Talk:David Pearce (philosopher)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee David Pearce (philosopher) was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
December 14, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject England (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
 
WikiProject University of Oxford (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Brighton (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brighton, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource about Brighton and Hove. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Transhumanism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon David Pearce (philosopher) is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Transhumanism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


BLTC Research notability[edit]

This is the third time that Cameron's deletions could be avoided in the expense of a simple Google search. BLTC Research has been mentioned numerous times in [books] and right now I can find at least three citations of their work in peer-reviewed articles. (And I was only searching using "BLTC Research" as keywords - I didn't search for BLTC authors' names separately). What more should it take for something to become "notable" in your eyes? Wawawemn (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability isn't the problem in this specific case, verification is - "non-profit organisation" has a very particular meaning - is it listed as companies house or with the charities commission? Because I can find no evidence of either. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I checked also and could not find BLTC registered as a non-profit organization so I think that part is good now. Keystroke (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You are highlighting a common misunderstanding of "non-profit organisation" in the UK. Neither companies house nor the Charity Commission necessarily register "non-profits". The Charities Commission, in fact, won't register charitable organisations with an annual predicted turnover of below £5000. Many bodies are simply "clubs" or more technically "unincorporated bodies" and there is no reason for such private entities to be registered anywhere. They may be known to the Revenue and Customs service (the taxman) but this information will be confidential. Lack of registration with the bodies mentioned is in no way evidence of the lack of existence of an organisation. 188.220.18.163 (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It's the same in America - there are many nonprofits that don't go through the formal IRS process to be certified as a nonprofit. --Gloriamarie (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
BLTC Research is a group of researchers (possibly not a very large one) that includes David Pearce and David Chalmers. They research and write about the biological bases of suffering and about ways it could be abolished, and they publish their writings on the BLTC website. I think saying that BLTC Research "is a website" sounds a bit underrating - if it doesn't go against WP rules I say we call it an organisation. If it does go against rules, I suggest we look for an alternative that is more appropriate than "a website". If we can't find one, then I agree to leave it as it currently is.Wawawemn (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. A group of human beings is patently not a website. A "research group", though it sounds a bit grand, seems accurate. Definitely an organisation, unless there is a suggestion that they work together and communicate by random chance... ;) – Kieran T (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
What about club as suggested above? 'Research group' provides a misleading representation of authority. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't read it as having been "suggested" ;) Club seems to me like it'd be original research unless they or a reference describe them as such. – Kieran T (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
So do we gave a solid RS rather than SPS that defines the organisation? I know at the top of this section, it's suggested that they it is mentioned in some PR papers but do any of those sources define the formation of this 'organisation'? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
No, all those three papers just cite essays published by BLTC Research as sources of information.Wawawemn (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A simple Google News search found a 2003 article from The Times that mentions BLTC as an organization focused on paradise engineering.--Gloriamarie (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Gloriamarie, thanks for finding that, but when I click on your link, The Times asks me to subscribe. Is that article viewable only by The Times' subscribers? If so, would we still be allowed to use it as a reference in the article?Wawawemn (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It's fine as long as it's accessible by *someone* - what's the actual name of the article, you can often find them quicker by title search in google. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It does show up in a Google News Archives search for "BLTC research" - the title is "Happy Pills: Instant Ecstasy" and it's from November 15, 2003. It must have shown up for me as full access since I was logged in through my university. Articles don't have to be freely available on the web to be used as references (or we wouldn't be able to use books), they just have to be accessible to someone somehow. But for those who can't see it, it says what I quoted above - BLTC is an organization focused on paradise engineering.--Gloriamarie (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I still can't access it, so I'll leave it up to you to edit the article accordingly, if you want. Wawawemn (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:David Pearce (philosopher)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 23:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am going to fail this, and I will tell you why...

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    It seems to follow the five portions of MOS required for a GA
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    There seem to be some blogs among the sources. Please read WP:RS.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    This article is not broad in its scope at all. We have a decent summary of his philosophical positions in the lead, and then nothing about his philosophy in the body. It's also not focused. The body of the article only talks about his affiliations, and not his scholarly work. Meanwhile, there's a throwaway line about how he runs a web hosting company. Is this a major part of his work? Does it fit in with his philosophical ideals? I don't know.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    This is a very brief look at the subject, which doesn't allow me to know if his views are considered controversial by anybody. It seems to be a bit on the side of being biased towards him, but I can't be sure with so little information
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    It's probably nothing, but at least one claim of a 3RR violation a few days ago.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    One image, no caption
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    This article needs a significant amount of expansion and attention to detail (references inside periods, non-uniform referencing in regards to dates, etc.). Please feel free to renominate this article when ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on how to improve the article! Did you just decide to review it or did someone request it? - Gloriamarie (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing needed[edit]

Over the last few months, I've marked inappropriately cited primary sources, namely those that the subject controls and hosts, and publications by his associates. I marked them because such sources cannot establish the significance or notability of the facts they support (see WP:BLPSPS and WP:PRIMARY). Reliable third party sources are required. No improvements have been made to these sources, so I removed them and the claims they supported — they did not look objectively noteworthy in the least. Before posting this, I went through the history of edits here and deletion discussions, and saw they tended to ride on the multitude of domains and groups this subject has spawned. They're neither notable themselves, nor significant, nor reliable when it comes to reporting on the subject. Below are some links that might lead to better sourcing:

