Wikipedia

Talk:Transhumanist politics/Archive 2

< Talk:Transhumanist politics
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Drcrazy102 in topic There is a case at the DRN regarding this page.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

RfC: How should the Transhumanist Party be described?

Latest comment: 9 years ago46 comments13 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
As pointed out this RFC is not laid out well, it rambles on with a lot of words. A specific set of questions would have been better. There is consensus, that this is the page to add any information on the party, and that WP:RS should be the basis of any additions. As a side note, looking into WP:RS to read between the lines of what it says is WP:OR. A question on WP:RSN on the source and what its used for may be helpful, if it doesnt become WP:TLDR. AlbinoFerret 00:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

We have a debate on how to describe a proposed political party in the United States, the Transhumanist Party, or whether it should be on Wikipedia at all. On one hand, some editors are claiming it is a real political party and should be described as such. On the other hand, some editors are claiming the party does not exist and the only mention of it should be on founder Zoltan Istvan's page. We all agree the party is recognized as a non-qualified party under the state of California based on this memo from the Elections Division,[1] but we can't agree further. We also can't agree on whether the Transhumanist Party in the United Kingdom is a real thing or not. What makes this difficult is that the founder of the party Zoltan Istvan is also a professional journalist and has been using his articles to puff up notability of the party, so separating real notability from puffery has been difficult. Another difficulty is that according to the official website the party is a non-profit but managed by the Transhumanist National Committee LLC., and LLC's are for profit. The problem is that non-profit political parties are not traditionally managed by for-profit companies, so in a best-case scenario the Transhumanist Party may actually be a for-profit election committee doing grassroots lobbying for the development of a non-profit party or in a worst-case scenario a fake non-existent party, basically a scam. There have been advocacy investigations on both sides related to this topic, including on myself, so neutral outside opinions would help. Thank you. Waters.Justin (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I edited the RfC statement to partially remove bias in its statement of the issues. There is agreement that Zoltan Istvan has proposed a Transhumanist Party, and in particular that a filing was made indicating that an organization of that name sought standing as a party to participate in the June 2015 California primary elections (which came and went with no indication that the organization met requirements to participate). However the RfC statement remains biased in that it characterizes the dispute to be about whether there is a registered nonprofit or not, which is not the criteria for whether a political party exists in substance or not. I believe in fact that a not-for-profit has been legally created, so the RfC as stated is presented to be "won" by verification of that fact. That is NOT the issue. The issue is whether there is reliable, substantial coverage in secondary sources meeting Wikipedia wp:GNG notability standards about a bona fide political party of that name, as a notable entity separate from Zoltan Istvan (who is a Wikipedia-notable author). --doncram 15:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@Doncram: Actually, notability guidelines (such as the GNG) "do not apply to content within an article". --Haptic-feedback (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I would also like to point out some more of what Doncram claims that is actually false. He says, "a filing was made indicating that an organization of that name sought standing as a party to participate in the June 2015 California primary elections (which came and went with no indication that the organization met requirements to participate)." Per the actual filing: "Pursuant to Elections Code section 5002, this notice serves to inform you that on December 1, 2014, the Secretary of State received formal notification from Transhumanist Party of their intent to qualify for the June 7, 2016, Primary Election as a political party." June 7, 2016 has not "came and went" yet. Outside editors that are generous enough to participate in this RfC deserve the true facts. Abierma3 (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Abierma3, for catching that. I and other participants in the several discussions did not note that it was about 2016 not 2015. For some other date requirements I explicitly inserted "2015 or 2016?" where it was not clear. But here the 2016 year-date was in fact available. And then I was wrong in saying that the "TP" did not meet its intention to qualify (which I assumed because the time came and went with no news). Still, do note that the memo copy is a primary source document that to our knowledge has not been mentioned by any news media. And that we have no info that providing such a notification to California costs anything more than it costs people and fictitious pirates and dogs to register with the United States to run for president. But yes, you're right there was a misunderstanding by me and others until now. Thank you for clearing that up. --doncram 05:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that the Transhumanist Party has previously failed notability at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transhumanist Party That resolved to redirect it to Zoltan Istvan, not to a general article like this - David Gerard (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
There has been no suggestion by anyone that the organization is "fake" or a "scam". I do believe the organization is not Wikipedia-notable. But based on multiple blogs by Istvan and multiple interviews of Istvan that I have read, which come across as very earnest, I happen to believe that there is a legitimate wish to create a political party and that some legitimate effort has been expended by Istvan and others towards creating one. There would be easier ways for Istvan to promote sales of his book, I imagine. There is puffery and promotion but some of that is appropriate for an emerging group (it is just not appropriate to put that puffery into Wikipedia). I found my way to these articles because of my having run across transhumanism's ideas elsewhere, and my having an interest to learn more; I and other anti-promotionalists here could conceivably be supporters of such a party.
However, overuse of Wikipedia by the campaign rubs me the wrong way. I have said previously, for effect, that the most discernible activity of the organization seems to be promotional-type editing within Wikipedia. I do feel there was excessive pressure directed at me previously by an Istvan-supporting editor. Now I notice that the organization's "Staff" webpage (whose tab title in Chrome displays poorly as "Blank") gives, for background on its secretary, a garbled link to a Wikipedia page (Hank Pellissier). And it gives for background on its first- and third-listed advisors (out of 12 listed) direct links to wikipedia pages (Gabriel_Rothblatt and Aubrey de Grey). Those and other related articles bear monitoring for promotionalist editing.
Also it may as well be here that I note for the record that the official location of the organization is merely a private mailbox. The address of the organization (135 Miller Ave., #102) per its website's "Contact" page, may appear to be a street address but in fact it is a mailbox (i believe that would be box number 102) in a Postal Annex+ franchise business. No one has noted this fact; it's something I figured out from a very little bit of sleuthing (google streetview is a friend). Anyone could rent a 24-hour accessible box there in the name of anything they wish to display, for $240 per year plus $10 setup fee and $10 for a key deposit. The business's promotion of the mailbox service helpfully offers that

