Talk:2025 Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing

BMO News is hardly a reliable source

With all the speculation going on right now, shouldn't the potential identity of the bomber require a better source? I went looking for the supposed website mentioned in the article and haven't found it or anything related to it.

(I've never done this on Wiki so I don't know if I'm doing it correctly. If I'm not, sorry.) Simbeau (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, BMO doesn’t cite a single source. Another equally flimsy source called “Channel2.Now” cites “law enforcement” sources who executed a search of the suspect’s home in Twentynine Palms. None of it seems fit for publication yet. 2600:1700:3520:7770:2DA2:F38E:6A98:32B3 (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, it's been 12 hours since the BNO article was published- which cites no source, as mentioned. Besides the pre-existing social media posts about it, the only subsequent coverage has been from the Hindustan Times, Times Now, and "-NJTODAY.NET" (which, while having a wiki page, is a word press website). None of these new articles cite a source for this information. There has been no official statement. I suspect a lot of this is just sources reporting on what they see on social media. I would support holding off on any inclusion until any acknowledgement from officials or RS reporting which cites proper sources. Mason7512 (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Update: I have found a new The Guardian article which actually cites officials: here and have added it to the article Mason7512 (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Manifesto

are there any reliable sources on the supposed "pro-mortalist" manifesto? 🐦DrWho42👻 08:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Before his attack he created a website the link was: https://promortalism.com/ In this website he shared his manifesto. ~2025-36678-34 (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

"Victim has not been identified"

That needs to be updated. There is no victim and the deceased is the perp. 216.168.91.99 (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The victim has still not been identified; officials just believe it to be the perpetrator. Mason7512 (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Promortalism

I believe that an article on Promortalism should be created and the references to Bartkus's promortalist views, should be linked to that article. The ideology is mentioned several times in this article, by the bomber himself and in news reports. It is useful to inform readers about what this term means. Promortalism is a philosophical concept that has existed since the late 2000s. It is related to antinatalism. Proponents argue that it is antinatalism's logical conclusion. It has been discussed in many philosophy papers and there's even a book about it. There is no shortage of sources. It is long overdue that it finally received a Wikipedia article. Donato Porpora (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

An article for Efilism should honestly be created aswell, Promortalism is basically an offshoot of efilism which has been around since the early 2000s internet. I think it qualifies for a article. Indiana6724 (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

As much as I would like for a proper Efilism article to be created, and although this event has caused more news articles to talk about Efilism, there simply are not enough reliable sources out there yet, in order for such an article to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. There are other Wikipedians who have tried to create an Efilism article in the past (see the banner for: Draft:Efilism), but they all failed for this reason, and also because they simply do not understand how Wikipedia works.

Although I am 100% confident that more will definitely and eventually be written in the future, we unfortunately cannot hasten the creation of an Efilism article until (or unless) that time comes, due to WP:FUTURE.

That being said, I just created Pro-mortalism, which currently redirects to Antinatalism. But if Efilism ever gets an article, then I would support changing the redirect to go to Efilism instead. Zero Contradictions (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I feel like this is all splitting hair to make people feel better. It should all just be sections of Antinatalism. Nweil (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a lot that could be said about Efilism, since it's a collection of philosophical beliefs and values, whereas Antinatalism is only a value judgment.

Nevertheless, Wikipedia can only cite reliable sources, so if there aren't enough reliable sources that talk about Efilism or Pro-mortalism to justify either of them having separate articles, then you're probably right that the most reasonable thing to do would be to only add subsections to the Antinatalism article.

Although I have a preference for what I'd like to see, I understand and accept that the rules are the rules. Zero Contradictions (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

If you really want an article about promortalism to be created, then you should consider writing it yourself, instead of asking other people to do for you. Wikipedia is not an on-demand article writing service. You could list such an article in WP:Requested articles, but most of the requested articles will not be written, unless another editor(s) is interested and motivated enough to write them.

I don't think pro-mortalism is particularly interesting, but I will add a few WP:reliable sources to the Draft:Promortalism that you created. If you make any further edits to the draft, please make sure that you follow the WP:NPOV guidelines. Zero Contradictions (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Efilism

I decided to create a draft, User:Zero_Contradictions/Efilism, and I'm mentioning it on this talk page because it's relevant to the topic of this article. A subsection of the article will cover Promortalism. Anybody is welcome to make positive contributions to the draft. Zero Contradictions (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn per WP:NCE. (non-admin closure) 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 11:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

---

2025 Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing → Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing – There have not been any other fertility clinic bombings in Palm Springs. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject California, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject California/Inland Empire task force, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Explosives, WikiProject California/Southern California task force, and WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force have been notified of this discussion. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Support, for same reason JaxsonR (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom. Einsof (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral - a survey of bombings and other attacks indicates that, while there is no hard-and-fast rule, the majority of them do include the year, regardless of specificity, and personally, it is very very easy to search out this article by beginning with "2025 Palm". Sometimes it is not so easy to identify and seek out a brand-new article about such a minor local incident.

2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:F1B:A2D3:7B56:A9CF (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

While I hope there will be no more, I prefer having the dates in the title. If you're looking in a category or a list, it's helpful to have that bit of context, especially if you can't remember the name of the location, or you're looking for events from a certain time period. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NCE the naming conventions for events, the year is there for informational reasons, not for disambiguation. This is not a worldwide, well known event. We only remove the year if the event is extremely well known. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per PARAKANYAA. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per PARAKANYAA, WP:NCE. It's doubtful this will take on the level of enduring recognizability as other events that have a true common name. Regardless, it's too soon to tell, and the descriptive title with the year is appropriate. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 2025 Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Repeated removal of antinatalism, "anti-pro-life" from motives

