Talk:Zoltan Istvan

notice of discussion about a separate Transhumanist Party article

There's a discussion at Draft talk:Transhumanist Party#how to develop/restore Transhumanist Party article that may be of interest to editors here. Briefly, there's been some efforts to restore/develop a separate article on Transhumanist Party, and some disagreement and/or mis-understanding about whether/how that can be done. --doncram 21:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"Need quotation to verify"; not in source?

These tags were added following this source: https://www.leftistreview.com/2015/03/06/the-age-of-transhumanist-politics-has-begun/rolandbenedikter/ [84] To give the exact quote requested: "Thirdly, the transhumanism movement organized itself for the first time as a concrete political force in autumn 2014, thereby reaching a new level of public visibility and potential impact, irrespective of the immediate success it can or will have at the ballot box…he apparently has financially strong sponsors, who are supposed to guarantee his party public attention." It seems that these corrections and little notes are assigned without investigation, as the answers are in the sources provided for each part and sentence. Overkill? Please pay more attention to everything you add if you want to scrutinize others' contributions too. Mechanic1c (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC) I can assure you I've investigated the sources; WP:AGF and WP:NPA hold here so if you've any concrete evidence present it... At the time line stated "...is one of three reasons for transhumanism entering into mainstream culture" but now it states: "...one of three reasons for transhumanism in 2014 becoming more popular", neither of which are true according to the source, which is why it failed verification (WP:V). The sourcing itself is rather suspect (WP:RS). Mechanic1c's selected quote (and entire piece itself) are speculative in nature; we do not deal with speculation (WP:CRYSTALBALL) and the primary author of the piece presents and may hold fringe views, see: WP:FRINGE. Additionally, these interpretations seems to be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Also, the party could not have made much impact on 2014 as it was "formed" relatively late in the year, as was discussed at previously AfD. If you've any evidence which supports popularization they are welcome. Furthermore the machine translation provided by SteveMiller4 [1] is unacceptable as they are imprecise and fluctuate depending on a large number of factors, and has been reverted on these grounds. Wikipedia has content guidelines and inclusion criteria, if this is unacceptable there are WP:Alternative outlets. -- dsprc [talk] 03:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC) @SteveMiller4: Medium.com itself is a blogging platform the way Wordpress.com or Blogger.com are and regarded within the Wikipedia community as generally not being reliable sources for content. Medium does indeed compensate some bloggers for their content. These are however still blogs but I understand the journalistic ecosystem is different these days; so, if you could provide some material that shows re-form have adequate editorial practices and that the author of the piece in question, Ajai Raj, is regarded as a credible journalist, then it is OK for inclusion. Mainly the tag is there so someone else can check it because it has been identified as WP:QUESTIONABLE, preferably not by SPAs that inserted in first place. -- dsprc [talk] 03:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC) @Dsprc: Hi Dsprc, Here's Ajai Raj's journalism page at Business Insider, an incredibly tough place to get to write at. http://www.businessinsider.com/author/ajai-raj I don't have more info on Re:form since it appears new (though it appears BMW originally sponsored it), but Istvan's social media shows the Medium article was a "staff pic" and so headlined the popular site. Generally, it appears only the best writers headline the site. And Ajai Raj appears to have written many prestigious places, in addition to Business Insider. Also, regarding the quote from Roland, an interview first appeared on Heise.de, which many people consider Germany's top technology site. So I think it carries credibility. Also, the Transhumanist Party is dominating news in the transhumanism ever since it's launch--this can easily be seen from a simple google search of the last 6 months. I understand from a wikipedia editor's point of view this doesn't qualify it for that much, but the quote of Roland's is rather important, even if it's in German. Unfortunately, there's only machine translations of it. But I think that's partially why that quote is changing. The German version appears better for the party and mentions transhumanism entering mainstream due to the party. Thanks for your input. It would be great to get the "advertisement" banner off the page, so please add criticism of the party if you find some to balance it out so that it can be removed. Thanks. SteveMiller4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMiller4 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 11 March 2015 @SteveMiller4: Popularity, staff-pick, etc doesn't really matter; editorial practices do. Can you confirm @ajairaj22 on Medium is indeed the same listed at BizInsider? I see no pointers to Medium content on their personal Web site. Even if so others may still object to it being a blog. Am familiar with Heise. For Roland we need only the line which supports the claim; in {{cite web}} there is a quotation field. My Deutsch is extremely poor so I won't stab at translation of quote. We've multi-lingual editors that can be reached out to; mayhaps WP:GSWN is a good jumping-off point to dig around. "Dominating" is subjective and debatable, as is "launch" (see: Draft talk). For Google: WP:GOOGLEHITS. Am working on the issues, you can speed that up by assisting. Article has a lot of WP:PEACOCK-ish stuff in it. Sourcing is still a concern - people simply dumped a metric tonne of low quality ones, making verification cumbersome. Others are non-objective statements by wp:SPA with potential COI, etc. To a lesser extent Transhumanist Wager section could be trimmed in current form and expanded with _encyclopaedic_ content. Has main article, lets not duplicate cruft here in a biography. Both can be improved. For Transhumanist Party (TP) section, this needs to stop being propaganda by adherents and instead _objectively_ state factual reality. I think a good way to achieve this is to simply realign with Political section w/o all the puffery. Only reason it's present now is a back-door way of having the content after TP article was rejected for failing to meet inclusion criteria (SPA still attempting to subvert process but have calmed recently). If TP is of concern then improve Draft so it meets inclusion standards. -- dsprc [talk] 05:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup

