical ..." - so that we do not "hide" the non-surgical methods (of which there might be others in future). Add Essure more explicitly to the birth control article - again so that it is not "hidden". Ie add appropriate links/content, not arbitrary links. Eg link from VHEMT to "birth control" and "sterilization methods" articles. Link from those articles to all of the different types. (I think we should address the above two points regardless of the outcome of this RFF.) S> "...whether a link belongs in the 'See Also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense."(WP:ALSO) This is true, but it's not just your judgement - or mine, hence the RFC. I assert that the core policy of NPOV trumps the guideline of WP:ALSO. S> ... WP:Policies/Guidelines ... you have failed to use "specific sentences" from such to help clarify your argument See first points (in this post) above. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC) With editorial respect, M.Ames is out-of-context (regarding WP:STRUCTURE)---the first sentence of that Section declares (quote), "See the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style for clarification on the issues raised in this section."---refers to WP:ALSO (application to this WP:Discussion). And, M.Ames overlooked (exclusion of facts, or data) Note 2---applicable to his partially quoted sentence. In addition, my common sense (WP:UCS) allows me to understand that WP:NPV is about core content of an Article (body text, primarily written statements)----WP:NPV not support M.Ames's "umbrella" idea, nor his "context box" about a See also section. The See also (VHEMT article) section contains a wikilink about "surgical", and a wikilink about "nonsurgical"---hence, Readers are offered two methods (procedures)***. Regardless, the Essure wikilink is qualified to standalone per the proper governing Guideline (WP:ALSO). -***-CAUTION (Skyeking's Evaluation): I do not agree with M.Ames's ploy* to edit the wikilink title, "Sterilization (surgical procedure)"---and his arguments at said Article Talk Page are questionable and "out-of-context". Plus, M.Ames's ploy* impeded this WP:Discussion---as does similar questionable ideas. -*-Definition of ploy: An action calculated to frustrate an opponent or gain an advantage indirectly or deviously. With editorial respect, M.Ames is "out-of-context" (regarding WP:NOTADVERTISING)---that Section is obviously about written statements (body text)---not about wikilinks in a See also section. And, the Essure article is merely about a "procedure", "method", "system", "process", and so on. M.Ames's interpretation (argument application) about WP:NPV is "false premise" and "out-of context"----hence, I assert WP:ALSO (Guideline) trumps a misinterpretation of WP:NPV (misapplication by M.Ames). All of M.Ames's ideas are an oversight (overlook / misinterpretation) of WP:ALSO, as though WP:ALSO does not exist---whereas, actually WP:ALSO is the proper governing Guideline for a See also section---hence, I firmly agree with its statements, "...related Wikipedia articles...useful for Readers seeking to read...including subjects only peripherally related..."---those statements are reasonable, and especially so, because a See also section is not about "written statements" (body text). NOTES: Editorially, I am allowed to apply my common sense (WP:UCS), so I do not need a "citation" to explain my course of reasoning (3rd par. my post June 1, 2011 - 03:18). The proper context for Essure is "procedure", "method", "system", "process", and so on---whereas, M.Ames's argument (definition) is to pigeonhole* the Essure article as advertising (erroneous context). -*-Definition of pigeonhole: A specific, often oversimplified category. My "...editorial judgment and common sense."(WP:ALSO) remains the same about the Essure wikilink---M.Ames has not persuaded me that it is vitally important to delete said wikilink. Wiki Regards, Skyeking (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Skyeking, I don't think we are getting anywhere with this. I propose that we suspend our debate here until we get some more feedback from others. Again, I ask others to give an opinion on the matter, perhaps provide a different perspective, and/or give some indication in the straw opinion poll below as to what they think we should do. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC) "Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal." --Jimmy Wales Mitch (and others), you have my apologies; my initial research not discover other "Hysteroscopic Tubal Occlusion Procedures" (nonsurgical permanent birth control). At this time, I have discovered the following: Adiana Ovabloc Essure Quinacrine Are there additional methods? Mitch (or Nuujinn, or both), if you agree to the reasonable compromise, are you willing to help me develop a wiki-Article titled "Sterilization_(nonsurgical procedure)"?----Do you support usage of that Article Title?----And, its application to the See also section of the VHEMT Article? For me, it is a reasonable compromise to develop a wiki-Article titled, "Sterilization_(nonsurgical procedure)"---and insert that wikilink (said Article Title) in the See also section of the VHEMT Article. QUESTION (to all involved Editors): Do you agree/disagree to said compromise? --Please offer your course of reasoning about your decision. --If "Disagree", please offer your proposition about a reasonable compromise. Please remember, it could be 72-hours (possibly longer) before I post responses (course of reasoning). Your patience is appreciated. Wiki Regards, Skyeking (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC) I agree that it is appropriate to add link(s) to articles(s) "Sterilization (surgical procedure)", "Sterilization (non-surgical procedure)", "Sterilization (medical procedure)", "Sterilization (permanently stopping otherwise fertile people making babies by whatever means)" ... However the scope, titles and development of those articles is not within the scope of this (VHEMT's) talk page. There is a discussion at Talk:Sterilization (surgical procedure)#What should the scope of this article be? Should it be limited to "surgical"?, which is the appropriate place (at least for now). Thus I propose that we: Close this VHEMT discussion and RFC, and accept the majority opinion that Essure not be included under See also. Discuss the scope and title of "Sterilization ..." article(s) at Talk:Sterilization (surgical procedure)#What should the scope of this article be? Should it be limited to "surgical"? When the "Sterilization ..." articles are sorted out, update VHEMT's See also section with those articles accordingly. At that time, a 'new section on Talk:VHEMT should be started if necessary. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC) RfC Comment. No, neither should be included without evidence that the VHEM promotes it specifically (as opposed to birth control, etc.) lest we engage in original research. I could see including sterilization based on the "golden snip" awards on their website, but not Essure if it is not named as a method. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC) With friendly intent I offer Roscelese the following (partial list only): SOURCE LINK Suggestions for responding All editors (including anonymous or IP users) are welcome to provide comment or opinion, and to assist in reaching agreements, by responding to requests for comment. Requests for Comment are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes. Mediate where possible — identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart. If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia Policies, or style page. Hopefully, within 72-hours (possibly longer) I may have time to respond to Roscelese's questionable arguments (context boxes) ---certainly, I continue to question her statements (context boxes). Wiki Regards, Skyeking (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Buh? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Question: How are you relating (as applied to this RfC) WP:OR "The term 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material [...] for which no reliable published source exists." What is your course of reasoning* (argument)? -*-Please cite Wikipedia Policies/Guidelines---and for clarification, please quote specific supporting sentences; application to your arguments (course of reasoning). P.S. Please remember, it could be 72-hours (possibly longer) before I post responses. Wiki Regards, Skyeking (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC) It appears that neither Mitch Ames nor Skyeking are unlikely to change the other's view on the matter. Does anyone else have any other opinions, suggestions, perspectives? And/or, can we have a quick straw poll on the question of whether Essure should be included or removed from the See also section. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC) True, Skyeking disagrees with M.Ames's "context box*" of interpreting the See Also section as "something other*"----whereas, the See also section is actually an area to list, "...related Wikipedia articles...useful for Readers seeking to read...including subjects only peripherally related..."(WP:ALSO) -*-(out-of-context aruguments, misapplication of "sentences" from WP:Policies/Guidelines, and more.) Previously, I politely asked (negotiation) for "one exception" (Essure) to M.Ames's "umbrella" idea (his Rule, not Wikipedia's). In addition, lest we forget, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." (WP:IAR)---a pillar Policy. Mitch, why did you fail to list (exclusion of facts, or data) WP:POLL (Guideline) vs. your link "straw poll" (merely a project page, languished since year 2009, 7-edits)? SOURCE - WP:POLL (Guideline) "Polling may be divisive and cause factionalism." "...polls are generally not used for article development." "In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion." P.S. I am becoming more skeptical and beginning to wonder if M.Ames has a hidden agenda. Regardless, of "good faith", at this time (20-days later) I am allowed to express my personal observation. My "...editorial judgment and common sense."(WP:ALSO) remains the same about the Essure wikilink---M.Ames has not persuaded me that it is vitally important to delete said wikilink. Wiki Regards, Skyeking (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC) On WP:Strawpoll vs WP:POLL: WP:Strawpoll was the first thing I found when I looked for "straw poll" - a common enough term that I don't feel obliged to justify thinking it. (Our straw poll article has a hatnote link to Wikipedia:Straw polls, not WP:POLL. I'll leave you to update that if you feel it appropriate.) However, I'm happy to accept the contents of WP:POLL as well. Please note that I said "Does anyone else have any other opinions ...? And/or, can we have a quick strawpoll." Ie first a request for more ideas. We have been discussing it, and I'll continue to discuss it if needs be, but we're not getting anywhere. The way I see it there are (generally speaking) three possible outcomes: A significant majority agree with you, and I shall graciously concede, and leave the Essure entry there. Sufficient people agree with you that I am persuaded that you are correct, and I shall graciously concede, and leave the Essure entry there. A significant majority agree with me, and you graciously concede and remove the entry. Sufficient people agree with my reasoning, and/or offer alternative arguments (that you agree with) that you are persuaded that the entry is inappropriate, and you graciously concede and remove the entry. Above points modified to sound less like a vote. Mitch Ames (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC) There is no significant majority either way and we continue discussing the matter. Two outcomes lead to consensus, which I assume is what we all want. (I'm assuming good faith, not "speaking for others".) The third outcome leaves us no worse off - you can't get much more divided or factionalized than (to quote your words) "diametrically opposed" - and we might get some new ideas to help resolve the disagreement. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC) SOURCE - WP:POLL (Guideline) "Polls lead to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to... suffering." --Wiki Yoda "If it is clear from ongoing discussion that consensus has not been reached, a straw poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming." "...polls [...] often controversial and never binding." "Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be 'votes', most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule." "Polls might lead Editors to expect that a majority will automatically win the argument, or that the result is permanently binding. That contravenes Wikipedia's policy on What Wikipedia is not (a democracy)..." -------------------- "The terms "!vote", "!voting", and "!voter" [...] are sometimes used in discussions to indicate that taking part in a straw poll is not voting, but rather engaging in an act of consensus-building. These terms serve as reminders that while we do vote on things, votes without reasonable accompanying rationales receive little consideration unless you also explain why you are voting the way you are. Votes without rationales sometimes are ignored." (WP:POLL) "The exclamation mark in "!vote" is the symbol for logical negation and can be read literally as "not vote". It serves as a cute little reminder that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important." (WP:POLL) -------------------- Wiki Regards, Skyeking (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC) I've updated my "possible outcomes" above to sound less like a vote. I'm trying to resolve the matter. Feel free to offer some alternative. Mitch Ames (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC) I've thought about this a good bit, and I'm inclined to the opinion that Essure need not be in the external links section. Is there some source linking these two topics? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC) With editorial respect, I do not understand the context of your comment/question. So, please clarify your meaning "external links section"----this WP:Discussion is about the See also section. Your idea (question) about "source linking" is unrelated to WP:ALSO, such is my interpretation---please clarify your meaning(s). Please remember, it could be 72-hours (possibly longer) before I post responses (arguments). Wiki Regards, Skyeking (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC) I, too, think that Essure is out of place. A more general article on contraception, perhaps; but I don't see why it's so important to include a link to just one specific (and uncommon) form of contraception. bobrayner (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC) "...A more general article on contraception..." is covered by the link to birth control, in the first paragraph of Purpose. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

See Also section - Church of E.

Disputed Edit: "Church of E." wikilink (May 19, 2011 - 12:55 hours)
Disputed Edit: "Church of E." wikilink (May 20, 2011 - 11:36 hours)

Editor Requesting WP:Discussion: Skyeking

I question the addition of said wikilink, and I'm requesting an explanation from M.Ames about his reasoning to add said wikilink.
And, B.Raynor may have comments too.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the Church of Euthanasia is relevant and belongs in the article; the subject is closely related.

Repeatedly reverting to your preferred version, over and over again, with comments like "Please, do not revert this edit---no edit warring" and "Do not revert again---instead, DISCUSS" is pretty unhelpful. bobrayner (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have posted a "Policy Notification" at your User Talk Page.

Why do you believe C.O.E. is relevant? Why do you believe C.O.E. is closely related?

P.S.

It is obvious you have no intent of stopping your edit warring, that is your ploy and your actions are an intentional violation of numerous Wikipedia Policy/Guidelines. So, my only recourse is to notify an Administrator.

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the Church of Euthanasia is relevant and belongs in the article; the subject is closely related.

