Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 14

message: This article seems too long to me, and merely by its length appears to assign transhumanism rather more world importance than it currently has. For example, it is as long as the entire Philosophy article, or the entire Art article. (And that isn't because the latter two articles are too short.)
Despite the substantial criticisms section, this article has the air of a promotional pamphlet for a new utopian cult, encompassing as it does science, art, fiction, 'spirituality', a weird symbol (H+ / >H), etc.
Taking art for example, just how many transhumanist artists are there (who have heard of and use the term themselves), anyway? More than a handful? Are any notable? Does this article mention them in order to satisfy a public who is seeking information about a notable artistic movement, or is it just trying to promote an extremely fringe artistic idea (movement is too strong a word for it)?
I am not so much criticizing the subject matter of the article, but the fact that the article devotes so much space to it. Ben Finn 16:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comprehensiveness (lenght) of the Transhumanism article is one of the reasons why it was identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community and therefore featured on the main page of Wikipedia. As for your concerns that this article has the air of a promotional pamphlet, you should take into consideration the fact that a major contributor to this article was a self-described "bioconservative" critical of transhumanism whose mission was to ensure a neutral point of view. --Loremaster 22:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If all the material is salient and well sourced (and it basically is), I don't see the problem. A thorough article is a good thing. I'm always open to constructive suggestions about hiving off parts of articles to make them more manageable, but I don't think there's any necessity for anything like that at the moment. Metamagician3000 03:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Unlike the lenght issue, this is actually a partially valid criticism. I'lll work on improving this section sometime in the coming weeks. --Loremaster 19:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too long?

message: I've requested citation for this claim in the controversy section, the request was repeatedly deleted. Isn't it a misuse of the term (transhumanism might rely on "fringe science," but is not in itself science at all, it is a claim about what should be sought after and not what is actually known). --Darkmusashi (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rephrased a sentence for which you asked a reference into one that is more nuanced and provided a reference for it. This sentence doesn't claim that transhumanism is a science but that "many transhumanist proposals rely on fringe science". There is a difference. --Loremaster (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Fringe Science  

message: It takes up about a third of the article. Undue weight? Zazaban (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has already been discussed several times on this talk page and resolved with the opinion of a Wikipedia administrator: The existence and lenght of the controversy section (which contains many arguments for transhumanism) has been not judged acceptable but also part of the reason why this article was identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedian community. --Loremaster (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: === The split of Theory and practice into smaller sections ===
I think the Theory and practice section should return to being split into smaller sections, because it's very hard to get an overview of it now. Each paragraph is very well written, but there is a lack of order in it when some is about theory and some about practic aspects, making it hard to find individual information. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why any merger is required. The movement that supports human enhancement is transhumanism, and it is a high-profile movement in the general culture. The article on human enhancement should be quite different, e.g. looking more at different concepts of what "enhancement" means, the supposed therapy/enhancement distinction (e.g the views of Norman Daniels), what people who are not necessarily transhumanists but are sympathetic to enhancement (such as John Harris and Nick Agar) say, what their opponents say, etc. There's no reason why we can't have a full-scale human enhancement article in its own right. There's no need to merge it with the transhumanism article. What I would be happy to do, if progress were made with a really good human enhancement article, is look at whether specific bits of the transhumanism article would be better placed over there. I can imagine that possibility. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually also against such a merge. My proposal is rather to have it linked clearly from the techniques that transhumanism support, instead of as described as a synonym of it - like in this version. Mikael Häggström 13:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Metamagician, the question is whether or not you support the changes to the Transhumanism article that Mikael had made in the version he has linked to. Personally, I only take issue with need of creating an "Antagonists" subsection. --Loremaster 13:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That version looks okay to me. I just wonder whether there's a subtlety here, though. Not all of those technologies are inherently about human enhancement - in fact, none of them may be, and in any event there's no consensus among bioethicists, etc., as to what the expression "human enhancement" really means or whether it's even a useful expression. That' not a reason not to make the changes suggested, but we might want to fine-tune them at some point, keeping this in mind. Metamagician3000 08:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I admit the header "Antagonists" was a bad idea, and until something more feasible is found it might better fill out the text beneath Theory without further specification. Regarding the link to human enhancement, on the other hand, I'm sure such a fine-tuning is much easier to do after that clear distinction between the subjects, instead of as expressed as a synonym as it is now.Mikael Häggström 08:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Mikael, I suggest you make the changes as you think best, in the light of what has been said by Loremaster and by me, and your own comment just made. I'll reserve my right to fine-tune the two articles but not in a reckless or non-consultative way. All this work seems to be for the good of the article. Metamagician3000 09:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your approval. You may fine-tune it as much as you want. After all, its when everybody contributes I think the best result is made. Mikael Häggström 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some fine-tuning. Do you have any problems with it? --Loremaster (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mikael Häggström's suggestions