Started to consolidate Transhumanist Party section a bit and make not advertisement looking. SteveMiller4 3-12-15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMiller4 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I moved TP to Pol section and tagged problematic entries. First paragraph is mostly OK, international line is OK, Prof Messerly is OK, but Roland still needs to be vetted else it will have to be removed. Rothblatt needs better sourcing or it will have to go as well (WP:BLP applies both to subject of article and statements about other living persons within it. see notice at top of this page). Vagueness tag is minor, non-pressing cleanup. If Rol & Roth not fixed, will remove later & can be reinserted when better sourced (is no biggy, safe in page history for retrieval). -- dsprc ^[talk] 15:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Doncram: and @Dsprc:, I propose adding to the lead paragraph or the body under politics. I am going to the talk page first because I do not want to step on toes.

In October 2014, Istvan founded the Transhumanist Party and he announced his intent to run for President of the United States in the 2016 elections as presidential candidate of the Transhumanist Party. On June 19, 2015, Istvan filed, with the FEC, his 2016 statement of candidacy.

References

Please discuss. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I added way to many cites to support two sentences. The ones I think are the strongest are the ones I tagged as in English. Please pick and choose. Also, I made sure the articles were about Istvan of about a reaction to what Istvan said. For example, in Exoskeletons v wheelchairs: Disability advocates clash with futurists over 'offensive' solution, the article is not about the Transhumanist political party but Istvan's beliefs are quoted throughout and how it is offensive to handiabled people. There is a mention that he is a presidential candidate of the Transhumanist political party. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Geraldshields11: I've no intention of wading through this muck again or dealing with ideologues that're sure to follow. Someone else can do it. If you want to address the expansion mentioned below involving career and such, I'm more than happy to hack away on that though. -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, more pressing cleanup issues are indiscriminate link dumps as substitute of actual content. Sure, Istvan has written places, but we need not include every single one of them with zero context about nature or notability of work. This, not lack of political material, is a greater contributing factor to article being low quality.

As an aside, you may consider using {{refn}} w/ groupings to particular section or {{reflist-talk}} lieu of standard {{reflist}}; which is not really intended for use on Talk, and inevitably breaks when others decide to also use ref anchor. -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Dsprc:, Thanks for the tip about the {{reflist-talk}}. I took you advice and I appreciate it. I never used that tag before because I usually do wikignome work. I did not mean for a long list of references. I was looking for a third-party who is reporting that something happened. Then, my fellow editors can sort out the WP:Tosoon stuff. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It helps keep "flow" under control. Sometimes a unified reflist is helpful though; depends on circumstances. Use of |group= param is probably sufficient in most cases. {{reflist-talk}} has nice lines of demarcation however. -- dsprc ^[talk] 06:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Dsprc:, I understand that you feel burnt out right now on this subject. Your statement sorta reminds me how I felt and why I do wikignome work. The current reason why I do wikignome work is I had a wiki discussion with various editors, including an editor that claimed to be a Professor at a college, about how there were no effects based on the prophesies at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_phenomenon/Archive_13#Beyond_2012.