...having a mailbox at PostalAnnex+ means you have a street address. And many people view a business with a street address as a long-term operation, not here today, gone tomorrow. That's better business for you. A private mailbox rental at PostalAnnex+ in Mill Valley shows a street address for a professional appearance.[2]

So I or someone else will object if it is implied anywhere that the organization has an office at that street address, as any part of asserting notability. (This is not to say that anyone has done so. And of course it is fine for a campaign to use a secure mailbox to receive postal mail and packages. But i just want to head this off.)
Also other minor potential deceptions would rub me the wrong way: e.g. if Istvan has written an article that presents a woman as a transhumanist expert, as if she were an independent authority, without it being disclosed that the woman is his wife. If he is becoming a candidate for public office this becomes relevant. Also the exact, literal trustworthiness of an author may or may not be newsworthy. It may not be an issue for professional journalists to focus upon, but it is a legitimate issue for Wikipedia editors concerned about maintaining integrity here and being pressured to allow statements by that author to be taken as facts. And the exact trustworthiness, the credibility, of editors applying promotional pressure here is a legitimate concern, too. --doncram 21:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Does assuming good faith apply outside Wikipedia? Do we assume Zoltan Istvan speaks in good faith when he asserts he is forming a political party? Do we assume the news media outlets speak in good faith when they report as much? You seem to assume the entire thing is a bad-faith exercise, and that usual journalistic integrity has been suspended by those reporting on this one instance.... Pandeist (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
From WP:AGF: "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence." This speaks only of the context of working on Wikipedia. For stuff outside Wikipedia, we have to find verifiable reliable sources (WP:V, WP:RS) and not just take the word of something someone does for self-promoting reasons. This doesn't mean assume Istvan is lying until proven otherwise, but we don't just assume his claims are true either (and go beyond noting that he says a thing to assuming it true) until there's verifiable evidence.
That is: the RS verifies that Istvan claims this; Istvan is not himself a WP:RS, so him saying something is not sufficient of itself in what is openly a promotional piece - David Gerard (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The Transhumanist Party staff page lists quite a lot of people, including some Wikipedia-notable transhumanists. Have any of these spoken publicly about the Transhumanist Party? That might help make them more verifiable as being an entity of some form - David Gerard (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with doncram & others that there is presently insufficient evidence to support the existence of the Transhumanist Party as an independent legal entity. The section currently included in this article which addresses the TP as proposed political party is, in my estimation, an appropriate and encyclopedic way of handling the subject. That having been said, I propose that the section be moved to the Zoltan Istvan article. This would be a sensible move given that the TP is mainly Istvan's project and most of the reliably sourced coverage of it focuses on Istvan himself seemingly as much as it does on the TP.--JayJasper (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@JayJasper: I am okay with not calling it a legal entity. However, since we have many reliable sources asserting its existence, I think that we should not say that it is a "proposed" party, because that suggests that it has not yet been established. Anyway, I support the movement of the party's main content to Istvan's page, though it should probably be mentioned somewhere in this article as well. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly by several people, we have reliable sources that Istvan has said it's a thing that can be said to exist. This is different from a reliable source that it is in fact a thing that exists, in important ways that make a difference for the question to hand - David Gerard (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@David Gerard: Actually, in the above section, I have quoted a dozen assertions by reliable sources other than Istvan that the party exists. They do not say that Istvan told them these things – they are simply saying them. I agree that the difference is very important. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
As David Gerard said in a section above "The sources are repeating what Istvan has told them; this does not mean the sources can reasonably be assumed to have examined the matter in the slightest beyond this. All they verify is that Istvan claims the Transhumanist Party is a thing." This is going to be overkill, but I'll spell it out further:
<begin overkill> The sources that report on interviews with Istvan are no doubt reliable sources in that they convey that they interviewed Istvan, and also they are no doubt generally reliable in their general characterization of what Istvan said. The publishers would be accountable for that much. Probably it would be a minor scandal and The Daily Telegraph would fire or otherwise punish columnist Jamie Bartlet if it came to light that Bartlet had no contact with Istvan and he misrepresented that he did, or if it came to light that he completely misrepresented what Istvan said or wrote to him. But note it is fairly often the practice--and okay, I think--for a journalist to edit an interviewee's comments for clarity or brevity, so even where there is an explicit quotation it is quite likely Istvan did not say exactly those words or did not put them together in exactly the ordering and sentence construction presented. Anyhow Istvan would not dispute editing of the exact wording attributed to him, and he has not come out to deny the general accuracy of what has been attributed, so let's say the source was reliable that far.
But leeway is exercised by the columnist, with the approval or requirement of the publisher. It would interfere with the readers' experience if excessive footnotes and excessive use of [brackets] to indicate inserted words were used, in what is really popular-type writing on a non-controversial topic, so Bartlett does not do that. Note in Wikipedia we allow leeway for the introduction of an article to get across the basic idea of a topic without stating it exactly correctly, and without any footnotes at all in the lede. Neither Wikipedia nor columnists are asserting original academic-type contribution, where it could be necessary to always be extremely clear on who said what and clear on where doubts remain, and where lots and lots of footnotes on technicalities may be required.
It would be simply impolite for an interviewer to write in a way that comes across as excessively skeptical of what the interview has said. It is true that Jamie Bartlett's December 2014 column includes the sentence "The Transhumanist Party advocates spending at least a trillion dollars over ten years directly on life extension research." But in context (you have to look at the paragraph), it is clear that the interviewer is reporting what Istvan said. The paragraph reads: "[Blah blah]", Zoltan tells me. "[Blah blah.]" I'm not sure how accurate his timelines are - others in the Transhumanist movement are a little more cautious. But as it stands he reckons [blah blah]. [Blah blah blah]. In a tidy populist touch, he plans to significantly curtail military spending in favour of research into all this. With enough resources, he thinks we can "conquer" ageing within a decade. The Transhumanist Party advocates spending at least a trillion dollars over ten years directly on life extension research."
Note Bartlet has expressed some distance, some skepticism already. It would be simply impolite to write the last sentence with excessive clarity on where there is doubt. How about: "According to Zoltan, there exists a Transhumanist Party which is a political party in the normal sense of the term in that it has a reasonably large membership and primary election processes and it fields candidates in elections and has voters legally registered and so on (which I, Jamie Bartlet, personally believe is false) and that this alleged party advocates, meaning that multiple members of the party speak widely on the topic and the party like other advocacy organization pays for ads conveying their message and so on (which I, Jamie Bartlet do not believe is the case), that a trillion dollars should be spent on life extension research (which I, Jamie Bartlet must note is a very vague statement that doesn't say who should spend this money and doesn't give any timeline), but I checked the website of the organization named Transhumanist Party and I find no mention of that trillion dollar spending goal in a mission statement or anywhere else, so I must warn the reader that it is possible that Istvan is not speaking for the supposed party when he claims that."
