Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:06, 10 August 2012 [1].

Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact[edit]

Nominator: Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 05:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being nominated because I feel that it is ready. Having gone through a good article nomination, a copyedit, a peer review, and another copyedit, this article clearly meets the criteria to be listed on this page. The prose of the page has been improved dramatically since the page was first created, as has the comprehensiveness of the article. I believe that the article gives a thorough summary of the literature available on its subject and is therefore fit for a featured article nomination. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 05:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My first comment is there are not enough blue links in the lead, Extraterrestrial life is one possibility. Also we have mention of Harrison and Dick without mentioning who they are. I thought they may be referring to the Science fiction writers, but perhaps they are the ones in the references. Also Science fiction writers have written on many of these ideas, but do not seem to be credited. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I intend this to be about the scientific study of the topic, not about science fiction. I will add the blue links, and mention who Harrison and Dick are. They are the ones in the references, I didn't know that they were the science fiction writers (perhaps both of them are the same people?) Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 15:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Psychologist Albert Harrison[2] and astronomer Steven J. Dick do not write science fiction. Graeme Bartlett might be thinking of science fiction writers Harry Harrison and Philip K. Dick. Wer900, to avoid this problem, please attribute authors (Psycholgist Albert Harrison...) on their first use. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes Viriditas, that is what I thought, and your proposal would address that problem. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: In reply to "I intend this to be about the scientific study of the topic, not about science fiction", remember that the Contact scenarios and considerations section begins: "Scientific literature and science fiction put forward various models ....". I would anyway challenge the claim that this article is about science. The authors may be scientists and they may be published in the scientific press, but science normally involves not merely theories but also experiments to verify or refute the theories. There's little of that here. Speculation that they might come bearing gifts like an Encyclopedia galactica, or that ETIs may dispense with biology and live inside computers, are fantasy, not science. Much of it adresses people's notions of how ETIs might address current human preoccupations (thirst for knowledge, fear of nuclear war, ...). Imo it's great for Wikipedia to have such a summary of the literature, but we should be clear that that's what it is, speculation and all. Note how many verbs in the article are subjunctive or conditional. --Stfg (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You make a good point, but I think the topic can be considered a form of scientific conjecture that employs the philosophy of rationalism for its observations and deductions. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use a consistent date format
FN3: page(s)?
Compare FNs 9 and 10
FN13, 56: why the duplication?
FN18: page(s)?
FN20: formatting
Be consistent in how you format the authors/editors of larger works (ie. "In...")
Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
You write "In Tough, Allen" several times, but it's not entirely clear which source this refers to
- That's a template problem. I cited the larger work's title, but it's not showing up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"p." is for single pages, "pp." for multiple
FN40: publisher? Page(s)? Year?
Be consistent in whether you include locations for book publishers
FN42, 60, 66: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your footnotes are off. Could you please redo this so that I know which footnotes to work on? Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 17:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I keep stumbling over the first sentence of the lead. It doesn't really seem to say anything other than the fact that there will be an impact to human society. I think it could be expanded a little. For example:

"The cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact is the widespread change to human values, beliefs, interests, and institutions that will likely follow as a result of communication and interaction with an extraterrestrial intelligence. These effects may extend throughout society to permanently alter science, technology, politics, religion, and law, to name but a few."

Regards, RJH (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced it's necessary, but no objection provided "will likely" is changed to "could" and "permanently" is removed (statement of the obvious). --Stfg (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's slightly better now, thanks. (The prior introduction seemed a little drab and one of the FA criteria is for engaging prose.) Note that 'ecology' is a subset of 'science'. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology may be a subset of science, but "science" here is the way in which we uncover the way the Universe and everything in it works, while ecology is the actual interaction of living systems. The way the Universe works won't change with extraterrestrial contact, only our perceptions and understanding of it, and if you include extraterrestrial technology, the ways in which we apply it. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 17:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, perhaps you are referring to ecosystem management or maybe geoengineering? An '-ology' suffix generally refers to the study of a subject. RJH (talk)

No, you've reversed it. By "science", I mean the study of nature, not nature itself. By "ecology" I mean the ways in which living systems actually interact, not the study thereof (although there could be implications for the study of living systems itself, those are of secondary importance and not explicitly stated in the sources). Hence I write both "science" and "ecology." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs)

