Wikipedia:Featured article review/Transhumanism/archive1

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

The article was removed by Dana boomer 13:49, 29 May 2012 [1].

---

Transhumanism

Review commentary

Transhumanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Transhumanism
• Featured article candidates/Transhumanism Archive 1

• Featured article review/Transhumanism/archive1

Notified: WikiProjects Technology, Religion and Philosophy, User:Loremaster, User:Colonel Warden, User:Shadowy Sorcerer, User:IRWolfie-, User:Ian.thomson, User:Explosiveoxygen, User:Ewigekrieg, User:misternuvistor, User:Wawawemn, User:StN, User Greg Bard

I am nominating this featured article for review because it does not meet FA criteria, and little headway has been made in improving it. Specifically, it does not meet 1. (a). The prose is reasonably good but not brilliant. 1 (b). It does not adequately place the subject in the context of mainstream social science or science research. 1 (c). It overuses sources within the Transhumanist perspective, in particular the work of James Hughes. 1 (d). It sets up criticisms as straw men, and its characterisation of criticisms with short phrases is original synthesis that has the effect of reducing the power of those criticisms. 2. (c). Many citations are to bare URLs. Some are to deadlinks. Citations to books do not always include page numbers. There has been relevant discussion at the fringe theories noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"...it does not meet FA criteria...1. (a). The prose is reasonably good, but not brilliant." Is non-brilliant prose disqualifying for a FA? It does not seem so to me. Here is the relevant passage in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria: a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.

• Comment The article contains synthesis, some of which are from a fringe, undue perspectives. The article contains many fringe viewpoints other than transhumanism. An article should represent the mainstream view and so not contain unrelated fringe arguments or specific criticisms of one fringe against another (i.e neo-luddite criticisms of transhumanism) as it is undue, unless, it is discussed in mainstream sources, but the mainstream position should also be noted. There appears to be a lack of uninvolved secondary sources in the controversy section. This appears to be a systematic problem within the controversies section. I will look at the first two sections of the controversy section (for previty) to demonstrate my point:

In the section Transhumanism#Infeasibility_.28Futurehype_argument.29

Max Dublin is described as a sociologist, I am not sure where this is verified from. (searching for author:"Max Dublin" on scholar.google.com returns 3 results, for author:"M Dublin" a variety of hits are returned in diverse fields which I assume is a collection of individuals). I can not find any information about him. (is this a pen name?)

The Kevin Kelly reference talks about Futorology not Transhumanism.

Bob Seidensticker does not appear to explicitly mention transhumanism in his book 'Future hype: the myths of technology change'. I do not see where he explicitly "argues that today's technological achievements are not unprecedented".

In the section Transhumanism#Hubris_.28Playing_God_argument.29

The vatican statement appears to be directed at genetic engineering in general where it is to improve a characteristic. When read carefully it doesn't seem to support the statement of the inappropriateness of humans substituting themselves for an actual god..

Jeremy Rifkin is an American Economist and based on his book, an anti-evolutionist. His views on synthetic biology seem inappropriate/peculiar and undue as he is not a biologist, chemist or engineer. He is also. (the Kirkus review provided by google books has the statement about his cited book: It's yet another simplistic dichotomy, which grants mankind omnipotence and ignores what biologists have been learning about the behavior of genes all these years.) Perhaps I am merely unfamilar with journals in the humanities but the paper in the Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy seems pecular for a paper in a journal. The journal is run by students and does not seem to have peer review; surely the rest of the paragraph has no due weight unless discussed in reliable secondary sources.

The paragraph with comments attributed to Kirsten Rabe Smolensky appears to be pure synthesis to link it to the discussion in the previous paragraph and to Transhumanism in general. The actual source appears to be directed at any genetic engineering, not only just the fundamental transformation applicable to Transhumanism.

The phrase "Religious thinkers allied with transhumanist goals" seems to imply some sort of conflict. The statement is also illogical as someone can not be allied with a goal. This should probably be reworded.

