Talk:Misanthropy/Archive 1

Undated, etc.

Started archiving, order talk page. Starting this page manually with all the undated threads.

Misanthropology

Is this a joke? I actually was wanting to start a band call misanthropology actually. But is this serious at all? I would appreciate some links.

Nihilism link

I think it should be made clear why there is a link to nihilism on this page. I personally have both misanthropic and nihilistic beliefs (e.g. one aspect of my worldview is that i have a disdain for human beings because of their search for meaning in a universe where non is accessable if it even exists). However I am hesitant to write this down as i am not sure how representative it is of nihilists/misanthropes as a whole.

euphemism

A euphemism makes a word less harsh and takes away negative meanings and connotations. Calling human beings "meatbags" isn't a euphemism. Insult isn't a great way to describe it, but it's the best I can think of, and it's more correct than 'euphemism' since it's the opposite of a euphemism.

- Maybe the word you're looking for is "pejorative?"

Lists

Someone's gotta do something about this article. The lists of misanthropes is way too long compared to the entire article. Either simplify the lists, or elaborate more on the subject at hand. I know I wont do it, I'll just leave it up to some of the humans passing across this page who, by the way, I hate! (Except for the 10~15 who I have developed a mutually advantageous relationship with). Also, just tell me if any other misanthropes have experienced this: Falling in love with a fellow human, without his/her knowledge, then tossing the argument around in your head that you have no right to like her, because shes just a human and you know a relationship would be pointless and futile, but you continue to freak out about it?

---I'm leaving this unsigned purposely, don't cut yourself over it.

Kurt Vonnegut and misanthropy

The following entry seems completely unrelated to misanthropy or it's prevalence in Vonnegut's work:

"In one of his most popular works, Slaughterhouse Five, the protagonist Billy Pilgrim "becomes unstuck in time." He is taken hostage by the Tralfamadorians, a race able to see in 4D, who can travel through time and experience all the events in their lives, not necessarily in chronological order. Through the novel they teach him a fatalistic philosophy, summed up in the book's signature phrase, "so it goes.""

"So it goes" doesn't seem particularly misanthropic at all. This reads simply as a summary of Slaughterhouse Five. Would someone who knows the book well care to draw a more direct connection? If not, I'd prefer to simply delete the quoted section. Atranox (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Vonnegut was a nihilist, not a misanthrope. Though misanthropy can lead to nihilism for sure, Vonnegut's work was not misanthropic and any references to the author and his books should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.121.47.130 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is even more ridiculous. Nihilists don't spend the better part of their lives writing against war and environmental destruction.

TremorMilo (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section is FLAWED

This is a tale of a meeting of two lonesome, skinny, fairly old white men on a planet which was dying fast.

Human beings will be happier - not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That's my utopia.

I really wonder what gives us the right to wreck this poor planet of ours.

These are not misanthropic statements. If those statements are misanthropic then one would have to logically conclude that all environmentalists are misanthropes. It seems to me as though whoever edited in this section was looking to randomly throw quotes from one of their favorite authors (a very famous, very popular author that almost anyone that reads has read).

Unnecessary, out of place, and irrelevant. I am not removing them because I don't feel like getting IP banned. However, unless you can offer up some logical explanation as to why these 3 statements are "misanthropic" then you need to remove them.

What they are is promoting environmentalism and the simple living movement. Caring about the planet and the preservation of it towards the survival of humanity != hatred of people or society. Who wrote that? A corporate exec for Mobile Oil?

Only a young person with poor reading comprehension would find those quotes to be representative of the misanthropes world view.

Please Sign Your Posts

Sioraf (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satire

This paragraph makes one believe that misanthropy is something exclusive for satirists, but what about the people who became misanthropic due to those satirists? People who were humiliated and oppressed by them and therefore started hating humanity? The article is implying that misanthropic satirists are people to be respected, but it's exactly the satirists who are inciting other people to hate humans, because they don't respect anybody else themselves. 85.1.175.181 09:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Taskforce

It looks like the main problem with this article is NPOV and a rather scattered look at the idea of misanthropy. I think the best way to organize this would be along the lines of misandry and misogyny, i.e.

Forms of misanthropy
misanthropyin popular culture
misanthropy in Mythology and/or
misanthropy in philosophy and religion

Kerowyn 00:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've cleaned up the entire article and tried to remove the "misanthropy is teh evil!!1!" vibe. What do y'all think? Kerowyn 03:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did a great job there dude! Didn't expect that high quality stuff when i came to this page. Wikipedia is getting generally better (just referring to the lead-in-def though not the whole article).Slicky 01:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heidegger and Misanthropy

I don't think Heidegger's discussion of "The They" in Being and Time is misanthropic. You are welcome to try and argue that in an academic paper, but it is certaintly not an explicit or a widely discussed fact about Heidegger's thought. Just google "Heidegger" and "Misanthropy". There just isn't any active discussion of a link between Heidegger and misanthropy. If you can't back up your claim that his technical term "the they" is in any way misanthropic or involves a hatred of humanity, then please remove Heidegger's name from this article entirely! --Colin 19:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Carlin and Misanthropy

The later work of Comedian George Carlin is extremely misanthropic - moreso than Bill Hicks. He deserves to be added to the list of Misanthropists in Popular Culture.--Colin 19:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein and Misanthropy

I seem to remember a list of misanthropists that may have been on this site and disappeared. If that is so, it should be brought back.

Albert Einstein was a misanthropist. He developed the nuclear bomb in the quiet satisfaction that it would kill the people he hated so much. He especially hated the German people, which is documented in biographies, though he was actually an unconditional misanthropist.

