Jump to content

Talk:Misanthropy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Neil deGrasse Tyson

There is a reliable source given for the statement made by Tyson, and it fits in with the theme of distaste for humanity. It is neither unencyclopedic nor irrelevant. AndrewOne (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content moderator profession

GoForthGarlVinland (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC) The link between the content moderator profession and misanthropy seems like a bad joke. Misanthropy is not even mentioned once in the reference. The reference is an article about the new shared economy. It has nothing to do with misanthropy. Implying that rating movies with sex and violence will make you a misantroph is ridiculous.[reply]

It would be funny if it weren't so sad

People fighting over titles due to nationalism?

One section keeps getting tromped on over and over and over, sometimes just changing the section title.

  • Text added Oct 2008
  • Misanthropy In Western thought / Misanthropy In Islamic thought (added by Drmies)
  • Misanthropy In Western thought / Misanthropy In Christian thought / Misanthropy In Islamic thought
  • In Western thought / In Christian thought / In Islamic thought
  • In Islamic thought
  • In Arabian Thought
  • In Persian thought (without changing the text)
  • Persian thought
  • Islamic thought
  • Islamic thought / Jewish Thought (hey, let's add section title, splitting text of them guys from those other guys)
  • Jewish Thought (hey, let's remove irrelevant content "Islamic thought")
  • Judiac thought
  • Judaic thought
  • Jeudo-Islamic thought (today, as someone tries to restore previous texts w/o links though)

Having examined 11 years of versions of this text and ensuing titles, I'm going to revertstart over with the original text, which in all that time has not been improved upon. If you feel the section title "Middle-eastern thought" doesn't capture the placement, please justify and change.

Figuring out what happened to the Kirkegaard section/text "Christian thought" is for another day or editor. Shenme (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Use of mankind/humankind

As stated by WP:NAMECHANGES, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers." As such, mankind is the appropriate term to use, as it is far more common: "mankind" generates 14,000 results onsite, versus 4,500 for humankind. On Google Scholar, it is 1.78 million for mankind, versus 500,000 for humankind, and on JSTOR, 280,000 for mankind, and 51,000 for humankind. This demonstrates a very clear pattern and preference for the former term, and so that is the one that should continue to be used. Loafiewa (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Loafiewa and thanks for addressing the issue. I think that, strictly speaking, WP:NAMECHANGES does not apply here since this is not about the title of the article. But your main point is still valid: "mankind" is more common than "humankind". Using common terms is helpful by making the article more accessible. I assume the intention behind changing the expression to "humankind" was to implement a gender-neutral language, which also has its benefits. Personally, I think either term works fine. A third alternative is the term "humanity". Phlsph7 (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is about making the article accessible, I think it should say "humanity", which gives me four times as many hits on google than "mankind" or "humankind". 86.33.89.178 (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Misanthropy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 21:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Broad, abstract articles like this are my favorite. I'll work on this over the next few days. I know that a few other longish articles you wrote are currently being reviewed right now, so I'm assuming there's no rush to get into this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this article. As you have probably figured out by now, this type of broad topic also belongs to my favorites. The reviews of three other nominations of mine were started yesterday with the backlog drive so there is no need to hurry this one. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't expect to have the review completed today, but this was an interesting read. There are a lot of notes, including a few that might require some significant reworking, but overall it's a solid article. As said above, there's no rush to respond if you're working on other articles as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the detailed review. I'll go through it step by step and I'll ping you once I have addressed all the main points. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: I hope I addressed all the main points. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good overall. I still think that some restructuring is needed at "arguments for and against" and at "literature and popular culture".
With "arguments for and against", the back and forth debate doesn't lend itself to encyclopedic writing or neutral point of view. I think the WP:ATM and WP:PROCON essays do a good job of explaining why this is and how it should be resolved. Back and forth argument is fine in a formal debate or in long term study of a subject, but Wikipedia should be summarizing the aspects of a subject rather than replicating the debate. If we're at an impasse here, we can always request some additional eyes through GA or NPOV/N.
With "Literature and popular culture", I think the selection of characters is arbitrary and encourages indiscriminate drive by additions (as we already saw with Al Bundy). The way I would approach this would be to talk about the archetype or stock character of the misanthrope rather than specific characters, if sources can be found on this specific idea. And if it turns out that a few of these sources offer the same character as an example, then that would be a good example to include. Timon of Athens and Alceste are good examples of good examples. In line with this, The Joker might be worth retaining based on the sources being used. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the other examples from the literature section. I tried to follow your suggestion and I reorganized and shortened the text of the section "Arguments for and against". Phlsph7 (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't love the WP:PROCON/WP:CRITS structure, but at this point it's presented in an encyclopedic manner and should satisfy the GA criteria, especially since it's in the context of a philosophical idea. With the structural issue settled, I'll review this section's prose. It should be ready to go after that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • like masskillings ordered by dictators – mass killings is two words.
    Done.
  • But others also emphasize that the problem – "but" and "also" can be removed without changing the meaning. This sentence also runs on and might be better as two sentences.
    Done.
  • Is Svoboda's thought experiment necessary here? It might be more concise just to say that misanthropes may contend that humans cause ecological catastrophes and mass extinctions.
    Done.
  • capitalism, fascism, religious fundamentalism, or imperialism – who blames these forces?
    Svoboda dedicates one section to this position in his overview of criticisms. He mentions that Hume holds a similar position but does not attribute this exact position to him.
    I went ahead and looked at the source. Is there any reason why "racism" was replaced with "fascism" in the list of examples? If not, it would be better to keep racism, especially since that's a broader category. Then the next sentence might be reworded as well to make sure it addresses the main idea and to make it clear that it's not stating the argument in wikivoice about "the proper attitude". I would write something like "Supporters of this argument would adopt an opposition to one of these social forces rather than a misanthropic opposition to humanity" (though perhaps something less wordy if possible). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • may result in a lot of harm – "a lot of" does not change the meaning.
    Done.
Well-written

