Talk:Transcendent Man

Conflict of interest

Just for the record Robertptolemy (talk · contribs) 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. Fjnainoa (talk · contribs) 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)

Addendum: Fjnainoa (talk · contribs) identified herself as Felicia J Nainoa here. The IMDB listing for Felicia Nainoa shows her as being the producer of this film [1]. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Transcendent Man has been created using the criteria for FUTURE FILMS that has been established by Wikipedia, from a template provided here on Wikipedia. A future film CAN NOT have a conflict of interest, because there is no one but the producers who know anything about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjnainoa (talk • contribs) 02:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

In reference to the claim that there is no third party reference: That is not true. The page references IMDB which is a very respectable thirty party source. The page also references several articles from major news organizations, such as Fortune Magazine and Studio Daily. New York Times bestselling books are also referenced.

In regards to the claim that this page has a COI: This page is referenced as future class and therefore can not have input from any other outside source since no one could have seen the film yet. Wikipedia has 197 FUTURE FILMS. They are all (according to this arguement) in conflict of interest. Since Wikipedia does NOT have an issue with this, the claim can NOT be made as to the neutrality of this page. Fjnainoa (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

is this film notable?

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)

Obviously it's notable

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)

Vernor Vinge's technological singularity

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)

Interviews

Why is the list of interviews not a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY? It seems arbitrary, involves living persons, and does not have a source, so it's a WP:BLP violation, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The image is excessive in size, even to illustrate the section of the list names. Perhaps the image could be thumbnailed, and used to support some other paragraph, perhaps even above the poster. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not how we use article discussion pages. If you believe a list of interviews is a violation of a policy or guideline, then you need to demonstrate it. Other editors do not have to prove it is not a violation. This type of section is perfectly acceptable and is no different than a cast section: There is nothing arbitrary about it, nor could it possibly be a BLP violation. Your explanation for deleting the image is the most absurd reason I've ever heard. Do you expect people to take you seriously? Viriditas (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, unless an editor can justify inclusion of unsourced material, it is left out, per WP:BURDEN.

I have no objection to the image, but I don't remember how to resize images here on Wikipedia, but we don't normally have full cast lists for interview-style documentaries, list of associate editors for journals, list of editorial writers for newspapers, etc.

As an alternative to removal, I'd accept, temporarily, the tags {{unsourced-section}}, {{undue-section}}, {{irrelevant}}, and another one about inappropriate lists (probably not {{trivia}}, but something like that). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

When I first reverted you, I had forgotten that you had been adding unsourced material and original interpretations to another article I was monitoring. Now, I'm sure the material should be left out unless a justification and a source can be supplied. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no "contrary" here, Arthur. You removed a standard cast section and then asked editors to prove a negative on the talk page. Nobody has to to justify the inclusion of a cast section. And, it isn't unsourced. It is fully supported by the IMDb already in the article. Repeatedly edit warring over this is not appropriate. Let's say you don't remember how to resize an image; that still doesn't give you the right to remove it. Viriditas (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please point to a guideline that complete cast lists should be included in articles on films. If you can't do that, then the policies and guidelines that I've pointed to are sufficient to exclude it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to start with WP:FILMCAST but your recent addition of the undue-section, unsourced-section, and trivia section tags isn't supported. You need to justify your addition of these tags. I do not have to show why your tags are not acceptable. There appears to be a continuing problem with your use of the talk page, Arthur. Viriditas (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Very well, although WP:FILMCAST does note that some editors do not believe lists should appear within article. I'll put it back. (The image doesn't belong in that section, though.) We're going to have to semi-protect the page, though, to prevent the 99.* anon from adding or subtracting wikilinks. The synopsis is still taken from imdb, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It is 24.43.128.194, not 99.* Viriditas (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I only found this article because the 99.* was editing the list. 24.43.128.194 may also be questionable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point of the current copyvio template. We now know that 24.43.128.194 added the material and we can revert to a clean version per Wikipedia:Copyright_violations#Dealing_with_copyright_violations. Viriditas (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I looked into this. The edits were made by an IP[2] belonging to William Morris Endeavor,[3] the distributor of the film. The original material was written by Felicia Ptolemy and Celia Black.[4] Felicia Ptolemy is a producer and Celia Black is a public relations associate. William Morris Endeavor distributed the film in partnership with Ptolemaic Productions. That an IP from William Morris Endeavor uploaded content written by Felicia Ptolemy and Celia Black tells me that they had permission to do so, as they were working together on the project. However, as we do not have explicit permission, the material should stay removed. I don't think this is a copyright violation, but neither do I think we should host this material. I'm going to remove the copyvio template. Viriditas (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"I only found this article because the 99.* was editing the list." ... Wikipedia:Stalking Mr. Rubin. 108.73.114.77 (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Release date

