Talk:TESCREAL

Restoring this Page
This term has quickly common into common usage in a wide range of essays, news coverage and other discussion of AI and the culture of Silicon Valley and the tech industry in the US. I'm concerned that its deletion/ merge with the term's originator may have been a hasty decision spurred on by some editors with a bias against outside criticism of TESCREAL ideologies. As an editor who usually focuses on topics in the arts, I'd like to see if editors with less baggage related to the charged topics at hand might take a stab at developing a page for this subject that would quite easily qualify based on notability and other benchmarks. Mbroderick271 (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd like to take a crack at improving this article, eventually, after exams are done.
 * I've mostly just been doing rando edits while exams are on for me haha.
 * I might go thru the WP:REFUND process to try my hand at this, when I have the time. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

wp:blp applies to poorly sourced material
please use discretion and do not delete large portions of an article without cause Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Avatar317 stop editwarring on a newly recreated article and discuss on talk page or on the WP:BLPN
 * Most of the sourcing on this article comes from well publicized news sources, and most of these figures are WP:PUBLICFIGURE
 * Some are self-confessed TESCREALists and happily declare themselves to be. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * There were some sentences that were sourced only to Torres, which I agree need secondary sourcing. However I do agree that the sourcing is acceptable for the others. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just seeing this is at BLPN now. Dropping the link for anyone else who may have missed it: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Weasel word section
"Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source."

@Avatar317 please self-revert. Every claim has multiple sources. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Multiple incredibly low-quality sources. See the previous Talk discussions, The Washington Spectator is a very low quality source, and a lot is sourced to it. --- Avatar317 (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm only seeing one mention of the Washington Spectator at RSN: a 2015 discussion where an editor referred to it as "obviously reliable".
 * I addressed several instances of vague who? wording earlier, but when summarizing opinions presented in multiple sources you tend to end up with a laundry list of names that a reader can go to the references section to find. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:OPINION applies according to WP:RSP. It can be used with attribution and without stating it as a fact, which we do.
 * Also, it is only used for Ray Kurzweiller and Musk. Idk if we need Kurzweiller if only a single source suggests he is TESCREALIST, as per what Avatar says.
 * But Musk has 5 others sources in addition to Washington Spectator. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed Kurzweil, as he's mentioned frequently and uncontroversially in the context of "TES", but not so much in the context of "CREAL". One could probably WP:SYNTH together various sources describing him as someone who has been influential to the CREAL world, but I think we should wait for secondary sources to focus on him in the TESCREAL context before listing him here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would be healthier for the article to let other people engage with it. I made the first version and struggled for it, and you made several intervention then. Now other people took an interested, which i think is the best way to produce a less one-sided article. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality
I will repost here what I said at the DYK nomination: I have to second the concerns brought up there. This article was merged in November for poor sourcing and the fact that it seemed to lean very heavily into the op-ed angle of the source it did use. To be clear, I certainly have a great personal distaste for the majority of people who run the majority of software companies, and ethical objections to a good portion of the United States' GDP (I am a diehard Linux user with all of the political implications that entails). However, the implication that "global tech elites" are engaged in a deliberate scheme to carry out eugenics (as one of the sources said from the previous version of this article), based on a collection of op-eds where people who hate them say this a bunch of times, seems to raise some rather significant BLP issues. It is somewhat concerning to vaguely imply this in wikivoice as though it's settled fact, and then the citations are to a bunch of op-eds and a journal of biosemiotics.

