Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Transhumanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Transhumanism 1.1 Support 1.2 Object 1.3 Neutral / Comment

[edit] Transhumanism

I came across this article while reading for fun. It sparked my interest because I had never heard the term before. Soon after, it taught me virtually everything on the topic. The article is well written, concise but complete, notable, interesting, and most importantly well referenced. Virtually every fact has an inline citation. It has been peer reviewed, and is a Good article. See also, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Transhumanism Archive 1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Transhumanism. Nominate and Support. Tobyk777 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

1. Support. --Tobyk777 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. --Loremaster 20:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. --Tony 08:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong support - in depth, well structured and of general interest. Additionally, the article is well-referenced. Ronline ✉ 10:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Support interesting Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 15:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. I thought it was ready for FA a few weeks ago, but some contributors decided to improve it even further :) Great job! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. I edited this article in glancing and mostly incidental ways (a reference here, some italics there), but other people made it good. Anville 19:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Support but with disclosure of being one of the main contributors in recent times. Given that, my support may not weigh all that heavily. Metamagician3000 05:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. I am also a recent contributor.--StN 20:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Excellent article.--To Meta Therion 05:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Support - This is astonishingly well-written. Dee man45 22:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Support - Cribananda 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - Brilliant article. I was impressed and fascinated by what I read, and I think this is an example of Wikipedia at its best. I am the writer of a featured article myself, and I see no reason why this shouldn't be a featured article. Bigdaddy1204 21:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. Fascinating stuff. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Object

• Oppose -- what is with this formatting of this nomination? In any case, there are WP:NOR and image problems.

Image:Posthuman Future.jpg needs a Fair use rationale. That will be difficult, because it is an indefensible theft of commercial art to decorate our article.

Image:We Can Rebuild Him.jpg -- same as above. We're not discussing this art at all. We're just using it because it looks good.

Image:Holy Tech.jpg same as above.

Image:Neuromancer gibson.png -- why do we need this unfree content? No rationale.

Image:Futurehype.jpg -- same as the above book cover.

Image:Playing God, Redesigning Life.jpg -- especially bad; we're using an unfree book cover because it has the same name as an argument we want to discuss, but we never mention this book

Image:Terminator.jpg -- this seems to be here solely so that we can coin the term "The Terminator Argument". We should not be coining terms, and we shouldn't be decorating our articles with unfree content.

Image:Bravenewworld2.jpg just needs a fair use rationale.

Image:Enough.jpg just needs a fair use rationale.

Image:Gataca Movie Poster.jpg is the same as "Terminator" above

Image:Frankenstein.jpg can be replaced with a public domain image and should be deleted.

Image:Khan3.jpg -- more WP:NOR, and no fair use rationale

In short, this is a good essay. But we're coining new terms, making new arguments, and making new counter-arguments, and decorating it all with unfree content. This isn't Wikipedia's best work. Jkelly 01:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly, I agree that the major weakness of the article is the lack of fair use rationales for the images that have been added to it. However, we are NOT coining new terms, new arguments or counter-arguments. Despite one or two exceptions, they were all selected because they have been found in the works of journalists and academics. For example, one can find explicit mention of the Playing God argument in a Washington Post article, the mention of a Frankenstein/Brave New World argument in science journalist Chris Mooney's site, etc. --Loremaster 01:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Gataca Argument"? I'd add a ref to the person who coined each term. Jkelly 01:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Dr. Dale Layman coined the term 'Terminator argument' while bioethicist James Hughes refers to it in his essay Millennial Tendencies in Responses to Apocalyptic Threats. Although he didn't coin the term, Hughes makes reference to the Gattaca argument in his book Citizen Cyborg. --Loremaster 02:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Loremaster that we are not coining new terms, new arguments or counterarguments. I have inserted a specific reference to Leon Kass's use of the "Brave New World" argument. However, I do not think this is necessary in most of the other cases. As we note in the introduction to the Criticisms section, the various literary works and films *themselves* represent critiques of transhumanism. While these obviously do not take the form of "arguments", they reflect, and are reflected, in arguments made by others. It is not new research to assert, for example, that the genetically divided world portrayed in Gattaca is the kind of dystopic future contemplated by Bill McKibben and James Hughes (though they come to different conclusions about it). In other contexts, people are said to make "slippery slope" arguments even though they don't use the actual words "slippery slope." Concerning the figures, "Neuromancer" is described in the figure caption in terms precisely relevant to the section this book cover appears in. The "Futurehype" book deals with exactly the kind of critique of over-reliance on technology discussed in the section it accompanies, as mentioned in its caption. Similarly, the "Playing God" book is a set of essays precisely about playing God with human genetic engineering. I will amplify the caption to reflect this. I do not know of any Wikipedia policy that says that figure captions are not the appropriate place for discussing the relation of a work to the themes of the article.--StN 04:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said. I wanted to say everything you've argued in one sentence but gave up. --Loremaster 04:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I do think there is a problem with the use of some of the images. I'd be content to see some of them go, if that is the view that comes out of the discussion, even if it makes the article a bit less aesthetically appealing. Even with the headings, I'm not particularly attached to any of them, though I do think they are helpful to orientate readers. If some headings need to be made less dramatic for OR-ish reasons, so be it; I'd be prepared to do that, but I think the caution about doing so is understandable, as a lot of work has gone into making this article as clear and reader-friendly as it possibly can be.

