Talk:Misanthropy

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neil deGrasse Tyson 

message: GoForthGarlVinland (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content moderator profession 

message: 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)
thread_title:  It would be funny if it weren't so sad 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hi  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Use of mankind/humankind