message: I think the Theory and practice section should return to being split into smaller sections, because it's very hard to get an overview of it now. Each paragraph is very well written, but there is a lack of order in it when some is about theory and some about practic aspects, making it hard to find individual information. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The split of Theory and practice into smaller sections 

message: I think currents and spirituality should return to be viewed as a part of transhumanism theory. Currents may, however, be separate, since they involve both theory and practice, but I see no reason why spirituality shouldn't.
It is a featured article, but it doesn't prevent it from being even better. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currents and spirituality a part of theory 

message: I think the Main article for the technologies themselves described in this article should be Human enhancement. Else, this article should be merged with that one. Accordingly, there should be a link marking that main article - else readers might think this is all WIkipedia has on the subject. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why any merger is required. The movement that supports human enhancement is transhumanism, and it is a high-profile movement in the general culture. The article on human enhancement should be quite different, e.g. looking more at different concepts of what "enhancement" means, the supposed therapy/enhancement distinction (e.g the views of Norman Daniels), what people who are not necessarily transhumanists but are sympathetic to enhancement (such as John Harris and Nick Agar) say, what their opponents say, etc. There's no reason why we can't have a full-scale human enhancement article in its own right. There's no need to merge it with the transhumanism article. What I would be happy to do, if progress were made with a really good human enhancement article, is look at whether specific bits of the transhumanism article would be better placed over there. I can imagine that possibility. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually also against such a merge. My proposal is rather to have it linked clearly from the techniques that transhumanism support, instead of as described as a synonym of it - like in this version. Mikael Häggström 13:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Metamagician, the question is whether or not you support the changes to the Transhumanism article that Mikael had made in the version he has linked to. Personally, I only take issue with need of creating an "Antagonists" subsection. --Loremaster 13:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That version looks okay to me. I just wonder whether there's a subtlety here, though. Not all of those technologies are inherently about human enhancement - in fact, none of them may be, and in any event there's no consensus among bioethicists, etc., as to what the expression "human enhancement" really means or whether it's even a useful expression. That' not a reason not to make the changes suggested, but we might want to fine-tune them at some point, keeping this in mind. Metamagician3000 08:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I admit the header "Antagonists" was a bad idea, and until something more feasible is found it might better fill out the text beneath Theory without further specification. Regarding the link to human enhancement, on the other hand, I'm sure such a fine-tuning is much easier to do after that clear distinction between the subjects, instead of as expressed as a synonym as it is now.Mikael Häggström 08:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Mikael, I suggest you make the changes as you think best, in the light of what has been said by Loremaster and by me, and your own comment just made. I'll reserve my right to fine-tune the two articles but not in a reckless or non-consultative way. All this work seems to be for the good of the article. Metamagician3000 09:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your approval. You may fine-tune it as much as you want. After all, its when everybody contributes I think the best result is made. Mikael Häggström 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some fine-tuning. Do you have any problems with it? --Loremaster (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Having Human enhancement the Main article for the technologies themselves 