Some of the motives behind the bombing have been fairly well established through the perpetrator's espousal of antinatalism and his explicit statement of intent to start "a war against pro-lifers" (Los Angeles Times). Since then, reliable sources indicate that he was indeed antinatalist and "anti-pro-life" (US DOJ, PBS, ABC 7, CNN), though there has been nebulous assertions of ambiguity on the latter statement (Washington Times). Despite overwhelming evidence—including direct statements made by the perpetrator—these two motives have been repeatedly removed without indication of a policy-based rationale. If not restored by tomorrow UTC, I'll reinsert them (with the addition of the relevant citations). ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The perpetrators manifesto directly stated that he was inspired by Eflism/Promortalism. Indiana6724 (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The many ramblings indicate a plurality of motives, correct. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and these mainstream sources that you cite do not know the difference between Eflism and Antinatalism. Some efilists, such as Inmendham, perceive their goals to be so different from antinatalists that they do not consider themselves to be antinatalists. It would be misinformation to not differentiate between the two, especially when some efilists are trying to efilize antinatalism. Indiana6724 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

If you provide a reliable source about the bombing that contradicts the reliable sources cited above, please provide them. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I can cite the perps manifesto. Which does not mention antinatalism. Indiana6724 (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The suicide bomber's manifesto, besides being anything but a reliable source, wasn't the only thing he wrote regarding his motives. Unless you have a reliable source, there doesn't seem to be an issue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

https://lbpost.com/news/efilism-the-ideology-behind-the-palm-springs-bombing-has-been-spread-online-for-years/ Indiana6724 (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

That source supports classifying this attack as antinatalist. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it does. That article states that Efilism "is a radical offshoot of anti-natalism", so I think extrapolating antinatalism as a motive for the attack from that particular description could violate WP:SYNTH.

While there are other reliable sources that state that the bomber was antinatalist without violating WP:SYNTH, I think it would be redundant to state that he was an antinatalist in this wikipedia article, because that's already implied by stating that he was an efilist. I've been working on a wikipedia draft that defines and explains Efilism: User:Zero Contradictions/Efilism.

And as you know, the promortalism section that I wrote for Antinatalism#Promortalism and User:Zero Contradictions/Efilism#Promortalism has multiple reliable sources which state and explain why antinatalism does not imply promortalism nor killing people. So, even if the bomber self-identified an antinatalist, it's clear that his antinatalist values were neither necessary nor sufficient for motivating him to injure and possibly kill people. The bomber was motivated by promortalist values, above all. Zero Contradictions (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

None of this seems to justify ignoring that reliable sources support describing efilism as an antinatalist ideology and that the bomber's antinatalism motivated his attack. We follow RSs, and they are rather clear. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not opposed to describing efilism as an antinatalist ideology, even though promortalism is definitely its more defining characteristic.

I identified multiple RSs which explain why antinatalism does not imply promortalism in Antinatalism#Promortalism. I believe that the academic prestige and greater philosophical rigor of the reliable sources produced by Dr. David Benatar, Dr. Julio Cabrera, and other anti-promortalist antinatalist academics makes those sources more reliable than the news articles produced by journalists who had almost certainly never even heard of antinatalism, promortalism, or efilism before the bombing happened. If those academics insist that antinatalism is neither necessary nor sufficient to imply that one should kill people, then their judgments and reliable sources should have greater consideration, because they are definitely far more knowledgeable about what antinatalism is than the journalists.

The article already states that the bomber was anti-pro-life, and I support describing him that way. As I've already said, it would be redundant to describer the bomber as an antinatalist, because that's already implied by describing him as an efilist. Once again, Efilism is an antinatalist ideology, and that is not disputed. However, not all antinatalists are anti-pro-life, and I do think that descriptor is necessary to help describe why the bomber specifically targeted an IVF clinic, so it's not redundant to describe the bomber as anti-pro-life. Zero Contradictions (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I get the impression that a great deal of the apprehension towards describing this as motivated by antinatalism is based on distancing that movement from the bomber (and the perceived radicalism of efilism). While I get the reason people might want to do that, we can't justify not applying that nomenclature here. Your argument seems primarily founded in that you see an element of redundancy in using both antinatalism and efilism, but other editors have said antinatalism is substantially different from efilism. Since they are treated as related but distinct in reliable sources, we should include both. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I still disagree. I don't identify as an antinatalist or an efilist, so I don't have the bias that you mentioned. I'm just standing by what the academic consensus is. As Dr. Benatar and other academics have explained, support for antinatalism alone does not imply killing people. Other value judgments are necessary in order to arrive at that conclusion.

The reason why the journalists described antinatalism as a motive for the bombing is because they're ignorant and they didn't know any better. If they dove deeper into the academic literature, then they would know that a value judgment against procreation does not imply a value judgment in favor of death. Once again, the journalists who have reported on the bombing probably don't have any philosophical background, and most of them have probably never heard of efilism, promortalism, or antinatalism until after they listened and read the bomber's audio recording and manifesto, the latter of which does not mention antinatalism. I don't see any reason why the descriptions about antinatalism written by the journalists should be ranked as equally reliable to the academic descriptions. If anything, the academic descriptions about antinatalism are more reliable than the uneducated journalist descriptions.

It is simply erroneous to say that antinatalism implies killing people or that antinatalism is a motive for trying to kill people. And once again, I don't see anything wrong with describing Efilism as being antinatalist, promortalist, extremist, dangerous, etc. All of those descriptors for Efilism are supported by both academics and journalists, so it's perfectly reasonable to describe Efilism as being antinatalist in the article.

However, if Efilism is described as antinatalist in the article, we still have to be careful. It's important to avoid conflating descriptions of the perpetrator with the perpetrator's motive. If the bomber was an antinatalist, that doesn't necessarily mean that antinatalism was his motive. I could also describe the perpetrator as American, a white male, or a former computer technician, but it's obvious that none of those things have anything to do with his motive was. We cannot extrapolate from the bomber's identity as an antinatalist that antinatalism was a motive for the bombing, any more than we could extrapolate that his status as a former computer technician was a motive for the bombing. It would violate WP:SYNTH. Zero Contradictions (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I think you have it a little backwards, Zero Contradictions. Support for anti-natalism may not imply killing people. That's not the the point. You're refuting something that no one posited anyway. The point is not whether anti-natalism implies pro-mortalism/efilism, either. The point is whether promortalism/efilism implies anti-natalism. I think it does, and I think you know this, because your argument seems to be that using anything but one of these terms by itself is redundant. BeatrixGodard (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

If you think that I'm "refuting something that no one posited", then you obviously did not read this discussion, so you have no business in participating in it. The very first comment in this discussion by Pbritti argued that antinatalism should be mentioned as a motive for the bombing. I've explained in great detail why antinatalism cannot be deduced as a motive for the bombing without violating WP:SYNTH. That's what I've been arguing against the entire time. Neither you or anyone has provided any sound arguments for why antinatalism should be described as a motive for the shooting, because it wasn't.