I can't help adding that issues to do with the images and choice of headings are a bit tangential to the value of the text and its substantiation. On one hand, these issues should not be the kinds of things that the article's writers/editors (including me) should dig in on, but nor I hope would they be sort of thing that should lead to the article's not getting featured. If these are the real issues, let's see what compromises are actually necessary to address Jkelly's concerns about copyright, etc., while keeping the article attractive and reader-friendly. I'm willing to work towards consensus, and I'll await Jkelly's response to Loremaster and StN. Metamagician3000 05:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Since the original research issue is almost settled, Jkelly's main concern that should be addressed is image copyrights. --Loremaster 13:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the Frankenstein and Eugenics Wars images to ones in the public domain and added fair use rationales for the Enough and Brave New World images. Loremaster, I suggest that you work on rationales for Chronicle of Higher Education picture and the cover images from Sync and Wired, which are relevant to the article and should be retained if possible.--StN 19:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added specific fair use rationales to image pages for the "Neuromancer", "Futurehype" and "Playing God" book covers and "The Terminator" and "Gattaca" movie posters.--StN 22:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral / Comment

Comment. Please edit your nomination text first. Typos, floating sentence, redundant 'also', inconsistent upper case. I hope that the article is better than this. Tony 02:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There were only 2 typos. I don't think it really matters if there are typos in talk pages. Who cares? I fixed them anyway. I don't think that typos in the nomination should be counted in considering this for FA status, especialy since I wasn't even the one who wrote the article. Tobyk777 03:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, there are two more typos you haven't fixed; or are they spelling mistakes?

Tony, do you support or object to this featured article candidacy? --Loremaster 13:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't know—haven't looked yet. It's just embarrassing to have a sloppy nomination text. Tony 07:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral. The depth of information in this article is excellent. However, the organization of the criticism section seems arbitrary to me, I don't understand why each book critiquing transhumanism is important enough to merit its own subsection. In addition, the subsections are named such that a casual onlooker feels that each one of these books is the seminal work of a different branch of critics of transhumanism. However, I'm not currently sure how it could be improved, so I can't properly object. I still feel it needs to be addressed, I am merely sorry I cannot suggest a manner in which my concerns could be thusly addressed. RyanGerbil10 03:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

RyanGerbil10, if you were familiar with ethical debates surrounding so-called transhumanist issues, you would know that almost all of these books or movies (except for Futurehype and Enough) are often cited in works written by prominent academics. --Loremaster 13:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Given how muddled the arguments over these issues often are, I think a "sort by iconic work" is the best method of organization we could reasonably hope for. Anville 18:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Anville here. Just because a work is cited by prominent academics doesn't mean that it becomes a force unto its own that lets us ignore WP:MOS. The information is here, it can be better organized. RyanGerbil10 20:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what Anville said. He is arguing that the current organization of criticisms is the best one in light of the complexity and number of arguments and counter-arguments out there in the real world. Futhermore, it isn't just prominent academics who refer to these books and movies. Ask almost anyone about cloning or human genetic engineering and the first thing they cite as a source for a criticism of this technology is Brave New World or Gattaca. Finally, from the feedback we've been getting, this current organization is what has made the article so interesting to the majority of people who stumbled upon it. --Loremaster 20:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also point out that the Transhumanism article states the following: "Some of the most widely known ethical critiques of the transhumanist program are found in novels and fictional films which, despite presenting imagined worlds rather than philosophical analyses, can be used as touchstones for some of the more formal arguments." --Loremaster 20:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I did misinterpret Anville. Sorry about that. I still don't like the way things are organized, but if everyone else thinks its great I'll shut up about it. 22:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. If anything comes up in this FA - in the sense of any changes people identify that could strengthen the article - I'll do my best to assist. Metamagician3000 03:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel I am too involved in the article to say more about it than that, at least for now, but thanks to Tobyk777 for the nomination. Metamagician3000 03:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Your involvement is not a problem. --Loremaster 22:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment There are 20 external links to organizztions not disccused in the article. I would like to see these dealt with within article or changed to See Also wikilinks to their corresponding articles. If they are not notable enough to have an article I wonder if we should be linking to them at all --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that something could be done to improve the External links section. However, according to a Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in see also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster 21:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)