"Only two things are Infinite - the Universe, and the People's stupidity. And I'm not sure about the former". It was Einstein who said this.

I think it's fair to conclude from this that the more intelligent one is, the more one hates the infinitely stupid masses Einstein talks about here. I certainly can substantiate such an attitude myself, a misanthropist and certified genius. (if you believe IQ tests, which I nor Einstein do). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article on Einstein, scientists concerned over the possibility of Germany developing a nuclear weapon asked Einstein to sign their letter urging the US to develop one first. Also he has (apparently) said "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker." which goes with another (apparent) quote: "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.". People might be dumb, but he's clearly not "hateful" in the sense that he thinks we (or even Germans) should just all die. Recognizing our dumb-ness is not a sign of hate, anymore than recognizing that the sky is blue.

..did you just say you were a certified genious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.109.131 (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein played NO PART WHATSOEVER on the development of the nuclear bomb. He developed the THEORY behind it (E=MC^2, to put it very simply). He later expressed regret at urging President Roosevelt to push foward with its development, after realising its capabilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.82.107 (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now wouldn't that be typical of misanthropy, calling mankind stupid and meaning it? I personally think you don't need to hate it with all your heart or anything that way. I mean, assuming you're a misanthrope, you wouldn't waste yourself on actively hating something that isn't worth it... get what I want to express? In my opinion, the saying that mankind isn't evolved enough yet or should not be "as is" resembles the way misanthropy works. And Einstein is actually pretty much the best example to what is explained in the article. Born intelligent. Growing up thinking everything's great. Finding out that people are stupid as hell and there's war everywhere, which it, judging from mere logic, which he had enough of, shouldn't be. Then just surrendering and saying that stupidity is infinite. If that is NOT misanthropy, I can't imagine anyone actually being a misanthrope. -- Schaf 85.116.200.66 (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CLEANUP / REVISION!

This article is in heavy need of sectioning, and implementation/quoting of studies.

A great misunderstanding is the quoting of misanthropy emerging from fictional species/androids. Misantropy is a specious-intrinsic term and does not have anything todo with evolutionary/or-otherwise rivalry between species. This would semantically be something like anti-humanist/anti-antrohpy (don't know if there is a term, as it wouldn't make any sense considering we are the only relevant real species to apply such a term)

I removed this for now:

Misanthropy has led to serial killings, although the same may be said for any form of virulent hatred, including extreme racism and misogyny. Carl Panzram, who murdered at least 21 people, said "I hate all the fucking human race. I get a kick out of murdering people" while in a Washington DC jail in 1922.
Misanthropy can be misunderstood to be a psychiatric disorder. Some believe that those with strongly-held misanthropy may suffer from low self-esteem, depression, and even suicidal tendencies. However, this view conforms to the stereotype of the “gruff loner, who just needs a little love,” and has little clinical data to support it.

The following things are apparent:

misanthropy does not lead to serial killings, that is rather a manifested antisocial disorder. In fact misanthropes can appear very humane, prolly sarcastic. A likely depiction of a misanthrope can be seen in the show House MD. Misanthropes are to a great percentage prolly even more humanistic in their doing than normal people, as they are less egoistic, as depicted in the article in a quote: one sees himself and others to sit in the same boat (which is stalling/sinking whatever - metaphorically speaking). MOREOVER terminologically racism has nothing todo with misanthropy: The former is the opposition against certain features in goups of sapiens, the latter is opposed against the sapien species.

Misanthropy is unlikely to be a condition as it is rather a manifested philosophical view. Manifsted symptoms (depression, whatnot) that can be associated with misanthropes is another thing and certainly ARE medically well defined. Quoted STUDIES are needed if one would like to add something in that regard to the page! At last low self esteem doesn't really apply as a misanthrope would apply the low self esteem throughout any human being, thus there would be not differentiation possible contrary to the original way the term is used. So this low self esteem is rather misinterpreted strong humbleness.

Please add anything to the page as a revision. Slicky 14:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At last the best corroborator wether one actually is a true misanthrope (after one has ample as-objective-as-it-gets indications) or not is the lifelong lack of children, distate of the mere concept to reproduction, copulation, grouping, et al. and therefore also lack of a partner.

You talk a whole lot Slicky. The more big words you use, the more insecure about your intelligence you sound. Sounds like you've been reading to many modern "philosophy" books. Let's keep it simple shall we. Einstein didn't use big words, nor did Feynman or Turing. If simple language is good enough for them, it's good enough for you.

Generally, "intellectualizing" social things is never helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However I do agree that Misanthropy is definitely not a "psychological condition". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to rectify the following statement: distate of the mere concept to reproduction, copulation, grouping, et al - I agree that a conscious rejection of the concept of human reproduction is a good indicator for a misanthropic worldview, although it need not go that far: the rising awareness of the potentially lethal danger of overpopulation both for the planet's biosphere in general and human society in particular may lead to abstinence from reproduction even among non-misanthropes or even humanists. However, the idea that a misanthropic ideology rejects copulation as such, when it is not connected to reproduction but carried out as a (how could I put it) pastime, is untrue. Misanthropes certainly DO engage in sexual activities, "keep" a sexual partner AND may even pursue romantic interests not connected to sexual hedonism. It is fairly ambiguous because of the nature of misanthropy as implied in the article: it needs not to be a total rejection of humanity, although that is what the concept actually implies, but may develop as a result of an aversion to specific shortcomings of humanity. Vargher (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List-mania

Hate to say it, but this article would benefit from some good lists, especially in the pop culture section. - IstvanWolf 07:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Human Misanthropes

Is it correct to include non-humans (such as Bender, the robot from Futurama) in the list of misanthropes? This seems to conflict with the very first sentence of the article, the definition of misanthropy as "a general dislike of the human race from the viewpoint of another human individual." This applies to at least Bender, Agent Smith and HK-47.

i would have to say the same Fallen Angel ^talk 17:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.