If you want to get outside attention, or perhaps a third opinion, feel free. Perhaps somebody else will explain that you are neither the article's owner, nor exempt from WP:3RR. bobrayner (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

P.P.S. - To: B.Raynor

(Refer to Skyeking's User Talk Page)

Regarding edit warring, I will provide logical answers about B.Raynor's erroneous interpretation of WP:3RRNO.

Regarding WP:OAS, I had previously provided B.Raynor the correct answer; stewardship---yet, 18-months later and B.Raynor remains unforgiving about my FIRST editing error (my FIRST day as an article Editor - Oct. 13, 2009)----whatever Bob, I self-corrected the same-day October 13-14, 2009; FisherQueen (Administrator) had confirmed such-----Bob, enough said, your interpersonal discussion (unrelated to Article improvement) should be at my User Talk Page.

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Church of Euthanasia is "devoted to restoring balance between Humans and the remaining species on Earth", and believes that "this can only be accomplished by a massive voluntary population reduction". It has one commandment "Thou shalt not procreate".[1] VHEMT's goal is the voluntary self-extinction of humans by refraining from reproduction, because they believe the Earth's biosphere would be better of without us. VHEMT's goal is more extreme, but other than that degree of population reduction, both VHEMT and C of E have the same basic goal - major human population reduction, by voluntary means. A link to C of E from VHEMT seems relevant to me. VHEMT's own website includes C of E on their Related Resources Online page. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

COURTESY NOTIFICATION:

Hopefully, within 72-hours (possibly longer) I may have time to continue our WP:Discussion. At this time, I consider the Church of E. article to be unqualified (candidate for WP:AfD) because it is merely "self-promotion"/"advertising"**(WP:ADS)---the article's Reference Section is ludicrous---the content (body of text) is not supported by reliable independent secondary resources (WP:VERIFY)---and Church of E.*** fails to qualify for notability (WP:ORG).

-**-inclusive of sub-topic "Chris Korda".

-***-non-profit educational foundation / "exempt from federal income tax..."

M.Ames / B.Raynor, what are your thoughts?

If you disagree, please offer your arguments about why said Article(s) is qualified.*

In addition, I challenge you** to find ten(10) "reliable independent secondary resources" about Church of E. (WP:SOURCES).

-*-Please cite Wikipedia Policies/Guidelines---and for clarification, please quote specific "supporting" sentences; application to your arguments (course of reasoning).

-**-Friendly smile, friendly intent from fellow Editor.

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There are several problems.

• You still haven't explained your bizarre claim of exemption from WP:3RR - a mechanism which allows you to revert at will whilst instructing other editors to use the talkpage.
• You are not a steward any more than you're permitted to own this article.
• If you don't think the CoE article meets criteria for inclusion in wikipedia, you should discuss that at Talk:Church of Euthanasia, not here.
• If you're sure AfD is the best option for Church of Euthanasia, feel free to take it to AfD, but you may find that other editors there disagree with you.
• It's rather bizarre to see an article about an organisation as promotional simply because it discusses the organisation. Nobody has yet suggested that the VHEMT article should be deleted on that basis, despite extensive efforts to cleanse the article of anything negative.
• In the meantime, the subject of Church of Euthanasia is directly related to this article; that's why I think it should remain.
• You don't seem to have notified an administrator yet. Do you want me to do it for you?
• The standards that you invented for evidence on the CoE page are far higher than the standards that generally prevail on wikipedia, and far higher than the standards you apply to your own work here. I will ignore such nonsense.
• My name is "bobrayner", not "B.Raynor". An occasional slip is understandable, but I can't fathom why you so consistently misspell my name. If you have any difficulty copy & pasting "bobrayner", just ask for help.

bobrayner (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Bobrayner, leaving aside the personal characterizations and comments on behavior (which we should all avoid), is there any reliable source that directly links COE and VEHMT? I'm not saying that such a source is required, but if there is one, that would settle the question, I think. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

VHEMT's web site links to COE - the 5th entry here. And COE's web site links to VHEMT - first entry on this page. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Good to know, but not really what I was asking. I'm curious as to whether there's a 2ndary reliable source that makes the connection between the two groups, as if there were, that would, I think, settle the question. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The prima facie similarity in principles / objectives is good enough for me, and the reciprocated mentions (VHEMT mentions the C of E, and vice versa) are just icing on the cake, However, they have both been compared by other sources; for instance, [2] or [3] or [4]. bobrayner (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

prima facie is in the eye of the beholder, and OR without supporting sources. Neither [5] nor [6] are what I would consider reliable sources, the first being a blog and the second some kind of aggregator. This seems on the surface a potential reliable source, but generally speaking, we require that reliable sources have a reputation for fact checking and some transparency in regard to editors and editorial practices. I can't find anything of that nature on the web site, so I'm uncertain. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn's evaluations are correct. Yet, my evaluation of "This" is that it lacks "transparency"** and fails to qualify as a reliable source*.

-*-WP:SOURCES,..."if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers."

Who is Sheryl Young?

(author of post/opinion------not a "fact-checking" university-level textbook, mainstream newspaper, professional journals, etc.)

Note:

IF the statement "This post was written by: Sheryl Young" ( hearsay) were verifiable that S.Young is the person who posted, she is merely "self-published" (Winepress Publishing)---vanity publisher.

Who is "COA Org LLC"?

-**-"Contact Us" - merely an uninformative web form (web page).

-**-Registrant: COA Org LLC

-**-Administrative Contact: LLC, COA Org support@coahosting.com

-**-Registrant:

Contact the owner by E-mail only

c/o coahosting.com

N4892 Nassau

Bahamas

-**-Registrar: Internet.bs Corp.

In addition, I remain unconvinced about Church of E. wikilink (wiki-article violates Notability Guideline, hence said wikilink is disqualified).

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps bobrayner and Nuujinn would care to apply this same level of analysis to the question of the inclusion (or not) of Essure, in the debate above. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wholesale reversion

My rewritten expansion of this page was just wholesale reverted by Skyeking. I'm a bit nonplussed honestly. I would think that it would be uncontroversial that my version is an improvement, since it includes all of the relevant sourced information in the previous version, which used a number of primary sources and was much shorter. For reference, this was the version that I posted. I think it is pretty neutral and pretty comprehensive of 3rd party sources. On my talk page, Skyeking described the his reason for reverting by stating that the draft is "extensive and lengthy" with "unnecessary phraseology and original research". This seems to be unfounded, in my opinion--but I would like to hear from other editors. I'm more than willing to work with other editors to improve this article. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

IMPORTANT – Skyeking’s Declaration of Protest and Dispute (User Talk Page link)
Skyeking (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

POST by Skyeking*
Skyeking (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Skyking’s additional information:

-*-Definition of “context box”:

• Phraseology used in a manner that is ambiguous, or a predisposed format that includes false comparisons, guesstimates, supposition (unsupported by Wikipedia Policy/Guideline), improbable/extreme examples, buzzwords (negative context), false authority, unauthorized speaking for others ("we" / "our"), exclusion of facts or data (information used to reason or make decisions), and so on......

Key Note:
Do not assume that my definition of “context box” is an evaluation of Arsten's statements – instead, simply apply said definition when reading (evaluating) his statements------and mine.

Yet, I did find some of these errors in Arsten's statements (i.e. an exclusion of fact – Skyeking specifically stated there not WP:CON about Arsten’s “wholesale” revision of the entire article.

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S.
I too am nonplussed with M. Arsten about his failure to offer his fellow Editors a “How do you do.” (introduce self / first action; offer proposal at article Talk Page vs. his “wholesale” revision of article) – WP:CIV / WP:FIVE

Essentially, which Wikipedia Policy/Guideline provides Arsten the authority to make a “wholesale” revision of said article, and doing such without WP:CON.

P.P.S.
The Wikimedia Foundation has stated (banner):

• “Please note: In less that 29-hours, the English Wikipedia will be blacked out globally in protest of SOPA and PIPA.”

SOURCE:

SOURCE:

SOURCE:

Therefore, my fellow Editors, at this time, I suggest we temporarily suspend our discussion(s) and temporarily suspend any-and-all article editing to said article — i.e. maintain in-place the original version (December 10, 2011) of said article. And continue such until Wikipedia Foundation publicly states that its “black-out” is officially over – thereby, allowing normal editing and Editor’s discussion(s).

My request is based solely upon my medical condition – said “black-out” is disconcerting to my.....(medical privacy).

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi again, I'm sorry to hear that you are having medical issues, I hope you get well soon. I didn't discuss the addition of the new information with anyone because there were few edits to this page since August and I assumed the addition would be uncontroversial. But anyway, you state that "I did find some of these errors in Arsten's statements". Could you be more specific? I put my suggested draft in a sandbox for reference. I just read through the talk archives, very interesting stuff. I'll ask a few editors who have weighed in here in the past for their opinion about my suggested improvements. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait, I just re-read your entire post. I think the exclusion you're talking about is in my talk page post, not the draft I posted? What I meant to ask was what are examples of things you object to in my draft? (open question for anyone reading this--I'm not sold on my draft as the best version possible, actually I think a couple parts could flow a bit better toward the end of sections. This was kinda a tricky article to write.) Note that I've pinged the 5 editors whose names I see on this discussion page for feedback. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Skyeking, I'm going to second Mark here - please explain what it is about his version you object to, without spurious appeals to civility, PIPA, or other irrelevancies. There's an essay which is relevant here: Don't revert due to "no consensus." If you explain in concrete terms what problems you see in his version, then we can all work together on addressing those problems. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  

POST by Skyeking
Skyeking’s P.P.P.S.
Please refer to Arstern’s User Talk Page regarding Skyeking’s posted “Notice”. Doing such allows further clarification about the current editing dispute – and Skyeking’s “course of reasoning” about why the editing objective should be to START with the long-standing “original” version (December 10, 2011) of said Article – vs. Arsten’s proposed draft.

Regarding the original version, Arsten has yet to provide his course of reasoning (disagreement) “line-by-line” about why he disagrees with “each line edit” of the long-standing “original” version. Plus, he has failed to provide his course of reasoning (disagreement) about said article(s overall format.

The burden of proof is upon Arsten to prove “line-by-line” why he disapproves the edits of the primary Editors (refer to Arstern’s User Talk Page) – and the other participating Editors.

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." Reverting without any intent to provide a policy-based reason and expecting people to read your mind in order to address your objections is disruptive. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, your personal interpretation of WP:BRD is erroneous and "out-of-context". Essentially, which Wikipedia Policy/Guideline provides Arsten the authority to make a “wholesale” revision of said article, and doing such without WP:CON. "Please" discuss and cooperate (collaborate) with your fellow Editors; not edit war - instead discuss.

Consider this, Mark Arsten himself, showing respect to the primary Editors and myself, created a "sandbox" for this dispute resolution discussion (i.e. the area to discuss his proposed revisions) - "Kudos" to you Mark.

Skyeking (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, could you discuss with us what in my new draft you dislike? Why you prefer a shorter version with less sources? I think this is exactly the context that WP:BRD is designed for: you seem very hesitant to actually discuss the issue and are instead simply reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark, I not ignoring you, I have a permanent medical condition - please refer to my answers and comments of 07:16 - 17 January 2012 (my statement below). Thank you.

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question in more detail (note that I'm not going to go line-by-line though, sorry): reasons I was dissatisfied with the article and posted a new draft include: the article relied heavily on primary sources (almost half of the references cited), did not use some of the available high-quality sources (such as articles in The Economist, Macleans, The Guardian, and the two peer reviewed journal articles on the group), included very little of the group's reception (3 sentences, I think), and only briefly goes over the history and ideology of the group. I also don't think that listing media interviews he did is very encyclopedic, although they may qualify as external links. The article was OK, but I was of the opinion that we could do better so I boldly improved the article by adding better sourcing and more information. Obviously, my draft still needs work and I would appreciate input from anyone on it--I hope we can get this article to GA or maybe even FA eventually. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Also, the thing that makes me the most flabbergasted by all this is that almost all the facts in the last version are present in the new version, including all the same wikilinks, even. I didn't include a couple bits that were only sourced to primary sources or that I couldn't find a source for, but hey, if anyone is bothered by specific changes, let's discuss them. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark, I truly appreciate your agreement to provide your "sandbox" where the primary Editors (plus others) and myself can discuss your proposed “draft” and reach consensus about it. Certainly, you should be the "first" Editor to post at your "sandbox" (sandbox Talk Page) - offer your arguments and viewpoints - for myself, I await your post(s) and will respond (sometimes within 72-hrs due to my permanent medical condition).

With all due respect, your draft will require time-consuming editing (consensus) amongst all participating Editors – yet, surely we will eventually reach a consensus and publish it as the “new original” version.