General:

  • Something seems off about the current layout of the article. In the "various disciplines" section, there's a subsection for philosophy, but it also seems that the article as a whole deals with philosophy. The psychological and sociological aspects also get their own level 2 section instead of being in the disciplines section. The "arguments for and against" section is a collection of disorganized arguments, which I'll elaborate on under criterion 4. Then there's the "related concepts" section, which gives the impression that it's just an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't have any alternatives though, so I don't know if there's a "better" way to organize the article, but it's something worth thinking about.
    The basic idea was to go from general to specific. The first sections of the article answer questions like "what is it"?, "what types are there"?, "what causes it"?, and "is it justified"?. They are also relevant for the more specific sections. For example, you need to know what misanthropy is if you want to identify misanthropic doctrines in religion. But the opposite is not the case: you do not need to believe in a specific religious doctrine to understand what misanthropy is or what types there are.
    I think this basic idea makes sense but maybe there are problems with the implementation. I made some changes but I'm also open to more ideas. I renamed the subsection "Philosophy" to "History of philosophy" since it only deals with historical figures and schools of thought. I also renamed the section "Psychological and social causes" to "Causes". Most of the causes discussed in the academic literature are psychological and social causes but we don't need to close this section off from other types of causes. The section "Related concepts" treats various concepts that are often discussed in relation to misanthropy. They should be discussed in this article but the section could be called differently or maybe we could find different sections where to discuss them.
    I'll address the issues in the section "Arguments for and against" in the point below where they are discussed in more detail. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few instances where a sentence begins with "and", "but", or "so". They're being used as conjunctions, so for each instance I suggest either dropping the word or merging the two sentences into one.
    Done. I fixed a most of those cases. However, there were a few cases of "but" that introduced a contrast and where merging sentences would have made the resulting sentence too long or complex so I left them. They could be replaced with "however" but I'm not sure that this would make a significant difference.
  • The uses of i.e. might be unnecessary, though this is more of a style choice.
  • Five uses of on the other hand, which is an idiom.
    Done.
  • , for example, – This shows up a lot, and it gets distracting.
    Done.
  • Several uses of very, all of which can be removed without changing any meanings.
    Done.
  • Check uses of however. They vary in usefulness, and a few might be removable.
    Done.

Lead:

  • the general hatred, dislike, distrust, or contempt of the human species – It would be "of" for hatred and dislike, but "for" is a better fit for contempt.
    Done.
  • becoming disillusioned with someone that was adored before – Awkward wording.
    Done.
  • It has been discussed and exemplified by philosophers throughout history. – This sentence can be combined with the next one.
    Done.