It appears from the response that, although I can't be certain as I have no reasonable way of verifying it, the opinions of James Hughes and Gregory Stock are not directed at Jeremy Rifkin. But this is unimportant; the views of Jeremy Rifkin do not appear to be, or give no indication that they are the mainstream viewpoints; his anti-evolutionist views are juxtaposed beside those of his anti-tranhumanism.

Transhumanism#Contempt_for_the_flesh_.28Fountain_of_Youth_argument.29

Similar issue to the previous section. His criticisms do not appear to be mainstream. He appears to go further than His praising of the renounching of technology like in the Tokugawa shogunate and amish communities are hardly mainstream viewpoints. His viewpoints on rejecting the use of" germinal choice technology for clearly therapeutic purposes" is even more strict than the viewpoint of the catholic church as seen in the vatican statement above, Gene therapy, directed to the alleviation of congenital conditions like Down's syndrome ... would help the individual to give full expression to his real identity which is blocked by a defective gene. [2].

I suspect the rest of the article also contains many more examples of this mixture of original synthesis, fringe opinions, original research and lack of reliable secondary sourcing. If required I can give many more examples of this in more sections. For these reasons of systematic issues I think it should not be a featured article. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The commentator above seems unfamiliar with the concept of a law review, which in the United States are the main venues for legal scholarship. The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy is a law review published by law students of the Columbus School of Law of the Catholic University of America. The law reviews of the Harvard and Yale law schools are similarly published by law students at those schools. Is it proposed that citations to those journals throughout Wikipedia are also inappropriate? StN (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Do they typically lack peer-review? The issue still stands with the point that the criticism is not mainstream (the paper is in association with Jeremy Rifkin who's views on biology are not mainstream, i.e anti-evolutionist, which was the basis of the book). IRWolfie- (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What paper is "in association with Jeremy Rifkin"? StN (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The Paper from Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy mentions his association with Jeremy Rifkin. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to get some sense of the basis of your criticism of the Transhumanism article relative to this point: It cites an article in a law review by a biologist (Stuart Newman) who entered into a joint project with Jeremy Rifkin at some point in the past. Jeremy Rifkin wrote a book (Algeny; 1984) critical of Darwin's mechanism of evolution, which means that Rifkin doesn't believe in evolution (not simply Darwin's mechanism for it). This is discrediting not only of Rifkin, but of Newman, the sole author of the article in question, since it implies that he also does not believe in evolution. Therefore the law review article should not be cited. Is this what you are saying? StN (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The article currently cites Jeremy Rifkin's book for his argument. It then expands on this with the law review in which Stuart Newman refers to his joint project with Jeremy Rifkin. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The comments attributed to Kirsten Rabe Smolensky are an accurate summary of this legal scholar's presentation at a conference on Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights. Human enhancement technologies are synonymous with much of transhumanism, as any reader of the article, or anyone familiar with the subject can ascertain. Even though her comments could potentially apply to "any genetic engineering," that was not the context in which they were delivered. StN (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your deduction is not based on the sources, therefore the linkage is not verifiable. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If you access the web page linked to in reference 98 of the article you will find the name of the Stanford University conference at which Smolensky delivered her talk. It is the same as I indicated above. Are you presenting these criticisms in a serious fashion i.e., do you know anything about the issues you refer to, or have looked at all into the references cited in the article? StN (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not need an in depth knowledge of Transhumanism, I look at the references and see if they make the connection. I've looked at many of the references, I have looked at all the references in the sections I have mentioned. It is through these references that I see the synthesis as the linkage to Rifkin etc is not made in these references. While I do not doubt that transhumanism is interested in an extreme fashion with Human enhancement technologies I do not think they are synonymous. i.e Transhumanism is a subset of those interested in Human enhancement technologies, this is not important, what is important is that no source links the opinions of Kirsten Rabe Smolensky to the opinions of Rifkin, this is not in any secondary source, therefore it is a synthesis. If something does link the two please provide reliable sources that make the linkage or point out something from the existing references that I may have overlooked. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to fully engage in this review (which I deem unnecessary) in order to refute the many dubious arguments it contains. However, I would like to point out that some of the people who are currently trying to strip the Transhumanism article of its featured article status are not only motivated by a bias against the subject itself having such a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable Wikipedia article but seem more interested in hacking it down to a boring uninformative stub rather than improving it by adding substantive new content. That being said, I am willing to eventually work on fixing the real problems the Transhumanism article has when I have more free time to ensure it remains a great article. --Loremaster (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Attack the argument, not the person. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep.

