Talk:Transcendent Man

message: Just for the record  has identified himself here as the copyright owner of a still shot from this film, denoting a close tie to the film, and his user name would seem to also denote a relationship.  identified herself here as the copyright owner of this production shot from this movie, also denoting a close relationship with the film; she also identified herself there as Felicia Ptolemy which would seem to be a close relative of the producer and other editor. These two editors would appear not only to both have a conflict of interest with this and closely related articles, but also seem to be working in concert. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum:  identified herself as Felicia J Nainoa here. The IMDB listing for Felicia Nainoa shows her as being the producer of this film . —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Specious argument, sorry.  Follow the rules, please, or at least try to be NPOV.  The tour dates, for example should not be included.  That info is on OFFICIAL SITE. Luigibob (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

text: You would seem to be correct about nobody knowing about the film. Most of the citations in the article are either self-published sources and/or primary sources. IMDB isn't usually considered to be a reliable source. Of the two that could be considered reliable sources, Fortune Magazine only casually mentions that there's a documentary being made without giving any details; Studio Daily's mention of the film is peripheral to its article. This is insufficient, in my opinion, to verify the information given so as to establish notability. The article has been re-tagged with appropriate clean-up templates so that together we can address these issues to avoid having this article deleted. If you have any reliable, secondary sources I urge you to post them here on this talk page so that editors without a conflict of interest can improve the article. Thank you for your understanding of the matter. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest 

message: the film was released at the tribeca film festival and i have read nothing significant about it. it has yet to appear in theaters or on dvd anywhere. seeing that we are passed its official release date it may qualify for deletion unless a future date could be established for when te film would be available to the public allowing it to qualify as a future film. other wise the film is not of note.99.140.208.21 (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: is this film notable?

message: If you check the links provided as reference you'll see the film is currently in talks with distributors. The film has been referenced in the New York Times, Newsweek, Forbes, NPR, Voice of America, Popular Mechanics, Reuters, and many major international publications and news programs. In addition the film has been accepted to several international film festivals. The incubation period from when a film makes it's world premiere to when it is sold in the marketplace can be a year.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderXerxes (talk • contribs) 02:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Obviously it's notable

message: This article should mention that the technological singularity is an old hat. It was popularized by Vernor Vinge 20 years ago. Unfortunately, Kurzweil's media appearances (especially his "responses to critics") are spin-doctored such that a casual reader will get the impression it was his own idea. Quiname (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vernor Vinge]]'s [[technological singularity]] 

message: IMDB lists the following:
 USA           5 November 2009   (AFI Film Festival)
 Netherlands  19 November 2009 	(IDFA Festival)
 USA 	      3 February 2011 	(New York City, New York)
 USA 	      1 March 2011 	(internet)
 UK 	      5 April 2011 	(London)
However, it omits listing the world premiere of the film in New York at the Tribeca Film Festival on April 25, 2009 (Kaspar 2009). Viriditas (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date 

message: I'm getting tired of this.  If someone wants to properly evaluate the sources, format them, and use them in the article, then great.  But you need to stop using this article as a linkfarm.  I'm putting these links here until the time comes that they are deemed important or needed. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam and linkfarm 

message: This concern regards the last sentence in the Criticism section: "He never, on the other hand, confronts the obvious dangers of AI fusing with the first humans.[4]" I do not see how "fusing AI with the first humans" creates an " obvious danger"; and, I assume the author does not mean prehistoric H. sapiens. How can a future speculative event have any obvious outcomes at all? The reference[4] says nothing about Kurzweil's failure to address the author's personal concerns, nor any reliable source making a NPOV case for any inevitable dangers of AI/human hybrids. Wolfworks (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the statement is referring to a part of the film, but I could be wrong.  There's been so many issues with this article that I recommend deleting anything you think is problematic. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV concern 

message: This section consists of criticisms against Kurzweil's ideas, not the film. These points may belong in the article on Kurzweil. This first one is described as "common," but there is no citation to it, or the "objection." I would advocate eliminating this whole section, hopefully replacing it with some real criticism of the film. --Dupea (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The film contains criticism of his ideas, and this needs to be covered, but this doesn't belong in a "criticism" section of  this article. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: The most important and moving section of the film is when they discuss Kurzweil's father -- his death, the devastating effect on Kurzweil, and his hope to eventually resurect his father using data and AI modeling. This is properly the climax of the film, when the religious dimension of Kurzweil's thinking becomes clear. --- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Kurzweil's father