Yikes, if Bartlett wrote that way he would never get another interview. More appropriately Bartlett wrote the last sentence as it appears, or perhaps he wrote it with a leading clause like "According to Istvan,... " and the qualification clause was removed by an editor. Neither Bartlett nor The Telegraph is going to accept being responsible in any legal setting for their having mislead the public if it turns out that the organization never becomes a political party in the traditional and Wikipedia-notable sense or if it turns out that the platform of the organization does not include a trillion dollar spending goal. <end overkill>
So far this RfC seems to be finding that the TP should be covered in the Istvan article, and it is confirming that there should not be a separate article on it. Nothing has been put forward supporting it being a separate article; the AfD decision seems to be accepted. I don't see why this has to continue as an RfC demanding other editors' attention. --doncram 18:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@Doncram: I am not saying that Istvan was misquoted or mischaracterized, so the first part of your "overkill" is irrelevant. Rather, I am saying that he was not quoted at all in the examples that I gave. You say that Bartlett is being dishonest to be polite, but I think that his displayed skepticism in the rest of the paragraph suggests that he indeed would put an "According to Istvan" or something similar here, too, if he did not believe Istvan. You will need to make a much better argument than that, and you will need to address the 11 other sources. Do try to be concise, too. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
You miss the point. I did not say or imply or think that Bartlett was dishonest. What he wrote is fine, reporting on what Istvan said, but he is not an authority evaluating political parties and he simply does not address the question of whether there exists a political party that meets Wikipedia standards of notability. Why should he? So what he wrote is not proof of what you want it to be. And, Istvan was quoted by Bartlett--read the article, so I do not comprehend why you would say otherwise. My point about interviewers or their editors revising explicit quotes is that in this kind of writing the author and the publisher are not committed to even the words said by an interviewee, much less are they committed to some extremely strict version of fully-fact-checked 100 percent accuracy of the statements made by the an interviewee. Further they are not committed at all to statements you wish the interviewee or they had made. Some discussion here is overly critical and literalistic(is that a word), in absurd contrast to the wishful, non-critical interpretation of some entertaining columns. The point has been made by me and others. I think I am done. --doncram 21:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@Doncram: You did imply that Bartlett was being dishonest, because you said that he was being misleading (passing Istvan's assertions as his own) on purpose (to be polite). Anyway, are you saying that, because a source does not "address the question of whether there exists a political party that meets Wikipedia standards of notability", the source cannot be used as evidence? I hope not, because that would be absurd. Now, I do not deny that Bartlett quoted Istvan elsewhere in the article, but it is abundantly clear that Istvan was not being quoted in the passage that I gave. Did you really need that clarification? If you really thought that I was saying Istvan was quoted nowhere, then why do you argue about commitments to Istvan's words? Of course, if you are really arguing that the sources can be dismissed because we cannot be sure of journalists' commitment to their own words, despite satisfying Wikipedia's criteria for reliability, then please realize that you could make that same argument for literally any source on Wikipedia. You could simply claim that they were relaying someone else's statements surreptitiously, and if the burden of proof were not on you, then you could justify any removal this way; therefore, in order for Wikipedia to work, you must provide the evidence if you want to revert an edit on these grounds, and you have not done that. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
That's not how any of this works - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@Doncram: "but he is not an authority evaluating political parties" I have to disagree here, before wading into various original research areas that you may be skeptical of. I have met Jamie Bartlett on a number of occasions, the first time was at the Pirate Party UK conference in 2013. He's written extensively about us, as well as the new emerging political movement of the 5-star in Italy. Working for Demos, his brief is social media and and politics. It was a meeting with myself in late 2013 where I talked about the emerging area of transhumanist politics that pointed him in the direction of Zoltan, covering the Transhumanist Party and was covered in a fair bit of detail in his 2014 book The Dark Net. I informed Jamie about transhumanist politics in the very early days, before Zoltan hit the mainstream so he knows the movement to be 100% genuine. I can't back this up with verifiable source of course Deku-shrub (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Judging by being acknowledged in Esquire, Stanford Political Journal, Popular Science, The Telegraph, National Review, Business Insider, Wired, and others, the Transhumanist Party exists. I am restoring the content removed by Doncram since no consensus has been reached that the Transhumanist Party does not exist and that it should not be mentioned in an article on transhumanist politics. Abierma3 (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted this. Per the extensive discussion on this page, all of the references backing this claim are either terribly low quality or the sources just repeating Istvan's claims in the clear context of interviewing him. You need to engage the extensive discussion to date, not just act like it didn't happen - David Gerard (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
There has been extensive discussion, yet no consensus was reached for removing the content. You say, "all of the references backing this claim are either terribly low quality or the sources just repeating Istvan's claims," but this is just outright false. The Transhumanist Party is acknowledged and discussed in the reputable publications Esquire, Stanford Political Journal, Popular Science, The Telegraph, National Review, Business Insider, and Wired. Please go source by source and explain how each one is "terribly low quality" or is simply "repeating Istvan's claims." To say that the Transhumanist Party, which reliable source Popular Science says has a party membership of around 25,000 people ("...the Transhumanist Party--a group of some 25,000 people who want to enhance the human body and extend the human lifespan using science and technology."), does not belong in an article on transhumanist politics is absurdity at its finest. Abierma3 (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The Popular Science article is an interview with Istvan, not a piece doing any critical or journalistic examination whatsoever - it is good as a source documenting claims made by Istvan, but not as a source verifying claims made by Istvan. The "25,000" claim is indeed uncritically repeating a claim of Istvan's, from this post by Istvan on Gizmodo. There is no other evidence I could find of 25,000 members: "And while we don’t have a formal paying membership process, my officers and I estimate—based on social media, event turnouts, and donations—we now have about 25,000 supporters in the US." That is, he's just making up an unverifiable number and then claiming that's his support base.