Until such time the current “original” version (December 10, 2011) should remain in-place. Do you agree? If not, then “jointly” we (together) need to consult with other non-involved Editors and Administrators.

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, no. I have the greatest sympathy for your illness, but you do not get to revert and then claim that your illness prevents you from explaining why you reverted. If you can't provide a policy-based reason for reverting, don't do it. Easy. You talk about "time-consuming editing" - guess who's already put in that effort? Mark. You talk about "consensus" - guess who's going against consensus? You. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

First Roscelese, my question not addressed to you. Was addressed to Mark Arsten.

Second, "Please" don't patronize (condescending manner) me about my medical condition -- your personal interpretation about my medical statements is erroneous.

Third, you are hindering the "Dispute Resolution" discussion between the "interested parties" (Mark Arsten and Skyeking).

"Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal."

-Jimmy Wales

Once again Roscelese, essentially, which Wikipedia Policy/Guideline provides Arsten the authority to make a “wholesale” revision of said article, and do such without WP:CON.

Can you offer "specific" sentences and "in-context" (vs. your ambiguity) from WP policies/guidelines that support Arsten's "wholesale" revision of an article? I think not. Yet, if so, "Please" answer at Arsten's "sandbox" (sandbox Talk Page).

Roscelese, what are your thoughts about consulting Administrators to resolve our (Roscelese / Skyeking) "impasse" (a situation that is so difficult that no progress can be made)?

TO ALL EDITORS:

At this time, I may need 72-hours to post further replies, comments, or edits. "Please" be patient - thank you.

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you continue reverting without discussing why, then we will certainly bring this to the attention of administrators. You state that "your draft will require time-consuming editing": why is that? Could you give us an inkling of why you are opposed to its content? You seem to be dancing around the issue of why you don't support my improvements to the article. Also, in answer to your question about "the authority to make a "wholesale" revision of said article", WP:BRD is the relevant guideline here. We all have the authority to make bold changes, but if you're going to revert those changes you must discuss why--citing issues with the content that was boldly inserted. I hope your health clears up soon, but I'll talk to you in 3 days in any case. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

SKYEKING'S reply to Arsten:

SOURCE:
Fait accompli
3) Editors who are […] individually making large numbers of similar edits – and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed – are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use […] volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli, or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to […], as well as a few editors making many edits.

Definition of “fait accompli”:

accomplished fact; something that has already happened and is thus unlikely to be reversed, a done deal.

SOURCE: Major Edits

Mark, it appears that you and I are at an “impasse” – so, my suggestion is that we consult with Administrators about the “starting point” for editing the VHEMT article – meaning;

-*- is the “original” version the starting point to “slowly” start editing, or

-*- is your extensive (entire rewrite) “draft” version the starting point.

Mark, are you willing to consult with an Administrator?

If so, are you willing to “jointly” (Mark Arsten / Skyeking) apply for Administrators assistance?

If not, then what do you suggest?

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S.
Mark, your personal interpretation about my medical statements is erroneous. My medical condition is permanent.

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you are certainly welcome to ask an Admin to weigh in if you like, but I don't think their opinions about content issues necessarily carry more weight than non-Admins. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Skyeking, it would help your case if you could explain - in your own words, rather than lengthy unstructured cut & pastes - what you think is actually wrong with content written by Mark Arsten. Personally, I think the content reads much better. Other editors do not need Skyeking's permission to edit; and whatever skyeking's medical problem might be, it is irrelevant to this article, except to the extent that it might cause skyeking to obstruct or disrupt other editors. I do not know why Skyeking repeatedly brings up medical problems and privacy - is this supposed to be barrier to other people's edits?

It's already very hard to keep track of discussion about this article, so I would recommend that threads are kept here, rather than spread across this page, the owner's talkpage, and elswehere. bobrayner (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, comments like this:

"The burden of proof is upon Arsten to prove “line-by-line” why he disapproves the edits of the primary Editors"

have absolutely no basis in policy, and are purely obstructive. bobrayner (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

B.Rayner — “Whatever, B.” Skyeking (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Video(s)

Quoting from Skyeking's talk page:

The following two videos (content links) were included in the long-standing “original” version ([...]) – and the first video (Focus Earth: No More Children) supports Skyeking’s evaluation of “read-between-the-lines”:

Focus Earth: No More Children (link to video)

Discovery Communications. – Bob Woodruff (Sept. 11, 2009) – VIDEO

[...]

Focus Earth: Too Many People (link to video)

Discovery Communications. – Bob Woodruff (Sept. 12, 2009) – VIDEO

I've quoted in part only, because if I include everything it breaks the {{tl:quoation}} template. I believe this partial quote is a fair representation. Skyeking, if you would put all of your comments on this talk page, in the correct sequence, per WP:TPG, it would make life easier for all of us.

I've restored "No More Children" (in which Woodruff talks to Knight) to the References section. It's not currently linked to any inline cite but probably should be.

I have not restored "Too Many People" because it does not mention VHEMT or Knight at all. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine. I moved it to EL for now. BTW, do you know if there is a transcript available? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

According to item 22 of Discovery's Viewer Relations page, Discovery "do not currently offer transcripts for our programming". Mitch Ames (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Not an organization

Our article stars with "The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) is an organization ...", but their website says "VHEMT ... is a movement not an organization".

I think our lead sentence should agree with VHEMT's self-declared "identity" of "not an organization", but "The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement ... is a movement ..." sounds silly. Perhaps "... is a campaign ...", "... political movement", "... advocacy group" or "... social movement". Any suggestions? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I had trouble figuring out what to describe them as. I changed it to "advocacy group" rather than "organization". I left the organization category in the article though. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Mass starvation will result if the human population continues to grow "at the same rate"?

I've made this change:

Knight maintains that mass starvation will result if the human population continues to grow at the same rate ...

based on the Demography page from VHEMT's web site. However a specific reference/quote would be better. Mark Arsten, can you provide one? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I rephrased/cited the two sentences that you tagged, I guess that was somewhat sloppy wording of me. Any issues with my rephrased wording? I'll try to revisit the sources later today to make sure. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, I recall finding the two journal articles I cite here online, but I can't quite locate them now. Thankfully, I saved a copy offline. Here are the two quotes from Ormrod backing up the statements that were flagged: "Although recently the organization has promoted itself at conferences and sells bumper stickers, buttons and t-shirts bearing its logo, knowledge of the website has spread largely through newspaper and magazine articles, television, and radio shows." (p. 143)

I tweaked the lead again, my change is backed up by this statement by Ormrod: "He provocatively argues that, given the state of the planet, ‘procreation today is de facto child abuse’." (p. 158)

Much of the Ormrod article tries to apply Psychoanalytic theory to the group, but he had some summary and description of them, as well. I've tried to stick to the basic description aspects of the piece. I hold a dim view of Psychoanalysis and I didn't want to put the author's personal theory of the group's death obsession, planet as an oedipal mother, yada yada yada in the article. I similarly didn't use much of the Critical Animal studies piece, that got into some hardcore theory/jargon, so I just tried to take a couple summary statements from it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Skyeking (talk · contribs) 08:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Article "On Hold"

Note 5 (refer link): "[...]Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold."

Current "unstable" situation is explained at Skyeking's User Talk Page (refer here).
Skyeking (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Skyeking, the instructions at WP:GAN say that articles should be "reviewed by [a] registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article". Since you have significantly contributed to the article I think it is inappropriate for you to review this. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think the content of the article has been stable since the edit war ended midday on the 17th. But if anyone else wants to fail this for stability issues, I'd appreciate if you could give a thorough review of the content, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  

SKYEKING reply:

Mark Arsten, my fellow Editor,

First, did you read my notice “IMPORTANT – Skyeking’s Declaration of Protest and Dispute” (refer here)?

In said notice, Skyeking clearly stated a serious disagreement with at least (probably more) sixty-seven percent (67%) of your “draft” – and he/she will edit (revise) a large portion of your “draft” to ensure accuracy, phraseology, validity, formatting, resources, neutral point of view, balanced weight of content, original research, and so on. Of course, my preceding statement means collaboration (suggest / offer / discuss / consensus) with all fellow Editors.

Second, are you aware that we (Mark Arsten / Skyeking) are currently in a Dispute Resolution discussion (refer here) – an active editor disagreement. And, least you (others) forget, my “IMPORTANT – Skyeking’s Declaration of Protest and Dispute” (refer here).

Third, at this time, Nuujinn (primary Editor) is on vacation (User Talk Page - notice posted) and you (we) should be aware that he too may have comments, edits, and so on.

Fourth, I not agree with your interpretation of WP:GAN – which clearly states:

“you should not pass an article that was put on hold by another editor without assessing the problem.”

And, my interpretation about this statement,

(WP:GAN) “....user who has not contributed significantly to the article....”

— is that said statement not applicable to our Dispute Resolution situation because your “draft” was a complete overwrite of the “original” version (refer here).

My viewpoint about your complete overwrite (draft) is that, as of this date, I have contributed one edit (refer here) to said article, yes only one edit (not your context of a continuation) – which you reverted – in turn, I opened a Dispute Resolution discussion.

Fifth, I don’t understand your statement, (Arsten) “....edit war....” — What edit war?

Two Administrators reviewed the article edits and they not find any evidence of such.

And certainly it is obvious to me that the article is “not stable” (merely a draft currently under revision) vs. your proposition that said article is stable.

Mark, as stated before (refer here), I not ignoring you or your “draft”, but I have a permanent medical condition, and due to such my editing and communications could be delayed 72-hours or more. Thank you for your patience.

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have any specific issues with the article please let me know and I will work with you on them. I understand that you are upset that I added to the article, but I have asked you several times what it is specifically that you object to but you seem unwilling to say. I nominated this for good article because I believe that it meets the standards and would like a review. Note that the reviewers feedback may help the article become more suited to your preferences. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Opinion - Hi all, just happened to see this page, so I thought I'd chime in. I'm an admin, not that it matters. Anyway, I feel that is is absolutely inapropriate for Skyeking to take on this review. Skyeking, you claim not to be the/a primary editor of the article, but the edit count clearly shows otherwise- you are the most frequent editor of the page by almost a factor of 4, and you have almost 8 times the edits to the page of Nuujinn, who you above claim to be the primary editor. You also have been complaining on the talk page ever since Mark Arsten began changing the article that you dislike his changes- you are certainly not a "neutral reviewer". Thirdly, you say that your illness prevents you from putting in the time to say what, precisely, you take issue with in Arsten's changes- how then do you have the time to review the entire article and say what needs to be changed? Note that you haven't actually reviewed the article yet, which is what you are supposed to do before placing it "on hold" - you just said it was unstable, and instead of failing it tried to keep it "under your control" by remaining the reviewer.

I suggest that you put the article back in the queue, or that y'all get another reviewer. I'm willing to do it, if you want (I don't do enough reviews outside of my usual interests), though if so I plan to wait a few days- while the article was certainly stable from the 17th until this review was started, since then there have been a lot of wording and phrasing changes that I would like to see diminished in order to review the text for grammar issues as well as substance. In any case- Mark Arsten, if you're not aware, note that while it oversteps propriety for another reviewer to "steal" this review without Skyeking's permission, that you can always escalate to WT:GAN if you feel that a reviewer is not conducting a proper review. --PresN 19:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments PresN. I had planned to completely disengage from this article since I felt like interacting with Skyeking at all was a waste of time and energy. After all the work I put into it though, it would be nice to have a GA review at least. I guess I'll request a second reviewer at WT:GAN, you're more than welcome to review it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Raised the issue at WT:GAN. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Counter-Opinion (Clarification by Skyeking regarding the above "Opinion" by PresN)

S>(PresN)”...inappropriate for Skyeking to take on this review.”-------Skyeking's response to:

Skyeking is currently and constructively editing a major portion of said article – and due to such, notified others about an “On Hold” situation:

Note 5 (refer here):

“[...]Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.”

S>(PresN)”Skyeking, you claim not to be the/a primary editor of the article.....”-------Skyeking's response to:

PresN’s statement is erroneous and “out-of-context”.

Mark Arsten was aware of who the three primary (core) Editors are (refer here).

And yes, Skyeking had previously welcomed Mark Arsten as a fellow Editor, and as of January 16, 2012 Arsten is surely a primary (core) Editor of the VHEMT Article.

S>(PresN)”...but the edit count clearly shows otherwise, you are the most frequent editor of the page...”-------Skyeking's response to:

In some situations (i.e. Skyeking's), merely counting the number of edits can be misleading (inconclusive / questionable) – and regarding Skyeking; doing such not offer valid evidence, and not a valid explanation about the article's (VHEMT Article Page) edit history.

