Talk:Proactionary principle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Possibly self-promoting[edit]

This article, together with articles on "extropy" and "extropianism", seems to be self-promoting. I have found no external references that would not be affiliated to Max More and Extropy Institute. A search on Google News for "Extropy Institute" gave no results. --Dan Polansky 10:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not so You can find the Extropy Institute here [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.131.148.182 (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I find a total of 12,300 mentions on Google of the Proactionary Principle, the majority of which had nothing to do with Wikipedia. I have also located two hostile analyses of it, two neutral definitions of it, and one significant mention of it in a noteworthy news and opinion magazine, Reason. I have added these to the External Links, cleaned up the text to make it clear that it is a description of the proactionary principle, and removed the "primary sources" and "peacock" tags. Allens (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 05 October 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved current title consistent with MOS CAPS Mike Cline (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)



Proactionary principleProactionary Principle – Official capitalisation as per http://www.maxmore.com/proactionary.html – Deku-shrub (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
It's the style in which the phrase was coined and remains fairly authoritative from the Extropy institute with no other group having normalised it's caps. But kick to RM if you prefer Deku-shrub (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Relevant sources, but I would suggest it's not a clear-cut as you suggest.
#1 and #7 - a compares and contrasts with the precautionary principle understanding aiming for consistent caps
#2, #6 manages to use the term inconsistently
#3, #4, #10 supports the caps
#5 appears to be based off #1
#8 and #9 is a full blown misquotation of Max More
Deku-shrub (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:DOCTCAPS. Also, the fact that reliable sources disagree is a sign that this is an "unnecessary capitalization", which our MOS decries. Primergrey (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Excessive ELs[edit]

These should be turned into references as and if useful.

External links[edit]

For[edit]

Neutral[edit]

Against[edit]

- David Gerard (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)