Definition:

  • The contrast between misanthropy and philanthropy is unclear. It seems like philanthropy is being used in two different senses here: one as an attitude that is the opposite of misanthropy, and another that is an approach toward charitable action. It seems that the former is the relevant one here, but the latter is more common in layman's use.
    I clarified that both terms are associated with a range of meanings.
  • This distinguishes misanthropes from racists, misogynists, and misandrists, which hold a negative attitude toward certain races or genders. – There are other ways to discriminate between people besides race and gender. Perhaps it should clarify that misanthropy is distinct from all forms of negative discriminatory attitude, and then provide these as examples.
    Done.
  • It has been argued that misanthropy – If this is a controversial claim, then who is arguing it? If not, then "it has been argued that" can be dropped altogether.
  • that a person literally dislikes every human being – "Literally" is redundant.
    Done.
  • Instead, it depends on the person's horizon. – The two uses of "horizon" in this paragraph feel slightly idiomatic.
    That's the exact term used in the source.
  • including the more ordinary cases – Maybe this can be reworded to clarify what "ordinary cases" look like.
    Done.

Types:

  • whether the misanthrope includes themselves – Since this sentence is written plural to be gender neutral, you might as well make "misanthropes include" plural as well.
    Done.
  • is due to Immanuel Kant & due to Irving Babbitt – Maybe "created by" or "attributed to".
    Done.
  • Who are Joseph Harris and Toby Svoboda? Since they don't have their own articles, some sort of title or credentials would be appropriate.
    Done.
  • contrasts it with Swift's thorough dismissal of all of humanity – This is the first mention of Swift in the body, so it should be wikilinked and should probably use his full name for clarity.
    Done.
  • hatred involves an intensive form of dislike – Intense might be preferred to intensive.
    Done.
  • It includes the additional component of wishing ill upon others and, at times, of trying to realize this wish. – Technically nothing here is wrong, but it could be reworded. The comma is after the conjunction, which is distracting, and the second "of" could be lost without changing the meaning.
    Done.

Misanthropic forms of life:

  • It took me a few reads of this first paragraph to get a sense of what it's saying. Is Wittgenstein's concept of forms of life essential here, or could this section talk more generally about misanthropic lifestyles? If it can, then I suggest simplifying it a bit so it's more accessible. It might help to rewrite the first sentence to something like "misanthropes adopt different lifestyles based on the type of misanthropy", with the wording changed to your liking.
    Done.
  • "Archetypes" might be the appropriate word rather than "prototypes". But even then, it could probably be written with simpler language.
    Done.

Forms of human flaws:

  • Moral flaws are often identified with tendencies to promote what is bad or with inappropriate attitudes toward values. – This sentence is a little clunky.
    Done.
  • (1) (2) (3) – These can be removed without changing the meaning.
    Done.
  • This prevents the affected person from addressing it and improving themself – "Themself" is non-standard in formal writing. It might be better to make this whole sentence plural and use "themselves".
    Done.

Psychological and social causes:

  • For example, it is often argued that undergoing disappointments and disillusionments in life – Is this a widely accepted position, or does it need to be attributed?
    Done.
  • This type of psychological explanation is already found in Plato's Phaedo. – "Already" can probably be dropped. Otherwise, I'd replace it with "is found as early as" or something like that to make it clear what's being said.
    Done.
  • Socrates explains that misanthropy arises when a person trusts and admires someone without knowing them sufficiently well. – Read out of context, this makes it sound like trust is synonymous with misanthropy. Maybe rewrite this sentence and the next two.
    Done.
  • Hobbes and Schopenhauer both have their names used twice in their respective sentences. They could be rewritten so they're only needed once.
    Done
  • it has been argued that socio-economic inequality in the form of unfair distribution of wealth – Widely accepted or needs attribution?
    Done.

Arguments for and against:

  • great deal of suffering and destruction but are also morally responsible for them – "great deal" is singular.
    The "are" refers humans, not to "great deal".
  • the scales are tipped against man – Idiom
    Done.

Philosophy:

  • a loner who had little patience for human society – This feels informal.
    Done.
  • Various strands of misanthropy are also found – Is "strands" the best word here? Maybe it is, but it doesn't seem right.
    Done.
  • For example, in a famous statement – "in a famous statement" doesn't add anything to the sentence.
    Done.
  • that constitutes no progress – "Constitutes" might not be the right word here.
    Done.
  • It might help to add a few words to the end of the last sentence to clarify what an Übermensch is.
    Done.