All of your claims are not critical. They can be resolved without any bureaucratic exercise.

I'm agree with your point about characterisation of criticisms with short phrases. (although you are wrong about the effect - it has the effect of strengthen the power of those criticisms).

We can probably use corresponding titles from Spanish version of the Article (also note: its a featured article, and it is very similar to our article).

Google translate:

5.1 Reviews technical infeasibility

5.2 Reviews of immorality

5.3 Criticism of the concept of human body

5.4 Criticism of the possible trivialization of human existence

5.5 Criticism of unequal access to technology

5.6 Criticism of the impact on social order

5.7 Criticism of the danger of dehumanization

5.8 Threat of a return to coercive eugenics

5.9 Threats to human survival as a species

Also note: you can't name transhumanism as fringe theory, because transhumanism is not a science, but cultural movement. It's all about values and goals, and not about "how the things works". It's not "Creationism" but "Christianity". So, you can't expect scientific purity of the pro and contra arguments. They can (and should) be moral, ethical, philosophical.

"it does not meet 1. (a). The prose is reasonably good but not brilliant."

I can't say anything about the prose (I'm not a native English speaker). But I can use page ratings:

Trustworthy - 4.5 (57 ratings)

Objective - 4.5 (58 ratings)

Complete - 5 (57 ratings)

Well-written - 4.5 (60 ratings)

Its a really good results, don't you think? Almost all of readers think, that the article is well-written. - Ewigekrieg (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep or Delist are not declared in the FAR phase: please see the instructions at WP:FAR. The FAR phase is for listing improvements needed and working on them-- Keep or Delist are not declared until/unless the article moves to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Comment Page rankings in themselves do not indicate if an article is trustworthy, it only indicates that whoever clicked on the page rankings thought the article was trustworthy. Transhumanism is a fringe viewpoint and as such relevant to the FTN. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't say anything about this. It was the answer about a quality of the prose. The readers say, that the article is well-written. Thats all.

"Transhumanism is a fringe viewpoint" Could you provide a reliable source to prove this? -Ewigekrieg (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you claiming that transhumanism is in fact mainstream? Transhumanism has a long history, but in modern times, it has been dismissed by most as a fringe element of ... [3], This is DIY transhumanism, the fringe of a movement that itself lies well outside the mainstream of philosophy, ethics, technology and science. [4] IRWolfie- (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Cable news channel and "Wired"... Could you provide a reliable scientific source to prove this?

I can. Transhumanist works in University of Oxford and events in Arizona State University. -Ewigekrieg (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't have your cake and eat it, one minute you claim transhumanism is not a science and now you have switched to asking for scientific sources? I don't see any reputable scientific sources there either. Also being published does not make something mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You can ask for scientific sources about something non-scientific.

Compare: feminism is not a science, but you can find scientific works about feminism (sociological, philosophical etc). Also, feminism is not a fringe viewpoint, because it is not a science. -Ewigekrieg (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy is not a science. Secondly, your references do not show transhumanism is mainstream. Thirdly if you are suggesting that I must show scientific sources, then the non-scientific sources used for claims in the article should also be dismissed. Views described in non-scientific journals or other sources which characterize or discuss transhumanism would be unreliable. edit: I don't think this should be the case but it would be a consequence of only using scientific sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Page ratings for the article are 2.6, 2.6, 2.7, 2.6 now (and going down). Without any sagnificant change in the article for months. Very interesting. Someone want very hard to change the status of the article? I don't see how it can help him, but I don't have another explonation.

