Talk:Abolitionism (bioethics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Ethics

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-03. The result of the discussion was move.

[edit] Note to editors

Mods;

before you throw stones or jump to conclusions.

I'm happy to debate why or why not the Abolitionist Society satisfies wikipedia's 'notability' requirements.

before deleting as is your inclination (by design)

why not add to the article yourself? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abolitionist (talk • contribs).

Hello! I'm actually not an administrator, just an editor. The reason I tagged the article was due to the fact that it does not cite any reliable sources, making it very difficult for anyone to add to the article! Also, reliable secondary source mentions are what qualifies an article's subject as notable under the notability guidelines. If you need any assistance in adding source mentions into the article, I'd be quite happy to help! (The templates placed on the article do not request its deletion, though that may be a possibility if notability cannot be established.) Seraphimblade 16:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

are the sources provided not 'reliable'?

this article was 'speed deleted' before - which proves my theory about the motivation of moderators - for clearly there is quality content to be added here for the benefit of mankind.

Wikipedia is an extension of culture - not 'neutrality'.

Actually, the neutral point of view is a critical policy of Wikipedia-in fact, it's considered one of its pillars. Verifiability is another such policy. The sources provided appear to be either primary (published by the group itself), unreliable (such as a forum), or irrelevant (in that they do not mention this group at all). A reliable source would be, for example, a newspaper article, a book not published by the group itself, or the like. Web mentions are acceptable in many cases, but they must be a source which is unaffiliated with the group and undergoes editorial review, not simply a forum or blog. Seraphimblade 16:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a pillar, but false nonetheless. For neutrality is not possible. Wikipedia attempts to use cultural methods of determining notability. The links provided in the forum are to the real articles in medical hypothesis journal.

Reliability is not established by editorial review, only by the scientific process of verification.

The articles are relevant in that they establish the authenticity of the philosophy (according to your own definitions for notability.)

They also preceed the formation of the Society. BLTC, the Hedonistic Imperative, etc.. are all here on wikipedia - and the Abolitionist Society is the extention of these - formed partly by David Pearce. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abolitionist (talk • contribs).

If one thinks it's a false premise, one could lobby to change it. Until then, ignoring it constitutes vandalism against Wikipedia, where it's an adopted standard amongst the community, both by consensus and dictat. – Kieran T ^(talk) 16:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As some notability is asserted, and the article is not promotional in tone, it won't be speedily deleted. However, I will nominate it for the articles for deletion process, where the community will decide whether or not to keep it. You are, of course, welcome to comment at the deletion debate. Seraphimblade 16:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And what is your motivation for this game? What is the purpose of wikipedia or your standards? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abolitionist (talk • contribs).

I have listed my reasons for listing the article at the AfD page. No games involved-there are policies here, and articles written must follow them. Also, it is customary to sign comments using four tildes (~~~~)Seraphimblade 16:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

the policies are infact a game

They do not lead to the maximization of happiness and minimization of suffering or towards acquiring accurate knowledge.

It is simply about cultural distinctions - not edifying culture. Editorial review has never been an indicator of reliability - only marketing. Is the information inaccurate on this article page? Of course not.

As Kieran T points out, all editors are welcome to contribute to discussions on policy, and that certainly includes you! However, it would probably be more productive to express more specific concerns, and to do so on the talk pages for the relevant policies. Seraphimblade 16:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Specifically the criteria for notability and reliability as I've pointed out above.

What could be more notable than the sole online community for the only candidate philosophy to address the human condition?Abolitionist 16:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I encourage you to express your concerns at the relevant policy discussions-the comments here will not be seen by many. Do keep in mind, however, that these policies tend to have longstanding consensus behind them. Also, we do discourage those close to a subject from editing or creating articles on it, due to potential conflict of interest-it's difficult to remain impartial in such cases! Seraphimblade 17:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on people caring about the subjects enough to create, write and continue to improve great encyclopaedia articles on a subject. If no one cared about any of the topics, no one would be reading Wikipedia and certainly no one would be writing for it, either. As long as one remains neutral and edits according to Wikipedia guidelines within the article, I do not see an inherent conflict of interest in writing about what you know and care about.71.65.202.41 17:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't signed in a minute ago, but that comment was by me.Gloriamarie 17:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New (Old?) Article

I've rewritten the article, providing complete references (if you do not believe I have done so, please add citations, add a citations tag or make a comment here rather than taking the step of nominating the article for deletion). Most of it is restored from a previous version of this article-- it seems that it was deleted without discussion at a previous time, a move I certainly don't agree with and which seems unnecessary, especially with no discussion or chance to improve the article, since I believe I wrote a great article and I spent a good amount of time on it a few months ago. It seems clear to me that this is a notable group and the article should stay.71.65.202.41 17:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Gloriamarie 17:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I also redirected the article, as it's true the article is more about the philosophies behind the organization rather than the organization itself. I removed the tag as well.Gloriamarie 17:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What The?

Darwinian humans are programmed for maximum reproduction

What in the sam hill is a "Darwinian human"? As opposed to a non-darwinian human? This article needs some serious work. Could there be an anymore pretentious way to say "Humans have evolved to maximiz e reproduction". Eschew obfuscation and employ colloquialisms, where they are adequate, in lieu of abstruse erudite argot. Especially when that that erudite argot isn't really all that erudite. Nobody ever says "Darwinian humans" except maybe a freshman philosophy student. And saying "evolution" is a form of "programming" might be going out on a philosophical limb unnecessarily. Brentt 19:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Can you work on this? --Loremaster 20:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a darwinian suggestion: how about we delete everything below the intro--you know, artificial selection. Brentt 22:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with this. --Loremaster 15:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A Darwinian human is one created through Darwinian processes (including genetic "roulette" and limited genetic screening) as opposed to deliberate knowledge-based genetic engineering - the opposite of a Darwinian is a posthuman. --SeanHenderson 16:39, 07 October 2007 (UTC)