I never said that Bartkus was not an antinatalist. Bartkus was an antinatalist and he was anti-pro-life. What I have said is that Bartkus was an efilist, and efilism is antinatalism by definition. It's thus redundant and unnecessary to mention that Bartkus was an antinatalist in the article.

There are probably multiple RSs which support describing Bartkus as an antinatalist. However, it's risky to state that he was an antinatalist. Multiple editors (including you) want to jump from "Bartkus was an antinatalist" to "Bartkus was motivated by antinatalism", even though that would violate WP:SYNTH for reasons that I've already explained. That's not supported by the academic consensus on antinatalism either.

Please don't respond any further unless you have read the entire discussion. Zero Contradictions (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You may not have business participating in this discussion if you cannot read--my comment above, or the one by Pbritti which you referred to. Calling anti-natalism a motive in the bombing is not the same as saying that anti-natalism implies that one kills. Anti-natalism can be a motive in the bombing, and some anti-natalists can also be against killing. Both can be true. I don't know why you are acting as if these things are mutually exclusive.

Also, no one was killed by Bartkus except Bartkus. You don't seem to know this. I have now read this entire discussion--though I am still going through the sources. I'm not sure if you've read anything about this case.

Bartkus' bombed a fertility clinic. Sources describe him as an anti-natalist. There seems to be a lot of agonizing twisting and turning to torture the facts into not saying he's an anti-natalist.

I'll re-review your arguments about WP:SYNTH, which seem to be your best ones, though I'm not inspired with confidence by your previous performance. I think your project to create an Efilism page is admirable, though. BeatrixGodard (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You should reconsider participating in this discussion, since your replies to @Doug Weller:, @Indiana6724:, myself, and others have a needlessly confrontational tone. You also admitted in your latest comment that you didn't read the entire discussion before making your prior comment, which suggests that you don't have the required competence for participating in talk page discussions.

Anyway, I never acted as if promortalism or antinatalism are mutually exclusive. My main contention has consistently been that antinatalism was not a motive for the bombing. Suicide and promortalism were the motives for the bombing.

Yes, I'm well-aware that Bartkus only killed himself. I have never said anything contrary to that, so your statement is unfounded. Even if Bartkus didn't kill anyone else, he still injured 4 other people besides himself inside the bombing. He could've killed them. You don't seem to know this. This is evidence that Bartkus was motivated by extremist promortalism, not antinatalism.

I never said that Bartkus was not an antinatalist. Indiana6724 said that Bartkus was not an antinatalist. That is not my position, and that's not stated in the article (or any article) either.

I am not opposed to describing Bartkus as an antinatalist in the article. But as I've said, it's problematic because: 1. it's redundant because Bartkus is already a self-described efilist, which usually implies that he is an antinatalist. 2. Many editors want to violate WP:SYNTH by extrapolating that antinatalism was a motive for the bombing, even though it wasn't, per the academic consensus.

This discussion would be more productive if people focused on addressing the academic consensus that antinatalism does not imply promortalism (or killing life) by itself. Zero Contradictions (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Zero Contradictions: I have no idea what you mean by Many editors want to violate WP:SYNTH by extrapolating that antinatalism was a motive for the bombing, even though it wasn't, per the academic consensus. What academic consensus? What SYNTH? I can provide an unending number of reliable sources describing this as bombing tied to antinatalism: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. It's pretty clear antinatalism was a motive. Saying otherwise raises concerns. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I already summarized the academic consensus in my last reply to you in June. You can learn about it further by reading the content and sources in Antinatalism#Promortalism.

As I wrote to you before on this talk page back in June, there are no good reasons to believe that those uneducated journalist sources are more reliable than the academic sources on antinatalism that I cited in Antinatalism#Promortalism.

You also have not addressed my other arguments in my June 2025 replies, which is concerning. I already explained why describing antinatalism as a motive based on the most reliable academic sources violates WP:SYNTH.

If you want to have a serious discussion about this topic, then it would be more productive if you address the points in my reply to you on 25 June 2025. Zero Contradictions (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

"You also admitted in your latest comment that you didn't read the entire discussion before making your prior comment, which suggests that you don't have the required competence for participating in talk page discussions."

This is really getting quite absurd. Where did I admit that I hadn't read the rest of this discussion? Please, quote me on it. You started by lying about what Mosher said, and now you're lying about what I said.

Also, I apologize for being unclear: I didn't mean to imply that you specifically think Bartkus is not an anti-natalist. I am aware that your position is that he may have been, but it was not the motive.

"Many editors want to violate WP:SYNTH by extrapolating that antinatalism was a motive for the bombing, even though it wasn't, per the academic consensus."

What is this academic consensus? You keep referring to Dr. Benatar, but I'm not aware of him having written anything about this case. If I'm wrong, please provide the source, but you haven't posted one so far. Even though I've read this discussion, you have an amazing talent for making me feel like I must've missed something. BeatrixGodard (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Less than two hours ago you wrote I have now read this entire discussion--though I am still going through the sources. I'm not sure if you've read anything about this case. You implied that you didn't read the entire discussion before responding. Since you're now denying that that was the case, you are contradicting yourself.

You are violating WP:AGF by claiming that I'm lying. Once again, this suggests that you don't have the competence to participate in Wikipedia talk page discussions, per WP:CIR. Furthermore, if you believe that I "have an amazing talent for making me feel like [you] must've missed something", then that's even further reason why you should stop assuming that I'm "lying" about some things. That is rude behavior, and it's not conducive to optimizing a free encyclopedia.

The academic consensus on promortalism and its relation to antinatalism is explained in Antinatalism#Promortalism and its sources. Zero Contradictions (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

What "I have now read this entire discussion" means is "I have now read this entire discussion." That might imply to you that I hadn't read it before, but I think that's more your problem than mine.

