Jump to content

Talk:George Dvorsky

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Separating Postgenderism and George Dvorsky

[edit]

I believe that the idea of Postgenderism and the man George Dvorsky should be separated back into two articles on the aspect that one is a idea and one is a man simple enough for me. --Kylehamilton 02:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article on postgenderism was facing deletion due to a lack or sources. This compromise was the only way of preserving this material. --Loremaster 02:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The content on postgenderism was merged with the transgenderism article. --Loremaster 03:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

[edit]

This article itself will soon be facing deletion if it there are no third party reliable sources about the author. This is not a criticism of the subject or his views: the article would be much stronger and more effective if it were better sourced. DGG 01:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you didn't notice that I added 3 third party reliable sources about the author. --Loremaster 02:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One is a Toronto local magazine. -- ok as a RS if supported :The others are online newspapers of questionable reliability--and everything else is self-published. There might be mentions elsewhere if he is actually important.--one good nationally known source might do. I dont want to join the parade of transhumanism AfDs, but there really should be more here.The bulk of the article is links to subjects he's interested in. DGG 02:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to Media coverage of Betterhumans. --Loremaster 03:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something, the only one listed there mentioning him is "This Magazine (January-February 2005): One of Canada's longest-running alternative journals, This Magazine covered transhumanism in a January-February 2005 article by Andre Mayer entitled "The Great Byte Hope." Quoting George Dvorsky and Russell Blackford of Betterhumans, Mayer writes that Betterhumans.com "features thoughtful reportage on issues such as possible gene doping in the 2008 Olympics and the use of bee venom in fighting arthritis," while also noting that "many of the stories border on sci-fi." Expand the quote, and give enough of the source to name the magazine (the form used is: This Magazine and to link to its article on WP. I have the disadvantage of not being a Canadian, & didnt recognize the title.DGG 07:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now about George Dvorsky and Betterhumans so we need sources for both subjects. --Loremaster 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category

[edit]

What is the evidence for Dvorsky being an animal rights activist? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His writings:
  1. http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2006/08/sue-savage-rumbaugh-on-welfare-of-apes.html
  2. http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2006/05/ethical-eats.html
  3. http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2006/04/spanish-socialists-want-to-give-apes.html
  4. http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2006/04/myth-of-our-exalted-human-place_25.html
  5. http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2006/04/speciest-spike.html
  6. http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2006/03/end-of-livestock.html
That being said, I have no problem with Dvorsky not being added to "Category:Animal rights activists" until we can cite third-party sources to confirm the claim that he is an animal rights activist. --Loremaster 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI WARNING

[edit]

" 'Astrosociobiology' on Wikipedia A number of months ago I created the astrosociobiology entry in Wikipedia. It's been fascinating watching my original entry become progressively refined and elaborated upon. I made a number of changes to it recently myself, so check it out and feel free to contribute." [1] DGG (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

words he's coined or whatever

[edit]

Can you explain why you rv'ed my removal of these? It's totally unsupported--linking to an article where he uses a word (or where he doesn't, in the case of the "postgenderism" ref) doesn't support the idea that he coined that word or claims to have coined that word.P4k 02:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Dvorksy has claimed in (transhumanist) forums that he coined those words. Also, see the thread above. Regardless, I've reverted the article to the version previous to your edits. --Loremaster 02:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you've reverted it. If he's claimed this in forums then use those forum posts as refs, the refs you have now are misleading and useless. It would be better to have no refs for this section; that wouldn't deceive the reader into thinking that the article's claims are supported by outside sources when they aren't.P4k 03:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::Oh, and which thread above? I don't see anything that's obviously relevant.P4k 03:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess you're referring to the thread immediately above, titled "COI WARNING"? Claiming to have created the Wikipedia article about a word isn't the same as claiming to have coined that word.P4k 03:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I meant to say that George Dvorksy clearly stated in his (transhumanist) blog that he coined these words: http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2006/10/i-neologist-nuisance.html So case closed. --Loremaster 00:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.P4k 01:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tag

[edit]

This article is written largely as a advertisement. So I've flagged it for cleanup. And Dvorsky should please recuse himself from editing the page. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agenda-driven futurist?

[edit]

From Acceleration Watch's Futurist (definition): Common Types of Futures Thinking page:

[Agenda-driven futurist]. One who creates or works toward top-down developed (received, believed) ideological, religious, or organizationally-preferred agendas (sets of rules, norms) and their related problems, for the future of a group.

There are others types of futurists. Can someone contact George Dvorsky to ask him to read that page to let us know what kind of futurist he is even he doesn't think he is an agenda-driven futurist? --Loremaster (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the statement about him being agenda-driven is incorrect, it should be removed, I think. If it's correct, then it needs to be explained since it's not self-evident. Is agenda-driven a commonly accepted term in the field, or is it just something used by Acceleration Watch? (I'm not a futurist so I don't know.) If it's not commonly accepted, then we need to use standard English or the appropriate term used by most futurists. Since the Acceleration Watch page says that the definitions are from the Acceleration Studies Foundation, that's a place to start. If the Acceleration Studies Foundation is a recognized standards-setter, then we're good. (I just came along, saw the term, and went "huh?".)  :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Dvorsky prefers to described simply as a "transhumanist futurist" and this is how he often described by journalists who interview him so now that the article has been edited to reflect that fact the issue is settled. --Loremaster (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I just added the {{Google+}} external link to this article, however it was quickly reverted with an edit summary "we don't link to social networking sites when subject has another web presence (blog) ples already used as a ref". I believe that is reading the "rules" too closely, and there is no harm done in including the link in the External links section. By the way, the link used in the reference (the Google+ "about" page) is not the same as the link used in the "External links" section (the top-most page). I have added a heap of similar links, and never met this sort of resistance, so ... I'll unwatch this page, move on, and let local editors decide whether links that might aid our readership should be avoid purely because of "rules" (rules and guidelines which are filled with wording such as "...should not normally..."). GFHandel ♬  04:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if the subject has an official site or blog, they will share their personal social networking site there. We are not a directory of the subject's sites. Yworo (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Page

[edit]

This article needed a bit of clean-up to make it less like a vanity page written by the subject himself. The section on Dyson spheres was almost 800 words long and had no relevance to the subject of the article at all until the last two sentences, which themselves seem written to (and by?) the subject to be flattering. Moreover, I think that the dust-up on io9 over an ethically questionable post that required a retraction and apology from both the subject and the editor-in-chief of that publication bears mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.145.111 (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knapp's Dyson Sphere numbers were wildly incorrect, and the current version of the article fails to reflect this. I am the one that documented them here. None of the follow-up sources touched on the numerical inaccuracy of Knapp's statements. As far as I know, Dvorsky himself has not touched the page. Lsparrish (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-added the numerical analysis. This time it is shorter as I have used round numbers. Also there are google links to demonstrate the mathematical points. I am slightly concerned that this is OR, in which case it needs moved to wikiversity, however it appears that simple math is allowed by WP:NOR.Lsparrish (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a "some notoriety" incident in which a famous blogger publicly disagreed with Dvorsky and it was picked up by the press. I would say that editorially, an extensive analysis of a second non-famous blogger's numbers is a bit much for the Wikipedia coverage - David Gerard (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on George Dvorsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Dvorsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Dvorsky&oldid=1195557374"