Skyeking’s permanent medical condition precludes him/her from participating at-length in more than one Wikipedia Article – so, on October 13, 2009 (refer here / Skyeking’s first edit as a newcomer) Skyeking chose the VHEMT article due to its lack of oversight (interest) by experienced Editors, rampant vandalism, and the article’s poor phraseology.

As a newcomer (October 13, 2009), Skyeking not aware of an “edit counter” (or how to edit properly) so he/she merely started editing "one-at-a-time" (edit one word "Save Page" / edit one word "Save Page" / edit one word "Save Page" / so on, and so on, and so on, etc.) – hence, the large number of current day (January 24, 2012) “edit counts” (VHEMT Article Page).

S>(PresN)”...Nuujinn, who you above claim to be the primary editor.”-------Skyeking's response to:

Skyeking’s viewpoint about Nuujinn is that he saved the VHEMT article from deletion (refer here) – took pity* upon Skyeking (newcomer) – and Nuujinn provided rewrite of VHEMT Article(refer here).

-*-(Skyeking’s viewpoint, not a statement about the actuality of Nuujinn’s “course of reasoning”.)

April 9, 2010(refer here)

(Skyeking’s version as a newcomer, October 13, 2009 – April 9, 2010)

April 30, 2010(refer here)

(Nuujinn’s version – saved the VHEMT Article from deletion)

S>(PresN)“You also have been complaining on the [Article] talk page ever since Mark Arsten began changing the article that you dislike his changes – you are certainly not a ‘neutral reviewer’.”-------Skyeking's response to:

Skyeking offered Arsten a full explanation about his/her viewpoints regarding Arsten’s complete overwrite (draft) of the VHEMT Article (refer here).

There not any gradual “changes” (quote PresN) – instead, there was a complete overwrite (draft) by Arsten, and he chose to not notify the three primary (core) Editors (Nuujinn / Mitch Ames / Skyeking) about said major edits (refer here) until after-the fact.

Once again, Skyeking is currently and constructively editing a major portion of said article – and due to such, notified others about an “On Hold” situation:

Note 5 (refer here):

"[...]Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold."

S>(PresN)“Thirdly, you say that your illness prevents you from putting in the time to say what, precisely, you take issue with in Arsten’s changes – how then do you have the time to review the entire article and say what needs to be changed?”-------Skyeking's response to:

Skyeking is currently and slowly using WP:CYCLE to define his viewpoints about the article issues (quote PresN, “…say what, precisely,…) vs. (versus) an inappropriate “complete overwrite” of Arsten’s complete overwrite (draft).

To use the words of Edmund Spenser, “Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold” – but, “Be not too bold.” (refer here).

S>(PresN)“Note that you haven’t actually reviewed the article yet, which is what you are supposed to do before placing it ‘on hold’ – you just said it was unstable, and instead of failing it tried to keep it ‘under your control’ by remaining the reviewer.”-------Skyeking's response to:

At this time, Skyeking reserves his Editor's prerogative to respond again at a later date.

Yet, I offer this, why should I fail it? - the article is currently being revised and could pass at a later date. I am doing my best to act in "good faith" - not upset Mark Arsten - and trying to collaborate with all of my fellow Editors.

At this time, how could a different "Good Article" reviewer (experienced Editor) "Pass" (approve) the VHEMT Article - full well knowing the amount of upcoming Dispute Resolution discussions ("unstable" situations)? (refer here)

S>(PresN)"I suggest that you put the article back in the queue, or that y'all get another reviewer. "-------Skyeking's response to:

Who is “you”? — Skyeking’s interpretation of “you” refers to Mark Arsten.

S>“I'm willing to do it, if you want [...], though if so I plan to wait a few days...”
AND
S>“...it oversteps propriety for another reviewer to ‘steal’ this review without Skyeking's permission...”-------Skyeking's response to:

Skyeking not grant permission to PresN or another reviewer to “steal” (quote PresN) Skyeking’s “On Hold” review status. This section should be maintained (kept-in-place) to inform other Editors about the probability of upcoming Dispute Resolution discussions ("unstable" situations).

Skyeking is currently and constructively editing a major portion of said article – and due to such, notified others about an “On Hold” situation:

Note 5 (refer here):

"[...]Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold."

Also, Mitch Ames (core Editor) is actively editing the VHEMT Article.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Withdrawing the nom, I'd hate to see PresN to waste his time here. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Your call, can't blame you. Consider it an IOU for a review; hit me up if you ever want one in the future- GA, FA, whatever. --PresN 22:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Image - Picture of Earth with VHEMT logo

Resolved

 – per [7]

DISPUTE RESOLUTION (Discussion) - Initiated by Skyeking:

Mark Arsten, your edit (refer here) removed text and revised text. Please explain your "course of reasoning" (arguments).

Please remember, for me to respond, it may take 72-hrs (or longer) due to my permanent medical condition. Thank you for your patience.
Skyeking (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

My course of reasoning is that I thought it would work better in a "Notes" section rather than putting a lot of text and explanation in the caption there. I don't think I really "removed" anything, just "moved" it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

SKYEKING reply

Mark, with editorial respect, I have additional questions:

QUESTION:

-*-Why did you change the image text from the word “shows” (simple word) to the word “depicting” (complex word)?

---Skyeking's observation: (Semantics) the word “depicting” is definitive.

Yet, many of Wikipedia’s Readers (inclusive of those who’s second language is English) may not understand the correct definition of “depicting” (complex word).

QUESTION:

-*-Why did you change the image tag from Reference #1 to Reference #25?

CLARIFICATION (by Skyeking):

-*-(Quote) “A picture is worth a thousand words.” (refer here)

Originally, said image tag was assigned Reference #1 because there is a high probability that our WP Readers (visitors) would immediately be curious about VHEMT’s emblem (image) – and therefore be interested to learn about the “full” (vs. your “partial” description – Note B) meaning of said emblem.

So, our previous assignment of the image’s tag as Reference #1 provided our WP Readers (visitors) an opportunity to quickly learn about some of VHEMT’s core concepts. And if listed as Reference #1 our WP Readers can easily link to the VHEMT website at anytime.

Some of our older (younger too) Readers have vision problems, who are unlikely to see (or possibly understand, i.e. click-link) the
teensy "[B]" — so, said Readers will probably key “References”.

Once again, why Reference #25 vs. #1 / #2 / #3 / #???

-*-Is there a Wikipedia Policy/Guideline that prohibits assigning the article image as Reference #1?

If so, please be definitive by providing your fellow Editors a WP quote (proper context).

-*-Is there a Wikipedia Policy/Guideline that mandates assigning the article image as Reference #25?

If so, please be definitive by providing your fellow Editors a WP quote (proper context).

To improve Wikipedia, my viewpoint is that assigning Reference #1 (or possibly #2, or maybe #3) to said image does such.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought that putting an explanation of the logo's symbolism in the notes section was a better editorial choice since it is a fairly trivial detail. The software automatically assigns reference numbers to each reference based on its position in the article, so since the reference was at the bottom it automatically got the last number. I would hope that a reader with impaired sight would know to make the font on their computer screen larger, it's a pretty simple thing to do. Also, there is no rule that we have to use the simplest words in case someone who knows little English reads the article. I'm disappointed that you are making such a big deal out of a very minor edit. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You know what? I'm done here. I only have a certain amount of available time to work on Wikipedia, and I'd rather spend it improving articles than dealing with you. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark, you have my apologies, my intent not to upset you.

Previously, I had clearly stated, "...we welcome you as a participating Editor and look forward to collaboratively editing with you." (refer here)

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark has a valid point about the reference numbers - we should not be concerned with them. The reader can click the number and the browser will show the relevant reference, wherever it may be in the list.

Regarding the text - it's a moot point now, because I've:

• wrapped the logo in an infobox
• move the entire Logo text into a new section and added more information to it - citing a reference (with an automatically generated number) to VHEMT page. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Mitch, your solution to the editing dispute (Arsten / Skyeking) is ingenious – and your editing design is outstanding.

As always, “Thank You” for your invaluable assistance.

For myself, I am willing to "Close" this editing dispute (article image - VHEMT emblem/logo)

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Not "gradual"

I've made this change:

... (VHEMT) ... argues for the gradual and voluntary extinction of mankind through abstention from reproduction.

I can't find anything on their website that says they are calling for the gradual extinction. They are calling for everyone to stop breeding, which would cause extinction within one human lifetime. If every member of any other species were to stop reproducing and the species go extinct in one lifetime, nobody would call it "gradual". Are the any specific references that support the use of "gradual" in that sentence? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

DISPUTE RESOLUTION (Discussion) – Initiated by Mitch Ames and Skyeking:

Mitch,

What are your thoughts about these two sentences?

• “Everyone on planet Earth should commit suicide within 365-days.”

NOTE (by Skyeking):

Those who advocate involuntary solutions to our population density problems are not advocating for VHEMT when they do such – regardless that they may support VHEMT too. (refer here) and please refer here too.

• (VHEMT motto) “May we live long…” — (100-years+ means greater than 36,500 days)
  

You may ask, “Why the two sentences?” — said sentences are a mathematical comparison about days (minutes, hours) – and Skyeking believes 36,500+ days (876,000+ hours / 52,560,000+ minutes) = “gradual”.

Mitch, please remember, you can speak for yourself, but speaking for others without their authority is a questionable action — (quote Ames) “…nobody would call it…” (nobody = others).

In addition, your phraseology about “They”, (quote Ames) “They are calling…” — is incomplete (inaccurate) since VHEMT 'Supporters' are part of “they” – and they support this statement (refer here):

“Intentional creation of one more of us by any of us is unjustifiable at this time, but extinction of our species goes too far.”

The VHEMT article is two-fold:

-*-about the VHEMT website (VHEMT concepts)

-*-about Les U. Knight (person)

Now, you have my viewpoint (with my “common sense”) — and my intent is to collaborate with you (and others).

At this time, Skyeking is diametrically opposed to Ames’s (or others) removal of the word “gradual”.

Mitch, if you agree that the word “gradual” can remain (reinsert) in said sentence – then I offer the following phraseology for said sentence:

“…an informal network of people[1] of which the ‘volunteers’ argue for the gradual and voluntary extinction of mankind…”

P.S.
My use of any illeism merely implies external observation (ease of reading).
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If everyone stopped breeding, but did not commit suicide (ie we all become VHEMT volunteers), with good health the human race would go extinct 100+ years from now when the last human (born late this year) died. You claim that to be "gradual", but I disagree. 100 years is a long time for an individual person, but a very short time for a species - and we are concerned with the species, not the individual. (The subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens has existed for 200,000 years. If we include archaic Homo sapiens - still the same species - we go back 500,000 years.)

You point out that I "speak for others" by saying "nobody would call [a species going extinct in one lifetime] 'gradual' ". That's a fair comment - so I rephrase it: it is my opinion that such extinction should and would not generally be called gradual, and I invite others to give their opinion as well, to see if others agree with me. I did a quick search and couldn't find any authoritative definition of what "gradual extinction" means, but Extinction#Causes does say (with my emphasis added here) "Extinction of a species may come suddenly ... or may occur gradually over thousands or millions of years..."

As you pointed out that I was "speaking for others", so I remind you that you are "speaking for others" by saying that VHEMT argues for "the gradual ... extinction" - because VHEMT does not appear to use the word gradual. (If they do use that word - in an appropriate context - cite the reference and I'll be happy to include it in the article.)

Regarding the "supporters" - I find VHEMT's use and definition of that word a little strange, because according to http://vhemt.org/join.htm a supporter's view is apparently "... extinction of our species goes too far". Ie, the "supporter" disagrees with the primary - indeed the only - goal of VHEMT! However even if we accept a "supporter" (as defined on that page) as one of "them" (VHEMT), the supporter does not argue for the gradual extinction; the supporter appears (so far as I can determine from VHEMT's "definition") to be of the view that accidental procreation (not "intentional creation") is OK because extinction (in any time frame) "goes too far". But regardless of our personal opinions on the supporter's view, the VHEMT definition of supporter does not use the word gradual, nor any other words that indicate a long-term (which we might call gradual) extinction.

As you rightly point out, we should not "speak for others", or include our POV in the article. We should only state the reliably sourced facts - and nothing that I've seen so far states that Knight, VHEMT, its volunteers or supporters argue for "gradual" extinction. They simply argue for extinction. (Or perhaps not, in the case of supporters.) Mitch Ames (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Mitch's arguments make a lot of sense to me; I support his proposed wording here. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark Arsten,

Yes, Mitch Ames "invited" others — yet, I consider his invitation a premature action upon his part. And my request during this Dispute Resolution discussion is to "keep the discussion between the two disputing Editors" (Ames / Skyeking) until such time as both Editors agree to ask for others input.