Religion:

  • an extremely difficult and rare achievement – Slightly redundant
    Done.
  • most human beings carry these deep flaws with them throughout their life – "Human beings" is plural but "life" is singular.
    Done.

Philosophical pessimism:

  • Misanthropy is closely related to but not identical with – Maybe "closely related but not identical to" or "closely related to but distinct from".
    Done.
  • life as a whole is not worth living or that the world in general is a bad place – "as a whole" and "in general" can probably be dropped.
    Done.
  • by misanthropy by – Strange wording
    Done.
  • and maybe partially responsible for the badness of the world – "maybe partially" and "badness" seem informal.
    Done.
  • the two views do not entail each other – Even if "entail" is correct, it reads strangely here.
    Done.

Antinatalism and human extinction:

  • and that humans, therefore, have a duty – "therefore" can be dropped.
    Done.
  • is the so-called misanthropic argument – "is called the misanthropic argument" avoids "so-called", which can be read to express skepticism.
    Done.
  • for avoiding to create more humans – This reads awkwardly. Maybe "for avoiding the creation of more humans".
    Done.

Human exceptionalism and deep ecology:

  • The second paragraph of this section needs some rewording. The sentences are very wordy, and there's a lot of unnecessary phrasing that could be trimmed. It could probably express all of the same ideas in two sentences.
  • Done.
  • turn human exceptionalism on its head – Idiom
  • Done.
Verifiable with no original research

All sources appear to be reliable. Dictionaries as sources aren't ideal, but it's good enough for GA. There are some primary sources where it would be preferable to have sources that talk about them rather than citing the work directly, but that's also beyond the scope of GA. The spot checks are all good, with just a few minor notes.

  • The word originates from the Greek words μῖσος mīsos 'hatred' and ἄνθρωπος ānthropos 'man, human'. – This sentence in the lead is unsourced and does not correspond to any sourced statement in the body. I suggest moving it out of the lead down to the "definition" section.
    Done

Spot checks:

  • Gibson 2017:
    • p. 190 – Supports the distinction from racism
    • pp. 4–5 – Supports all claims
    • p. 111 – Supports the claim
    • pp. 104–105 – Supports the claim and all examples
  • Cooper 2018:
    • pp. 110–111 – Supports the general idea
    • pp. 50–51 – Supports the main idea. After reading this passage, I think the article could do more to elaborate on what "mindlessness" means in this context. I read it as a polite word for general ignorance or stupidity, but the source describes it as Boorishness, vulgarity, rudeness, yobbishness, loutishness.
    • p. 62 – I'm not sure if this supports that Nietzsche had a "negative image" of apes so much as he simply made the comparison in this specific context.
      Done.
    • pp. 5–6 – Supports the general idea
  • Svoboda 2022:
    • pp. 7–8 – Supports the claim
    • p. 18 – Supports the general idea, but after reading this I'm not sure if the article fully explains what an intellectual flaw is according to Schopenhauer. Also, would it be accurate to say that these forms of human flaws are based on the ideas of Schopenhauer? If so, that might warrant a mention somewhere in this section.
      The main point of this passage in our article is to explain how intellectual flaws work in tandem with other flaws. The explanation of what intellectual flaws are is given earlier. I would have to check the sources of the earlier passages but I don't think that they give Schopenhauer specific weight or even mention him.
    • pp. 15–16 – Supports the main idea
  • Benatar 2015:
    • p. 43 – Supports the claim and the examples
    • p. 52 – Supports the claim. In addition to the idiomatic issue mentioned under criterion one, copying the "scales" analogy is WP:Close paraphrasing.
    • pp. 34–35 – Supports the claim.
Broad in its coverage

All of the basic aspects seem to be covered. Going into an article like this, I expect to see coverage of the different definitions/usages, the philosophical history of the concept, and the core ideas that adherents to this concept believe.

There are a few areas that seem to go off topic:

  • I feel that too much weight is being given to the specific doomsday scenarios under "human extinction", possibly including the image of the mushroom cloud. Much of the paragraph goes off topic from misanthropy. The important part here is that antinatalist misanthropes are okay with human extinction.
    Done.
  • Is deep ecology often brought up in sources about misanthropy? It doesn't seem to provide the reader any additional understanding of misanthropy.
    Gibson 2017 discusses it explicitly. It's also relevant since one motivation for misanthropy is the damage humans do to the environment. In this regard, it's helpful as a concrete example. But, strictly speaking, the short paragraph on it is not necessary.