But can someone that is not human, that was origionally human be a Misasthrope, Envy from Full Metal Alechemist is one, but is no longer technicly human, and in much literature vampires are misanthropes, now they where born and raised human, but through event are no longer human.

I came here to make this point too, but you beat me to it.

It could also argued that a BEM (bug-eyed-monster) that hated other BEMs might be more of a kind of 'misanthrope' than a BEM that hated humans, which might just be 'normal' for BEMs that get along with each other just fine. So a 'vampire' that hated other vampires might be more of a misanthrope than one who didn't like people. (At least without tobasco sauce.)

Oh, yes, and one more misanthropic example in literature - In 'Aliens', Ripley makes the point about the aliens not screwing each other over for a buck (or percentage or however that quote went). Humans are certainly their own worst enemy in this film. The aliens aren't 'misanthropic' just because they kill humans and feed some of them to their babies, any more than you could be 'misanthropic' about cows while eating a burger.

Marvin (from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) might be an excellent non-human misanthrope. Not only does he hate people, he hates other robots, too. OK, so more precisely, he loathes everybody and everything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.27.128.205 (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

And Phantom from MAR should be included, I mean lets not forget about his long hatred rant.

Philosophy Section

This seems both badly written and somewhat irrelevant. Possibly delete it?

No don't delete it you twit. Why would you delete it? It is serious. And also Why did people delete the user box? I hate people damnit! MegaloManiac 17:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Judaism (And Tragic Overgeneralizations)

I want to point it out, I am no fan of Israel or Zionism, and think that there is some truth that Zionism is inherantly a racist movement (afterall, it was invented in the 1800's, and mainly by a man who talks about how profitable it would be to invent racial anti-semitism so as to spur the Aliyah onward), however, I feel it is my personal obligation ot object to the statement, or at least rendering there of, that seems to suggst that this is the typical Judaic (as well as biblical) mindset of that religion (though it evidently was common from between the Diaspora to the 20th century).

This statement is as follows:

Judaism attributes an irremediable inferior animal nature to all "Nations," namely all non-Jews, inferior by divine ordination to the "chosen" members of the Tribe..

Remember, Talmud is a collection of various traditions from various authors, some of it is biggoted (one may look at the testamony of Israel Shahak or the Bjerkins libraries [1] [2] to get some decent information on the subject), and even contradictory, not only with the Torah but with itself as well (the Karaites are the most apt ones to pick up on this, bless them). The point being that these racist traditions are not inherently a part of the Bible, nor need be part of Judaism either. A good place to look at this subject is Manfred Davidmann's works on the conflict between the plain meaning of the Torah and Talmudic Judaism.

Thanks, and please guard yourselves from generalities, they tend to effect group-think in a bad way. -- RoyBot

I'm slightly confused...was said statement actually part of the article at some time? If so, it does not reflect well on the members of this encyclopedia. That accusation is blatantly false, a classic anti-Semitic argument. It is true in a way that Judaism, to which, as a religion, I do not adhere, implies that the Jewish nation has a specific status as "The Light to the Nations", the "Chosen" people of God. However, in no way does it attribute an "inferior animal nature" to non-Jews. One could argue in a way that the same is true of Christianity: after all, according to Christian theology, eternal salvation is offered only to its adherents, condemning Jews, Muslims (in contrast to the latter, the Christians do not have the concept of "People of the Book", thus not recognizing the close ties between the three Abrahamic religions), not to mention those evil pagans. One could argue that this is true for Islam as well...My point being this: the statement is not only false, but also out of place in this article: while I am willing to concede, that a specific form of supremacy, a feeling of self-exaltation, is inherent in EVERY major religion (especially in the Abrahamic religions), except perhaps Buddhism, which is anyway rather a philosophy, and various pagan or Neo-pagan movements, that ultimately disproves allegation of misanthropy: Misanthropy is general dislike, contempt, or hatred, for the human species as a whole, regardless of "race", ethnicity, religion or ideology. "Supremacism", on the other hand, exalts one group while viewing the others as inferior. A Jewish misanthrope would hate his fellow Jews equally to all others (as, for instance, I do with passion). Vargher (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randal Graves ("Clerks")

There's a line spoken by Randal that sums up his misanthropic tendencies (therefore perhaps he should be included in the "pop culture references" section?)

"I hate people, but I love gatherings. Ironic, isn't it?" or something to that effect. His apathetic, or even malicious, actions towards paying customers is pretty good evidence as well. 199.214.27.152 17:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While one could make a case that he has misanthropic tendencies (though he's probably just somewhat antisocial, given his considerable concern for Dante), this article isn't a list of misanthropes, it's just to explain the term. --TM 21:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misanthropology?

