This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Proactionary principle' is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide
Transhumanism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the
project page for more details.TranshumanismWikipedia:WikiProject TranshumanismTemplate:WikiProject TranshumanismTranshumanism articles
Add Transhumanism navigation template on the bottom of all transhumanism articles; (use {{Transhumanism}} or see
navigation template)
Add Transhumanism info box to all transhumanism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see
info box)
Add [[Category:transhumanism]] to the bottom of all transhumanism related articles, so it shows up on the
list of transhumanism articles
Maintenance / Etc
Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see
citing sources.
Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be
neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see
deletion process)
Watch the list of transhumanism related articles and add to accordingly (see
transhumanism articles)
Clarify references in
Transhumanism, using footnotes.
Possibly self-promoting
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Requested move 05 October 2016
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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
These should be turned into references as and if useful.