message: Kyle Barbour,
When Francis Fukuyama designated transhumanism as one of the world's most dangerous ideas, many transhumanists and non-transhumanists argued that Fukuyama's warning was alarmist that is to say needless. The issue is not whether the warning is truly alarmist but the fact that many have called it alarmist.
That being said, the lead of the Transhumanism article never explicitly or implicity calls Fukuyama or other detractors of transhumanism alarmists. There is simply an internal link to the expression "world's most dangerous idea". It's quite a stretch to suggest that this internal link is equivalent to calling all detractors of transhumanism, including or excluding Fukuyama, alarmists. --Loremaster (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's equivalent to calling Francis Fukuyama's opinion alarmist, which is an obvious violation of NPOV. All we can neutrally report is that some people consider his views alarmist. Linking his idea to the article Alarmism clearly takes the view that his warning is an example of such. -- Schaefer (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's the very notion of "world's most dangerous ideas" that is linked to the Alarmism article rather than Fukuyama's opinion that "transhumanism is the world's most dangerous idea". Furthermore, the Alarmism article states: "The following lists some areas where warnings have been called alarmist. Inclusion in the list does not imply that the warnings are needless, only that some people have called them needless." --Loremaster (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I created an article for World's most dangerous ideas which redirects to the Alarmism article. --Loremaster (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A hidden link to "alarmism" from world-most-d is POV; so is doing it via a redirect. Since the only point of the redirect is this hidden linkage, I've deleted it. And reverted the changes to the alarmism article. This article could say "Transhumanism has been described by one outspoken opponent as the world's most dangerous idea, but this is widely viewed as alarmist" but it hardly seems necessary; calling TH w-m-d is fairly obviously over the top William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Issuing early warnings on the ideas that will supposedly be most destructive in the 21st century is the definition of alarmism in light of all the counter-arguments that they automatically illicited. So there was nothing POV about an internal link to the Alarmism article from the expression "world's most dangerous ideas". That being said, to avoid getting into a needless dispute over such a trivial issue I won't try to put back the internal link. --Loremaster (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it was a li'l POV-ish to create a link to Alarmism from something like "world's most dangerous ideas". I think the idea floated by William M. Connolley (talk makes a lot of sense as long as the claim about who the people are who "view" it that way is sourced. Metamagician3000 (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not there was a POV issue with the internal link I added, William's idea is unnecessary since we already quote someone (Bailey) countering Fukuyama's claim by implying he is an alarmist. --Loremaster 13:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transhumanism and alarmism 

message: I think the section Technologies of interest  is missing a section on drugs such as nootropics and bahaviour-modification drugs. While not a core emerging NBIC technology, James Hughes and Nick Bostrom have spoken in favour of the liberalization of drug-laws and supported the investigation on new drugs while, on the opposite side, Fukuyama has denounced ritalin or prozac as a first step to dehumanization. --Varano (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I am not mistaken, behavior-modifying drugs fall under Neurotechnology/Cognitive science. --Loremaster (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my first guess, but it seems the subject of enhancing drugs doesn't appear there either. There is something in Psychopharmacology, but not much. --Varano (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing technology? 

message: Why was so much deleted? It was restored and then deleted again. This seemed like a good article to me and I would like to use it as a reference to a paper I am writing. Can we have the full article back? Thanks. 66.8.198.142 (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a mistake. I was editing Wikipedia through a phone rather than a computer so it was hard to notice that mistake. I thank you and Human.v2.0 for noticing and correcting. --Loremaster (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (In the tone of Jeff Foxworthy) You might be a wiki addict if you make a habit of editing your watched pages from your phone on a regular basis.  Heh.  Honest mistake, but it gave me a laugh for the morning. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hehe. Well, it's not a habit. I was testing it out because I sometimes have problems having stable access to a computer. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained Deletion 