You really need to look at these sources and think "does this pass the giggle test?" People (e.g. Doncram) have actually been working to check the claims about the Transhumanist Party and see if they are something substantiable or more closely match something that Istvan has hyped up without verifiable substance. So far they much more closely resemble the latter - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the Popular Science article contains an interview with Istvan. However, it is the author that confirms that the Transhumanist party has 25,000 members. You say the article is "uncritically repeating a claim of Istvan's," and it is nice that you have an opinion on the matter, but David Gerard's opinion or Doncram's opinion does not rule Wikipedia. Popular Science has a large editorial staff (listed at http://www.popsci.com/masthead), which indicates that the content of their published articles gets verified. Abierma3 (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
"Popular Science has editorial staff" is in no way evidence that that particular claim in that particular was verified by them, given the evidence (and lack of evidence that would be expected were it independently verifiable) otherwise, and Istvan's own stated source for the figure, in which he explicitly states that it is conjecture based on numbers of social media followers. Istvan himself has stated the number is not an actual political party membership tally in any conventional sense - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually editorial staff is an important criteria in determining a source's reliability. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources, "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments." Also relevant is, "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." So does Popular Science have a "poor reputation for checking the facts?" Does Popular Science "lack meaningful editorial oversight?" It seems like you have created a false standard of verifiability to exclude a source you disagree with. Abierma3 (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't address anything I said whatsoever. You're claiming this 25,000 figure is not only an example of what anyone conventionally means by supporters of a political party, you're claiming that PS fact-checked it and found it solid, despite Istvan having explicitly stated how he arrived at the figure, and despite the lack of any other evidence to this effect. Social media followers is not considered evidence of Wikipedia notability, and indeed raising such as evidence of notability is routinely considered a newbie error - David Gerard (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Davidcpearce: - you noted "The Transhumanist Party is at least as notable as, say, SpongeBob SquarePants and other Wikipedia fixtures" - but that's not actually the case - read the AFD. They looked and it really doesn't seem to be. A draft article was also rejected for not sufficiently addressing the AFD objections. Istvan claiming 25,000 supporters is evidence Istvan thinks so (specifically, that they got that number by adding up their social media followers, which is not any sort of conventional measure of political party membership), but not more - David Gerard (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@David Gerard: I take your point, but the truly non-notable are a source of indifference, not heated debate. In the case of WP entries involving politics, there is a clearly risk of spin and PR on one side, and unfair disparagement on the other. Adding a 'Criticisms' sub-section does not guarantee neutrality, but at least offers some semblance of balance - even if all sides would dispute the label. --Davidcpearce (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
So these RSes offering citably notable criticisms of the Transhumanist Party are? The problem is that there's basically nothing in RSes that isn't a publicity effort by Istvan, and there's nearly no evidence of anything more to the Transhumanist Party than that. The actual claim, 25,000 social media followers (assuming they weeded out duplicates), isn't prima facie evidence of Wikipedia notability, and you know as well as I do that such claims are a standard AFD failure mode. There's no "there" there, Doncram and I are pointing this out - that absence does not somehow itself constitute the missing evidence - David Gerard (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment invited by bot Looking at the sources provided I'm minded to agree that this doesn't have sufficient notability and depth for its own article, however there are definitely sufficient sources saying it exists, albeit usually couched in terms such as nascent or fledgling. That being said I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned on this page. Almost every website about transhumanist politics mentions the party, whether in support or derision, so the topic certainly seems to be related enough to warrant an article section. SPACKlick (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree with SPACKlick that whether or not others in the past have decided Transhumanist Party is yet noteworthy enough for its own page, it deserves a section in this article. As far as I'm aware, a given topic or event is not required to have its own Wikipedia article in order to be a section in another article. I also propose that the first sentence should read "The Transhumanist Party is a political party in the United States, founded in October 2014 by Zoltan Istvan." Multiple reputable sources confirm Transhumanist Party exists and was founded by Istvan, including Stanford Political Journal, The Telegraph, Esquire, Popular Science, National Review, Business Insider, Wired, and others. Not a single source calls it a "purported" political party, which (in my opinion) seems to imply that someone claims the party exists, but in fact it does not. Abierma3 (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
You keep claiming to be discussing things, but don't actually address any of the objections to your claims. Read this very talk page in which these claims are discussed and dissected - David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@David Gerard: Abierma3 has actually responded to you at length, which can be easily seen. Feel free to take your own advice, though, and respond to the quotes from a dozen sources that I posted above. You repeatedly claim that the sources are simply repeating here what Istvan told them, but you have given no evidence. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
They're all articles based on interviews with Istvan, and that's been noted repeatedly, in particular in direct response to you - David Gerard (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@David Gerard: Firstly, that is simply untrue. Take a look at the Stanford Political Journal, Leftist Review, and Heise Online articles. Istvan was clearly not interviewed for any of them. The first is a critical response to a debate in which he participated, and the content is extensively researched. The other two are interviews with someone else.
Secondly, just because someone is interviewed for an article does not mean that they are the only source for the entire article. Even if the interview is the centrepiece of the article, it is customary for journalists to do background research about their subjects. Obviously, this is the case in the articles with interviews in these sources, as the experienced authors add their own commentary, and the items are published in notable, professional publications with editorial oversight.
--Haptic-feedback (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
David Gerard has recently made edits to the article regarding the Transhumanist Party that are not NPOV, yet he hasn't responded to the concerns brought up by multiple editors here (backed up by multiple reliable sources as well). These edits should be reverted. Abierma3 (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentSummoned by bot This appears to be a malformed RfC. RfCs are not for determining notability; we have AfD for that, which is where this discussion should happen. For what it's worth, there does not seem to be sufficient reliable secondary coverage for this to be a stand-alone article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I agree. There is a confusing coupling of separate issues: whether the Transhumanist Party should have its own article, and how it should be described in this article. The first issue does not seem suitable for discussion here, and it is negatively affecting productive discussion of the second issue. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Question: How should the "Transhumanist Party" be described (in this article or anywhere else in Wikipedia)? Answer: It is a trick question. The "Party" absolutely should not be described in Wikipedia, anywhere, because it is not a political party. Per Wikipedia, "A political party is an organization of people which seeks to achieve goals common to its members through the acquisition and exercise of political power." (italicized bold emphasis added).