Ok, so my first request for info on this was ignored (perhaps because I was an anon back then). Is misanthropology for real? Seriously, I thought I invented that term when I was thinking of possible names for future bands. The first few hits on google don't make it seem like it is any kind of serious scientific study, but more a clever combination of words. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 04:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing it as no one has responded in over a week. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 03:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying there is no such thing as misanthropology would be like saying there is no such thing as "mixology". Just because something is not formally recognized by academics as being an established field of study doesn't mean it doesn't exist. People have been studying misanthropology since at least the time of Socrates; it has just went under the names of ethics, philosophy, political science, psychology, sociology, criminalogy, peace studies, etc.; I suppose "mixology" would fall under chemistry and kinesthetics, but it still is worthy of an article. Shanoman 20:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that mixology is a notable term and we can find reliable sources refering to it. I'm not saying the term misanthropology doesn't exist--I'm saying there does not appear to be any notable field of study that uses that term (and notable is different than recognized by academics). I am not seeing any consistent usage of the term misanthropology that would suggest it is any kind of field of study. Such a claim needs to be sourced. If we are going to mention it exists, there needs to be a source for it. Until someone finds a reliable source, that information should be removed. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 02:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Term seems a WP:NEO and should be avoided in wikipedia until it catches on on its own accord.--ZayZayEM 02:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Jones from Slipknot

On his article, it states that he is misanthropic. I was wondering if we could somehow mention him into this article

It's believed by fans of Slipknot that Craig is misanthropic. He certainly shows many characteristics of a misanthrope; no interviews, on the Voluminal DVD his face is blurred so that no one sees him, on the odd occasion he does do an interview he just sits there with the mouth part of his mask zipped up. However I'm not sure that he definitely is misanthropic, though he may well be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomceteri (talk • contribs) 12:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not Jones is a misanthrope, I don't see a reason why we should list misanthropic celebrity examples on this page. Whether people display misanthropic behaviors due to genuine philosophy, or the proven entertainment/artistic value of misanthropy, such a list would be immense, conjectural and useless - unless you can prove that the individual contributed significantly to misanthropic philosophy. That would be a dangerous stretch in this case. MisplacedFate1313 (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate the people, love the person?

Is there a separate, different term for someone who mostly hates society (and its ramifications in religion, government, law, morality, culture, business, etc.) but extremely loves human beings and sympathizes with their true biological, emotional, and intellectual needs? I don't think the term "humanitarian misanthrope" (which I did not originate) quite cuts the mustard; I'm thinking of something more along the lines of "mis-societarian philanthropist", or "anti-societarian anthropocentrist". Of course, I will not create articles on these terms, as I know they will quite promptly be deleted by hyper-deletionist minimalist editors, who are probably also arch-societarian misanthropes! (LOL). Shanoman 14:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what a wonderfully written discussion! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.73.47 (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That made me laugh, Shanoman - thus restoring my faith in humanity...almost. Drgreyhound (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Blog Link

There was a link to http://www.misanthropytoday.com, which is a blog with no apparent relevance to the topic outside of having misanthropy in the title. -70.230.150.86 01:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems relevant to me shitbag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.86.3 (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry David in Curb Your Enthusiasm

I removed this paragraph from the Misanthropy in Popular Culture section because it was inserted as a direct copy/paste of the House paragraph. If someone can support the character's misanthropy, then by all means, write it up, but we don't need to copy and paste the same paragraph. It might as well be a list if we do that. Here's the paragraph:

The character of Larry David, in the TV show Curb Your Enthusiasm is typically described as misanthropic. When confronted with someone whose behavior or philosophy flies in the face of his opinions, he will often go to great lengths to prove that his underlying philosophies are, in fact, correct.

It's not even a particularly good paragraph, really. I don't watch the shows so I can't add detail to the original, but removing the copy, I can do. -Tiresias BC (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Culture

This section is a random collection of trivia that does not actually say anything about misanthropy in popular culture. It has the potential to be a good section, but not if it's just a list of misanthropic characters. Personally I would focus on "lovable misanthropes" like House and "villainous misanthropes" like Voldemort, but that's just me, and I don't want it to stray into OR. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropy, Misanthropy link "opposite" ?

The links at the bottom of the page describe the two as '(opposite)' According to philanthropy article: 'Philanthropy is the act of donating money, goods, time, or effort to support a charitable cause...' According to misanthropy article: 'Misanthropy is a general dislike, distrust, or hatred of the human species...' If so an action of charity and a veiwpoint of mistrust do not qualify as true opposites therefore the link is incorrect. Either the definition in the articles is incorrect and should be changed or the links are incorrect and should be changed. Nowiky (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's also a link to this page from the "Humanitarianism" article, which like philanthropy is not truly an "opposite" of misanthropy. Misanthropy is really too vague and nebulous to have a true opposite. I am a misanthrope, yet I believe in humanitarian causes, and I'd probably be a philanthropist if I had millions of dollars to throw away. Whoever is playing this "opposite game" is, sorry to say, a tard. MisplacedFate1313 (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, personally, am inclined to disagree. In my opinion, while philanthropy is obviously not a polar opposite of misanthropy, by far, it is relevant, as one could argue that it would go against the general misanthropic doctrine (hatred of humans) to be a philanthrope (help other humans). 210.11.82.107 (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out a from Personal Issues@4-ch.net: http://4-ch.net/personal/kareha.pl/1223999294/4 as an example, as I believe this does show the point of this discussion very well. --212.114.206.253 (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diogenes

I'm not sure that the philosopher, Diogenes, would qualify as a misanthrope. Misanthropy is resentment/hatred of humankind, based on the prevailing characteristics of human nature, to put it most simply. From what I have read on said philosopher, Diogenes did not necessarily hate humankind, he simply hated the society that humans had built, and proclaimed that humans would be much happier living in the state of nature. In my opinion, this seems to support his lack of misanthropy, as he attempted to get humans to consider an alternate way of life, whereas a misanthrope would hate humans for what they are and believe humankind of being incapable of changing to a satisfactory standard. At least this is the general impression of the misanthropist philosophy that I have gathered based on people I have met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.82.107 (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about Diogenes. I have removed the section in question. If anyone has any info pointing to a hatred of humanity on his part please post it. Pollinosisss (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General quotes