-Ewigekrieg (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There has, frankly speaking, been an attack on this page for quite some time. There has been a significant amount of shouts to "grab the pitchforks" in fringe-based discussion pages, and very little effort on the part of the people making complaints to explain themselves. The earlier argument above to discredit a source based on the actions of someone he worked with far previously is one such weak example, and if one was to try putting that statement in an article it would be immediately removed as original research. Human.v2.0 (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

He discusses his working with Rifkin in the source not in the unconnected manner of "someone he worked with far previously". The particular usage of the source is how he elaborated on the position of Rifkin. Do you wish to describe how Rifkin's biology (we quote his definition of Algeny) related opinions are due when he lies so far outside the biology mainstream? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I can't say that I'm particularly familiar with that specific work. It's a big, big article; I've been working through it here and there for years, and I wouldn't claim to have full mastery of it. That's kinda part of the reason I'm suspicious of anyone that pops up stating otherwise for themselves. This is part of the reason for my posts on the talk page, which have not been responded to. It's also part of the reason why editors involved with this article expect anyone suggesting major change to produce a clearly elaborated argument on the talk page; for some of these matters we need to know what you're actually talking about so we can look it up ourselves.

My above comment was more aimed at the rather suspicious sudden downranking without major changes since the previous reviews. The same goes for this general "review" in comparison to the previous reviews linked up there at the top. Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There has never been a featured article review of this article, the last review of this article seems to have been about 5 and a half years ago. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And I am now wondering whether procedures were followed in its promotion to FA in the first place. It's a long time ago and procedures have changed. I will try and find out. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't just stick the bronze star on any old article: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Transhumanism. Procedures are being followed here-- it's being reviewed. A list of items that can be worked on in the FARC phase is below-- I will provide more as editors begin to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments Besides the issues already brought up

• 1c The large lists of movies and other "pop culture" items are unsourced. It would appear these are collected lists of what someone believed to be related to transhumanism therefore making original research. There are also numerous uncited passages and entire paragraphs throughout the article. All quotes must have citations. There are several sources reporting dead links. There are citation needed tags.
• 2c The lack of page numbers is a serious problem. External links must have retrieved on dates. Either oclc numbers on all or none; either dashed isbn's on all or no dashes on all. Brad (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Move to FARC: from this version, and see this sample edit of the lead only. [5] Only 23 edits (including mine) and very little improvment since the FAR was initiated. There is WP:OVERLINKing (samples, suffering, gender), words as words should be in italics, not quotes, vague sentences that need attribution or clarificaton (Many of the leading transhumanist thinkers hold views), a list of trivia in Arts and Culture that is also uncited, pull quotes in "Arts and culture", citation needed tags, incorrect use of italics in section headings, missing page numbers, and there is uncited text (samples) :

• and, six years later, produced the cable TV show TransCentury Update on transhumanity, a program which reached over 100,000 viewers.
• several paragraphs in the "Aims" section.

