Talk:List of futurologists
|WikiProject Futures studies||(Rated List-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Lists||(Rated List-class, Mid-importance)|
Combine with other lists
Gaston Berger's Birth date corrected
I corrected Gaston Berger's birth date in the table form 1986 to 1896 as indicated in his article.
Please provide a reliable source that describes Hanson as a futurist. There are more than 200, none of which seem to describe him as a futurist. Hanson does not seem to use the term either. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- To be a X does not required you be called a X. It can be a summary, which necessarily requires editorial judgement and interpretation. If you have a problem with this then I suggest you raise an AfD since most of the entrants here don't meet your requirements.
- For background, see , and . --Michael C. Price talk 11:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." There is no exemption to that rule. Summaries are paraphrases, which apply to reliable sources, which you do not have. You do not get to invent summaries out of thin air. There are literally hundreds of reliable sources about Hanson, none of which call him a futurist. I'm sorry, but when we are dealing with BLP's we require the best sourcing we can find. You just don't get to make stuff up. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- There are plenty of reliable sources that testify to his futurist status. Rephrasing and summarising this is permitted by WP:NOR. --Michael C. Price talk 20:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Merge with the List of futures scholars
I propose the List of futurologists to be merged with the List of futures scholars so that people, that study future, but are sometimes not called futurologists, can retain their rightful place among others. Emilfaro (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds sensible, since there is already overlap between the two lists. --Michael C. Price talk 20:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- There are differences between what might be defined as: Academics known as Futures Studies Scholars, Professional Futurists (Futurologists) and lay, or non-professional Futurists (Futurologists). Merging the list might blur any differences. I must admit I have not examined the lists as to which individuals belong in which classification? So before you start merging, decide on the breakdown of a merged list. i.e. please don't lump them all together without showing sub-classifications. Sirswindon (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've created a draft of a merged list, User:Wikip rhyre/List of Futurists showing their profession (their job) and futures topics they are notable for.
- People who are listed as scholars are the people with academic positions, and others are business people, authors, etc. After their
- The combined list, if adopted, should be called list of futurists, since that's the more accepted blanket term. rhyre (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would say List of futures scholars should be merged into List of futurologists. The two lists are practically redundant. We cannot expect of any user to be able to distinguish between a futurologist and a futures scholar. List of futurologists has the simpler catchword and is also already much better established, both regarding scope and comprehensiveness. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It's 2015. the above List of futurologists is already merged with List of futures scholars. But:Three overlapping but not identical lists of the same subject:
Where are the turn of the 20th century russian futurists?
Finding someone on the list
- Sure wish someone would arrange the list alphabetically by LAST name.
- Can this be done by a BOT?
- Who can do it?
WP:OR and WP:EL
The external links in this article violate WP:ELNO. Wikipedia is not a directory. Many of these names seem to be here with no real indication that they're "futurists", outside of what an editor deemed, which is original research.
I've tagged the article but it will need work. At this point, it doesn't qualify for deletion but really doesn't conform with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WCS100 (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good catch. I've been meaning to work on this for ages...
- The Reference column should be removed. The entries in that column that are reliable, independent, non-primary sources should be formatted as references and kept with their respective entries, provided that they actually verify that the person is considered a futurist.
- Entries without such references should be removed, unless their respective articles have such references. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- As someone who has actually used this list for several years (and recently contributed to it), I would like to add five points to this discussion:
- 1. Yes, the "References" here are overwhelmingly primary sources, but that is what made this list most compelling for me. I acknowledge that "Wikipedia is not a directory," but I approached this page as a supplement to Wikipedia's major pages Futurist and Futures studies and as such I found it a wonderfully east-to-use guide to the people and issues I might be interested in. I wonder if you are defining Wikipedia's mission too restrictively here. I would rather ask, Do these primary-source references advance genuine learning?
- 2. The column that I felt needed work was "Fields." Surely "writer" is not a field, and descriptors like "transhumanist" are less than useful. If a person does not have at least one genuine field of specialization, then I doubt they belong here.
- 3. I agree there should be objective criteria for listing people here, but those criteria are not self-evident. They need to be spelled out at the beginning of this list - "Notable futurologists," without more, invites the sort of free-for-all we have here now. I suggest that the work of every futurist listed here must have been reviewed or discussed on at least two occasions in the standard futurist periodicals mentioned on Wikipedia's Futurist and Futures studies pages. Ideally, those reviews or discussions should be cited after each name and referenced at the bottom of the List of futurologists.
- 4. For clarity's sake, let's call it a "List of futurists and futurologists." Last I looked, the list was prominently referenced on both the Futurist and Futures studies pages.
- 5. The Futures studies page also includes its own, shorter list of REALLY prominent futurists. Of course, that list is at least as arbitrary as our List of futurologists. Moreover, it includes some names that are not on the List of futurologists. I suggest eliminating the FS list after making sure that all its names are present on the List of futurologists.
- Hope these ideas help! - Babel41 (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure some sci-fi authors belong here. Arthur C. Clarke, for example, was a recognized visionary who published many well received works of non-fiction. Gene Roddenberry, Michael Crichton, and Warren Ellis, on the other hand, were not experts in any field other than writing/television (Crichton was a physician who once spoke against the theory of anthropogenic global warming). What exactly is the justification for including some science fiction authors on the list and not others? Many authors of science fiction predict the future. Shouldn't all of them be on the list? Or, should the list only include authors who made realistic predictions based on well founded research which were given credit by authorities other than their fans? It's worth noting that several of the people on this list don't fit the definition of "futurist" provided in the wikipedia article of the same name, which includes only scientists, social scientists, and other experts who have been consulted by private or public organizations about the future based on their expertise.22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)