Talk:Reversal test

Unclear definition

 * valid criticisms of proposed increase in some human trait

Should this read


 * valid criticisms of proposed increase in prevalence of some human trait

?

I don't understand currently.

Removed deletion proposal
The reversal test is a supposedly important invention of a very prominent philosopher at Oxford University. The article needs to be improved, not deleted. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Not every neologism invented by a philosopher is noteworthy. Is Bostrom "very prominent" in philosophy itself, or in getting himself into the papers (which he's good at)? This is part of a WP:WG of Bostrom-related fragments - he has a number of enthusiastic fans, but not a lot of outside notability. If it's not a "neologism with no third-party WP:RS evidence of currency", I urge you to produce these third-party WP:RSes showing currency of the term - David Gerard (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The reversal test paper currently has 133 citations according to Google Scholar, which is pretty good for a merely 9-year old philosophy paper. The citing papers and books are not just from the close academic fanclub, but all over bioethics. Anders Sandberg (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Could be good. What are average citation rates in philosophy? (I can easily find numbers for hard sciences and social sciences, but not philosophy.) - David Gerard (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Lede section
I've moved the shortintro template because as it was, the lede was getting lost completely!

Which I guess made the point... (-> Andrewa (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Contested edits (July 2024)
I invite Grayfell to explain why an edit of theirs that seems to directly contradict their last one may not be reverted. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, this article doesn't directly discuss eugenics, so trancluding it at New eugenics is editorializing.

If the similar thought experiments placed in a footnote are defined by reliable sources as being similar, use sources to establish and explain that. Otherwise, these don't belong at all, and including them based on an editor's personal understanding is a form of WP:OR. It is not up to editors to find examples, it is up to sources.

The quotes are too long and the article is over-reliant on a single primary source. To avoid cherry-picking, cite reliable WP:IS.

For this paragraph: Alfred Nordmann argues that the reversal test merely erects a straw-man argument in favour of enhancement. He claims that the tests are limited to approaches that are consequentialist and deontological. He adds that one cannot view humans as sets of parameters that can be optimized separately or without regard to their history. The source barely mentions the reversal test at all.

I'll trust that the last paragraph is fairly summarized, but that means the article barely meets WP:GNG. Grayfell (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The reversion was to preserve the status quo pending further discussion, per WP:QUO. Grayfell (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)