WP:AGF does not give you permission to say things that are provably false by reading the very same page we're on right now, or watching videos that you yourself posted. You may want to consider changing your username. BeatrixGodard (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You are obligated to WP:Read before commenting. When you said "now", that implied that you did not read the discussion previously, otherwise you would not have said "now", since that would violate the implicature maxims of quantity and manner. I have a bachelor's degree in linguistics, and I have an academic level understanding of Implicature. Stop gaslighting me on logic and implications. I understand those subjects far better than you do.

WP:AGF does not authorize you to assume that I'm lying. You are clearly getting very emotional from this discussion, so I will advise you to take a break and WP:Stay cool.

I know that you criticized how Gary Inmendham wasn't very coherent or speaking in complete sentences in the linked video on Talk:Antinatalism. But that doesn't count as an objection to the veracity of what I was claiming, since that's how Inmendham usually speaks most of the time. It's normal for Inmendham to babble a lot like that, since he says whatever is off the top of his head when he's livestreaming so much.

Nevertheless, Inmendham was clearly upset with how the local officials were disrupting the turtles' environment and inadvertently killing them. Contrary to what you believe, Inmendham was not rooting for the extinction of the turtle species that he mentioned. He said that breeding programs for the turtles are "something to think about" because he would support such programs. You definitely can't argue that he opposes breeding programs for wild turtles (i.e. antinatalism), otherwise he would've said something along those lines. So my point still stands: Inmendham is an example of how promortalism doesn't necessarily imply antinatalism. Zero Contradictions (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi folks I found this dispute because several of the participants are people whose user talk pages found their ways onto my watchlist over time. I've read the discussion above and would suggest you are talking past each other.

Zero Contradictions: If Efilism is an offshoot of antinatalism and a reliable source says that efilism was the motivating factor in the bombing and that same reliable source describes efilism as an offshoot of antinatalism then categories and tags related to antinatalism are appropriate although I would agree that, if this discussion of motive comes from a single reliable source only, it should be attributed and the text should avoid generalization.

Beatrix Godard: If the source says that efilism is "a radical off-shoot of antinatalism" then body and lead text should not just say "antinatalism was the motive" but should instead say that "efilism, described by Long Beach Post News as a radical off-shoot of antinatalism, was the motive." Which, I think, is effectively what Zero Contradictions is trying to imply.

Both of you: stop sniping at each other, calling each other liars and demanding the other exit the conversation. Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Simonm223. I appreciate reading your third opinion. As long as the articles in question do not describe antinatalism as a motive, I have no further contentions here, and I would be glad to finally leave this discussion. I hope BeatrixGodard and Pbritti will both agree.

Simonm223, I'm also wondering if you could offer an opinion on Talk:Antinatalism, since half of the discussion ended up on that page too. I think that User:Ianmacm's revert of BeatrixGodard's edit and the consensus of Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting both settle why that shooting cannot be described as a crime related to Antinatalism. However, I think there's still going to be contention about whether the 2025 bombing can be described as a "related crime" on Antinatalism. If possible, I would like that dispute to be resolved sooner rather than later. Thanks in advance. Zero Contradictions (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Zero Contradictions: You have repeatedly claimed that there is an academic consensus that the attacks were not motivated by antinatalism. However, you have yet to cite something that says that. When numerous reliable sources expressly assert one thing, you have to provide superior reliable sources directly refuting that claim in order to say otherwise. Referencing authors who have only written works wholly unrelated to the attack that were published before the attack does not contribute to any academic consensus regarding the motives. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I already cited the sources representing the consensus in Antinatalism#Promortalism, if you care to read them. Once again, you have not provided any convincing arguments why the uneducated journalist sources should be ranked higher than the academic sources which conclude that other value judgments are required besides antinatalism ("procreation is bad") in order to arrive at the proposition "I should kill people". Not a single source that you have linked on this talk page in favor of your position offers a rigorous axiological analysis. The journalists who wrote about the bombing are simply not qualified to talk about antinatalism, much less value theory.

Furthermore, do you have a conflict of interest for associating the bombing with antinatalism? I am only asking because the userboxes on your userpage say that you "uphold a consistent life ethic", which might suggest that you have a personal opposition against antinatalism and a bias for associating it with bad things.

Simonm223, Indiana672, and myself have all expressed support for describing efilism and promortalism as the motives for the bombing. There is also a consensus that Bartkus was an antinatalist and efilism usually implies antinatalism, so I really don't see why we have to keep continuing this tiresome discussion about Bartkus's motive was. Zero Contradictions (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Zero Contradictions please do not canvas me into other conversations. That's something I generally carefully avoid. Also please be careful not to misrepresent my words. I suggested an attributed in-text description of efilism, described by Long Beach Post News as a radical off-shoot of antinatalism, was the motive - noting attribution as it comes from a single reliable source and specificity I did not say a single solitary thing about promortalism. However I also supported the use of antinatalist tags and categories. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be more careful of that. I support the in-text description that you suggested, and I'm fine with antinatalist tags and categories, as long as antinatalism is not described as a motive. I'll continue waiting for someone else to offer a 3O on the other talk page. Zero Contradictions (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

David Benatar specifically distinguishes antinatalism from other extinctionist ideologies in this interview Philosopher David Benatar on efilism - YouTube. Benatar is arguably the most well-known antinatalist philosopher, so his views should carry significant weight here. In contrast, most journalists have little to no understanding of antinatalism, let alone related concepts such as efilism or promortalism. Indiana6724 (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

OK so the thing is that WP:EXPERTSPS might apply here but you'll need to do more leg work and demonstrate that Benatar has published abut efilism in reliable sources previously. If that's the case then, per EXPERTSPS we could include both the views of the newspaper, attributed, and the contradicting view of Benatar. And let me note I'm being pretty generous here as it would be pretty easy for someone to argue that even that would constitute WP:SYNTH. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources in the Promortalism section that you can check for yourself; no one is required to list them all. @Zero Contradictions has already made this point. Indiana6724 (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Um, no, actually WP:ONUS is on the person advocating for inclusion and, in the case of WP:SPS the default is to exclude unless it can be demonstrated that the SPS is from an expert. I do not need to take your word for it nor can you tell me to do my own research to find out. I oppose the inclusion of this source under the grounds of WP:SPS until such time as the expertise of the author on this topic is demonstrated per WP:EXPERTSPS. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I used this as an example of David Bentar disagreeing with efilism. if you want more reliable sources then please check out the promortalism section on the Antinatalist article Indiana6724 (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You cannot use Wikipedia to cite Wikipedia. Do you have any reliable sources that indicate that David Benatar is an expert in antinatalism and efilism? Simonm223 (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

we could include both the views of the newspaper, attributed, and the contradicting view of Benatar.