I intend to nominate for deletion relatively soon if nothing is found. Happy editing! JFHJr () 19:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Several times I have made improvements to sourcing in this article, but it often later gets removed, and I don't have the time to babysit the article to make sure this doesn't happen. If you look at the article from a few years ago, I had a perfectly sourced article that was well-written. David Pearce has appeared at many conferences, in magazines, albeit often in different languages which makes it difficult for showing up in English on Google and for English-speaking Wikipedia editors like myself. His work is in books and on college syllabuses. I have no clue why you would announce your intentions to delete an article that is noteworthy rather than improving it, but please don't imply that there are not primary sources for most of the information in the article. Information should also not be deleted wholesale from the article without first marking it with tags and attempting to find sources yourself, so I've restored the entire section you deleted.--Gloriamarie (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

New Discussion on Deletion.[edit]

This page is a candidate for deletion. The man is not known in philosophical communities, is not an academic, and has not made contributions to philosophy of any substance. My concern is that if this page is to be maintained, then it will justify the inclusion of several other pages of people of equally low stature. This will reduce the credibility, integrity and quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. The page should therefore be deleted, and if you have objections please state them here. I have proposed deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceLion (talkcontribs) 15:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:PROD, PROD should not be used on articles that have previously been sent to AFD. The previous AFD for this article is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Pearce_(philosopher). Do not replace the PROD template on this article. Send the article back to AFD to obtain further discussion and consensus. Thanks --Illia Connell (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
BTW, instructions for AFD are here: Wikipedia:Afd#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion Illia Connell (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Although the note at the top of the talk page notes that the last deletion discussion was closed for no consensus, by my count there were nine comments to "keep," including three strong keeps, and three suggestions to delete, including the nominator. Although deletion discussions are not a strict numbers game, looking at other recent deletion discussions, when they have included similar vote counts they have been closed as a "keep." I have improved the sourcing of the article and don't expect it to be nominated again. - Gloriamarie (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


Discussion for deletion cont.[edit]

I've cleaned up some irrelevant and incorrect biographical detail that seems to have sat around for over six months without anyone noticing or caring. I also corrected the summary to directly reflect his included quotations. flyingkiwiguy (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Removed bad reference to David being on the board of Medical Hypotheses, again. Please carefully read WP:RS and check your citations for accuracy. There are additional claims that have been recently added that need citing as well. -- flyingkiwiguy (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I updated the reference - you could always look for a source yourself or tag it, rather than removing the information. And please list the claims you say need citing (or you can always add citations yourself). -Gloriamarie (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I corrected the sourcing for Medical Hypotheses, as an out of date bio is also not a very good source. -- flyingkiwiguy (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! (I also corrected your bit of original research there.) --Gloriamarie (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but clearing up of minor inconsistencies does not remove the rationale for deleting this page. This is a self-promotional, biographical page, and there is little to demonstrate that it actually belongs in the Wikipedia community. It does not add any additional value to what has already been covered in the other transhumanist pages. The reasons for deleting this page are: (1) it is an advertisement for an individual and his work, when the individual is not even a qualified academic philosopher - there is no evidence that he has a PhD or any peer-reviewed publications (or any publications in any academic journal); (2) The individual, not being an academic philosopher and only having published one book popular with only a small number of people, is not a notable individual and therefore does not qualify under Wikipedia's rules for their own page. Also, the vast majority of sources are from organisations or individuals to which Pearce has some form of affiliation - approximately 75% fall into this category, making the sources not independent of the subject, another violation of Wikipedia rules. Most of these sources, emerging from a small number of individuals associated with the transhumanist movement, cannot be reliably said to be intellectually independent of each other. A secondary qualification for a biographical page is that the subject must have "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." - this person is not even contributing to the field of philosophy; a semi-academic manifesto, the Hedonistic Imperative, cannot reasonably said to stand in parity with Aristotle, Descartes and Kant. All of these reasons mean the page is a candidate for deletion; any relevant material within the article should be transferred to the transhumanism pages - ScienceLion

The points you raise have been extensively addressed in previous discussion threads. Please make an effort to engage with those replies instead of starting a new discussion here. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that you are the same person that nominated this article for deletion two years ago. Back then, a user explained to you that "PROD should not be used on articles that have previously been sent to AFD". Yet in recent days you again proposed the article for deletion. Please stop doing this, which contravenes Wikipedia's policy. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
This is incorrect. The points raised have never been legitimately addressed, and the page is present on Wikipedia without the requisite legitimacy. The user explained that to me on the assumption that PROD was removed on the basis of a legitimate process, where the criticisms were adequately addressed; given that this condition does not hold now, and did not then, PROD can be restored as appropriate. If you have legitimate reasons please state them, otherwise it is safe to assume you are protecting your vested interest in restoring your friend's self-promotional page. - ScienceLion — Preceding undated comment added 08:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You are entirely mistaken. I suggest you read WP:PROD. "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." A prod can be removed for any reason or none. An article which has survived an AfD clearly should not be prodded, as AfD is a more complex process. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

ScienceLion, why are the majority of your edits over the years trying to delete the David Pearce article? It appears that you have an ax to grind and are seeking to further a personal agenda. I do not think this is in the spirit of Wikipedia. Keystroke (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)