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)

Linkspam and linkfarm

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)

• Time Magazine Cover Story on the Singularity, Ray Kurzweil with Transcendent Man cited. [5]
  • "(Kurzweil is actually the subject of two current documentaries. The other one, less authorized but more informative, is called The Transcendent Man.)"
    • I suppose we could use this to say "Transcendent Man is one of two documentaries about Kurzweil", but not for much else. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Multiple sources say that this is one of two documentaries. Since I added the Newsweek source, not sure this is needed. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ray Kurzweil and Barry Ptolemy discuss Transcendent Man on the Charlie Rose Show. [6]
  • I watched this some time ago, but I recall it repeated much of the same info in the film. Possibly helpful for describing pre-production. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ray Kurzweil and Barry Ptolemy discuss Transcendent Man on Foox news with Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallun. [7]
• Ray Kurzweil and Barry Ptolemy discuss Transcendent Man on CNN with Ali Velshi. [8]
• Ray Kurzweil discusses Transcendent Man on Jimmy Kimmel Live!. Part 1: [9] Part 2: [10]
• WSJ MarketWatch description for Transcendent Man LIVE with Ray Kurzweil [11]

• Article in New York Times on AI mentioning Ray Kurzweil and Transcendent Man [12]
  • Duplicate mention similar to Newsweek below. Not added. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• Newsweek article [13]
  • Added. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Fast Company interview with Transcendent Man director Barry Ptolemy [14]
  • Possibly helpful, if only supplemental. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Review of Transcendent Man in New Scientist
  • Added to further reading section in preparation for expanding critical reviews. Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Review in h+ magazine [15]
• Review in IGN
• Review in Flavowire
• Article and interview in Comingsoon.net
• Article in the New York Observer
• Quick mention in Popular Mechanics
  • Not needed. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Indie Wire interview with Director and Producers of Transcendent Man
• Fancast Interview with Director and Producers of Transcendent Man
• NPR interview with Ray Kurzweil about ideas in Transcendent Man [16]
• KUCI FM interview with Barry Ptolemy about Transcendent Man
• Wired.com article on Ray Kurzweil [17]
  • Nothing about the film. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Rolling Stone article on Ray Kurzweil
  • Currently 404, however it is archived here. The source itself says little to nothing about the film. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Review in Singularity Hub on Transcendent Man
• Article in Voice of America on Transcendent Man [18]
• Forbes article on Ray Kurzweil and Transcendent Man
• Two part interview with Ray Kurzweil on the Charles Adler Show discussing Transcendent ManPart 1 Part 2
• Article in Time about the concept of singularity and Ray Kurzweil [19]
  • Dupe from above. Not needed. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Forbes.com article on Ray Kurzweil and Transcendent Man. [20]
• Blog in Ebongeek [21]

POV concern

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)

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)

Criticism section

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)

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)

No mention of Kurzweil's father

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)

See, for example [this reciew, which opens with the observation that the film is about his feelings about his father's death. ----CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)