Green Anarchist[edit] <\/p>\n
The green anarchist line is identical in the lede and in the body. I've removed it from the article body but not the lede. While the lede should reference the content of the article, it should not be a verbatim copy. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC) <\/p>\n
These inclusions still require third party sources to establish they are not a fringe view. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC) <\/p>\n
The paragraph beginning \"In July 2009, academics and technical experts, some of whom were Singularitarians ...\" appears a bit off topic, or at least a bit too much info on it not related to this Singularitarianism movement. Does anyone else agree? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC) <\/p>\n
Wikilinking to new religious movement is inappropiate. Loremaster, do not revert my edits without some form of comment please. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC) <\/p>\n
I have problems with this section of the lead - <\/p>\n
\"Desirablity\" is just one kind of Singularitairanism. A better definition is that a Singularitarian is a person who strongly believes in the likelihood of a technological singularity in the medium term future, and that this raises issues and attitudes which often arise in theology and extreme forms of existentialism. The belief in near term inevitability and its religious and existential aspects are what define the Singularitarian, who may not find it desireable, or who might want to guide it, but does not have faith in an ability to do so. There are also many other Singularitarian perspectives. Does anyone have any sources to correct the lead? PPdd (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC) <\/p>\n
Other pages covering similar topics have had this same confusion between biological and technological singularity. The reference to \"The Singularity is Near\", by Raymond Kurzweil seems out of place to me, since his book seems to cover biological singularity, while this article would seem to more be referencing technological singularity Dreamstohack (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
If we're going to include the claim in the lede that Singularitarian is a religion, then we should also clearly state in that same paragraph that Singularitians themselves do not agree with that claim, otherwise we are violating the \"neutral point of view\" rule. Either both points of view should be in that paragraph, or that paragraph should be removed completely and that comment left only in the \"criticism\" section. (Yosarian2 (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)) <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Original post: <\/p>\n
Talk:Singularitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Green Anarchist[edit] The green anarchist line is identical in the lede and in the body. Continue reading