I think that's pretty reasonable.

efilism, described by Long Beach Post News as a radical off-shoot of antinatalism, was the motive.

I think that's also pretty reasonable. BeatrixGodard (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• Hi everyone, I came here per a post on WP:3O. Looking through this discussion I'm not sure this topic classifies as there are clearly more than two people involved. So I'll close out that post and simply respond as an editor.

With that said, having reviewed the discussion I find myself a bit perplexed. It does seem clear that Efilism is an offshoot or sub-set of Antiatalism. They are often equated (fairly or unfairly) including in Wikipedia where Efilism redirects to Antinatalsm [8]. Interestingly enough, we even cite this exact event on the Antinatalist page on wiki.

I think Simonm's suggestion is probably the best. I'm not sure I would advocate the particular attribution, it seems to me the DOJ or CNN or PBS or something seems more appropriate for our attributional source. I would support the addition of tags (since the pages are clearly related) and phrasing a la his proposal.

More to the policy point, the objections based on the philosophic discussions seem unwarranted imo. It isn't really relevant if we personally think there should be a distinction drawn between the two ideologies or even if there is an academic debate. Wiki policy protects us from that kind of creative writing. We can only do what the WP:RS go with, regardless of whether we think they are wrong or don't understand the subtleties. ExpertRS only matters where there is overwhelming agreement on a fundamental issue, not in the "well it is this, but not completely" kind of distinctions. Relying on our reading of the shooters manifesto WP:PRIMARY to carve out a distinction is WP:OR.

Squatch347 (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I 100% agree with everything Squatch347 has said above. The one note is my attributional statement was based on the statement being linked to a specific source. If there's a better attribution I'm entirely OK with using it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't expect so many people to suddenly start commenting on this particular talk page when I made the 3O request. At the time, there were only two main commentators, including myself. However, there's still only two main commentators on Talk:Antinatalism, which was the first (and hence more important) page that I linked.

Where is this event cited on Antinatalism, as you're talking about?

Aside from that, you haven't said anything that I disagree with, except for your last sentence. When I made my 3O request, I stated that the main contention was whether the academic sources should be ranked higher than the journalist sources. I don't believe that you've addressed that contention at all, and I think this is a big deal. WP:SOURCETYPES says that When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Not all sources are equally reliable, so reliability cannot be boiled down to a popularity contest for the number of sources. Zero Contradictions (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I generally strongly prefer academic sources. When they are actual reliable academic sources - IE academic monographs or reputable peer-reviewed journals. If you have such sources about this bombing please present them. Please note that a youtube video is not an academic source by Wikipedia's definition even if the person who made it is an academic. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, from WP:SOURCETYPES I think we are talking mostly about scenarios when we are discussing the topic itself, like on the Antinatalism page. There, for sure, the specific academic discussion about the various facets of the philosophy are more relevant than the opinions of outsiders with no specific credentials.

Here however, we are talking about a specific incident and assignment of motivations based on official sources, etc. In that case, the RS secondary sources should be preferred.

Now there could be some case for a specific academic source citing this specific event (rather than the broader philosophic positions) as an attributed citation as well.

Squatch347 (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused why we're discussing the merits of academic sources (obviously generally the best RSs) when none have been cited to directly contradict that other RS media has consistently described the attack as at least in part motivated by antinatalism. I provided links to seven RSs that assert antinatalism as a factor in the attack. Is there an RS that refutes this assertion? ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a youtube video by a professor who distinguishes efilism from antinatalism. I believe the argument being presented is that we should not associate efilism with antinatalism on the basis of journalism when a professor says otherwise. However the people who want to use the source are unwilling to provide evidence the professor has written about efilism in reliable sources so it's not really usable. Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I can also provide two sources indicating that "efilism" was the stated motive for the attack, which seems more accurate than labeling it as "antinatalism." Barktus himself did not identify as an antinatalist, to the point where he didn't even use it in the manifesto. Confusing Antinatalism with Efilism is like confusing dogs and rabbits and will have severe consequences.

Was ‘efilism’ the extreme ideology behind the Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing? | The Independent

https://lbpost.com/news/efilism-the-ideology-behind-the-palm-springs-bombing-has-been-spread-online-for-years/Indiana6724 (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The source you cite from The Independent quite expressly describes efilism as a form of antinatalism and describes the motives as antinatalism. I think we ought to consider the matter settled pending an onslaught of scholarship that reinterprets the meaning of the bomber's manifesto. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, which is why the term "antinatalist" is entirely irrelevant. We have discussed this before, I'm not sure why your making the same argument.

Im actually more curious why you are so obsessed with this page, is it because you have a bias like @Zero Contradictions pointed out? Indiana6724 (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I suddenly became very busy, but I'll try to get back to the discussion on this in a few days or so. I do plan to write my case and cite multiple sources for it, once I have time. Zero Contradictions (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

It's reasonable to acknowledge if there's a distinction between the antinatalist movement and the efilist movement. I think @Zero Contradictions's Efilism draft is a worthy effort, though I take issue with many of the sources he uses, both in terms of their content and their form. The main problem is that multiple "RSs" seem pretty clear on the fact that Bartkus was an antinatalist, and that antinatalism was the main motive. I am aware of the fact that, although the bomber's primary source statements make it clear that his motive was to stop more people from being born (contra Zero Contradiction's claim that it was motivated by "suicide and promortalism", though I'm not sure that he's ever explained how he came to this conclusion, or what the practical difference is between this and the claim he's countering), this primary source isn't considered good enough for Wikipedia alone. But that doesn't matter if we have numerous secondary sources to corroborate the primary source. The counter-arguments seem to be quotes from YouTube videos or self-published Amazon ebooks that aren't actually about this event, which make the accusations of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR towards us particularly ironic. BeatrixGodard (talk) 06:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the motivation appears to have been Promortalism (as said by multiple sources), as the perpetrator explicitly stated. Promortalism is the belief that death is always beneficial for the being that dies. While this position does not necessarily imply a normative "ought," it can nonetheless be invoked as a conclusion within that philosophical framework.