My contribution was that Planet Earth was still here with no ill effects after 2012. I had a third party cite and a orbital picture of Planet Earth. But, the third party was on from Planet Earth so I guess people thought it was first party. Ha ha. Just kidding about the first party. But, it is true that I could not get consensus that nothing bad in the prophesies happened.

I earlier today added more content to Limberbutt McCubbins by being bold with an infobox and I just added a comma to 2012 phenomenon. Sorry, if I touched a nerve. So, I hope you continue to be active in the wiki community. Geraldshields11 (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I just grow tired of thousand page manifestos. They™ always profess to be professors. -- dsprc ^[talk] 06:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This article comes across as veiled self-promotion. Could be better if adapted and moved to wikinews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.121.49 (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur with your changes to remove the self-sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Expanding career section

For Istvan's works at Nat Geo, in Kashmir and with WilAid, there are mentions they exist, but no details about the works themselves. This could be expanded with the nature of the works and duration. Istvan does quite a bit of writing, what are his more significant or notable pieces that other reliable sources have commented on as being such? I am not privy to the particulars of the NatGeo (especially video) or Kashmir works but for anyone who is, you're more than welcome and encouraged to take a swing at it. For NatGeo video appearances, there could be a videography section (or separate article to reduce clutter). For Istvan's tenure at WildAid; how did he help 'armed patrol units'? That could be expanded but we need a better sourcing. -- dsprc ^[talk] 14:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for edits Dsprc. I added a few major articles to Early Career and Futurist Career. And I'm researching other

things you mentioned above and seeing what sources are out there. Thanks. SteveMiller4 3-14-2015

minor topic: where Istvan resides

The Wikipedia article has stated (incorrectly IMO) that Istvan and his wife reside in San Francisco, attributed to a Marin County publication's 2013 interview article which describes him as residing in Mill Valley, California instead. It might be argued that Mill Valley, which is located in Marin County, is within a "greater San Franciso" area, though I am sure many Marin County residents would object strenuously to that. In wikipedia the term Greater San Francisco redirects to San Francisco Bay Area (a very large area that does include all of Marin County). Only a very minor amount of sleuthing is required to verify his street address in Mill Valley, which is not far from the street address given at the website www.transhumanistparty.org as the official address of the proposed political party. I corrected from S.F. to Mill Valley in this article. I note also that the "San Francisco" location is given in the Huffington Post's profile about him as a contributing blogger. I cannot determine whether the H Post was following the incorrect Wikipedia statement or whether it is applying editorial judgement that its farflung readers are better served by describing his residence as being in "San Francisco". For wikipedia, if his residence location is to be stated, it should be either "Mill Valley" or "the San Francisco Bay Area". --doncram 16:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

To complicate matters it seems that Zoltan Istvan himself has said he lives in San Francisco, possibly as a metaphor, or at least he has not disagreed with others' statements that he lives in San Francisco, as in this Longevity Show interview of him in May 2015 (near the very end of transcript, and in which "living in San Francisco" might refer to a state of mind). Again, a residence of his and his wife's can be verified to be in Mill Valley, and there is no support of a San Francisco residence existing. --doncram 18:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dsprc: and @Doncram:, Mill Valley is on Istvan's FEC Form 2 as the candidate's address. So, Mill Valley it is. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"News release" tag

I'm not seeing the problem here. The propositions in the article seem to be presented in a factual tone, and are well-cited. There is no question of notability here. Is there specific language that needs to be changed? Otherwise, I would be inclined to remove the tag. bd2412 T 15:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If there is no response to this in another 24 hours, I think it will be reasonable to remove the tag in that time. bd2412 T 00:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Zoltan's page is not reflective of truth and who he is--and it's being dominated by trolls and haters trying to control history and the transhumanism movement

There are at least a dozen significant things wrong with Zoltan Istvan's wikipedia page. The people that edit it (and guard it like trolling hawks) have purposely manipulated it, lied in it, and most often totally left out important parts of Zoltan's work. For about 2 years now these people have been purposely creating a page that haters of Zoltan want, knowing well that Zoltan is the most visible person in the transhumanism movement and "hundreds" of major media stories have been recently written about him to reference (USA Today, The Guardian, BBC, Scientiic American, Salon, etc). And if you doubt his, go research news at Google and then look at "Zoltan Istvan" in Google Trends.