message: Although the term itself did indeed came into usage only in the late 1950s, the theories that have advanced to this point of its development can actually be traced back to the Carnegie Institution and Rockefeller Foundation, circa 1904, which in turn laid the groundwork for what in fact amounts to the same thing, conceptually, as the transhumanist concept: eugenics. Edwin Black's War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, a book with as inflamatory a title as ever written, contains no less than 49 pages of footnotes detailing the advancement of the concept from the late 19th and early 20th centuries to the most universally remembered chambers of horrors in history, Germany circa 1941-1945. While admitting, in the final chapters of his work, several of the possible advancements conceivable for future medicinal work, i.e. coding genetic predilection toward disease out of the human subjects involved, Black's overall thesis as to the dangers of eugenical, transhumanist thinking is this: if it went so wrong once (the American contemporaries of the Nazi scientists, he showed, generally approved highly of the methods underway in Germany, several of the most notorious having been suggested by them to begin with)...what's to keep "subjective human thinking" (to give it one name, alright) from doing so multiple occasions, regardless of how inhuman ("posthuman"?) we claim we would never allow ourselves to become?
I bring all this up because I am now considering adding the extensive connections to eugenics to this article, which could very quickly start major controversy, given how gruesome the subject often becomes. I would seek to avoid that, by beginning discussion now of whether factual reporting/referencing of the Nazistic scientific rationales that precede modern transhumanist theorization would invite mass ideological warfare or not.
--Chr.K. (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the main contributor to this article, I would be strongly opposed to the inclusion of such contentious content in the History or Theory sections of the article. However, I would have no problem with a consice summary being included in the Specter of coercive eugenicism (Eugenics Wars argument) sub-section. --Loremaster (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious.  How does being the first person to have initiated an article on Wikipedia or to have provided significant content to the article result in your view being more valuable than someone else's? (User: Who cares?) 11 January 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.84.4 (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple. I am the contributor most aware of all the disputes (with other contributors) that led to the consensus that produced the current content of the article. Also, I am the contributor most responsible for raising the quality of this article to not only get good article status but featured article status. --Loremaster (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It would be original research to do so. The book is unrelated and that criticism is already dealt with. You synthesize information to express a view. YVNP (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  On top of that, most transhumanists seem to be quite tolerant to people who do not wish to become hybrids/machines, unlike nazis, who would annihilate anyone who disagreed with them. The concepts are nowhere near the same. Zazaban (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: YVNP brings up a good point which is that this criticism is alreay expressed and responded to in the article. --Loremaster (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I've cited the book as a source for a sentence in the Specter of coercive eugenicism (Eugenics Wars argument) sub-section. --Loremaster (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of Transhumanism 

message: I feel compelled to post a comment with regards to the description of Nick Bostrom as a philosopher. Yes, he claims to be one, yes Yale seems to think he is, but if you actually read his stuff it's just a collection of blind fanboi-ism. He's a sophist. These wikipedia articles sometimes take too much on face value. =\   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.144.65 (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be referenced then. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If you feel that compelled, can you please tell us who and what you are in order to determine whether or not you are qualified to make such a judgement? --Loremaster (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nick Bostrom

message: I'm not sure if this was discussed before but a further reading section would be wonderful.
--75.179.137.175 (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However wonderful they may be, I don't know whether Further reading sections are encouraged according to Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, there is plently of further reading to be found in the References section. --Loremaster (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Reading

message: There is a link to this portal on several articles and yet it does not exist. And why not? It would be a fairly good thing to have. Zazaban (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting we should create a Portal:Transhumanism page or create a See also section? If it is the former, nothing is preventing you from creating a stub. If it is the latter, I suggest you read the debate about this subject which you can find at the top of this page. --Loremaster (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mean creating a Portal:Transhumanism. Zazaban (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, good ahead if you think you can do a good job. --Loremaster (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal:Transhumanism 

message: In light of possible recent historical events in transhumanist history as well as a better knowlegde of past, I'm open to suggestions on how to improve the History section of the Transhumanism article. So let's discuss additions or deletions here before editing the article. --Loremaster (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, how about you start with mentioning some of whatever is in your head to cause you to think of this to beguin with?  I'm sure you have a couple points (short or broad) already in mind.  After just a cursory glance (no backtracking or reference hunting), my immediate comment would be to perhaps trim down some of the wikilinks (3+ links in as many words, etc) or at least space them out a bit for ease of reading (and wiki-jumping) as well as inserting some more references.  The very first sentance refers to an article by name but doesn't link to a relavent wiki or source information, for example. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't really have anything in mind. I've simply been informed that some transhumanists feel the entire article needs to be redone so that it portrays transhumanism in the best posssible light(!). This is unacceptable and I won't tolerate it during my watch. However, the History section is what they seem to have most issues with and I am willing to concede that it might need improvement. So I am open to discussing it. Anyway, feel free to make the changes you suggested. I'll tweak whatever you do if necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very easy to trace the history of transhumanists back 2000+ years. The same debates concerning imitating humans, improving humans (conquering Nature), creating an artificial human (artificial life and the homunculus) existed in ancient times (Aristotle and Lao Tzu, for example). Amara (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True but this article is more about the transhumanist ideology and movement. --Loremaster (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was said that this article needed more History. True or not? Amara (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but not original research. --Loremaster (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