"Transhumanist Party" may be the name of a legal entity, perhaps an Oregon-registered LLC, perhaps having a P.O. box in Mill Valley, California, but, according to Zoltan Istvan: whatever it is, IT HAS NO MEMBERS. Istvan: "And while we don’t have a formal paying membership process, my officers and I estimate—based on social media, event turnouts, and donations—we now have about 25,000 supporters in the US." (bold emphasis added). In Gizmodo.com "Why I’m Running for President As the Transhumanist Candidate" blog written by Istvan dated 7 May 2015. Thank you to whomever found and put forward that reference into this discussion (perhaps by adding it into a version of the "Transhumanist politics" article). Previously I commented about the lack of info about anyone being a member; this explains it...the paper "Party" is not ready for that.

And, I am sorry--I really do apologize--for using stronger language than necessary in a recent edit summary or two, and in narrating my removal of the last version of a section about the "Party" from this article, to be exposed for referencing in a discussion section above. I do not mean to disregard honestly held views of editors participating here. But...c'mon people...really, I do not think Wikipedia should be the respected source which gets a "scoop" on all other news media in breaking the story that the "TP" has 25,000 members!???! (Also: Thank you to several editors who have been enforcing some standard in quality of discussion here, too.) --doncram 05:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Transhumanist Party has 25,000 supporters, not "members" (the source also says "25,000 supporters"). If you think this is insignificant, I would recommend reading this Wired article. Abierma3 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Presenting 'internet followers' as 'supporters' is meaningless or misleading, one is meaningfully a supporter of a political, by actively contributing one's time or money or giving vocal support (or voting for it).Pincrete (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentCame from noticeboard Endorse everything said by Vanamonde93. There does not seem to be sufficient reliable secondary coverage for this to be a stand-alone article, and since the creator of this party seems central to its existence, his page would seem to be the right place for any material kept (with a link or 'see also' here). That said, I don't see the need for words like 'proposed party', it seems reliably sourced to say 'In month/year person X announced that they were forming/had formed etc. which intended etc. + whatever other claims were announced and others which are RS. This leaves the judgement as to what extent this party exists to the reader, and is probably more concise.Pincrete (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Party note