Personally, I strongly believe that quotes, lists, etc. are a great way to exemplify a viewpoint. Study the character, whether fictional or real who made the quote, and you will come to a greater understanding of the viewpoint. I realize that there is an excellent arguement against that for Wikipedia. Having said that: As a practicing misanthrope (it is honestly part of my personal religion) I deeply understand how one can love humans, hate human society, and be a misanthrope. Misanthropy comes in many forms. If one has come to believe all of humanity's creations are to be despised, hated, or otherwise one has likely attained philosophical misanthropy. Or to put it differently, I love all of you, I just hate everything about all of you. I believe humanity's first mistake was leaving the trees. Captain Gilligan Blackout, the Mad Pirate Philosopher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.205.181 (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion humans are only scum because they decide to be. Humans waste so much potential when they could actually be the magnificent empirical beigns that humanists claim they already are. How many times have you seen not only on the internet but in real life, an insult thrown when a polite disagreement would have been far more appropriate? Humans also are so cruel to their fellow humans and not only refuse to put it right but have the nerve to justify it! I'm also fed up of the human obsession with repetition in spite of the encyclopedias full of evidence that humans are fairweather beigns. What I hate the most is that humans can hate and divide in a day but it takes them a year to unify and love.

Sioraf (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

I find some of the examples listed in the article, especially the 'in movies' section, to be horribly arbitrary and useless to the article. Not unlike the whole 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wood#In_Popular_Culture_.28see_http:.2F.2Fxkcd.com.2F446.2F.29' fiasco.

I suggest that someone clean up the sections, or remove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.149.1.199 (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

I just recognized my concerns fit in here best. I didn't check all of the articles in here, so I now only copy-pasted what I wrote before. Long story short: I agree that some of the examples need to be removed.

"Squidward from SpongeBob SquarePants, who shows he is a misanthrope by not having any friends, performing solitary activities, showing dislike and distrust for the people around him, and displaying rude behaviour towards others."

For instance, I don't like this example. No doubt he is a loner, but from what I read I could conclude that he is supposed to be a misanthrope judging from his behaviour towards others and the lack of friends and such. Examples are there to help people understand what the definition is about. Without any reasonable explanation behind this reference I suggest removing it. Misanthropes might be like that, they don't have to. I just want to make that clear, especially regarding the foregoing explanation below "Forms".

"Mr. Burns of The Simpsons displays misanthropy due to his utter disregard for the physical and emotional status of the people around him."

Same for him. I don't really see him being a doubter of mankind's right to exist or anything like it. He just doesn't like people, because he is a bad old man and very selfish. Not caring about people around him doesn't make him a misanthrope and actually would a bit of an opposite to "romantic and simplistic ideal" (Forms). Either I or some other people are horribly mistaken.

If I'm entirely wrong (or partially wrong) about these examples or my general understanding of the matter, please feel free to enlighten me. --Schaf 85.116.200.66 11:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.116.200.66 (talk) [reply]

Environmentalism

It seems that there is a good deal of misanthropy within the environmental movement. For instance, some radical enviromentalists promote what is called antispecism, and reject the entire notion that humans are superior to animals. While this might seem valuable to the environmental cause, when it is put in practice it can have devastating effects such as de-humanizing certain types of humans, encouraging discrimination and ultimately lead to terrible things such as genocide. A big part of the genocidal logic intervenes when humans are divided into sub-humans and super-humans for the sake of sacrificing a part of the human race that sooner or later becomes unwanted. ADM (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Merit of the Term

A little confused after reading the entry as to how, why and when the term is used. Is it so commonly used to dismiss social disquiet in outspoken individuals or has it got a more specific meaning? What group of people commonly use it? It seems like a very inappropriate term to bandy around especially in some of the literary examples given. I do not fully understand the history of this term which is why I came to this article - I do however feel coming away that some of the people discussed on the page have been done a massive disservice by the author/authors. The comparitive analogies here are opinion and arguably inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.79.216 (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with your point. It has become over used as blanket pejorative to the point of near meaninglessness.

Quotes

Some of these quotes are generally utilisable, however, it is absurd to throw a quote onto the heap everytime someone says, "I hate humanity" on television. I would restrict this to literary quotes for the sake of brevity. -- --Ambrosiaster (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the bye, this is perhaps the worst article that I've come across on wikipedia. It is polluted with insignificant, popular culture references. I am not opposed to them, but they shouldn't compose 50% of the article. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science Fiction

I hardly think this section is the place to continue some obscure political wrangle between the Black Panther Party and the New Black Panther Party. I am deleting these links because they are spurious and irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.212.219 (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Supremacism

How do humans hate humans, but love animals? Or is this referring to PETA like psychos?

Well, take Hitler as an example. I've met several people who claim to love ALL animals, but hate all or most people; seems like they think animals are superior, as in being more natural or "Godly", but they see humans as being somehow "unnatural" and "demonic". Also, check out the article on VHEMT. Shanoman 18:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people who have been abused by other people, or have had bad experiences in their past with people, show more care for animals because they feel animals are non-judgemental unlike people. They feel animals only desire to give and receive love, and don't hold prejudices much like the human race. It's not a entirely realistic view, because animals will for example, pick on those who are weak or disabled. I belive that comes out more of a need for survival instead of intent to harm. Then again, it's not like I'm a animal psychologist or something.