The Efilism draft is still a work in progress; it has been created primarily as a placeholder for future development when the time comes, I'm sure ZC knows this. Indiana6724 (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, the Efilism draft is only a work in progress. I'm aware that there are issues with its cited sources, hence why I haven't resubmitted it for AfC in months. I've only been making gradual improvements whenever possible, and I appreciate the contributions that you've made to it. There are a few sources out there whose citations could probably improve the draft, but I don't have access to them. For now, it will only remain a draft. Zero Contradictions (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

To make this comment easier to follow, I'm going to distinguish "extremist promortalism" as the values that "people should die or be killed". I'm making this distinction because it's necessary to be clear that moderate promortalism doesn't imply killing people either.

David Benatar wrote about promortalism's relationship to antinatalism in his book, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. Antinatalism does not imply (extremist) promortalism by itself because many arguments and premises besides antinatalism would be necessary in order for antinatalism to imply promortalism or killing people. It is possible to simultaneously support antinatalism and oppose promortalism. This contradicts the erronous belief that antinatalism can be a motivation for killing people. An antinatalist could oppose promortalism by believing that it is worse for anyone to die earlier than they need to, or simply because it is troubling to kill people. An antinatalist could also be a rights theorist who supports antinatalism, while opposing murder on the basis that people have a right not to be killed or murdered.

Not even moderate promortalism implies killing people. The promortalist and antinatalist scholar Jiwoon Hwang once wrote: "My pro-mortalism does not imply that it is obligatory or even permissible to kill other people without their consent, even painlessly and with good intent. There may be many reasons for this, such as autonomy and right to life."

Unless someone can prove otherwise, there are no reliable academic sources to support the opposite idea: that antinatalism can be a motive for killing people. The only sources that I know of which make that assertion are journalist sources, which are less reliable than academic sources.

Efilism encompasses antinatalism and extremist promortalism. I've said multiple times before that Efilism can and should be described as having antinatalist values. Almost no one disputes that, and everybody agrees that Efilism was the philosophy that motivated the bombing, so I support editing the article to implement your suggestion accordingly. I believe this is an edit that everyone or almost everyone can agree on. Cheers. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, no one here has said anything about killing people. BeatrixGodard (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You're the one who keeps repeating Bartkus didn't kill anyone other than himself. Again, he injured 4 people, and he very well could've killed them. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Concur with Simonm, I would also add that we also link the two on our antinatalism page so I'm hesitant to write it off absent that discussion, especially given the RS provided by you Pbritti.

Squatch347 (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You still never answered my question, nor did you answer Indiana6724's repeat of my question. The userboxes on your userpage (particularly the Consistent life ethic userbox) suggest that you may have a conflict of interest for participating in this discussion. Do you have a conflict of interest for participating in this discussion? If so, then I recommend following the guidelines of WP:COI.

For the second time, you never addressed any of my points from June. You did not answer them when I asked you to them in June, you did not answer them when I asked you two days ago, and I'm now asking you a second time to answer the questions that I made months ago. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

That's not a COI by Wikipedia standards. Please WP:FOC. Simonm223 (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I know that the userbox does not indicate a COI in itself. I just wanted an answer to my question, since I asked it before, and since another user followed by repeating my question. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Before this gets too much into a forum discussion maybe we could get consensus on the edit proposed by Simonm above? Are there any specific objections to that change? Squatch347 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Not strong ones, though I would argue that it's not really necessary to quote David Benatar's assertion that antinatalism does not imply murder, since no one was murdered in this bombing and no "reliable sources", nor the bomber's manifesto, seem to imply that murder was the bomber's goal, making such a reference a non-sequitur. I would also replace "Long Beach Post News" with "multiple newspapers" or "multiple news websites", since the "Long Beach Post News" is not the only source that claims that antinatalism was a motive. BeatrixGodard (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  "multiple newspapers" or "multiple news websites" are both problematic because that would introduce MOS:WEASEL language into the article. It does not matter if Bartkus did not kill anybody besides himself. He still injured 4 people besides himself, and he very well could've killed them if things had gone just a bit differently. Zero Contradictions (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  "multiple newspapers" or "multiple news websites" are both problematic because that would introduce MOS:WEASEL language into the article.

  Perhaps. What would you prefer?

  It does not matter if Bartkus did not kill anybody besides himself. He still injured 4 people besides himself, and he very well could've killed them if things had gone just a bit differently.

  So because Bartkus didn't kill anyone, and didn't intend to kill anyone, but hypothetically could've , a statement from a source that is not directly related to the Bartkus case should be included on this page to explain that antinatalistm doesn't "imply" the need to kill people? BeatrixGodard (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  The edit proposed by Simonm223 is good as is.

  Bartkus was a promortalist and an efilist. It seems that he was indifferent to killing people as long as he died by suicide and made his act symbolic of his beliefs.

  Also, it's possible for people to die due to injuries that they got years ago. Bartkus injured 4 people in a violent explosion. Without knowing any further details, it's entirely possible that those people could die from their injuries a few years into the future or so. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  For the record my "proposal" was opposition to including statements from youtube that distinguish Efilism from promortalism. It was functionally opposition to an edit proposal or support for a reversion rather than an edit proposal if I'm reading the history of this page right. Simonm223 (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think I or anyone here has ever said anything to support citing statements from YouTube inside the article, so I don't know where you got that idea from. I recall that you suggested an edit that would add antinatalist categories and elaborate on Bartkus's stated motive and its relation to antinatalism. I said that I support what you suggested there. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Upon looking at the article's categories, it appears that Category:Antinatalism is already listed. I can't think of any other Antinatalist-related categories to add to the article, so I guess that point is already settled and undisputed. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah. Sorry I thought the category was already added and I was opposing its removal. All good. I think we're on the same page. For the youtube video I'm referring to please refer to @Indiana6724's comment regarding David Benatar's YouTube as a source and my response concerning the necessary evidentiary preconditions for WP:EXPERTSPS up thread. Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, that's my fault. I shouldn't have used that as an example. Indiana6724 (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The new text is bad. A single local news source is being given exceptionally more weight than other higher quality national news sources (additionally, when possible, attribution should not be given to institutions, but rather the individual who wrote the piece). There was no consensus for that particular text, despite the claim in the edit summary. Reverting. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how you could say that this talk page has not reached a consensus on the edit that I made. Simonm223 was the first to propose that edit, so he agreed with it. Squatch347 said that he agreed with it. BeatrixGodard agreed with it, except for a few minor objections, which are problematic since BeatrixGodard's suggestions would introduce weasel language, among other things. And I have said multiple times that I agree with Simonm223's proposal. The only other two editors on this talk page who did not express support for the edit are you and Indiana6724. So, that's four out of six editors on this talk page who have expressed support for the edit that I just made. That is a clear consensus.