Numerous times, I have stated that it may take 72-hours or longer for me to offer my "counter-arguments" (plural, numerous arguments) - and I request that others wait for such - thereby, "both sides of the coin" are given a fair chance to be offered.

Skyeking (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't ban anyone from weighing in on a certain subject. I, or anyone else who sees this, is allowed to give an opinion. Here's another opinion: look at what 3rd-party sources say and use that. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Numerous editors, simultaneously posting numerous comments (arguments) causes hardship to others and makes it harder to reach "consensus" --- and numerous comments (arguments) by numerous editors causes convaluted (difficult to comprehend) discussions.

Sorry, your idea that only 3rd-party sources can be used is erroneous.

“Gradual extinction of the human race will result if…” (refer here)

Your phraseology, (quote Arsten) "...you can't ban anyone..." -- is offensive.

I merely stated my "request".

Skyeking (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that primary sources can never be used, just that 3rd-party Reliable sources trump self-published promotional sources. This isn't my opinion, it's the way this site works. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

SKYEKING's reply:
Mitch Ames,
First, you and I are in two different context-boxes:

-*- Skyeking’s context-box is about VHEMT concepts.

(the Article is supposed to be "in-context" about VHEMT concepts vs. generalized application about anthropology; out-of-context)

-*- Ames’s context-box is about anthropology.

So, Ames's comparative (anthropology vs. 36,500+ days) is false comparison (out-of-context) because VHEMT concepts not based upon anthropology – instead, VHEMT concepts are based upon today, and the upcoming 100+years. Hence, VHEMT advocates a voluntary “gradual” (i.e. not suicide / government intervention) reduction of the human populace.

S>(Ames)“...so I remind you that you are ‘speaking for others’...”

Mitch, with editorial respect, I disagree with your statement about me – for years I have evaluated VHEMT concepts and I assure you, from Knight’s point-of-view, he considers his advocacy as being “gradual” – as does Skyeking (Editor evaluation – valid context-box).

“Gradual extinction of the human race will result if…” (refer here)

Once again, my context-box is based upon VHEMT concepts and my editorial discretion (evaluation) has concluded that using the word “gradual” offers further clarification about VHEMT concepts.

“Editorial discretion allows editors to evaluate sources, balance claims, and otherwise distill bodies of information…” (refer here)

S>(Ames) “…the ‘supporter’ disagrees with the primary – indeed the only – goal of VHEMT.”

Mitch, your interpretation about VHEMT concepts is that it only has one goal (i.e. “extinction”) – such an interpretation is erroneous. In actuality, VHEMT concepts include two goals “Supporter” and “Volunteer”.

Focus Earth: No More Children (link to video)

Les U. Knight:

“Maybe we could, although we never have, actually live in harmony with the Biosphere. It would be something to try for […].”

(read-between-the-lines)

Les U. Knight (laughing):

“You know Bob, it [VHEMT] hasn’t caught on like I was hoping. I don’t know what we are doing wrong. People are breeding like there is no day after tomorrow.”

(his laugh = read-between-the-lines)

Mitch, have you asked yourself this question, “Why does the VHEMT website list two (Supporter / Volunteer) distinct characterizations (concepts) of people?” — Because both characterizations are acceptable to VHEMT concepts. (refer here)

S>(Ames) “the supporter appears [...] to be of the view that accidental procreation (not "intentional creation") is OK…”

VHEMT Supporter:

“Intentional creation of one more of us by any of us is unjustifiable at this time, but extinction of our species goes too far.” (refer here)

Mitch, your supposition*, “...is OK...” is merely your personal supposition. And your context-box about “...accidental procreation...” is out-of-context —— there not anything “accidental” about Homo-sapiens participating in sexual intercourse – full well knowing the possible consequences of such.

-*-Definition of “supposition”:

Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition.

Regardless, what does such have to do with our Dispute Resolution discussion about usage of the word “gradual” (as applicable to “Volunteers”)?

Mitch, once again, I offer you the following about VHEMT concepts to clarify the disputed sentence (pending an agreement about word usage: “volunteers” / “gradual”):

“…an informal network of people[1] of which the ‘volunteers’ argue for the gradual and voluntary extinction of mankind…”

Are we at an impasse?
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Skyeking said:
... my request ... keep the discussion between the two disputing Editors" (Ames / Skyeking) until such time as both Editors agree to ask for others input. ...

Mitch's reply:
It's a public talk page; we don't need to invite people to join the public discussion, nor can or should we ask them to stay out of (if they are being civil, which Mark is).

Skyeking said:
Mitch, your interpretation about VHEMT concepts ... that it only has one goal (i.e. “extinction”) ... is erroneous. ... VHEMT concepts include two goals “Supporter” and “Volunteer”.

Mitch's reply:
I didn't make an "interpretation about VHEMT concepts", I stated that their goal is voluntary extinction. I find VHEMT's definition of "supporter" strange (my personal opinion), but I don't believe that definition affects our use of the word "gradual", because they don't use that word (or anything sufficiently similar) in the definition.

Skyeking said:
...(link to video) ... (read-between-the-lines) ... (his laugh = read-between-the-lines)

Mitch's reply:
Wikipedia:No original research. Specifically (WP:PSTS): "All interpretive claims, analyses ... about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. ... Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself" [emphasis in original] (Knight is a primary source.)

Skyeking said:
Mitch, your supposition "[accidental procreation] is OK" is merely your personal supposition. ...

Mitch's reply:
Yes it's my personal opinion, I said so explicitly at the time ("I find VHEMT's use and definition of that word a little strange").

Skyeking said:
... your context-box about "...accidental procreation..." is out-of-context ...

Mitch's reply:
According to VHEMT, the supporter thinks/says "... extinction ... goes too far." From this I deduce that the supporter thinks the species should continue, and thus continue to propagate. But the supporter also says "Intentional creation of one more of us ... unjustifiable ...". The only logical way to resolve this contradiction (continue to propagate, not intentionally) is to accidentally procreate. Like I said: strange.

Skyeking said:
... there not anything 'accidental' about Homo-sapiens participating in sexual intercourse – full well knowing the possible consequences of such

Mitch's reply:
We're talking about accidentally having babies not accidentally having sex. "Possible consequences" is not the same as "certain, or even probable, outcome". You've probably heard of contraception. I know that you are familiar with the concept of Sterilization (medicine). So are VHEMT: http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#sex

Skyeking said:
... what does such have to do with our ... discussion about usage of the word “gradual” (as applicable to “Volunteers”)?

Mitch's reply:
I originally said "They [VHEMT] are calling for everyone to stop breeding ... extinction within one human lifetime ... [I don't think that is] 'gradual'."
You replied with "... 'Supporters' are part of “they” – and they support ... [supporter's statement that I analysed and found 'strange']".
I'm happy to drop the discussion about the supporters; as I said, I don't believe it affects the use of the word gradual.

Skyeking quoted VHEMT:
Gradual extinction of the human race will result if ... (refer here)

Mitch's reply:
Now we're getting somewhere. We have a citable quote from VHEMT that uses the word "gradual". We can use this ...

I suggest that VHEMT's stated goal is that we stop breeding, leading to voluntary extinction. The goal does not include the timeframe (other than implicitly "as soon as possible"). A stated consequence of ceasing to breed ("Gradual extinction of the human race will result") is the gradual extinction. I believe that describing the "goal" as "gradual extinction" is WP:SYNTHESIS, but using the word "gradual" to describe the outcome (now that we have a ref) is OK. I don't believe it helps any to use "supporters" or "volunteers" for this purpose. (See also #Not following WP:LEAD below.) If you want to include the word "gradual", I would suggest:

(VHEMT)... calls for the human race to abstain from reproduction, thus leading to the gradual voluntary extinction of the mankind.

I don't think that that is better than the current "argues for the voluntary extinction of mankind through abstention from reproduction", but I would accept the word "gradual" in that context. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Issues

The lead of this article does not follow WP:LEAD. The lead should summarize the article, but not contain information that is not found elsewhere in the article. The article also uses primary (WP:PRIMARY) sources too heavily, one section is entirely sourced to them. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

DISPUTE RESOLUTION (Discussion) – Initiated by Mark Arsten and Skyeking:
Mark Arsten,
Please be definitive (quote specific sentences from Wikipedia Policies/Guidelines) about your findings.
At this time, I remain unclear about your "issues".
Skyeking (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark Arsten,
Skyeking had previously stated: (refer here)

-*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*-

“Skyeking is currently and slowly using WP:CYCLE to define his viewpoints about the article issues (quote PresN, “…say what, precisely,…) vs. (versus) an inappropriate ‘complete overwrite’ of Arsten’s complete overwrite (draft).”

To use the words of Edmund Spenser, “Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold” – but, “Be not too bold.” (refer here).

-*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*-

I am slowly editing (defining my issues regarding Arsten’s “draft”).

P.S.
I am dismayed by your statement, (quote Arsten) "...what I see as disruptive editing by one party [Skyeking], but am..." (refer here - "Bit of a mess"
Skyeking (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here are some specific guidelines that this article is violating. They should be fairly easy to fix, and then we can get the ugly tags off this page. From WP:LEAD: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." (The second sentence of the lead in this article contains information not found in the rest of the article.) From WP:PRIMARY: "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." The section Logo is based solely on a primary source, and is thus an issue. Please try to respect these guidelines, it will save all of us time. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that we keep the discussion about not following WP:LEAD separate from the discussion about over-reliance on primary sources, unless there is some specific and necessary connection between them (and I don't believe there is). Past experience suggests that the discussions may be long and vigorous, and the conversation threads may be hard to follow. (This is not a criticism of any specific editors, just a prediction based on the length and contents of this article's Talk page. I accept responsibility for my share of it.) Keeping the two topics separate, if possible, should help. To that end, I've created subsections below. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Not following WP:LEAD

My opinion on the current lead section: It is too long and needs trimming. A very rough indicator of the scope of the changes I think we need:

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) is an informal network of people that argues for the voluntary extinction of mankind through abstention from reproduction. Proponents of VHEMT concepts are characterized either as supporters, or as volunteers (extinctionists). VHEMT’s founder, Les U. Knight, estimates there are millions of volunteers worldwide.

The group was founded by Les U. Knight, an activist who became involved in the environmental movement in the 1970s and thereafter concluded that human extinction is the best solution to the problems facing humanity and the Earth's biosphere. In 1991, he began publishing a newsletter known as These Exit Times. Five years later, he started a website for the group. Though they have not developed a formal structure, media coverage has raised awareness of the movement.

VHEMT argues that human extinction is preferable because it would prevent man-made human suffering and environmental damage. Knight maintains that reproduction brings children into a world of unnecessary suffering and that the cessation of human reproduction would allow resources to be devoted to existing problems. Knight believes that the unsustainable lifestyles led by many humans has a negative effect on the Earth's environment, citing the number of species that are driven to extinction by humans as evidence. The group has received a mixed reception from commentators, many of whom view its platform as unacceptably extreme. Some journalists and academics have argued that humans can develop sustainable lifestyles or can reduce their population to sustainable levels. Others argue that, whatever the merits of the idea, humans will never voluntarily seek extinction due to their drive to reproduce.

The struck-through material should be moved if it's not already covered in the article body (after the Contents table) or deleted if it is duplicated. Remember the above is an indicator of scope only. Other copy-editing may be required. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I admit, I tend to generally make leads fairly long. Your proposed changes would be fine with me. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

SKYEKING comments (continuation of "unresolved" editing dispute):
At this time, I am diametrically opposed to some parts of (inclusive of phraseology) Mitch Ames proposed "very rough indicator" (scope of changes).

At this time, I am diametrically opposed to the immediate editing (by Arsten / 04:03, 26 January 2012‎) of the Article Page (Lead Section) without further discussion or consensus.

In addition, I am unclear about our (Nuujinn / Ames / Skyeking / Arsten) "editing plan" -- I had assumed that we would discuss at length -- revise as necessary -- reach consensus -- and then post a "near perfect" revision of the Lead Section.
If such a plan is incorrect, then what is our "editing plan"?
Skyeking (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's just a matter of how things are worded, feel free to rephrase. Just make sure that you follow guidelines like WP:LEAD & WP:PRIMARY. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My Fellow Editors,

SOURCE - Wikipedia:Five Pillars

"That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person."

The VHEMT article is certainly (surely) controversial and Les U. Knight is a living person.

Mitch Ames, what is your "editing plan"?

Nuujinn, what is your "editing plan"?

