Talk:Transhuman/Archive 1

Redirect
This is just a dictionary entry, and I can't see it becoming much more. I'm blanking this and redirecting to transhumanism. --Schaefer 16:14, 25 November 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I have demerged them and expanded the article. Loremaster 17:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * When searching for transhuman, I would have prefered to find the article on Transhumanism that this one. For now, I've added a see also, but I think I agree with the merger suggestion. KalevTait 16:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in see also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in see also and therefore 3) good articles have no see also sections. --Loremaster 16:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * KalevTait, I disagree. Since people confuse the terms transhuman and transhumanist which are two different things, I think Transhuman and Transhumanism being seperate articles is helpful in diminishing this confusion. Also, the more thinkers are able to determine the characteristics of a transhuman the more this article has potential to be expanded. --Loremaster 17:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added a link to transhumanism disclaimer at the top of the page. --Loremaster 21:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the link because it was not a disclaimer in legal terms, it was a redirect or a newdirect. It is not of value to this article. It is important that this article stand on its own.  The transhuman came before transhumanism and FM-2030 was not interested in a social movement but an evolution of the human. Bty, Nick Bostrom did not know FM and there are far better criticism by people who actually are disagreeing with the idea of the transhuman - a human in transition to becoming posthuman, not the transhumanism vs. transhuman. Avantguarde 16:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with your fallacious rationale for removing the link. The article can obviously stand on its own despite the presence of this useful link (which helps people who were looking to read the article on transhumanism rather than the one on transhuman) so I've reinserted it. --Loremaster 02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Link
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/070326_evolution.htm

Conflicting information about the date of usage of the word, "transhumanism"
The first known use of the word, "transhumanism," in the introduction of the Transhumanism article does not match its source (2b). I would assume that it is a typo, but I stumbled upon the article coming from the page about Olaf Stapledon. That article lists the first appearance of the word as 1966, but a brief text search of the source reveals no mention of the word transhuman or the year 1966 except the date on quarterly or whatever it was.

Hopefully, we won't be hearing about any high school essays with an incorrect date for the appearance of the word, "transhumanism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.61.162 (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Misquoted source
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transhuman&diff=prev&oldid=355873801


 * You haven't provided a legitimate reason for this paragraph to be deleted since no one is arguing that these scientists support the transhumanist view of the transhuman. --Loremaster (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)