I've glad that you made that point about attributing to authors rather than institutions. This is a good idea, so I will edit the text to comply with that.

By contrast, you edited the article to say that antinatalism should be stated in the article as a motive for the crime, even though I cited some high-quality academic sources which oppose that idea. You should read the reply that I made to Simonm223 where I cited the academic sources, which take precedence over the journalistic sources that you cited. Antinatalism should not be cited as a motive for the bombing, unless there are academic sources to support that. Zero Contradictions (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm just another editor - I am not a special authority. However what I would suggest is that, rather than editing a sentence back and forth, you folks might want to consider an RfC on the question of whether to include that text. This might give you a broader consensus framework in which to work. I think WP:RFCBEFORE is fulfilled at this point. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a very frustrating experience. Why are we choosing to ignore the incredibly large numbers of RS saying one thing in favor of caveating by giving undue weight to lesser quality sources? Almost anywhere else on the encyclopedia, such behavior would have you hauled before RSN or ANI and scolded. This, combined with what appears to be a single-interest editing pattern by two opposed editors that has them at ANI right now, has made the whole thing a massive waste of time. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Zero Contradictions: Another thing: Antinatalism should not be cited as a motive for the bombing, unless there are academic sources to support that. Absolutely not true. You have yet to show even one definitively academic source that suggests that every other reliable source is wrong. That this article has been held from using any of a dozen reliable sources and their content because a YouTube video said something once is inappropriate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I welcome you to read the academic sources that I have mentioned on this talk page which don't support describing antinatalism as a motive for killing people. You even said before yourself on this talk page that academic sources are "obviously generally the best RSs".

I never cited any YouTube videos to support my position. A lot of replies have been made to this talk page over the past several hours, and I am convinced that you haven't read most of them, much less the academic sources that I cited on this talk page. Zero Contradictions (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

OK can someone please provide some bibliographical information for better sources than a local newspaper that we should be using? I'm very comfortable reading and assessing academic work in the humanities, particularly on topics related to fringe philosophical movements, so I'd be very happy to have a look at the disputed sources. I'm having trouble seeing them in the discussion above. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

There are no ANI discussions about me, ongoing or in the past. However, this is an open ANI discussion regarding BeatrixGodard, who has voiced support for citing the news articles that you mentioned in the article. So, it would be more accurate to say that there is an ANI discussion about one of the editors who is in favor of citing dubious news articles inside this article. Zero Contradictions (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Zero Contradictions: I am convinced that you haven't read most of them, much less the academic sources that I cited on this talk page Remarkably antagonistic and wrong. I've read Hwang 2017 several times (prior to this article existence, no less), which you present as a reliable source. It is not. Hwang, prior to his premature death, was not an academic and was instead an independent philosopher popular among antinatalists. The paper by him that you hold up as a reliable source was independently published. It is not a reliable source on anything, much less a suicide bombing that occurred eight years after it was written. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so if you really did see and read the academic sources that I cited, then why didn't you bother to refute them?? This discussion isn't going to get anywhere if we don't focus on the cruxes.

Hwang's paper was published in an academic journal, and that needs to be considered. His paper is more reliable than the news articles that are being cited, which were again written by uneducated journalists with no philosophical background.

You also haven't addressed Dr. David Benatar's writings on antinatalism, promortalism, and killing people. Zero Contradictions (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Another thing that's hugely problematic with what you just wrote here is that you thanked me on my talk page when I added the Antinatalism#Promortalism section to Antinatalism: User_talk:Zero_Contradictions#A_cup_of_tea_for_you!

If you really believe The paper by [Hwang] that you hold up as a reliable source was independently published. It is not a reliable source on anything, then why did you thank me for citing his paper in Antinatalism? Why didn't you remove the citation and quote to his paper shortly after I added that information, as you did in your edit here? Your actions back in June suggest that you do believe that Hwang's academic paper is a reliable source. The way how you evaluate whether sources are reliable or not in a particular context seems to depend more on your biases, rather than truth.

I'm going to ask you a third time: Do you have a WP:conflict of interest for participating in this discussion? Hopefully, I'll get an answer from you this time. I can't think of any other reason why you would praise me for citing Hwang's paper in Antinatalism#Promortalism back in June, while scolding me for citing Hwang's paper on this talk page. Zero Contradictions (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I was wrong in June. I later found that Hwang's paper isn't reliable, and you seem to believe it still is. It is not. What do you have from Benatar about this bombing? ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Hwang's paper is a reliable source. It was published in an academic journal, and academic sources are more reliable than news articles.

For a fourth time, do you have a WP:conflict of interest for participating in this discussion? This should be a very simple question to answer. I don't understand why you have consistently chosen to not answer my question.

I already summarized Benatar's writings on antinatalism, promortalism, and killing people earlier in this thread. You said that you read them, so I shouldn't have to cite them a second time. It should be crystal clear that antinatalism can never be a motive for killing people by itself.

As for what Benatar said about the bombing specifically, he said "While I do think it's a harm to come into existence, it is also a harm to die, or to be killed, and I am opposed to acts of terror."

The source for this quote from Benatar also emphasized that Bartkus was more closely aligned with promortalism, rather than antinatalism.

While Benatar believes it is immoral to have children only to condemn them to the inevitable misery, he said he rejects "promortalism", a separate and more pessimistic philosophy than antinatalism that Bartkus aligned himself with in his manifesto.