I remain unclear about Arsten's "editing plan" --- Mark, please be definitive about your objections to my (Skyeking) idea of an "editing plan":

-*-First (1st), use the Article Talk Page to develop the Lead Section

-*-Second (2nd) discuss, revise, discuss, revise - final consensus

-*-Third (3rd) post "near perfect" Lead Section to the Article Page

Once again, if you disagree with my "editing plan" then please explain how the editing process is supposed to work when there are going to be numerous Dispute Resolution discussions.

Skyeking (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked the lead again, I trust you will approve of my changes. The claim of "millions" was not present in the rest of the article so it didn't belong in the lead. Not to mention, it seems a bit WP:POV to have a claim of millions of members right at the beginning, for a group that had trouble getting more than a few hundred people on a mailing list. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark Arsten,

I dispute your continual editing (removal of primary information) from the Lead Section -- claiming "not in rest of article" -- then why don't you insert the primary information in the various Sections vs. merely deleting primary information? And you have failed to offer in-line citations with your edits -- Why?

At this time, my viewpoint of the Lead Section (and other Sections) is that it needs a major rewrite (to include in-line citations / encyclopedic phraseology / primary information). In addition, all primary information (December 10, 2011 - "original" version) should be included in the various Sections -- thereby, allowing said primary information to be included in the Lead Section.

Skyeking (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the WP:PRIMARY & WP:LEAD guidelines? Your comments make me think that you have not. You can't put stuff in the lead that isn't in the rest of the body, since the lead summarizes. And you shouldn't use primary promotional sources to establish details about a group. Also, it strikes me as puffing up the group to talk about "millions" of volunteers in the second sentence when the rest of the article doesn't back this up. Will tag as needed. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

See new section #Millions of volunteers? below. I suggest that we should keep the discussion on that specific topic in its own section, to make it easier to follow the various discussions/threads.

• "Knight, the spokesman for VHEMT, says human population is far more than the Earth can handle, and by allowing humans to gradually – and voluntarily – die out is the best thing we can do for Earth’s biosphere." is a good summary of the ideology section, but as it is it basically redundant to the content in the rest of the section. This would be a good thing to add to the lead. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Using primary sources to heavily

[Placeholder, inserted my Mitch. See comment under #Issues re separate sections. Feel free to delete this line when we have some actual content. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)]

Millions of volunteers?

There has been a bit of dispute about the use of "millions of volunteers", eg (from this version):

... Knight claims there are millions of volunteers worldwide, based on his contention that anyone not having children supports his ideology as a "volunteer".

I suggest that we need to be careful about how we word this, to ensure that it matches the sources, and that we should cite all of the relevant sources. I have the following quotes:

• From http://vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm (Q. When and how did VHEMT start?): "There must be millions of people around the world who are independently arriving at the same conclusion." [The "conclusion", being "the Concept of Voluntary Human Extinction".
• From http://vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm (Q: Who is the founder?): "Like millions of other people, Les followed a simple train of logic, guided by love, and arrived at the conclusion that Gaia would be better off without humans."
• From http://vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm (Q: How do I join?): "We are millions of individuals, each doing what we feel is best."
• From http://vhemt.org/join.htm : "Millions of people around the planet have independently arrived at the conclusion that Earth’s biosphere would be better off without humans."

I recall seeing another page somewhere - which unfortunately I can't find now - that explicitly said Knight/VHEMT considered anyone who agreed with him and/or decided not to breed to be a VHEMT volunteer and/or member. This is the reference we need because it explicitly states Knight's inclusion of those people into VHEMT. Can anyone else find that reference?

Also, I agree with Mark's assertion that we need secondary sources for this, if possible. WP:PRIMARY does allow the use of a primary source - with care. Specifically, we must not interpret, and I believe that the quotes above from VHMET's site are not sufficient for us to say "Knight claims millions of volunteers/members/supporters". That is an interpretation. The "missing reference" that I'm looking for (which may or may not be on VHEMT's site - I can't remember where I saw it), even if a primary source, might be sufficiently explicit that we can use it without risk of violating WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:PRIMARY. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• While I dislike primary sources in general, I think the second sentence of the lead would be best moved to the end of the History section, since that deals with membership figures and Knight's opinion would be relevant there. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. I've also reworded it to more closely match what VHEMT's website actually says.

Please keep references for now, even if not inline

While the article is still unstable, could we please keep all references, even if they are not currently used. For example, we lost one here, which I've restored here. If there's nowhere to put the reference inline, then just add it as a standalone entry in the References section. We can always delete the unused ones later, when the article is stable again. Given that we currently have a {{Primary sources}} tag on the article, and several of the disputes relate to sources, I suggest that we should keep all references until the disputes are resolved - especially secondary sources, but also primary sources. I've added a hidden comment to that effect to the Reference section, to justify the "orphan" references. (That comment can also be deleted, after the disputes are resolved, and - hopefully - all references are inline.) Mitch Ames (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the SFgate piece and the CNN piece are linked to twice in the references section. This can be easily fixed using the <ref name=xxx> field. I'd fix them myself, but I told Skyeking I won't edit the article for a few days to let him make the adjustments he wants without me rapidly changing things. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I've merged the duplicates. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Location of "categorization" sentence(s)

Currently we have a sentence about VHEMT's categorization as "supporters" and "volunteers" as the second sentence of the first paragraph of the Ideology section. (Added by Skyeking, modified by Mitch.) I don't think this is a good place for it. I'm not sure the categorization is part of their "ideology"; perhaps it should be under "Organization and promotion". If it is part of "ideology", I think it belongs further down - probably part of the last paragraph or penultimate paragraph.

I don't believe the categorization it is sufficiently important to be part of the lead section at all. It really is a minor part of the movement - yes it rates a mention in the article, but not in the lead.

Skyeking - is there some specific reason why you think it is important enough to be in the lead?

Do other editors have an opinion either way?

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

DISPUTE RESOLUTION (Discussion) – Initiated by Mitch Ames and Skyeking:

SKYEKING (Lead Section):
The first sentence not 100-percent accurate; but it is further clarified by second sentence “Proponents of VHEMT concepts...” — thereby, allowing Readers to immediately understand that VHEMT concepts not merely about “extinction” (refer here):

Les U. Knight:

“Maybe we could, [...] actually live in harmony with the Biosphere. It would be something to try for [...].”

(refer here – video testimony)

Without immediate said clarification of the first sentence, the Reader is “mislead” into believing that VHEMT concepts are only about “extinction” – which is obviously untrue.

Knight testified (refer video above), that he validated the concept of “...but extinction of our species goes too far.” (refer here — Supporter)

In summary (my opinion), said categorization is a most “important fact” to "establish context"(refer here) and I certainly suggest it should remain in the Lead (its current placement).

Are we at an impasse?
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
P.S.
Mitch,
As a friendly reminder (all due respect to Mitch, “good faith”), you had previously challenged Nuujinn’s original idea (post) about the statement, “Proponents of VHEMT concepts...” (refer here) and (refer here) --— and, my interpretation (during November - December 2010, and forward), was that you had agreed (not challenge) with its placement in the Lead section.

Obviously, I am surprised that 14-months later you now challenge the article placement (Lead section) of said statement.

P.P.S.
Regarding article placement of “categorization” (Ideology section) — due to my medical condition, I defer additional comments because I am only able to understand (easily follow) two Dispute Resolution discussions at-one-time. I greatly appreciate your patience – “Thank You”.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Skyeking, you've quoted from the video out of context, and as such the extract is grossly misleading. The actual words in the interview (I've added the emphasis here) are:

Interviewer: So extinction's the only answer?

Knight: Well it certainly would be the only sure answer. Maybe we could, although we never have, actually live in harmony with the biosphere, and it'd be something to try for on our way out.

Knight explicitly says that [extinction] is the only answer, and that living in harmony is something to try on our way out, ie as the species dies out.

I maintain that the first sentence is accurate. The last line of tbe answer to "Q. What is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?" sums it up nicely - "It's going to take all of us going."

We currently have one page on the web site that mentions that "supporters" think extinction goes to far, and virtually every other page says extinction is the way to go. It's called the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement - not the "Lets just stop breeding for now" Movement - for a reason.

I've already given my analysis of VHEMT's "supporter" definition (in #Not "gradual" above), and how I find it inconsistent, so I'll not repeat it. Given the obvious inconsistency I think we really need a reliable secondary source to analyse it for us, anything else is WP:SYNTHESIS, which is not allowed.

In any case the second sentence as it stands does not clarify anything - because it doesn't tell us how VHEMT use those terms. Perhaps the sentence should be replaced by something along the lines of "some people believe in the concept of population reduction, but that extinction is unnecessary" - but that's already covered by the last sentence of the second paragraph. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

VHEMT website ownership?

DISPUTE RESOLUTION (Discussion) – Initiated by Skyeking

Respectfully Mitch Ames (my fellow editor, all due respect, “good faith”),

I am writing as best as my medical limitations allow, and per your request, posting at the Article Talk Page vs. my User Talk Page.
As you (others) well know, my writing style (format) is due to my medical condition.

SOURCE: Major edits (refer here)

“Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is major (not minor), even if the edit is a single word.”

DISPUTED EDIT LOCATION: Mitch Ames / Skyeking (refer here)

OVERVIEW (by Skyeking, his understanding):

Mitch Ames (opinion):

Of the opinion that “the group” owns said website and its information is the group writing (speaking).

Skyeking (opinion):

Of the opinion that “Les U. Knight” (living person) solely owns said website and its information is Knight’s “personal” expression (presentation) of his personal ideology about VHEMT concepts.

As such, all information posted at said website should be attributed solely to Knight himself. WP:VERIFY (living person) / WP:NPF / WP:BURDEN /

SKYEKING Argument:

Mitch,
I question, your third-person argument and your VHEMT.org argument (group):

“The GROUP, not Knight, estimates "millions...". The ref is VHEMT.org, not Knight's personal page (eg, it refers to Knight in the 3rd person, not the 1st person.” (Mitch Ames / refer here)

The dichotomy between VHEMT.org (merely a URL) and the VHEMT website information is explained by Knight’s statement:

"The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is not an organization [group], so no membership..." (refer here)

— meaning, in actuality, there not any organization (of any type) to join – hence, no “members” (misnomer) ---– in my opinion, Knight’s conceptual view is a worldwide “informal network of people” (refer here).

Yes, Knight sometimes writes in the third-person because his audience is worldwide (Internet). Merely writing in the third-person doesn’t forfeit “first-person” – nor imply there is “a group” writing. And the majority of the website is written in first-person. (refer here- about third-person)

Essentially, in my opinion, there not any “group” (unidentified, no first/last names) – instead, the VHEMT website is merely Knight’s “personal” expression (presentation) of his personal ideology about VHEMT concepts --- so, reference cites (source = VHEMT website) in the Article should be attributed solely to Knight himself. WP:VERIFY (living person) / WP:NPF / WP:BURDEN

Does Knight publicly state that his website is written (owned) by someone else (group)?
Mitch, do you have reliable (verifiable) sources that definitively state such?

Once again, my discussion is "with all due respect" to yourself (others).
Are we at an impasse?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyeking (talk • contribs) 13:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge your point that

• The movement has no membership, thus no members, and so "it can’t take positions or have opinions" (from "Q. What is the official position of VHEMT?")

from which you appear to deduce that all opinions expressed are Knight's and thus should be attributed to him. However, I disagree.

Skyeking> ... the majority of the website is written in first-person.

This is true, but it is the first-person plural - "we", not "I" - which strongly implies that the views expressed are not just Knight's, but others' (ie other "followers" of the movement) as well. Knight's use of the plural clearly indicates that the opinions are not his alone - they are those of the collective movement.

While we might accept that VHEMT has no official members per se, it would be very wordy to say "the people who agree with the views expressed on the VHEMT website" every time, when we could just say "VHEMT" or "members" or "followers". (I would limit the terms "volunteers" or "supporters" to usage only in context with VHEMT's "definition" of those terms, to avoid ambiguity.) The specific sentence in question ("... millions of people ... independently arriving at the same conclusion") is not explicitly attributed (on vhemt.org) to either VHEMT/members/followers or Knight in particular. In the absence of a specific attribution at the source, I believe we must attribute it to the group whose name is on the page, not a specific individual.

Skyeking> Does Knight publicly state that his website is written (owned) by someone else (group)?

http://www.vhemt.org/les.htm says "VHEMT’s newsletter, These EXIT Times, is now this web site."

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

PREAMBLE:

Any capitalization used by Skyeking not shouting – instead, merely emphasis.

S>(Ames)“I acknowledge your point that The Movement has no membership, thus no members...”

My interpretation of your statement is that you agree the word “member(s)” (misnomer) not to be used in the Article.

Is my interpretation correct?