People are trying to control Zoltan's page because they think it's a way to control him and the how the transhumanism movement is perceived. Unfortunately, all it's ending up doing is making wikipedia a joke, where biased trolls behind their computers fight to control content that's some will mistakenly look at as history.

Zoltan has created a historic presidential campaign based on science and technology--the first one of it's kind. An enormous amount of major media has written about these things over the last two years. Along with the Transhumanist Bill of Rights, his 20-point policy plan, and the Immortality Bus, his ideas have reached tens of millions of people. His other philosophical work--mostly through his writings in major media and his activism--have impacted over a 100 million people.

For the sake of wikipedia, let's be honest and objective about people's pages, and have those pages reflect the truth about their work and influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessdaysagain (talk • contribs) 16:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

what the - David Gerard (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

From Endlessdaysagain: You're one of the lead negative-maniupulators of Zoltan's page David Gerard. As soon as someone went to try to update and right some of the wrongs and deliberate false represenations on Zoltan's wikipedia page, within minutes you put an editing restriction on the page. And you're also manipulating the Transhumanist Politics page. Do a 1-year Google Trend search on "Zoltan Istvan" versus "Transhumanist Politics." Zoltan trends about 3 times as much. Yet the Transhumanist Politics page has a single sentence to represent what he's done. You and your cohorts are manipulators and are trying to deny truth. You can minimize Zoltan all you want but it barely affects the real world, because you can't stop the millions of views he does every month. Remember when you tried to stop the Transhumanist Party last year? You may have succeeded in killing the wikipedia page of it, but you couldn't stop it from speaking at the World Bank, or at a major Financial Times conference as the lead keynote address, or delivering a Transhumanist Bill of Rights to Congress, or officially consulting with the US Navy, or appearing numerous times on major tv, or becoming the strongest organization in growing transhumanism. It's been great to watch the movement change so dramatically under Zoltan's approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessdaysagain (talk • contribs) 17:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It is possible you have greatly misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, you really do need to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, then Wikipedia:Advocacy - David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't misunderstood anything. It's a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by people who use it. The problem is when some people make it their mission to control the page and its content, as you did by immediately putting it on lock down the minute someone tried to improve it and correct the outright manipulation on the page. You're standing at the gate of this page, guarding it with your bias, trying to determine the content to influence the people that come searching to find information about Zoltan. Shame on you and the deliberate manipulation you are trying to spread. There are a few dozens major meida articles and interviews that come out on Zoltan every month. Take the time to have the page reflect the truth. An Alexa ranking this morning put Humanity Plus (World Transhumanist Association) site at 800K+ and US Transhumanist Party at 295K. The tide has turned--and the entire movment and its direction belong to a different group than before. I'm not saying that's good or bad. It's just the facts. And with that in mind, the main transhumanism wikipedia page also needs complete updating, not the old guard standing in the way of progress and truth, and what's actually happening today, on the ground with the movement. We're looking forward to improving all these wikipedia pages to reflect truth and accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessdaysagain (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

EndlessDaysAgain wants all this here:

Information icon Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Rhoark (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Rhoark. However, these people have taken to trying to control history. And they are the reason that no real journalists can use wikipedia anymore. David Gerard and his supporters are socialist transhumanists and they are editing Libertarian transhumanist Zoltan Istvan's page as well as the transhumanist politics page--and also putting it on lock down so others can't edit it (and they've been doing this for over a year). That's totally undoes the process here on wikipedia. All I want is more people editing the pages and doing some real research. There are the same people that deleted the 3 laws of transhumanism page. And now they stick it as part of zoltan's campaign--which is it NOT at all his platform. Zoltan's page was more accurate (thuogh still inaccurate) before people started manipulating it in the last few weeks. It's a shame what goes on at Wikipedia in some cases like Zoltans page. Endlessdaysagain