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

There was disagreement before about whether a traditional political party existed or not, in the RFC above and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transhumanist Party (closed as "redirect to Zoltan Istvan"). For the record here are two blogs by an activist and journalist, Hank Pellissier, which indicate skepticism:

I think we had not come across those before, am just recording them here. --doncram 04:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Doncram: This is actually good stuff! We actually have a real source reporting that Istvan himself said the Tranhumanist Party is not a real party. The first post to which you linked does not say anything like that and actually asserts that it exists, but the second one does cast doubt on the Party's authenticity. I think that a reasonable conclusion to reach would be that the Party is not a traditional party and maybe even not a legally recognized one in the same way as the Democratic or Libertarian Party. However, we do not need to make up any new definitions to recognize that it is indeed a political party – a politically active organization. It is probably misleading to call it a political party in the article without qualification, though, so I suggest that we quote that second blog post in the article, as long as you or DSPRC think that Transhumanity.net is not a garbage source. –Haptic-feedback (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not "good stuff". We don't report that there is a party and we don't report that there is not a party. And that is a garbage source, yes. --doncram 06:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
@Doncram: Fair enough, I take back the compliment. However, if you are proposing hiding the Party from Wikipedia, then that would of course be absurd. –Haptic-feedback (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Claim about summer coffin bus tour that was intended