text: IF there was an 'ideology' for transhumans with a clear and defineable beginning, then your statement would be a true statement. However, since there is not a transhuman 'ideology' with a clear beginning, then this History section is missing a few thousand years of valuable information, and I consider it (today was the first time I read this article ... how disappointing in its lack of information!) not a very useful article. Amara (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you confusing "transhuman" (an evolutionary transition from the human to the posthuman) with "transhumanist" (an adherent to the transhumanist ideology or a member of the transhumanist movement)? --Loremaster (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. 209.169.27.123 (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that no one is talking about an "ideology for transhumans" or a "transhuman ideology". We are writing about the transhumanist ideology in this article. However, feel free to expand the Transhuman article if you wish. --Loremaster (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Last answer by me, obviously. I'll leave this muddy mess of an article for all of you now. Looking at the long history of heavy-handed non-neutral POV edits, it's clear that changes and updates for accuracy are not permitted by the owner of this article. I suggest to everyone else to not waste their time. Amara (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I don't care whether you stay or leave, I suggest you read Talk:Transhumanism#IMPORTANT: Friendly advice for new contributors before spewing such poisonous rants in the atmosphere. --Loremaster (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Hey, Amara.  -- The article already has bits of pre-20th century roots, in the links to the Renaissance and Enlightenment.  If someone who feels they know more about that, or deeper roots of transhumanist ideas, wants to write something about those and add it, I think that'd be fine, particularly if with references and no overweening claims. But existing WP authors aren't necessarily going to do that kind of research. -- Mindstalk (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One can simply expand the introductory paragraph of the History section using the Nick Bostrom essay which is it's source. --Loremaster (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the History section 

message: More than half of this article is devoted to controversies surrounding Transhumanism. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to give a neutral POV? A simple mass balance of the text here demonstrates that a neutral POV has failed.Amara (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Transhumanism is a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article, which has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. One of the things that contributed to this identification was the Controversy section, whose content and size has been extensively debated in the past before a consensus was reached. This section is neutral because for every arguments against transhumanism there is a transhumanist counter-argument, which provides the opportunity to expand on what transhumanists beleive. In fact, some critics have argued (incorrectly) that all these transhumanist counter-arguments make the article seem like a PR tool of the WTA... --Loremaster (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will accept such a statement when I see supporting facts (references please) and hopefully by someone who has a neutral POV. Such statements by someone who has obviously written this Wikipedia entry with his/her own POV is not very convincing.Amara (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you obviously have a strong transhumanist POV (based on your previous comments on this talk page), I find your statement so laughable that I won't even ask what you think my POV is since I've been criticized by bioconservatives for having a transhumanist bias and by transhumanists for having an "anti-transhumanist" bias. --Loremaster (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