S>(Ames) “...from which you appear to deduce that all opinions expressed are Knight’s and thus should be attributed to him.”

Respectfully, I disagree with your statement.

My course of reasoning is based upon (refer here):

“VHEMT’s newsletter, These EXIT Times, is now this website...”

Les U. Knight, EDITOR

These EXIT Times

As such, the VHEMT website is merely a continuation of “These EXIT Times” — and, as stated, its sole EDITOR is Les U. Knight.

“...Les U. Knight[...]said in his newsletter These EXIT Times...” (refer here)

S>(Ames)“...but it is the first-person plural – “we” [...] implies that the views expressed are not just Knight’s, but others...”

Mitch, with all due respect, you used the word “implies” — my interpretation of such, means that you not have a reliable (verifiable) source that offers a definitive statement (in-context) about your “implies”.

My opinion, of Knight’s website “These EXIT Times” is that his use of the word “we” is singular (editorial) (refer here):

“The editorial ‘we’ is a similar phenomenon, in which editorial columnists in newspapers and similar commentators in other media refer to themselves as ‘we’ when giving their opinions.”

I also offer this (refer here):

“...no one can speak for VHEMT Volunteers [Supporters]."

"We speak with our own voices."

Essentially, there are two choices:

1. The VHEMT website is written by “the group”.

2. The VHEMT website (These EXIT Times) is written solely by Knight.**

-**-Les U. Knight (living person) solely owns said website and its information is Knight’s “personal” expression (presentation) of his personal ideology about VHEMT concepts. As such, all information posted at said website should be attributed solely to Knight himself. WP:NPF

Skyeking's final choice is number two(2).

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

S> ... the word “member(s)” (misnomer) not to be used in the Article.

I was acknowledging your point, not agreeing with it. In fact your quote (13:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)) "The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is not an organization [group], so no membership..." is not complete, and so is misleading. The web page actuallys says (with my emphasis here) "[VHEMT] is not an organization, so no membership dues go to officials in offices." It does not say that there are no members. In fact These EXIT Times issue one [8] starts with (my emphasis added) "[VHEMT] has grown ... needing a newsletter to keep ... members informed ..." - so they apparently had members at some point. This article also says that they have members. I do believe that it useful to be able to refer to people who agree with the VHEMT concepts in some simple manner - eg using "VHEMT" as a collective noun for them, or as "members" - but not as "supporters", because of the possibel confusion with VHEMT's definition.

MA> "we" [...] implies that the views expressed are not just Knight's, but others...

S> ... the word "implies" ... you not have a reliable (verifiable) source that offers a definitive statement ...

I do not have a definitive source that states that Knight uses the word "we" to indicate the plural - but nor have you cited a definitive source that states that Knight is expressing an opinion that is only his. You mentioned the editoral "we" which is fair enough - but let me quote from the linked article (with my emphasis added): "... the writer ... in the role of spokesman: ... more generally on behalf of the ... body of citizens who agree with the commentary." Ie the editor (Knight) speaks for those who agree with his views (VHEMT "members").

S (quoting http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm)> "...no one can speak for VHEMT Volunteers [Supporters] ..."

And yet Knight - as the self-acknowledged spokesman for VHEMT - apparently does.

S> there are two choices: The VHEMT website is written by [1] "the group" or [2] solely by Knight.

I don't think there's any doubt that Knight is the author of vhemt.org ("My Web Page" from his blog profile links to vhemt.org). The questions is whether we accept Knight's statements on vhemt.org as intentionally representing VHEMT (many people) or whether they are intended as his personal views only. I suggest that some or all of the following might apply:

• If we treat vhemt.org as Knight's personal views, then all references to (for example) "VHEMT argues ...", "VHEMT promotes ...", "VHEMT rejects ..." should be changed to "Knight ..." - not just the text that I editted which triggered this discussion.
• We should state explicitly in the article that the views expressed on vhemt.org are Knight's personal opinions, because failure to do so would make the article contents appear to disagree with vhemt.org (which uses the plural so often). But then we need a reference for that claim - and do we have such a reference? It seems to me that such a claim is actually WP:SYNTHESIS.

In fact these secondary sources [9][10] state that the views are held by others, not just Knight. I suggest that the overwelming evidence is that vhemt.org represents more than just Knight's opinions, and so our article should reflect that accurately. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NLT removed Bulwersator (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
SKYEKING Reply:
Mitch,
Regarding naming conventions (single word – choose best word), what are your thoughts about starting a Section (with sub-sections) to list such?

My course of reasoning is that such a Section allows “one area” to post questions regarding the usage of a “single” word. (refer here)
There are going to be numerous “single” words (or two-word) issues.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S.
S>(Ames)“It does not say that there are no members.”

How can you have members if there not any organization to join?

My common sense and editorial discretion (WP:EDITDISC) allow me to easily understand that “members” is a misnomer. (refer here)

For me, your argument about “members” is out-of-context (your literal interpretation vs. my contextual fact) — and to me, it appears you not understand that Knight is constantly referring to “The Movement” (an informal worldwide network of people). (refer here)

Secondary sources are questionable, especially when they mislead (or falsehood).

Example:

• Secondary source – (refer here):
  

“...in the early 1970s after returning from Vietnam...”

Obviously referencing Vietnam War and implying that Knight was a Vietnam Veteran.WP:EDITDISC

• Primary source – (refer here):
  

Corrections to media reports:

“I’m a Vietnam era veteran, not a Vietnam veteran.”

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Man vs human

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lets discuss the issue about gender neutral language here instead of edit warring. Doesn't the manual of style prefer gender neutral language, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Gender-neutral_language? Mark Arsten (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and it is gender neutral. Gender neutral language doesn´t mean you don´t use ´spokesman´ when the person is male. Edgth (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. That's the whole purpose of gender-neutral terminology. To replace gender-specific terms like "spokesman", "spokeswoman" with the gender-neutral term "spokesperson" which is equally applicable to both genders. You cannot have "spokesman" and then use "spokesperson" for the female. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Only if the gender is unknown. The spokesperson of this group is a man so he is a spokesman. Edgth (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, you are still edit-warring replacing "humankind' with "mankind" despite being told multiple times on multiple pages not to do that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I changed it once and I was reverted so I changed it to humanity. Edgth (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

A trip to my bookshelf found this,

• From Garner's Modern American Usage: "Humankind, a 17th Century creation, is unexceptionable, while mankind is, to many people, a sexist word. The prudent writer will therefore resort to humankind".
• From The New Fowler's Modern English Usage: "First used in the 17th century as an ocassional variant of the human race or of mankind, the term (humankind) has gathered strength in the 20th century, sometimes written as two words the word is also favored by those who judge mankind to be unacceptable in our politically correct times". ```Buster Seven Talk 05:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Despite those sources, mankind is still used by many, far more than humankind. Plus, the opinion of mankind as sexist is an opinion not widely shared. Besides, the edit to this page changed the rare ´humankind´ to the far more common ´humanity´. Edgth (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with "humankind" though? Seems like a perfectly suitable word to me. Plus, it's the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, so humankind goes well with it. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Google hits show just how rare humankind is when compared to humanity. 6,790,000 hit to 85,900,000, ie less than 8%. Plus it is somewhat jarring and awkward. I can say the same for humanity. Edgth (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"Extinction of 'humanity'" is ambiguous. It can mean extinction of:

Mankind; human beings as a group.   The human condition or nature. The quality of being benevolent. Humane traits of character; humane qualities or aspects

Whereas "humankind" means only: "The human race; mankind, humanity; Homo sapiens" which makes it much more clear in the present context. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

We both know that it isn´t ambiguous. It clearly refers to the human race. Although you haven´t been following me and reverting me on pages, I consider coming to this talk page with irrelevant statements to the issue such as this one and higher above in which you claim that ´spokesman´ violates MoS, to be disruptive. Your purpose is not to help the article but to come up with any reason you can think of to oppose my edit. Perhaps Mark Arsten can advise me on the correct response to this, as it doesn´t work long-term. Edgth (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

We both know that it isn´t ambiguous. Leave the presumptious statements and don't put words in my mouth. I am not convinced at all with your arguments. You have been told that before by Paul August on Mythology but, as usual you reverted him. As far as "following you around" you have declared your dislike for the word "humankind" multiple times and you have engaged in edit-wars on multiple articles to extinguish its presence. So you will have to forgive me if I try to help the locals by replying to your disruption as it moves from one article to the other mechanically replacing "humankind" with "humanity" without regard to tiring repetition or word flow. This is an open wiki after all and I can participate anywhere any way I see fit, especially when I see dogmatic disruption. I think Mark may well help out but not the way you think. You should also dispense with your frequent personal attacks against me. They won't work the way you intend them to and they may also boomerang against you. I hope this helps. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It´s so obviously unambiguous that I couldn´t be presumptuous. I´ve stated several reasons why humanity is preferable and other than the transparently weak reason you gave above, there´s nothing wrong with humanity. You´re the one causing the disruption with your vindictive opposition to a simple change like this. There´s no repition problems with this edit anyway. You can´t wikihound however, which is what you´re doing. Personal attacks started with your bullshit interpretation of my comment explaining my IP edits. Edgth (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to eliminate the semantically focused word "humankind" consistently across many articles with the less focused term "humanity" and you have not provided one iota of evidence as to why this is necessary other than your personal dislike of the word. You say: You´re the one causing the disruption with your vindictive opposition to a simple change like this. The page history of this FA article is littered with the reverts of your edit-warring in which you reached 3RR. I never reverted you once here. But you were reverted by multiple editors at this article. I guess that's practical proof that several other editors, not only me, oppose your edits. As far as your loud and unjust proclamations of alleged "wikihounding" just for engaging in civil discussion with you, again: they will not prevent me from putting forth my arguments pointing out your inconsistencies, especially when you embark on a multi-article edit-warring campaign uniformly erasing the perfectly fine word "humankind" and replacing it with "humanity" across the board, in effect unilaterally banning the word "humankind" from the encyclopaedia. Not to mention going on different users' talkpages applying pressure to these editors and asking them to self-revert: [11], [12]. So you'll have to excuse me for pointing this type of editing to the wider community. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

And of course, let's not forget the declaration of your intent to replace "humankind" with "humanity" across the board: [13]:

No I don´t. I can go about replacing humankind with humanity. They both mean the same thing so unless there is a good reason for a specific article to have humankind instead, I can change it. Please begin a fruitless search for a policy or guideline that says otherwise. Edgth (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Many words can mean more than one thing, it doesn´t necessarily make them less focused. It depends on context. In this case, it isn´t less focused or ambiguous. There´s evidence just above, in which humankind is used less than 8% of the time that humanity is used. No, the first person to revert objected to mankind so I made it humanity. The second person mistakenly thought that ´spokesman´ violated MoS. The trouble is that you´re not here for a civil discussion but to come up with any reason you can, no matter how weak, to oppose my edit. I´m not going across Wikipedia looking for humankind in order to replace it. When I see it, I´ll change it to the more appropriate humanity. What´s wrong with that? I asked him to self revert because he mistakenly thought that consensus needed to be established when it already was. I don´t know about across the board. When I see it, I´ll replace it. As there´s no policy or guideline or even a reason why changing a rarely used word to its far more common counterpart is wrong, I´ll continue to do that. Edgth (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Your indiscriminate Google search was flawed. Of course it is to be expected that "humanity" is used more often since it has more meanings. But semantically connecting humankind with "extinction" yields far more results than "humanity": "extinction of humanity" About 406,000 results (0.19 seconds) versus "extinction of humankind" About 609,000 results (0.46 seconds). So your actions trying to replace "humankind" with "humanity" are based on wrong semantic connections. As far as your statement: The trouble is that you´re not here for a civil discussion but to come up with any reason you can, no matter how weak, to oppose my edit., again your personal attacks will not deter me from pointing to you your mistakes. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It´s not flawed. The point is that the word is far more common with readers. The transparently weak reasons you gave higher above to oppose the edit is pretty convincing that you´re just here to oppose a simple edit. The ´did you mean´ notice at the top of the search shows how unusual the word humankind is. Yet another reason to make it humanity. Edgth (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The numbers don't lie. Check the semantically correct Google results again: "extinction of humanity" About 406,000 results (0.19 seconds) versus "extinction of humankind" About 609,000 results (0.46 seconds). Case closed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You´re right, numbers don´t lie. Once again, you just have a specific combination of words that don´t allow for any variation of saying the same thing. Here´s a more accurate look [14] 7,880,000 for humanity versus [15] 679,000 for humankind. Edgth (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You use wrong methodology. You are catching occurrences such as combining "human" with "extinction" which yields inaccurate results. The lead of this FA article uses the exact combination "extinction of humankind" which as I showed above is far more frequent than "extinction of humanity". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Combining humanity with extinction and humankind with extinction produces very accurate results. That sentence can be said in so many ways, just check the first page of results on my hits. That´s why your results are useless, it´s just a specific combination. Edgth (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