I agree with your views on PETA, which why I wanted to respond in the discussion about this article. Ingrid Newkirk, the leader of PETA, has at many times expressed misanthropic views. So shouldn't she be mentioned in the article as being a famous misanthrope? Violet yoshi (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler is quite a bad example, since he was not a misanthrope. A mass murderer, a psychopath, a demon, if you want it that way - yes, but not a misanthrope. The ideology of Nazism is not misanthropic - it IS racist, murderous, but not misanthropic. The definition of misanthropy, as pointed out in the article, is a general dislike of, or hatred for, the human race - regardless of "race", ethnicity, religion or ideology. Nazism, on the other hand, exalts a specific group, a nation, above all others. National socialism was a murderous, hateful ideology, dividing humanity into races with alleged inherent value. Genuine misanthropy does not entail any of this, since it is, in fact, strange as it may sound, a very egalitarian movement: Dislike or hatred of anyone, be he or she male, female, white, black, Asian, Jewish, Muslim, Christian...you get my point.

To address the other point: So-called "animal supremacists" (where did THAT term come from?) do not necessarily have an idealized view of animals: they do realize that animals are, well, animalistic in nature, and thus do act according to the natural order: Predators hunt and kill their prey, primarily targeting the weak, young or disabled, as Violet yoshi pointed out correctly - this is done to facilitate the kill in order to save energy: why chase healthy, strong prey, expending one's energy completely, when one can have a much easier way? However: this has NOTHING to do with "prejudices" on the animals' part, as you seem to imply - animals are not capable of higher thoughts and abstract concepts, to which a thing such as a prejudice undoubtedly belongs. They hunt the weak only for the reason I mentioned above.

In that way, it is possible to say that animals are "more pure", if you want, or "more innocent" than the human species: After all, animals did not conduct a genocide, which happened much too often in human history, use nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, crash passenger planes into buildings, release toxic gas in the subways of Tokyo, take away vast areas of land from its rightful inhabitants...Neither do they kill their children under normal circumstances (it does happen sometimes, but a vast array of external factors, immense stress, usually influence the animal, thus causing behavioral disturbances), rape their daughters or for that matter other's daughters...I could go on and on. There, now you have insight into the mechanisms of misanthropy: the factors that might actually contribute to a strong misanthropic sentiment. Vargher (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if a human kills a mentally handicapped person its prejudice but if an animal does it for the same reason its not? I see what your saying but it seems like you give animals too much credit. They are not innocent just because we assume they can't understand life or death. Hitler didn't just target people like gays and jews for the sake of being a bigot, he did it because he believed it served some kind of purpose, the same way an animal might kill a very young or very helpless animal (or human) to serve some purpose. Racist attacks are never "just prejudiced" as its usually for some kind of misguided delusional reason. Animals can be prejudice even if they cant be held accountable for it. Saying its not prejudiced just because its a stupid little animal is like saying swearing isn't swearing if its just a stupid little kid doing it.98.135.42.226 (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I'll try to simplify this a little, if a human kills a mentally handicapped person because they want to commit murder and because they are easy prey, that would still be considered prejudice. Just because animals are not aware of such thing's the same way we are doesn't mean the term doesn't still apply to them. 98.135.42.226 (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Consensus About Reality

This phrase stopped me dead in my tracks:

...silent consensus about reality.

Perhaps the phrase "silent consensus about reality" has a clear meaning in the jargon of some school of thought, but I have never encountered it before and have no idea what it refers to. I'd like to see this re-written or expanded so that it's comprehensible by the average person (or removed altogether). Since I have no idea what it means I'm not able to re-write or expand it, and I'm loathe to just delete it since it has survived many other edits and therefore presumably means something to others.

The phrase was added by Special:Contributions/85.127.205.253 85.127.205.253 at 2009-01-31T03:27:25. Can that person clarify what they intended to say? Can anyone else offer an explanation?

--Tedd (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the original author meant, but I took the phrase to mean something like:

"Misanthropy is...a disposition to dislike and/or distrust other people's underlying model of Phenomenological reality."

But that hardly clarifies it for the so-called "average person". "Silent consensus" in this context likely refers to something akin to a wholly or partially unconscious or unexamined set of underlying assumptions forming a person's worldview or model of reality which informs their behavior. I think the important aspect of this concept as a causative agent for misanthropic ideation is the unconscious component.

- Damian, 68.35.10.139 (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a big improvement. If nobody objects, I'll make that change. It strikes me that the article shouldn't begin with a sentence that's incomprehensible to anyone except the person who wrote it.--Tedd (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killian

I'm unhappy with the line. I interpret it as meaning that anyone who rejects "a silent consensus" of social conformity is a misanthrope. That is someone who refuses to rigidly and silently conform to an apparent dominant culture - Hates all man kind. I believe it's a distortion of meaning with a particular political intention to undermine the legitimacy of legitimate discontent and non conformism - Similarly to the use of the accusation of pessimism or pessimist to undermine legitimate negative opinions or arguments. What does this have to do with not conforming? Couldn't you just as easily say your not conforming by choosing to like humanity, seeing as how most kids now seem to think nihilism and hating mankind makes you cool and "non-conformist" 98.135.42.226 (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

Misanthrope

This user is a Misanthrope.

I made this user box so love me.MegaloManiac 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Mandkind~~

This user is a Misanthrope.

I made this one too. Its closer to the old one. MegaloManiac 23:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandkind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.234.216 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples from literature?