Latest comment: 8 years ago28 comments5 people in discussion

In this edit I removed a newly added-by-newish-editor-AnnonJung claim that Istvan had done a coffin bus tour in summer and suggesting there was media coverage about it having happened. The source given only said that it was a planned event. Quick searching on it, I find that it was still a future event, according to Istvan, in an August 5 blog by him in Huffpost that included what appears to be sketches of the coffin bus (that I am guessing did not yet exist). Perhaps a "coffin bus" existed already or was soon created, and perhaps it was driven somewhere, and perhaps there was widespread independent media coverage about it, I don't know. Or perhaps the news is that it was planned yet didn't happen. Anyhow, we don't cover plans for future events in general (wp:crystalball), and especially not if the future has already gone by. :( --doncram 03:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram: In November, the BBC reported, "Istvan is currently touring the US in what he calls the “Immortality Bus”: an old school bus converted to look like a huge coffin on wheels and paid for by an online crowdfunding campaign." Do you need anything more? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes I do need more, please. And I would prefer if you would please self-revert your restoration (with modification, yes) of the text, and please discuss further in this active discussion; I somehow think that is correct protocol.
[The] new quote/interpretation given is inadequate and in fact misleading. It is a favorable interview/blog which reports Istvan's assertion that he has gotten media coverage of the bus tour. The term "media coverage" is a link, presumably to a collection of such coverage. But no, it only links to the same damn article which claimed there would be a bus tour in the future. This is yet another case of a journalist/columnist reporting uncritically what Istvan says. As far as I know the so-called tour was a dud and does not deserve encyclopedia mention as if it had extensive coverage. The [n]ew blog/column does confirm that there was no bus in existence in August, by the way. I am curious though: what was the itinerary of this bus tour? How many appearances per day were there? How many independent journalists rode the bus and wrote each day about it, like hear from in the case of presidential candidates like McCain and Trump? --doncram 03:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@Doncram: I saw an itinerary on the Immortality Bus website. If you can show me a specific Wikipedia policy or guideline and convince me that the content in question disobeys it, then I would be happy to revert my edit. In the meantime, I will add more sources to ease your doubts. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
You're trying yet again to use sheer weight of dubious references in place of ones that actually verify the claims. The ones I just removed are claims from before the bus tour actually happened, so can't possibly be other than repetitions of press release claims from Istvan - the first two verify the tour's existence. (Though not that it was an event of any impact.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Edited further. The media coverage of the actual bus is so far minimal. The Vox article is all about the bus and says other journalists are along, but this would actually have to result in coverage before we could say there was coverage. There is also nothing to back claims it has been driven around the "United States", given a large chunk of the Vox article is about how close to death the Immortality Bus itself is and how unlikely it is to make it out of California. As a journalist, Matthews is pretty knowkedgeable about Californian transhumanism and even he's just presenting Istvan as a curiosity, if politely. I'm not very convinced this is noteworthy enough for transhumanist politics and shouldn't just be in Zoltan Istvan, where it would certainly rate a mention - David Gerard (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@David Gerard: I added sources for Alabama, Arizona, and Texas. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Pretty good coverage of a campaign stunt, true. As documentation of a single media publicity campaign, it's not really so relevant to transhumanist politics broadly speaking, however - it's Istvan personally publicising himself. As such, I've moved it from here to Zoltan Istvan, including the new refs - David Gerard (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
(Perhaps going off-topic, sorry): Thanks Haptic-feedback for providing link to the tour websites itinerary. I was interested to see that Istvan spoke at a university in Phoenix, perhaps a major event. But it turns out the Youtube video link shows him speaking on the bus itself to just a few students; he was not an invited speaker anywhere. And a photo somewhere shows about 10 people walking towards the bus for the speech to happen, some of whom may be staff/volunteers on the tour, not students. But I am interested, and he speaks well, and I hear him say the trip is going to go through the midwest where fundamentalist Christians live and it will go to megachurches, which sounds interesting. So I check out the video of the visit to the largest megachurch in some state....however the church was EMPTY, apparently open for visitors to see it, there was no confrontation. He was able to buy a coffee at the refreshment stand, great. :( Anyhow honestly I like to hear what he has to say, and I think he is dynamic and interesting. I am kind of glad to find that they did not confront church-goers in some rude way though; he/they have human decency in contrast, say, to the anti-Islamic hater persons from the U.S. South who picketed in front of Islamic mosques in Connecticut some time ago (which was newsworthy and got covered by major media). I would love to see Istvan get some real attention, perhaps in debates that could be truly interesting and have wide coverage, getting out some provocative ideas. It would be awesome to see him speak in one of those many-candidate Republican debates. (But Wikipedia is not the medium to get out new information, this is not a media outlet, there has to be multiple independent reliable sources, etc.) --doncram 03:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
@Doncram: You're welcome. There are also some reports from reporters on the bus in the new citations. I remember reading that there were five riding along at one point. –Haptic-feedback (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
@David Gerard: It was a transhumanist politician in a transhumanist party spreading tranhumanism politically – it seems extremely relevant to transhumanist politics to me. With a plethora of sources, it is surely due some coverage here. There is no reason why information cannot be in two articles. The information was on this page for months – why did you wait until now to remove it for this reason? I will add it back. –Haptic-feedback (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
It's a single media publicity event, which as Doncram has noted seems not to have invonved any actual impact. I moved it to the article it's relevant in, as this is not the Zoltan Istvan publicity article - David Gerard (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
@David Gerard: You know that the tour spanned months across different states, with several reporters writing about the many events on the tour, so I do not understand why you misrepresent it as a "single publicity event" without "any actual impact". Regardless, no Wikipedia policy or guideline is being broken here, and the relevancy to the article it is incredibly obvious, as any unbiased reader would tell you. The content is simply better for Wikipedia, so I will add it back. –Haptic-feedback (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