text: (laughter) I'm not Justice De Thezier but I believe I have said in the past that I have worked with him when he was a transhumanist as well as User:Metamagician3000 (who is transhumanist sympathizer Russell Blackford) and User:StN (whom Blackford has suggested may or may not be bioconservative Stuart Newman) to make sure Transhumanism became a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article, which has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. In the course of writing this article, I've been criticized by bioconservatives for having a transhumanist bias and by transhumanists for having an "anti-transhumanist" bias. Anyone who believes I haven't been neutral (during all my years editing and watching over this article) is so blinded by their own bias that that can't see straight. By the way, "Deviceminder", if you are such a hypocrite that you don't have the courage or integrity to use your real name when making such a personal attack, why should I?!? Regardless, Wikipedia doesn't require contributors to use their real names. --Loremaster (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have insisted twice now that certain editors are biased due to their personal views on transhumanism and so their input can be disregarded. If you are Mr. De Thezier, by your own standards you are also biased due to your personal feelings on transhumanism and so your input can be disregarded. Am I to understand that you are denying you are the critic of transhumanism Justice De Thezier? Deviceminder (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not him but I freely admit to have extensively worked with him when he was a transhumanist. (I hope you are not operating under the misguided notion that eventually finding and outing my real name here is going to intimidate me into bending over and letting agents of the WTA have their way with the Transhumanism article...) Regardless, since we are not posthuman but still human, we all have biases but we should strive to overcome them in every aspect of our lives but especially when contributing to Wikipedia. The history of edits to the Transhumanism article and archived discussions of its talk page show that I have collaborated with people with different views than mine who were at both "extremes" (some were transhumanists while the others were bioconservatives) to write what the Wikipedia community has judged to be a neutral article after going through a peer review, good article and featured article vetting process. I only pointed out that Giulio Prisco's judgment of my actions might be influenced by the fact that he may see me as an obstacle to the article being turned into a promotional tool for the WTA while Amara has nerves questioning my POV when she has demonstrated a strong transhumanist POV on this page. My point? Even if I was the "big bad anti-transhumanist" you think I am (which I am not), I have not let my alleged "anti-transhumanist" POV influence my editing of this article. The bruises from the fights I've had with bioconservative User:StN (which can be found in the archives) should be proof enough. --Loremaster (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you seem to think everyone must first acknowledge the quality of the article before editing it. Nowhere in the Wikipedia guidelines do I see that featured article status applies a doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere. This article is not perfect, and people who have spent decades thinking about this topic might have something of real substance to add. Oh, and nice try with the whole posthumans and bias thing. You're not really fooling anyone.Deviceminder (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone must acknowledge anything about this article. I'm reminding people of the history of this article (which their comments seem to suggest they are not aware of: Transhumanism, although not perfect, is (or was...) a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article; which 1) has gone through a peer review, good article and featured article vetting process to ensure its neutral point of view; 2) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community; and 3) has elements that were produced by extensive collaboration between people of conflicting views before reaching consensus. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do. But the only thing I suggest is that all claims for and against transhumanism, or otherwise, be accurate, properly attributed, and well-referenced. Is that too much to ask? No. As for "fooling people", please demonstrate that my bias has undermined the neutrality of the content of this article. --Loremaster (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

text: "Deviceminder", 1) I assume good faith unless my good faith is questioned which it has been repeatedly; 2) I've only "divulged" personal details on one editor when this person made it obvious who they were (through their choice of username) and when I thought such information was important to understand the nature of a specific dispute, and 3) I have never claimed express or implied ownership of the Transhumanism article. I have claimed an interest in this article that I maintain on my watchlist. I have also claimed an interest in this article remaining well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable while knowing that it can and should be boldly updated or improved by contributors other than myself. Regardless, please keep in mind that the majority of reverts or edit wars in recent days or weeks have come not from me but from transhumanist User:Human.v2.0. --Loremaster (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I... I are a sneaky chameleon?  No, no, seriously now.  I had been wondering if/how I was going to comment on this section, and I guess I've almost quite literally been granted an introduction.  The controversy/criticism section of Transhumanism is (by my scroll bar) just a hair over 50% of the wiki's mass, which can be slightly misleading until you take note that a good number of these arguments are valid points that are brought up with within the transhumanist community itself as well as by outside sources ranging from researchers to critics.  I'm quite sure that my own comments about this section are archived on here somewhere, but what it all boils down to is that this section brings up important topics and covers them nicely.  I'm sure there are some sections that could use a little expanding here or there, but that goes without saying when you are dealing with an article of this size (not to mention controversy). --Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said! I don't understand why transhumanists who are critical of this article can't see that. The Controversy section was created and mostly written by transhumanists! --Loremaster (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One objection I've seen is that not that Controversy is too long but the prior sections too superficial, not going enough into Theory and especially Practices, or that the mention of uploading is immediately followed by criticism. Of course, uploading does have its own page, but I think there'd be room for expanding those without being biased. -- Mindstalk (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The objections to the length of the Controversy section can be found in the archives. I agree that the sections you pointed to are relatively superficial so feel free to expand any section (other than the Controversy section) with sourced content that is not original research. --Loremaster (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, it's not the article you claim ownership of, it's the Controversy section. This does make some sense, from where I sit. Though, English is your second language, so I might have missed the intent of your comment. Deviceminder (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. My point is that everyone agrees that the Controversy section is long enough. By the way, "Deviceminder", do you have a real name or should I start an investigation to out it here? --Loremaster (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and 'intelligentsia' struck *me* as provocative.  But, um, regarding this morning's edits, it seems perverse to delete historical information right when the depth of the article has been challenged.  If that first paragraph in History is coherently all about Bostrom's essay (not clear to me, given Wikipedia editing) then couldn't information not in the essay simply be moved, rather than deleted? -- Mindstalk (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Provocative? The term "intelligentsia" is quite flattering in light of the fact that many of the people that are being referred to under this umbrella term have been called crackpots... Anyway, this morning's edits were perfectly legitimate since I was deleting information from the History section that was not based on Nick Bostrom's article. However, I now agree that the content which has a source should be restored. I'll simply had one more citation of the Bostrom essay to clarify things. --Loremaster (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that term "intelligentsia" has been edited out of the Lead section of the article. That's fine with me. --Loremaster (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral POV? 