Zero Contradictions (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC) Zero Contradictions (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

If we're talking about the paper below please note that SSRN is a repository of preprints and is not peer reviewed. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

As for COI, I suppose I'm not antinatalist or nihilist but I'm strongly anti-IVF (with the understanding that some of my best friends are the product of IVF and the world is much better for their presence) and against what American politics calls natalism. Not sure that's relevant here, as this is more interesting to me from a domestic terrorism perspective given my academic background in that sort of thing. Believing that the only reason someone thinks you're in the wrong because of some sort of partisanship is not a productive approach to discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It would be fair to assume that you have some sort of bias towards Antinatalism given the user boxes on your page. For the most part, I agree with you and I'm glad you cleared it up. Indiana6724 (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Recommendation from a very long-term participant: ignore userboxes in all circumstances. No argument based on userboxes is ever a good argument. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree, I was just pointing out why I think someone would make that judgement. Thanks for the tip! Indiana6724 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I haven't a strong opinion on antinatalism - I have read both Benatar and Ligotti (The Conspiracy Against the Human Race) and, while the latter is handy for art criticism on the topic of puppets, I don't find myself particularly persuaded by antinatalist arguments but I also don't find them shocking or dangerous. I have read The Times interview with Benatar and do think it's probably as appropriate for attributed inclusion as the local news article. However I don't think either newspaper piece is sufficiently persuasive to treat the other as unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for finally answering my question. I wasn't wondering about a possible COI as an explanation for why you think that I'm wrong. I was wondering because you demonstrated contradictory beliefs. You implicitly believed that Hwang's paper was reliable back in June, whereas you insisted that it's not reliable for verifying anything just today. After I pointed this out, you then insisted that you were wrong about Hwang's paper in June.

I think it was productive for me to ask if you have a COI since your actions seemed to suggest that. But I'm glad that you don't have a COI. I also acknowledge that you have taken a more consistent position on assessing the relability of sources. Zero Contradictions (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Being entirely fair, it's easy to miss that SSRN isn't a peer-reviewed journal because it looks like one. And many pre-prints later go on to be published by peer-reviewed journals so the quality of the writing is often similar between SSRN and peer-review. However we don't treat pre-prints as RS. It's precisely the sort of thing that benefits from going back and double-checking. Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The quote above from the Flanagan interview is actually a good find. However, does not actually contradict that antinatalism was a motive, instead noting that an expert believes the bombing was also motivated by promortalism. If you have experts and reliable sources mentioning both ideologies, they ought to be both included. Any sort of discussion of the particular nature of those ideologies can be extrapolated upon in the body, but we still have nothing that outright contradicts the reliable sources calling this antinatalist. We're talking about fringe beliefs here, and proponents of such beliefs can be cited as experts but with the same caution we might cite a Mormon scholar formerly published by Oxford being interviewed for a news article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

+1. Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I still disagree. I believe that the academic sources that I cited prove that antinatalism cannot be a motive for killing people, unless it's accompanied by other value judgments. And I have not changed my stance that academic sources are more reliable than news articles.

However, when your previous edit included antinatalism in the list of motives, it was accompanied by other motives and value judgments, not just antinatalist itself. I still believe that it would be highly erroneous to cite antinatalism as the only motive for the bombing, which is a major reason why I take issue with so many of the news articles that you cited. As I've said before, I'm also fine with describing both Bartkus and Efilism as antinatalist.

I have other things to do, and I don't feel like continuing this discussion any further. As long as antinatalism is not described as the only motive, then I won't contest this article any further. Benatar and all other academics would agree that antinatalists can be murderers who value killing people, but if and only if they have other value judgments besides antinatalism that support those actions. Zero Contradictions (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I don’t see a strong reason to include antinatalism here, since there are already sources that specifically cite efilism (a form of antinatalism) as the motive. That said, I’d be open to a compromise — perhaps the best option would be to remove both terms and leave only promortalism, as that appears to be the most consistently supported description in virtually all of the sources. Indiana6724 (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I think antinatalism is already implied by stating efilism as the motive. Technically, promortalism would also be implied by stating efilism, but it's important to state promortalism, since extremist promortalists support killing people. As I've said many times before, I think it's redundant to state antinatalism as a motive when efilism is already stated, so if there's any dispute or vote about this, then that's my position.

Alas, I would rather not participate on this discussion any further, so I hopefully won't be commenting here any further. Zero Contradictions (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

My position as well. Indiana6724 (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that efilism is just a redirect to Antinatalism right now which will serve to confuse the relationship for some readers. Mentioning in-article that efilism is an extreme off-shoot of antinatalism, as supported by the RS, is pedagogically useful. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Efilism is in the article, i disagree. Indiana6724 (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Zero Contradictions and Indiana6724: We have a vast quantity of independent sources that expressly describe this as motivated by antinatalism. This bombing has had consequences for antinatalists, such as the banning of a popular subreddit. My appraisal is that both of you believe that the fringe philosophy of antinatalism—something nearly every source discussing the motives identifies as a motive—should be barely mentioned by name, if at all. Wikipedia is downstream of reliable sources. We are not truthfinders. If a majority of reliable sources say a car is purple, but the car maker insists that it's a proprietary and new shade of purple called "sapphire supreme", we should probably call the car purple. Such is the case here. At this point, I am disinclined to accept any proposals that do not explicitly describe antinatalism as a motive. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You already said that multiple times, and I already explained multiple times why I disagree with it. I've made all my positions very clear, and nothing that you or anyone has said has changed my mind.

I said today that I won't contest any further edits on this page as long as antinatalism is not described as the only motive, which is why so many of the news articles are problematic, per the academic consensus. I also said that I am not interested in participating in this discussion any further, so please don't ping me again. Zero Contradictions (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that would work since there is a consensus that Bartkus was motivated by Efilism. I notice that the article was changed two weeks ago over a week after the discussion ended to state that Bartkus was motivated by antinatalism.

But like I said, even though I don't agree nor support Pbritti's edit (for reasons that I've already stated many times), I'm not going to revert it as long as antinatalism is not described as the only motive, since I have other things to do. Zero Contradictions (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)