Would the article benefit from specific examples for each of the authors listed? For instance, I believe one of Jonathan Swift's statements was something along the lines of "I hate and detest the animal called Man, but I love the occasional Tom, Dick, and Harry" and Florence King provides no scarcity of examples either. One of my favorites from her is "I've never understood why solitary confinement is considered a form of punishment in prison". Some of the authors already have examples given, but it might help to include examples for any others as well. SquareWave 04:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Is this article's sole purpose to provide a soapbox for self proclaimed geniuses to quote their favorite books and make obscure references? Seems like most people who claim to be misanthropist is really just a narcissist. As soon as tyler durden stops being so cool and trendy with young hipster punks i'm sure this talk page will be a little less "hey listen to my philosophy" 98.135.42.226 (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are most or all hipsters misanthropes? Can misanthropy just be a misunderstanding [the misanthrope has misunderstood what humanity is]? Is there better worked out misanthropy and what is the best? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.198.118 (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Williams

LMFAO. This is really not someone who comes to mind when I think of notable misanthropes. While his wiki article reveals plenty of flaws just in any other human being, it's really rather insulting to misanthropes to include this man as one of the notables.

24.201.152.243 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misanthropy in popular culture

At first, I was a bit sad to see this article shortened like this, but I guess the cleanup team was right; the list was never-ending. Maybe we should add a small section of a fewexamples of misanthropy in popular culture (just one line per example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.38.115 (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and christianity

that entire entry is a one sided attack on christianity by taking the opinion of an uninformed extremist alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.15.219 (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language

"Human race", Humans are not a race but a species.

Regardless of the validity of a misanthropic worldview, some seem to believe that those with strongly-held misanthropy may suffer from low self-esteem, depression, and even suicidal tendencies. This is at best a tendentious and entirely subjective personal opinion which requires evidential substantiation.

Isn't this a TAD bit opinionated? Or is it really impossible to discuss this subject dispassionately?

It seems like this author was implying "the misanthropic worldview is quite valid (sound, even?). Those who don't agree with me are completely in denial."

I'm relatively misanthropic (acutally, I'm only disliking of civilized humans) but I'm not suffering low self-esteem, depression or sucidal tendencies. I'm pretty outgoing, though perhaps a bit socially awkward. But I'm not anywhere near depressed or suicidal.

Why is "accused" used so often? Seems NPOV to me, misanthropy isn't something we should be judging in this article, just something we are informing the reader about. --TomaydoDemato 14:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I read it as: "Many associate a misanthropic worldview with depression, etc. This is not a necessary condition to be misanthropic, however, and shouldn't be considered the case unless there is evidence to suggest it." --Krovisser 17:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been/am suicidal and/or depressed. I don't really see how a misanthropist can be a happy person, given that they are surrounded by what they hate. But my objection to this article is

Misanthropes don't necesarily hate humanity, they can distrust it without hating it, or hate it but define themselves as something other than human (admitedly a rather hypocritical outlook under some interpretations but a useful psychological safety measure), to mention but a few routes of reason the misanthrope might take to avoid this pitfall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.224.99 (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "Misanthropy does not necessarily imply an inhumane or sociopathic attitude towards humanity."

This sentence should most definitely be removed. If it does not imply these things, why is this sentence even here?? And would you put this sentence in a definition of Christianity, for example, and expect for people not to be offended?

I have to conclude that this can only be deliberate. It is put here exactly to imply that misanthropists are "inhumane" and "sociopathic". Especially because the words "inhumane" and "sociopathic" (whatever that is) are very prominently highlighted. This shows ridiculous insensitivity and even fascism.

Why exactly someone would highlight these two words as the most prominent in the paragraph when they are in the context of not being that, is a mystery unless this is deliberate. And, as it was obviously written by an "anti-misanthropist", that is ironic, given that it only adds to my immeasurable hatred of the human race by discriminating against me even when defining my ideological view.

2. (observe the hardcore idiocy of the inexplicable box around my last paragraph. I'm up against it, aren't I?)

Finally at the bottom, there is a link to "psychological conditions". What?!

While my example of Christianity can certainly be defined as that, Misanthropy is not schitzophrenic, delusional, or anything of that nature. Once again, would you put "Psychological Conditions" as a link from a popular ideology like the definition of Christianity without offending people?

"Why is "accused" used so often? Seems NPOV to me, misanthropy isn't something we should be judging in this article, just something we are informing the reader about. --TomaydoDemato 14:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

Exactly!! Saying the message I got from this article was "Look out for misanthropes" would be an euphemism! I even thought for a moment that being a misanthrope alone was a crime! --Plavalagunanbanshee 16:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, please. We must consider that most people do not have a bleak outlook on life. They are entitled to their personal beliefs in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Wanton Misanthropic gloomspeech is a deliberate attack on this and is not appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.236.27 (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read all the article, but there seems to be one thing no one has mentioned and that is a misanthrope can hate the human species on the whole, but still like individuals. You aren't necessarily surrounded by everything you hate i can just turn my tv off and look at that the stupidity of man is gone. Misanthropes are commonly detached not depressed though it can seem that way. I am one and I love my friends but put me in a mall and I truly feel like hitting someone. I have a complete disdain for the rest of my species but that doesn't stop me from just living my life, and to that fiery burning pit with everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.73.44 (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Front and Back clean-up

Effected a very conservative clean-up and expansion per the requesting tags. I didn't go into the inherently misanthropic nature of the Abrahamic religions, the lack of the concept in Chinese or other cultures not subject to that belief system, or other controversial but copiously sourcable currents. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I really wanted to pull the mention of "human nature" which is, as distinct from scientific studies of various aspects of human being, a bullshit concept dear to the ignorant and Conservatives, but didn't as I take impartiality and soforth seriously as an editor. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names at the bottom of the article