Okay, well the fact that it took you a paragraph to explain that the usage is different from the definition in the Ecology article, leads me to suspect there may be an issue here. But I don't particularly want to get into a lengthy debate about this point, so I'll bid you good luck. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that at this point, the usage of "ecology" is unambiguous enough that we don't need to expand it into "interactions between living systems." Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 00:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with RJH here. Wer900, you said "science" here is the way in which we uncover the way the Universe and everything in it works, while ecology is the actual interaction of living systems". Well, the actual interaction of living systems is part of how the universe and everything in works. --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "ecology" to "ecosystems." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs)

Quick comment A citation covers all the sentences from the previous cite. Please remove repeating cites throughout like I did here.—indopug (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this before, but some editors have expressed concern that, the article being on a speculative subject, every statement that is made should be sourced. In addition, anyone could add their own inter. Therefore, I feel it is appropriate to put citations after every sentence. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 17:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the reference to Xenology has been split into references to the individual book chapters constituting it. As Freitas himself states, the work is a compilation and expansion upon his previously published work. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 18:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comments Problems remain in the citations, which makes me think that Nikkimaria's review has not been fully acted on. References 20, 33 and 49 use pp. for single pages and there are other formatting inconsistencies. Reference 43, which is cited many times should be broken down into individual pages if possible. The nominator should note that the article will not be promoted until a clear consensus that the FA criteria have been met is reached here. This requires clear and unconditional statements of support. Requests for promotion such as the one made here are not appropriate. Spotchecks of sources for verification and to rule out close-paraphrasing are still needed. Graham Colm (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have resolved the reference problems, done some spotchecks of my own and made the necessary minor changes, and removed a brief (~8 words) passage of close paraphrasing which was placed because no other paraphrase of the same text occurred to me. As for Nikkimaria's review, the citations were off following a resolution of the Foundation for the Future references, so I had no choice but not to fully act upon the review. I also split the references to Contact with Alien Civilizations, as requested by you. I am almost done polishing the references, with only minor date inconsistencies needing to be ironed out. I think that external spotchecks can begin immediately. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 20:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Small suggestion: you could use the old version of the article to locate Nikkimaria's comments by FN number, and still apply amendments to the current version. --Stfg (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

The lede sentence: "The cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact is the change to human society and institutions resulting from communication with an extraterrestrial civilization." seems to assume that this extraterrestrial contact is going to take place.

Isn't this event more hypothetical than a given? Do we have any way of knowing this will ever take place and, if it does, what the impact will be? Isn't this fantasy and speculation not based on science? Is it testable by the scientific method? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As RJH has stated already, this is really a form of scientific conjecture based on what we know about the laws of nature, human history, and the technical limitations that humans have. It is not exactly a scientific experiment, and through the usage of the subjunctive and conditional tenses throughout I am trying to illustrate to the reader the uncertainty of the subject.

The lede is okay, I think. It is merely giving a definition of the topic, and definitions are not "maybes." I will, though, change it to the following:

The cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact is the change to human society and institutions which would result if humanity were contacted by an extraterrestrial civilization.

Reasonable? Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 21:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Might result" would be better. Graham Colm (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources say that the impact could be trivial. However, even if it is trivial, or nothing happens at all, what else may the "cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact" result from other than extraterrestrial contact? Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 21:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

humm, ten years ago we thought the expansion of space was slowing down. Now we think that space is expanding infinitely and galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light! (according to Brian Greene). So eventually we'll see no galaxies in the night sky, the sky will be dark, and we'll be alone. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're alive in 10 million trillion years, then you will see this event happen. Also, how is this relevant to the current discussion? Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 22:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Wer900, you've pointed out that the first sentence is tautological. The problem is the bolded repetition of the article title, not a requirement of WP:LEADSENTENCE. On the article talk page, Tamfang suggested "The effects on human society and institutions resulting from communication with an extraterrestrial civilization could include, among others, sweeping changes in science, technology, religion, politics, and ecosystems." Looks good to me. How about it? --Stfg (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 04:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.