For posterity, a few suggestions for future expansion if the sources allow them. None of these need to be worried about right now, and they're not necessary to meet the GA criteria:

  • Philosophy of misanthropy in the post-classical era; it currently jumps from Diogenes to Hobbes
  • 20th and 21st century understanding of misanthropy and how it differs from historic understandings, particularly in regard to modern communications technology
  • Schools of thought in addition to individual philosophers; currently the only one is cynicism (and maybe antinatalism if that counts)
  • Major religions other than Christianity and Buddhism
  • The general approach to misanthropic characters in fiction, as opposed to specific examples
Neutral

General:

  • I'm seeing a lot of ideas attributed to Svoboda. This isn't so much of an issue with statements of fact, but his opinions and interpretations seem to be given a lot of weight in this article.
    I'll respond to the more specific issues below.
  • Several uses of claim, which can be read to express doubt.
    I didn't have the impression that they imply an undue doubt in cases they are used here. I think the problem with the term "claim" is mainly when editors try to relativize a widely accepted idea by qualifying it as a mere opinion, as in "scientists claim that the earth is round".

Lead:

  • The lead reflects some of the issues related to selection of examples and use of thread mode that are specified below.

Types:

  • a faulty and self-contradictory outlook or a respectable philosophical position – This can just say that it's for evaluating the arguments or something like that. Better to avoid suggesting that there are any approaches that are "faulty" or "respectable".
    Done.
  • even though this outlook seems to undermine its own position by constituting a form of hypocrisy – It should be made clear that this is also attributed to Harris. Currently it could be read as being either Harris or wikivoice.
    Done.
  • According to Svoboda, only misanthropy based on judgment constitutes a serious philosophical position. – This sentence and the one after it warrant a closer look. Even though it's attributed, this is a strong claim, and it might be undue. The next sentence even more so, as it seems to accept Svoboda's position as correct. Is Svoboda's position that valid misanthropy requires a judgemental attitude widely accepted in philosophy, or even a major school of thought?
    Svoboda does not claim that other types of misanthropy are invalid. He only claims that they are not that interesting when understood as philosophical positions. I attributed the following sentence to him.

Psychological and social causes:

  • It may be possible to overcome or reduce this source of misanthropy by implementing policies that build trust and promote a more equal distribution of wealth. – This is a prescriptive policy suggestion and should be attributed, if included at all.
    Done.
  • The final paragraph in this section puts undue weight on the experiences of Americans. To a certain extent this might be the fault of the sources, but I think that the Democrat/Republican and liberal/conservative example can be lost in favor of a general statement that misanthropy does not necessarily indicate political preferences.
    Done.

Arguments for and against:

  • This section suffers from thread mode, where each idea is contradicted by the one after it. This section is going to need some reorganization. Overall, since this is an article about misanthropy, I think that the content should lean toward describing the beliefs of misanthropes, with brief summaries of non-misanthrope opinions where they significantly intersect. The way I would do this would be to write the whole section describing the arguments and beliefs associated with misanthropy, and then include in one paragraph at the bottom to cover the most prominent anti-misanthropic arguments that are raised in discourse of misanthropy (the "religion" section does this well). It still risks some WP:PROCON, but it would be an improvement. Alternatively, there might be a way to scrap this section entirely and instead sort this content by idea. For example, the information on moral faults would also fit well under "forms of human flaws", and there's possibly enough here to make subsections in that section. But I haven't tried sorting it like this, so I don't know if it would work well throughout.
    The essays WP:ATM and WP:PROCON make claims that are problematic to many articles of interest to philosophy, not just to this article. When explaining a theory or a point of view that is not yet generally accepted or rejected, it is necessary to discuss both the reasons why it could be true and the reasons why it could be false to comply with WP:NPOV. To focus only on the arguments in favor would would violate this policy. In philosophy these debates in the academic literature often take the form of arguments going back and forth: claim - argument - counterargument - countercounterargument - ... One could try to separate the different positions out: argument and countercounterargument in one section while putting the counterargument in another section. I can try and see if I can get it to work. But could result in a rather strained or artificially sounding text. The alternative is to say that WP:ATM and WP:PROCON are just essays and do not need to be followed if there are good reasons otherwise. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In line with the previous point, "arguments for and against" risks encouraging thread mode and pro-con, so it's probably not an ideal section heading.
  • There are a few more instances in this section that potentially give undue credence to opinions or interpretations, but I'll leave them be until we discuss the format here.
  • And the focus on negative exemplars, like Stalin or Hitler, should be contrasted with positive exemplars, like Mother Teresa or Gandhi. – Avoid describing people as negative or positive. Specific examples might be better replaced with general ones here.
    Done

