Talk:David Pearce (philosopher)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sourcing needed

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:

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

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 (talk • contribs) 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.

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Pearce (philosopher). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.journals.elsevier.com/medical-hypotheses/editorial-board/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

excessive ELs

Moved these from the page per WP:ELNO - please put into the article as proper references as and when actually useful.

• Video interview with David Pearce on the Hedonistic Imperative
• David Pearce's talk on Prophetic Narratives at Humanity+ @San Francisco 2012, December 2012.
• Despres, Jonathan. "Interview with David Pearce", NanoAging, December 2005.
• Dvorsky, George. Should we eliminate the human ability to feel pain?, io9, 27 September 2012.
• Junges, Marcia Rosane. "A World Without Suffering? An interview with David Pearce", Instituto Humanitas Unisinos, Brazil, January 2011.
• Lomena, Andres. "Interview with Nick Bostrom and David Pearce", Cronopis, December 2007.
• Zamansky, Vladimir. Russian magazine interview with Pearce, November 2008.

- David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Selected works

I've removed what seemed to be a list of self-published material. Re: Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment, he didn't write this. If he had an article published in it, please cite it directly. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the self-published material and cited the chapter directly Throughthemind (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Are the two books not self-published too? The isbns seem not to work. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't object to including self-published books, but you have to make clear who the publisher was. Also, please include location and OCLC number, which you can find on WorldCat. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I've removed one book as it wasn't on WorldCat. Can't find an ISBN or location for The Hedonistic Imperative but I've added the WorldCat number. Hope that's ok. Throughthemind (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to say who published it and where. Are you sure it's a book? WorldCat calls it an essay. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

"Selected" by who? This is a red flag for WP:OR. I cut the article list per WP:ELNO, WP:NOTBROCHURE and WP:RESUME.

I also did a reference check - lots of bloggy and wiki-ish sources, lots of gratuitous and inappropriate self-sourcing. There's plenty of academic RSes on Pearce, this stuff was superfluous and absolutely not up to WP:BLP standards - David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Philosopher

Hi, I see that SlimVirgin removed reference to David Pearce being a philosopher as "misleading". Can you elaborate on this? I had added a citation since I saw it was removed previously. Googling "David Pearce philosopher" returns a number of results indicating that Pearce is known as a philosopher. He's also referred to as a philosopher on the Brasenose College alumni page Throughthemind (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for opening this discussion rather than restoring it. I removed it because he isn't a philosopher, and we should really move the title to something like "David Pearce (transhumanist)". The alumni page you linked to is his self-description. You would need to find philosophers referring to him as a philosopher, or scholarly articles in philosophy journals, or that he has a job as a philosopher. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Well there's this book I cited originally and this by Peter Vardy. He's also published ethics articles such as: A Welfare State for Elephants? A Case Study of Compassionate Stewardship and some chapters in Singularity hypotheses. A scientific and philosophical assessment. He was also interviewed in Popular Philosophy magazine Philosophy Now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throughthemind (talk • contribs)

Vardy is a theologian; I don't know who the first person is. If you have philosophers who refer to him as a philosopher, or publications in academic philosophy journals, or if he has a PhD in philosophy, please post the information here. I'm not aware of any RS on his academic/educational background. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Peter Vardy is also a philosopher, his Wikipedia article details this, see also his published papers and his book "The Puzzle of Ethics", plus people call him a philosopher. Pearce's work has also been cited by a number of serious and indisputable philosophers like Nick Bostrom, Ned Hettinger, Oscar Horta, Slavoj Zizek and Simon Knutsson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throughthemind (talk • contribs)

I have limited time to spend on this, so once again I'd appreciate if you would produce sources showing that he is referred to as a philosopher by philosophers (people with PhDs and jobs in philosophy), and/or that he has a PhD in philosophy. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

His Commons category is "David Pearce (transhumanist)". It's clearly the thing he is notable for. I too would suggest this as a better title - David Gerard (talk) 09:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Removal of "philosopher" moniker from article text

The description of Pearce as a "philosopher" was removed from the article's introductory sentence in this edit without giving much of a reason, but the title still reads "David Pearce (philosopher)". I don't think having it just in the title is enough, so I'll add it again unless anyone has an objection. --92.209.33.232 (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverted, per discussion at Talk:David_Pearce_(philosopher)/Archive_2#Philosopher. The article should really be moved - David Gerard (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Per that discussion, I've moved the article to a title reflecting the thing Pearce is actually famous as - David Gerard (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Describing Pearce as a philosopher

This has been discussed previously here. I now think there is sufficient citations by academics and writers to describe Pearce as a philosopher:

1. Jozef Keulartz emeritus professor Environmental Philosophy at the Radboud University Nijmegen: "To get a glimpse of this future re-engineered world, we might take a look at the work of David Pearce, a British philosopher" [1]

2. Susan Schneider, a professional philosopher: "The World Transhumanist Association is an international nonprofit organization that was founded in 1998 by philosophers Nick Bostrom and David Pearce." [2]

3. Olga Dobrodum and Olga Kyvliuk (both PhDs): "British utilitarian philosopher David Pearce" [3]

4. Jennifer Huberman (PhD in Sociocultural Anthropology): "the British utilitarian philosopher David Pearce" [4]

5. Thomas Moynihan (PhD in political science): "Philosophers such as David Pearce" [5]

6. Roberto Manzocco (PhD in history of science): "Let me introduce you to a brilliant independent British philosopher, David Pearce" [6]

7. Andrew Pilsch (PhD): "utilitarian philosopher David Pearce" [7]

8. Marta Toraldo (PhD in philosophy) "The entry for British philosopher David Pearce" [8]

9. James J. Hughes sociologist and bioethicist: "by the Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom and British philosopher David Pearce" [9]

There's also the Encyclopædia Britannica: "Bostrom and British philosopher David Pearce founded the World Transhumanist Association in 1998" [10] Throughthemind (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)