Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

Corrected facts

The User: Albmont is stating false information about VHEMT.

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

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

SOURCE:

http://vhemt.org/les.htm

http://vhemt.org/vas.htm

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

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

SOURCE #1:

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

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

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

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

Criticism of ideology

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

Origins

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

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

No criticism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the list of absurdly conterversial ideas with no critisicm section seems to have this.

apparently no one of the authors who have had a nice pile of sources did not bother to write how ridiculous and damaging to their own ideals they are 79.176.49.28 (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC) meh, I digress