Philosophy:

  • The example for cynics' misanthropy seems like it's stated in wikivoice.
    Done.

Religion:

  • since human nature is already tainted by sin from birth – This could be read as a statement of fact from which original sin is interpreted, rather than being part of the original sin claim.
    Done.

Literature and popular culture:

  • I'm curious how the most recent examples were chosen. The set of Mr. Burns, the Joker, and Al Bundy feels like names chosen at random. This section might be better suited giving a general treatment of how misanthropy is portrayed culturally rather than giving specific examples of characters. If examples are given, I'd expect that they're ones frequently cited in works about misanthropy in general.
    Mr. Burns and the Joker are well-known characters and characteristic misanthropes. I'm not sure that Al Bundy is a good choice. He was just added a few days ago by an IP. My impression is that having one paragraph to give examples of well-known misanthropes in popular culture makes this article more accessible. But the paragraph is not required and could be removed. If you know of some good sources of how misanthropy is portrayed culturally than I could take a look at them. Otherwise we could rename the section to just "Literature".

Philosophical pessimism:

  • This view is perhaps best exemplified – Not for us to say.
    Done.
  • but for the negative, destructive influence of humanity – This wording implies that "negative, destructive influence" is a fact rather than the opinion of eco-misanthropists.
    Done.

Antinatalism and human extinction:

  • These harms include wars, genocides, factory farming, and damages done to the environment. – This list seems to be the opinion of one misanthrope. It would be better if they were verified as widely cited and accepted examples.
    Done.
  • The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement and the Church of Euthanasia – Are these groups relevant enough for inclusion in a general article about misanthropy? I suspect they're being given a boost from recency.
    Done.

Human exceptionalism and deep ecology:

  • As with the other groups, Earth First seems relatively minor in the grand scheme of misanthropy. Maybe these groups would be relevant if there were a section on contemporary misanthropy, but even then I'm not sure if they're that prominent or influential.
    I think it's good to have one concrete example. I'm open to different suggestions.
Stable

A recent unexplained removal that was reverted, but there's no indication that it was justified or will garner enough support to bring about a debate.

Illustrated

All images are public domain.

  • Although this isn't strictly part of GACR's image requirements, the image of Holocaust victims might be unduly obscene per MOS:OMIMG.
  • The wording of the Diogenes caption implies that he was correct in deciding no one was honest or worthy.
    Done.
  • The Adam and Eve caption does not provide context. If I didn't recognize the elements of the image associated with Adam and Eve, this image would be meaningless to me.
    Done.
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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

References

  1. ^ Cooper 2018, pp. 77–78.
  2. ^ Querido 2020, pp. 152–7.
  3. ^ Hooghe & Stolle 2003, p. 185.

Sources

  • Cooper, David E. (2 February 2018). Animals and Misanthropy. Routledge. ISBN 9781351583770.
  • Hooghe, M.; Stolle, D. (15 May 2003). Generating Social Capital: Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective. Springer. p. 185. ISBN 9781403979544.
  • Querido, Pedro (February 2020). "Andrew Gibson, Misanthropy: The Critique of Humanity". Comparative Critical Studies. 17 (1): 152–7. doi:10.3366/ccs.2020.0349. hdl:10451/46707. ISSN 1744-1854. S2CID 216373633.

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Misanthropy; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Phlsph7: looks good on all fronts. Both hooks are interesting, although I think the latter is more engaging and relevant. No sourcing issues with either. MSG17 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MSG17: Thanks for the review. In that case, let's go for ALT1. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MSG17 and MSG17: I am not a fan of ALT1. I think ALT0 strikes me as clickable. A message regarding the source. It is book, and the reference covers too many pages. I had to read through many pages in order to confirm. Bruxton (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Misanthropy&oldid=1250069819"