While this list of issues appears long, it doesn't strike me as too much to be able to clean up during the FARC phase, if there are editors willing to work on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Issues raised in the FAR section include prose, sourcing, and neutrality. While there was extensive discussion above, many of these concerns appear not to have yet been resolved. For further discussion, please keep in mind Wikipedia's policies and the featured article criteria, and remember that page ratings are not relevant to FA status. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Could we please get some comments here on whether or not editors (those who commented above or others) feel the article meets FA status? Dana boomer (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Could those of you who feel that the article meets FA criteria please comment on how the article does so while still retaining multiple tags and having multiple unaddressed issues above? Dana boomer (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I think the Transhumanism article still meets FA status even if it needs some improvements to make this status permanently uninpeachable. --Loremaster (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'm agree with Loremaster --Ewigekrieg (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The article needs improvement but nonetheless meets FA standards in my opinion.StN (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: There has been little or no progress on the technical quality of referencing (deadlinks, missing page numbers), just to mention one very important issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I note in regard to the supposed "straw man" nature of the critiques that these should be summaries of material with more in-depth (attempts at) criticism in their own article, since said article exists. (And if people suggest merging these two pages, I suggest doing the same with, say, Criticism of Christianity or Criticism of Catholicism - it's at least as justified, if just as impractical.) Regarding the technical quality of referencing, this should certainly be improved where possible (for instance, if nobody active happens to have a copy of the particular book with page numbers being requested, it may not be). Allens (talk | contribs) 18:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Issues surrounding the Criticism section have been debated and resolved on the talk page a long time ago. --Loremaster (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Could those who are in favor of de-FAing the page please list their remaining issues? Itsmejudith above suggested that there was more than one issue remaining (in Itsmejudith's opinion). Allens (talk | contribs) 21:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Many paragraphs are based solely on primary sources and sources which do not give due weight. A simple example is the large paragraph which starts: "The second category is aimed mainly at "algeny", which Jeremy Rifkin..." which is based on two primary sources for the opinions of the individuals. The paragraph after that is also primary sourced as well as the paragraph after that. (I've already commented above on the substance of the text but now I highlight a different issue) IRWolfie- (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Update? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing much appears to have changed in the last month. [6]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess people have better things to do than obsessing over an article that is relatively fine... ;) --Loremaster (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Loremaster, there have been quite a few issues raised above that have not even begun to be dealt with in the article: dead links, missing page numbers, an improper synthesis tag, the sourcing concerns raised by SandyGeorgia and IRWolfie - the list goes on. These need to be dealt with before the article can be kept as an FA; at the moment the article is in danger of being delisted due to the complete lack of regard being shown for the reviewers' comments. Ignoring what other editors are saying is not going to make them go away. Dana boomer (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just being facetious. That being said, I agree that some legitimate issues have been raised. However, as the main and sometimes only contributor to this article, I am just too busy at the moment to address them. However, I will as soon as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Delist. The following sources need page numbers in order to satisfy WP:V. Ref numbers are based on this version of the article.

• (Ref 1) A history of transhumanist thought, 30 pages
• (Ref 2) Citizen Cyborg, 294 pages
• (Ref 12) The Age of Spiritual Machines, 388 pages
• (Ref 13) Are you a transhuman?, 227 pages
• (Ref 14) Man into superman, 428 pages
• (Ref 16) Up-wingers, 146 pages
• (Ref 23) Report on the 2005 Interests..., 16 pages
• (Ref 41) The singularity is near, 652 pages
• (Ref 124) Our Final Hour, 288 pages

The following references are also problematic:

• (Ref 17) EZTV Media ref incomplete, unreliable source
• (Ref 18) Great Mambo Chicken, ref incomplete (link? isbn?)
• (Ref 20) ref blatantly incomplete
• (Ref 21) publisher needed
• (Ref 34) Are Humans Obsolete dead link
• (Ref 77) bare link
• (Ref 78) bare link

And many more, I'd imagine. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Delist – Too many issues at the moment. In addition to what's up there, allow me to bring up the following...

• While page numbers probably weren't a subject of review back in 2006 when this article passed FAC, they are important for providing easier verification for our readers, to prevent them from having to look through a whole book to find the relevant fact(s). With that many references needing work, I don't think that the verifiability part of criterion 1c is met.
• I also note the presence of a synthesis tag in the Hubris subsection, which is a serious matter that should be resolved if this is to be kept.
• Ref 3 is a dead link to a WordPress page, which is likely not a reliable source. That's two problems in one.
• Ref 86 is also a dead link.
• Many references need publishers listed.
• The magazine cover likely fails the non-free content criteria, as most magazine covers are not valid fair-use in a general article like this, and not one about the magazine where a cover image is easier to justify. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

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