Whether or not any of that is true, those kinds of allegations make it less likely rather than more likely that you will be able to effect any changes on the article. Again, comment on content, not contributors. Rhoark (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Endlessdaysagain, I'd like to offer you a couple of pointers. First, you should always end comments to talk pages with four tildes (Endlessdaysagain (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)). This will add your signature, which contains a link to your user page and the date and time of your comment. This helps us follow the conversation better. Second, if you feel that the article is inaccurate, you simply need to find reliable sources that support the changes you wish to make. If there are other reliable sources disagreeing, then the article will need to reflect that, such as by saying "While source X say Y, source Z says U and source N says A." If you cannot find reliable sources for the content you wish to insert, then I'm afraid it's not going to get into the article. Finally, you should be very careful about how you argue here. It is Wikipedia's strictly enforced policy that we comment on content, not on contributors. It's fine to say that someone is wrong, so long as you can make a convincing argument that they are. What's not fine is saying that a certain group of editors is responsible for 'ruining' Wikipedia, or an article, or to speculate about what it is about them that makes them wrong. Furthermore, when you say things like "A team is gathering to correct all the lies and manipulation..." you are first accusing a number of other editors of deliberately inserting falsehoods, which is not acceptable here. You also appear to be implying that you have been canvassing for editors who agree with you to artificially add the weight of numbers to your argument. Both of those things can end up with you being blocked from editing, or topic banned from editing certain articles. While we appreciate your passion for this subject, editing Wikipedia is something that should be done dispassionately. This is not the youtube comment section, where people are free to express whatever thoughts they have, nor is it a forum, where people are encouraged to discuss, argue and debate. This is an encyclopedia, and as such, we require a much higher standard of conduct that most of the internet. I hope this helps. If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page (simply click on the part of my signature that says "tell me all about it" and post your questions there). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Rhoark, I appreciate the things you said. But the editor David Gerard put the page on lockdown for me as soon as I began to try to edit. And YES, that editor and others are making deliberate falsehoods and creating deliberate misleading information. They've been doing it for about 2 years. I don't say this as someone who is passionate about the subject, but as part of a team with world class journalists on it who are also examining the issues and who would be fired if they ever wrote something like Zoltan's wikipedia page (it's quite inaccurate and maniulated). Wikipedia is not FOX news with it's own agenda. This a public encyclopedia that strives for objectivity. I implore you to look into this--to look into the history. People like David Gerard are manipulating a number of transhumanisim pages, specifically those that contain information on Zoltan. They are purposely fightig tooth and nail for every sentence for over a year so it contains their angles or it doesn't contain the information at all. If you want to solve the problem, please edit the pages in question. That's all I ask. If you did, you'd know Zoltan is known much more than a journalist and transhumanist. He's an activist. He's a businessman, with multiple businesses. He's a best selling author. He's a famed adventuror. And He would never endorse the 3 laws of transhumanism in his campaign. He wasn't just an "online" reporter for Nat Geo (he was on camera tv). And you wounldn't be quoting some stanford journal of bachelor degree students--some blog they put up. Also, Zoltan's written for a dozen other major places. His speeches have been at the World Bank and giving keynotes at mega Financial Times coferences. And the campaign section of the site is a joke. It's not just out of date, it's deliberately made to seem like it's not a real campaign--when theirs 2 years of major media reporting on it. Maybe 500 "major media" stories have come out (and probably 5000 altogether) in the last 2 years that talk about his campaign. You don't seem to understand what you wrote above in your note. The reporting on Zoltan's page is atrocious--deliberately designed to minimize Zoltan's impact. And that's how David Gerard and others work against Zoltan and try to rewrite history. I implore you to take a few hours and go in and correct all the info. Zoltan's campaign has been historic, which why it's so often in the media. The Immortality Bus should have it's own wikipedia page (dozens of mainstream media covered it's 4 month trip--there were always embedded journalists on it). And the 3 laws of transhumanism should also have their own page, as they used to before it was deleted by angry transhumanists who didn't want their movement affected. Well guess what, it's a part of history and Zoltan's book is now the most influetial book in the movement (or aleast one of the top three). That's just the way it is. If anyone doubts any of this, just go google major media for it. It's all there for people to see. I'm telling you again, various pages that Zoltan is a part of are being manipulated by various wikipedia editors trying to push their angle on the transhumanist movement. We need to get that all corrected--and not by transhumanists or interested parties, but by wikipedia editors with no bias. Thanks! EndlessDaysAgain