GG Allin Boyd Rice Gregory House

I don't see why they should be there. It is well explained what a misanthrope exactly is, 'popular' examples aren't necessary - especially the 'Gregory House' entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.205.134 (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant examples

Many examples of those hating humans are humans hating exclusively other humans. That's a different sentiment, and should not be mixed in. 24.85.161.72 (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're confused. The general subject is μῖσος-<X> where X is the species in question. It's presumptive that X has the value "humans" in your first sentence so it appears you don't know what you are talking about, or a sufficient understanding of the English word which is the subject of this article. If you are saying something about misanthropy in relation to self-hatred , the lack thereof, or the logical consistency of misanthropy for a human, you need to make that clearer. Assume you're aware misandry and misanthropy are distinct (commenting based on an edit you made to misogyny at the same time). Commenting to make clear not an actionable thread. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Misanthrope

This may not be the place for raising this question, but misanthropy as defined seems to be exclusively associated with people who are accused of having no friends. I realize the article is only derived from reliable sources and is not the result of original research, but I'd like to know if there are any sources (or other terms) that embody the kind of person who easily forms relationships with others but is constantly faced with a disappointment in people as a whole - not through excessive expectations, but by the constant breach of reasonable assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinagreenelvis (talk • contribs) 09:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heidegger mention

This assertion regarding Martin Heidegger: ...also showed misanthropy in his concern of the "they" — the tendency of people to conform to one view, which no-one has really thought through, but is just followed because, "they say so". Unlike Schopenhauer, Heidegger was opposed to any ethics or reason to treat others with respect.

This strongly worded and un-referenced. To be sure, I just read the entire Heidegger page and still find no text in tune with that statement. I think such a strongly opinionated statement should be referenced to some decent source material, otherwise it just sounds like someone had a axe to grind. I've known a few fellow students who loved reading Heidegger, and I never got that sense of them either.

If no reference can be found, at least the statement should be better explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.245.231 (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the stuff on Heidegger has no firm support. The whole thing is tied together by a commonly accepted line of reception of that strain of continental philosophy which (in this article) terminates with Heidegger, that it is pessimistic, etc.. It's also weasel worded making it seem like it requires a source, pretty sure there's no more to it, explanation wise, than what I've just said. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Heidegger is symptomatic of the problem with the whole article, which seems to be a farrago of opinion and proof-texts culled by a Google search. The sentence "Misanthropy has been ascribed to a number of writers of satire, such as William S. Gilbert ("I hate my fellow-man") and William Shakespeare (Timon of Athens)" is indicative of just how bad the article is on many levels. First, no references for these claims. Second, "has been ascribed" reeks of opinion. Third, the character Timon in Shakespeare's play "Timon of Athens" is a misanthrope, but Shakespeare? The writer?

And even the quotation from Gilbert reads like opinion. No reference, and Google doesn't help. In fact Google indicates the opposite, that Gilbert was playing to his reputation, but was actually not as portrayed.

And the Philosophy section is not much better. A quotation is given which purports to be a definition by Socrates in the Phaedo, but instead of a reference to a standard edition of Plato, we get a secondary reference. Aristotle's "more ontological route" isn't referenced at all, but here we get our reference to Timon of Athens. Hence to Heidegger. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Pop culture"

First, why is there no need for, so called, pop culture references? Second (and more importantly), it's hard to describe recent literature, in this case Watchmen, as just being nothing more than pop culture. That is, especially when the author express certain ideas not unlike for example Swift, who is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.127.142.25 (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:POPCULTURE, inclusions like your edit about the Watchmen "should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources". While I don't disagree that Rorschach expresses misanthropy, that opinion is original research at best and you only sourced the quote, not what it meant. If you had a reliable source for Rorschach's meaning that might be permissible. In this case I'd oppose inclusion because Rorschach is talking about himself, not the concept of misanthropy and I don't think we need him as an example of the concept. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can somehow understand your argument regarding the quote itself. However, when it comes to the character you presume that Moore's work should lay under the pop culture category and therefore referee to WP:POPCULTURE. I disagree. It's hard to describe what's pop culture or not, and while I could see the movie adaption of Watchmen as pop culture, I hardly can see the graphic novel as such. Inested it's just "literature", as the title in question, and therefore I don't see why there should be a difference between Rorschach and other fictional characters in literature (if for example Alceste would'nt be mentioned here it possibly would've been another case). Since the category reasonably should include examples from various times he should be included, as he's a crystal clear example of a misanthrope. In conclusion it's seems therefore not necessary to include other sources regarding the fact, like in the case with Alceste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.127.142.25 (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Code being displayed

The quote from Alceste in Le Misanthrope has a "20px" at the end, after the citations. I tried to fix it but it made other parts of the code appear instead. Could someone better at this than me correct it? 74.132.249.206 (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was done (by others, though I placed the original text). Lycurgus (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article could be buffed up, it's 1/5th the size of the Super Mario Bros article, and it's quite a meaty and weighty topic.173.173.31.223 (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too much

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/man-cancer-nice-plane-experience-article-1.2543004

http://www.smh.com.au/world/passengers-cheer-as-allergic-boy-is-removed-from-plane-20160225-gn472h.html

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2016/02/25/passengers-clap-as-7-year-old-is-escorted-off-plane-during-allergy-attack/ --Captain Spark (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]