This specific combination, as you call it, is at the lead of this FA article and you just replaced it with the less frequent version. Your arguments are invalid. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Less frequent version of a specific clause in a sentence? That´s your problem? The results show that when discussing the extinction of the human race, humanity is preferred 7,880,000 to 679,000. That is what is relevant to this article. Edgth (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You just managed to obliterate the word "humankind" from this article by edit-warring your way as usual but I think it is useless arguing with you further. I made my case. Let's see if anyone else from the many watchers of this page has anything else to say. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn´t allow your vindictive edit-warring to remove a small change like this, you mean. I´m wondering if you´d agree to an interaction ban between the two of us. Edgth (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think there's consensus to restore "humanity" yet, please discuss it more here instead of reverting again. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• As a bean counter, I'd say here's one, two, three editors reverting Edgth, and that's not even counting Dr. K. I can count different beans too, in the context of WP:3R, one, two, three reverts in the last 1:29. It may be that I am a terrible counter; perhaps Bbb23 can, as a licensed operator at WP:ANEW, set me straight if I erred. (And, since I'm about to warn Edgth for 3R violations, they can remove the template if I placed it there erroneously.) See, I don't like having to look at WP:3R violations. The timezones and all that are too complicated. I'm much more interested in WP:EW, which regards edit warring behavior in more general terms. There is no doubt in my mind that Edgth (talk · contribs) has been engaged in that kind of behavior in the past, and if this continues, there is enough reason for a block. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I keep getting the feeling that people aren´t reading much into disputes. The first editor didn´t like mankind so I made it humanty. The second editor mistakenly thought that ´spokesman´ violates MoS. The third editor didn´t revert based on the content of the edit, but the requirement for consensus. So other than Dr.K who has only been edit-warring out of dislike for me, the discussion hasn´t resulted in opposition to the edit. As such, I reinstated it and didn´t feel like getting out-warred by a (Personal attack removed). Edgth (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

What I see is a whole bunch of different people disagreeing with you, which means that continuing to make the same edits is disruptive by virtue of being against consensus. Such behavior can be called edit warring if it consists of reverts made in one or more articles. It's really not that complicated. And if the 3R warning for this particular article was unintelligible, or too boring, then incompetence is the next valid reason for a block. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You´re simplifying it too much. First person disagreed, I changed my edit accordingly, second person disagreed, I explained MoS, third person asked for consensus, I obliged. I sought consensus, the only person to object is Dr.K. Bullshit reasons were given, those were quickly refuted. I didn´t want to get reverted by a (Personal attack removed) that hadn´t come up with a single satisfactory reason to revert me so I reverted him twice. Edgth (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry to be personal, but I'm going to suggest to participants that there are some discussions which do not serve any useful purpose. Everything that could be said about edits like this has been said. No amount of explanation can compensate for a lack of familiarity with standard English as used in the current century, and there is a strong indication here that Edgth is not familiar with at least one word commonly used in an encyclopedia. It is standard that when a problem is noticed, and if the editor concerned will not take advice on the matter, that others have to use the editor's contributions to determine if more articles need correction. If a situation like this spirals out of control it has to be resolved at WP:ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You´re going to have to be more clear. I know what an argument is. What aren´t I getting? I agree that these discussion don´t serve a useful purpose. I feel like you´re telling that to me when you should be telling it to Dr.K. Yes, I´m thinking ANI if a voluntary interaction ban isn´t agreed to by Dr.K. Edgth (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Rather than arguing the merits of "humanity" vs "humankind", I suggest the following alternatives:

• First instance/paragraph:
  "... the gradual voluntary extinction of the human race".

I think this has exactly the same meaning, is easy to read, and avoids gender-neutrality issues.

• Second instance/paragraph:
  "... the human reproductive drive will prevent us from ever voluntarily seeking extinction."

Not technically the same meaning, but in this context I think it is clear. And sometimes a simpler word conveys the meaning better.

Human race would be Ok with me. I'm not sure about "us" though. It seems a little informal to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps "... the human reproductive drive will prevent the species from ever voluntarily seeking extinction." The "human reproductive drive" makes it clear which species we're talking about. (Although it ought to be obvious from the contest.)

This approach skirts the larger issue that by avoiding the word "humankind" locally in this or any other article, using the same arguments as above, this word will be de facto removed from the encyclopaedia. I think this is an MOS issue and needs a centralised discussion. Otherwise a piecemeal approach may lead to multiple RFCs or similar "humankind" vs. "humanity" discussions as in here, at Talk:Bahá'í Faith and Talk:Mythology. The premise behind the proposal to replace "humankind" with "humanity" at almost every occurrence is that "humanity" is somehow superior to "humankind" in most aspects. Same goes for the arguments to replace "humankind" with "human race" or similar. These arguments, in effect, seek to ban the word "humankind" from this encyclopaedia. If "humankind" deserves to be banned by substitution with equivalent terms and to be avoided, then it shouldn't be difficult to alter the MOS to reflect such practice. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

MoS doesn´t go into that level of detail. It would be random for MoS to have an entire section just saying ´don´t use humankind´. Besides, who would object to this change? As said, there are several good reasons to change it. It´s only been you so far on this article. Mythology is similar, it would´ve been over long ago if you hadn´t reverted. Baha´i Faith is different, but about half a dozen instances of humankind were removed by consensus and I think only one now remains. Edgth (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Mark's above suggestions are good, and there is always a way to rephrase text to avoid mentioning a particular word. However, I think we have to consider the bigger picture—should an editor be encouraged to go from article to article "correcting" perfectly acceptable English? If we work out some alternative wording here, are we going to do that on every other article mentioning "humankind"? If necessary, let's do that. But first, it needs to be demonstrated that it is necessary. Objections can be raised to any wording, for example, seeing "race" used unnecessarily concerns me—that word may raise highly contentious issues. Also, in the second suggestion above, the word "us" would inevitably be removed by a wikignome because many have a strong feeling that personal words such as "us" and "we" should be avoided, as in this example (which I happen to recall). After removing all "humankind", what about "argument" which is frequently used in a sense that is not familiar to some editors? Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I´m going to replace the rare, jarring and awkward ´humankind´ with humanity when I happen to come across it, whether or not it´s done here. So no need to worry about encouragement. I´m not calling for wikisquads to go out and remove humankind across the site. I´m just going to do it if I happen to see it. This needs to stop being blown out of proportion. These sorts of edits are done all the time. It´s so minor and insignificant. Can you please explain this whole ´argument´ thing which you keep cryptically mentioning? Edgth (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. I re-read what you wrote on my talk page. I think I quickly skimmed what you wrote before I replied. Edgth (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have to laugh just a bit. :) The use of "mankind" is perfectly acceptable and far more appropriate than the "gender neutral" term "humankind" which has connotations of aliens from outer space. Looking at the edit warring which has gotten editor Edgth banned from editing for a month, I find the debate that silly, but at the same time the question as to which term is more encyclopedia has not been seriously discussed in the Talk: here.

The term "humanity" also has connotations and direct meanings which are not an analog to the term "mankind." The term "humanity," as others have pointed out, encompass compassionate feelings for fellow human beings whereas the term "mankind" does not -- so "humanity" is not a synonym for "mankind" nor for "humankind."

The most encyclopedic term is "mankind." That's what the world uses when they mean the whole of the filthy, unwashed, squabbling species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. If the term has a penis hanging off of it, so be it, that's English, that's historic, that's reality, and trying to rip the penis off of the English language by utilizing gender neutral terms like "humankind" end up making sentences flow badly. BiologistBabe (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but I wish you would find less painful metaphors :\ Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no guideline on whether "mankind" is good or bad (although some of us regard Gender-neutral language as ruling out "mankind"), but there is the WP:GENDER essay which recommends avoiding that word. In Real Life, there are three main positions—a growing trend in the last forty years to move towards gender-neutral language; a push-back from grammarians annoyed by PC madness; disinterest from most. At any rate, Wikipedia is not the place to push excessive gender neutrality, or to zealously oppose it. As with all other text, what counts are correctness and consensus—it's clear that "humankind" is correct (see any dictionary), and it's clear it has consensus. While a case might be made that "mankind" is better, the vital point is that there is no knock-out argument either way, so no one should embark on a campaign to find-and-destroy either usage (without a clear consensus). Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

Which word(s) should be used in the following sentences from the article's lead:

• The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT[A]) is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of _____________.
• Others maintain that, whatever the merits of the idea, the human reproductive drive will prevent _____________ from ever voluntarily seeking extinction.

Previously suggested terms include: humankind, mankind, humanity, and the human race. Feel free to offer any others you prefer. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Mark but this being an FA article isn't it supposed to be compliant with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language, a fact that would eliminate "mankind" from contention? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I just put down all the phrases that had been suggested above, for reference. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Edited just now to make that clear. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand. But won't "mankind" be automatically disqualified as a suggestion based on MOS non-compliance? In that sense the RFC doesn't have the degree of freedom to suggest that we use "mankind", since it is incompatible with MOS. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You might be right. I haven't filed an RFC before so I'm not too sure about whether it can/should be included in my statement. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we can remove it from the suggested terms. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

the human race. Clear, idiomatic, gender-neutral. Maproom (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ummm, why are we still talking about this? This is a WP:BIKESHED issue where people will talk indefinitely about whether one phrase is superior to another, however there can be no realistic expectation that the article would be improved by replacing "humankind". Just as a couple of people have objected to that word, so too would I object to "human race" because of all the baggage associated with "race" (I'm referring to the many pseudoscientific abuses of that term). In questions of language, different people react differently to words because of their vastly different backgrounds—there is no hope of finding perfect text that satisfies everyone. That's not a problem because the current text is fine! People who are not used to seeing "humankind" should be glad that they are getting a chance to see a perfectly acceptable word here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have to agree. The current text is indeed fine and has been the stable version of this FA article until the recent disruption started. The WP:BIKESHED analogy is particularly apt. There is no reason to fret over replacing perfectly acceptable words such as "humankind", which by the way has only two occurrences in this article. What (non-existent) problem are we trying to solve? Also unless we have to repeat this discussion across hundreds of articles in Wikipedia which still use the word "humankind" I don't see why we have to target this particular article and engage in interminable discussions about the merits of "humankind" and its replacements. That would be a large-scale disruption for the project and shows the underlying disruptive purpose of the recent "humankind"-replacing edits. Similar discussions have taken place at talk:Mythology and talk:Bahai Faith. Much ado about nothing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• "... abstain from reproduction to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of the human species."
  "... the human reproductive drive will prevent the species from ever voluntarily seeking extinction."

Bold shown here for emphasis only - it wouldn't be in the article - but the link would be. In the second point the previous use of "human" makes "the species" unambiguous. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment What would be the reason to replace "humankind" with "human species"? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"Species" has a specific unambiguous meaning, as does (by extension) "human species". My original suggestion was "human race" - which is probably better because that's the term that VHEMT themselves use. Some people are not happy with the word "race", because it has undesirable connotations, although I don't think that they apply in this case. (We're not trying make distinctions between Caucasians and Negroids for example, we're describing all humans, as distinct from monkeys for example.)

But this still doesn't answer my original question which is why we need to remove "humankind". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• RFCbot comment It's not so much WP:BIKESHED as an WP:AINT issue. These terms are all interchangeable and there's no problem with the current use of "humankind." The word is used across the project and we can't go around in circles like we did with WP:MOSDATE. (Well, we can, but it would be bad.) KrakatoaKatie 22:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Any As others have said, It really does not matter that much. Stick with the wording as used when the article became an FA. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,30834,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Capitalizing final "T" in movement

Acre0316 capitalized the final "T" in "movement", presumably as a way to explain the final "T" in the adopted "VHEMT" acronym. I reverted, but I can see where they may have a point. To me, the acronym is forced by the desire to be able to pronounce it "vehement", but that desire does not override the style issue that the title of the article and the bolded title in the lead should have the same capitalization. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019235441/http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20061022%2FNEWS%2F610220322%2F1016%2FFEATURES07 to http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20061022%2FNEWS%2F610220322%2F1016%2FFEATURES07
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130625170751/http://www.macleans.ca/science/environment/article.jsp?content=20070806_108079_108079 to http://www.macleans.ca/science/environment/article.jsp?content=20070806_108079_108079

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.salon.com/2005/11/16/human_extinction/singleton/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521165551/http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_printable/3628/ to http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_printable/3628/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)