More:

If you want any of that in the article, you need to:

1. Stop worrying about David Gerard
2. Find reliable sources to back you up. Rhoark (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not David Gerard, it's the entire older or socialist transhumanist crowd that built these pages. Because you see, transhumanism until Zoltan arrived 3 years ago was controlled by the elder academics, but now it's being moved forward by youth and people like Zoltan who are activists and media people. Unfortunately, most those youth are not on wikipedia, as it's not part of their social media approach. They are more involved with major media, which is why, for example, Zoltan does potentially 50X the traffic or IEET or Humanity Plus these days. Again, this is now fact, 1 and 2 years later. The reality is that the wikipedia has a deperate authoritarian problem--on issues like transhumanism that aren't that frequently edited, the pages can't be trusted to be objective. That's why journalists don't use wikipedia. It's not reliable. YOU, WIKIPEDIA, NEED TO FIX THIS PROBLEM. Not the people. You need to find a way to keep the trolls from dominating democracy with their biases. You need to find a way to have quality wikipedia editors. As long as journalists don't trust your content, you'll never be more than the National Enquirer of Crowdsourced content--a glorified tabloid of the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessdaysagain (talk • contribs) 05:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

(I'm neither a socialist nor a transhumanist, but I don't expect that to make any difference) - David Gerard (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Please can you add socialist transhumanist to your user page so we can laugh at this? :D Deku-shrub (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Basilisk'sake, I don't want to encourage them. NSA guy is still the reigning champion - David Gerard (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I hear big homoeopathy pays you for your shilling in Bitcoin ;) Deku-shrub (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Ethereum Classic, thou infidel - David Gerard (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. All I'm seeing above is some guy on a soapbox. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

How can you NOT see that adding the 3 Laws of Transhumanism to Zoltan's presidential campaign section is a total stab of malice towards him. He's said many times they are not a part of his political platform. You know this harms his campaign. Yet the Transhumanist Bill of Rights is a part of his campaign, as is his 20 point plan--but they're not there--theyre missing, even though they've had plenty of mainstream coverage and it would take you 2 minutes to put them in. You allow edits that we all know are false and designed to be malicious to Zoltan and misleading of the truth, so that you can try to bring him down. But you won't do the right thing--which is fix the page and add the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessdaysagain (talk • contribs) 01:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Finally I can make changes, so I did. I made excellent additions--all neutral and objective. I left in all the criticism, though I'm skeptical you can use criticism of "desperately needing the limelight" Natasha from the comments section of IEET--and not the base of an article. And why include criticism from Rothman when he's no one. There's plenty of criticism of Zoltan from people who are recognizable, where it means something. Endlessdaysagain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessdaysagain (talk • contribs) 06:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Okay. If you continue to talk about malice and attempts to tear this guy down and hint at a conspiracy, you're going to end up being site-banned (permanently blocked from ever logging in or creating a new account) for making personal attacks to push a POV. If you want to change the article, what you need to do is find reliable sources that say the things you want the article to say, and present those here (assuming you can't edit the article for some reason). However, if you continue to hurl accusations and demand that others do the work for you, you WILL face sanctions. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm trying to give you a friendly warning (for the second time now). Also, please start signing your comments. I've excplained how on your talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead section content

@Brian-armstrong and Endlessdaysagain: - Looking at the lead section, I see why one might want to put the {{advert}} tag on the article (He is one of the world's most influential transhumanists and believes transhumanism will grow into a mainstream social movement in the next decade.), but I think the problems are better fixed through editing. Please comment here on what changes you think should or shouldn't be made to the article so it is not promotional. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I addressed a similar tag two years ago. I see no basis for an {{advert}} tag. What I would prefer to see is a set of concrete proposals on what the disagreeing editor thinks would need to be changed. Are there weasel words? Statements unsupported by sources? Suppressed missing sources presenting differing information on the subject? bd2412 T 03:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Zoltan-Istvan-headshot.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)