message: Upon looking over this discussion page, there appear to be instances where experts wished to make changes, and they were not allowed because such were considered 'biased'. As a Wikipedia writer of a number of science articles for which I can claim an expertise, this is the first time I've encountered an article where such expertise is a factor for disqualifying a Wikipedia editor's contribution. Amara (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Experts"? Who are these "experts"? My accusations of bias were against Prisco who didn't make any changes but simply intervened in a dispute I was having with someone else (whose edits others have agreed were quite idiosyncratic); and Amara after she questioned my honesty and attacked me for having a POV. Anyway, "expertise" is welcomed here but failure to be polite, refusal to assume good faith, resorting to personal attacks are not and neither is an agenda to rewrite this article to portray transhumanism only in the best possible light. By the way, didn't Amara say she was leaving? Did she forget something? --Loremaster (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is immediate reversions "good faith" ? Just wondering. -- kanzure (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming good faith simply means that I have to work from an assumption that you are trying to help the project, not hurt it. However, I undid your edits when I quickly realized that you were in fact hurting the article and politely suggested that we talk about your edits on this talk page to avoid a dispute or edit war. --Loremaster (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the edits from experts 

message: Does transhumanism even qualify as a science? It's more of a philosophy. This label would then be incorrect. Zazaban (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure what your point is here.  Fringe science is mentioned several times in the article.  Could you better explain what you mean/want? --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: PS: After a quick check, this article is even noted with the "Fringe Science" catagory already. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Aubrey de Grey is mentioned in the fringe science article. ~~ N (t/c) 02:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... random trivia time?  Or am I missing something here still?--Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aubrey de Grey, transhumanist, SENS guy. I think the characterization is fair. ~~ N (t/c) 02:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Zazaban, a topic doesn't need to be a science to be in the Science category so the Transhumanism article is in the Fringe Science category not because it is a fringe science itself but because many transhumanist proposals (such as Aubrey de Grey's SENS) rely on fringe science. Transhumanists should be happy with this categorization because many critics have argued that a better category would be pseudoscience. I hope I don't need to remind anyone that this encyclopedic article is about reporting facts not presenting transhumanism in the best possible light in order to recruit more transhumanists... --Loremaster (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I simply thought that since this may not qualify as a science, it may not qualify to be in that category. Zazaban (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this a formulation of what you mean: "transhumanism/transhumans use science, they aren't science themselves." ? -- kanzure (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter. He thought wrong. --Loremaster (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe Science 

message: Male enhancement is a bona fide example of biotechnology and body modification to go beyond the human condition. A good article on this subject would mention it as a step towards transhumanism. 161.253.8.156 (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (laughter) Do you have any reliable sources that explicitly describe "male enhancement" as an important example of a transhumanist use of biotechnology? ;) --Loremaster (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy, here are three sources:    Hope this helps improve the article. Its relevance to transhumanism should be clear to anyone intimately familiar with transhumanist men. 161.253.8.156 (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: [2] is a fictional novel, [3] and [4] are blogs. Not really reliable sources in my opinion! Nk.sheridan   Talk 12:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually [3] is a discussion on the gametrailers message board, even less reliable than a blog. 18:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Those are not reliable sources. However, even if there were reliable sources, there is no need to emphasize "male enhancement" as a good example of a transhumanist use of biotechnology in a way that is out of proportion to its importance. --Loremaster (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

text: By the way, I would take this suggestion more seriously if it came from a registered user rather than an anyonymous one... --Loremaster (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't male enhancement discussed?