(←) Aside from it being off-topic really; then again most of the article is. (a lot of this belongs in the parent proper) Not sure what an old bus has to do with the constitution of "a political ideology." (now if it was a self-driving bus!... =D) Don't see many tour buses in (e.g.) Totalitarianism, although many adherents parade about in them (including the aforementioned). It is a publicity event, the entire campaign has been professed as such; burden-of-proof for being impactful is on those making such assertions. This particular content basically is trivia(l). Also we don't need 9001 references for a single (trivial) line; quality over quantity. -- dsprc [talk] 20:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dsprc: It is about the history of the ideology, not the constitution, which is why it is in the history section. No assertion of impact is made, so no proof is needed. That the content can have "9001 references" is actually an argument to keep it. –Haptic-feedback (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Then one more privy to robotology than I should undertake rewriting the defining lead summary (which doesn't summarize article at all) as well the sentences in opening body of article to reflect transhumanist politics as not these things. Which, incidentally, is all the more reason to push into parent where it belongs since this is merely a history of the ideology for which we already have an article -- certainly you support this proposition given your above statement. And, no; it is possible (and frequently the case @ AfD for example) to have a metric-tonne of refs, and they all be shit. The point on refs is separate issue of using a bunch of superfluous links. You and the other Istvanites in particular have a problem flooding articles with garbage citations (and is the reason you're here now). Choose a diamond not mountains of dung. -- dsprc [talk] 21:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@Dsprc: I am sorry to see that you have sunk to slinging false accusations, ad hominem attacks, and profanity. Let me again question your objectivity: are you sure that your emotions are not leading you to false conclusions here? –Haptic-feedback (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
If that causes sorrow then you need to get out more and over yourself. Against whom? Yes, but I'm not required to be objective, only the content I write into articles is; should that be in question: feel free to flip a COIN. -- dsprc [talk] 04:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Dsprc: It is interesting to not see you deny sinking to such depths but rather increase your insults. You clearly made assertions that I am an "Istvanite" and that I am here for the purpose of "flooding articles with garbage citations", both of which are false. In contrast, I am not accusing you of a conflict of interest. I am just questioning whether your seemingly emotionally charged bias and comments are harmful to building an encyclopedia. –Haptic-feedback (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Still don't answer to whom; way to stay off-topic (just like this article). My user page contains links to proper venues should one wish to discuss my contributions; otherwise pound sand. The fact is the last little attempt at propaganda with the T+ Party article was rejected so you all brought that bullshit here; that "article" was based on a great number of bogative sources and that behaviour has been propagated across a number of related articles -- This was raised numerous times and ignored by those practicing it because it interferes with their attempts to pimp certain causes. Wikipedia is the last thing anyone should get emotional over. Also: troll harder. -- dsprc [talk] 05:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Dsprc: To be clear, I said that the false accusations and attacks were against me – if that does answer "to whom", then I do not understand what you are asking. I also had nothing to do with a Transhumanist or "T+" Party article, so that accusation is also false, as is the insinuation that I am trolling. I am glad that we agree, however, that one should try not to get emotional over Wikipedia. –Haptic-feedback (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I hope not to extend this tangent, but I think some other response is needed. It seems false to me that there were multiple "false accusations and attacks", plural. What H-f is making out to be a big deal is the sentence "You and the other Istvanites in particular have a problem flooding articles with garbage citations (and is the reason you're here now)", which should be read in its context. It appears to me be to be part of helpful advice to use few good sources rather than many bad sources. There has been flooding of articles with garbage citations, that is not false, that is what this Talk page is mostly addressing. The one arguably false accusation (but in fact I don't agree it is false because the term is not defined) is that Dsprc assumed H-f is an "Istvanite", while H-f at their current Talk page and perhaps elsewhere has asserted they do not support Istvan (to some significant degree, in ways not explained). To the contrary H-f may in fact soon be playing an "anti-Istvanite" role: per their Talk page H-f expects soon to be "fighting those with a pro-transhumanist bias" when s/he joins a transhumanist wiki. While at Wikipedia H-f plans to "keep pushing" against "anti-transhumanist sentiment". Anyhow there exists no definition of "Istvanite", and I take it to broadly mean "pro-transhumanist" or "pro-life extension". And H-f it is fair to say you are "pro-transhumanist" or "pro-life extension" given your goals stated elsewhere and your contributions. If it helps vis-a-vis Dsprc, I will define Istvanite and call you an "Istvanite" also, meaning that in my eyes, despite your differences with him, you are interested in what Istvan has to say, or at least you have more interest in him than do 4.5 billion other human beings on this planet. You are spending time trying to insert coverage of Istvan => you are interested. It is easy for others to understand your interest as support.
Bottom line (IMO): H-f you should have just replied with clarification of your current stance on Istvan. Dsprc and I and others should not repeatedly call you that, once you have informed them how you apparently have philosophical differences vs. Istvan. And in fact no one has repeatedly called you any term after you have explained yourself (because you have not explained yourself and because no one has repeatedly called you anything), so I don't see any big problem here. Perhaps at your User page you could explain your general stance (including differences vs. Istvan) and suggest an acceptable-to-you label for it (perhaps that is "pro-life-extension")? Or not. --doncram 23:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Doncram: Anyone able to get through your arguments should also be able to read mine and see how flimsy yours really are. My natural interpretation of "Istvanite" is closer to Deku Shrub's, below. Deku and I also have a similar view of Istvan, as I am sure you have read on my Talk page:

I have no affiliation with the Transhumanist Party. I have never met Zoltan Istvan. I did see him talk once because of my interest in life extension, but I was thoroughly unimpressed. I feel that he abuses his connections in the media to spread messages that lack intellectual rigour. However, he has nevertheless succeeded in being recognized enough to merit mention on Wikipedia where relevant, whether I like it or not.

To be frank, I am disinclined to volunteer much more information, given your creepy level of interest in me. –Haptic-feedback (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
"Anyhow there exists no definition of "Istvanite", and I take it to broadly mean "pro-transhumanist" or "pro-life extension"" - No, it means supporting the policies of Zoltan Istvan, something literally no one but Zoltan does as a whole. Zoltan is a self-centred opportunist trying to build his own political career through media savvy. His broader policy platform is supported by no one but himself. Deku-shrub (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Haptic-feedback please do not reinsert material on "tour" without consensus here. Proper procedure here has found that "tour" is not notable, encyclopedic etc. As a publicity stunt it was a failure, in my opinion, and it is not worth further discussion, but discussion here would be better than your edit-warring. Last version has been removed twice by David Gerard and twice by me. --doncram 19:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Doncram: Why not put it to a Request for Comments? –Haptic-feedback (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Why ask my opinion if you are going to start an RFC within one hour, which is what you did. Discussion before opening an RFC, in order to ensure that the community attention is not wasted, would not have been a bad idea. --doncram 23:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
@Doncram: It was a rhetorical question. If the content of this Talk section is not discussion, then I do not know what is. –Haptic-feedback (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a case at the DRN regarding this page.

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the content dispute around the use of various sources in the Transhumanist politics page as references.. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Transhumanist politics#Sources too closely associated with the subject". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 02:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer) Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 02:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transhumanist_politics/Archive_2&oldid=1074295651"