In general, I would say that the term is pretty obviously a derogatory epithet, made up by two people specifically to describe other people with whom they have extensive political disagreements and personally dislike. We would not have an article called Chud (politics) or Libtard (politics) and then said in wikivoice a bunch of stuff about how they hated freedom et cetera, cited to clickpieces about same. We do have articles about pejorative terms, e.g. simp, SJW, Christofascist, cuckservative, angry white male, feminazi, but these are written to be about the use of the terms, they don't get distracted after the lead and then get into "But seriously, folks:". jp×g🗯️ 02:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * A) This article was merged for lack of WP:N. If you consider it still an issue, use WP:AfD or bug the original admin who deleted, merged, than undeleted this. It isn't a valid argument to suggest that it's settled that it deserves to remerged if we've added a ton of sourcing. Settle it by starting the process.
 * B) Are there reliable sources indicating that TESCREAL is a significantly derogatory epithet similar to Libtard/Chud? Marc Andreessen self-describes as TESCREAList. Many of the sourcing here does not necessarily imply that every TESCREAList is also a eugenicist, only two. Also, we have Big Tech as a wikipedia article along with criticism, which is arguably also a similar perjorative against tech companies.
 * C) That more than a dozen opinions use a term like this should be notable enough. I suspect that any sort of article about philosophies will require opinionated sources or commentaries. Effective altruism includes sourcing from Centre for Effective Altruism and by extension the Effective Altruism Forum, study centers specifically invested in effective altruism and founded by leaders, as well as many opinions.
 * D) WP:OPINION applies here, especially for philosphical arguments. I looked for criticisms of TESCREAL. If more are published, we can include them. These sources are WP:SECONDARY, they contain analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources.
 * E) If you want to settle WP:BLP, please post in the section on WP:BLPN. We've already started and done this argument. There are multiple sources on WP:PUBLICFIGUREs here alleging that many of these folks use TESCREAL to justify their tech projects, and we make sure to use the word "allege" correctly, as per WP:OPINION, along with the correct sourcing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I dont think its sustainable to compare TESCREAL with "simp, SJW, Christofascist, cuckservative, angry white male, feminazi", they are not derogatory in the same sense at all. TESCREAL is an acronym, composed by the terms created and used by advocate's themselves. As a neologism, it is primarily an attempt of render the overlaps and interconnections between them visible. Its a concept of scholarly value, an analysis of contemporary ideological formations - "made up by two people specifically to describe other people with whom they have extensive political disagreements and personally dislike" - is extremely unjust to the actual context of their proposition and use.
 * Transhumanism relation with eugenics is not even controversial, even if some, or most, theorists attempt to dissociate and criticize this root. And the ideas of tech sub-culture already have a lot of bibliography dedicated to its analysis, even when its not flattering at all - The Californian Ideology, Technolibertarianism. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, allegations that Elon Musk and Nick Bostrum use philosophies connected to eugenics is well documented too.
 * In terms of Musk's pronatalist views: "Mainstream demographers, anthropologists and other experts who spoke with Businessweek say this is because the movement writ large is synonymous with junk science, the heir to a legacy of racism and eugenics espoused by earlier generations of dubious population researchers"
 * Nick Bostrum's Future of Humanity Institute is also dogged by commentary such as "Eugenics on Steroids".
 * We should not worry about public figures facing criticism, and us summarizing that criticism. These opinions aren't random blog posts, they are published in reputable sources, and we correctly use WIKIVoice. If folks want to find more, or if you find appropriate criticism of the term TESCREAL, feel free to include it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You have given a great example of circular sourcing, that does not independently support the claim you are trying to make. Either you are not reviewing the sources you're linking, or you are misrepresenting them:
 * "dogged by commentary"
 * The "eugenics on steroids" quote in that article is directly from Emile Torres. This quote is, crucially, not being supported as a factual claim by the paper -- that's why they put it in quotation marks in the headline, they're saying that Emile said that. They are explicitly not making the editorial claim of agreeing with it.
 * "A quote of Emile Torres saying something" is not independent sourcing to corroborate that the quote is true, nor does casting vague aspersions with contorted, evasive phrasing like "use philosophies connected to". jp×g🗯️ 14:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I feel like this article is extremely cautious about using in-text attribution to avoid presenting things in wikivoice. Can you be more specific about where you think that's missing? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 11:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank YOU for adding that attribution, and hopefully Bluethricecreamman will take those clues and write more like that. Those issues were a huge part of my complaint and removal of the "Alleged TESCREALists" section. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * find reliable sourcing and we can put in attributed voice that many consider it a conspiracy theory Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this post from | the previous deletion discussion for this article is relevant to this current discussion: It seems there's two relevant evaluations of the acronym: 1) There is a cluster of groups/ideologies, and it's reasonable to have a name for it; and 2) the coiners of the term are fond of making conspiracy-theoretic insinuations about the group. I think both are correct (except Cosmism doesn't belong). TheDefenseProfessor (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "the coiners of the term are fond of making conspiracy-theoretic insinuations about the group" this statement is more arbitrary and source-less than any sentence of the whole article. I was there during this deletion process, and this accusation of 'conspiracy' was sadly unjustified and yet repeated to exhaustion. Lets have a serious discussion of what qualifies as a conspiracy, if someone really intends to insist on this point. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * As I'm sure you know, this James Hughes (sociologist) post: characterizes it as a conspiracy theory, but until TESCREAL gets enough publicity for a good solid source (like NYT, WSJ, etc) to do some thorough reporting on it, we don't yet have any strong sources calling it a conspiracy theory.
 * Note that no current sources say that TESCREAL is bad; the ones we have all attribute the claims of TESCREAL's malevalence to Gebru or Torres. --- Avatar317 (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A sole source from someone that has as much convictions in play as Torres and Gebru; worth to add in the article as a critical voice, but cannot assert itself as a conclusive evidence. Also, if I could give my personal evaluation, Hughes text has some serious flaws, for example when he attempts to dismiss the presence of cosmism - even if this term is not the best possible choice, we have previous scholarship that provide an overview of the strength of ideologies which could be called 'space expansionism', see Daniel Deudney 2020 book.
 * "the ones we have all attribute the claims of TESCREAL's malevalence to Gebru or Torres" - in the sense that Gebru and Torres coined the term, I agree that logically they could be the only initial critics of TESCREAL, but each and every line of this ideology has received independent reviews that agree, at least partially, with Gebru and Torres, even if not naming it all as 'TESCREAL'. If you read their article, you will also see an abundance of sources investigating the social and political stakes of AI, transhumanism and so on and so on, especially the negative ones. Its not sustainable to say that the topic is understudied in this sense. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Gebru: linking eugenics with rationalism and effective altruism
 * Gebru: linking eugenics with the entire TESCREAL acronym
 * Torres: tescreal + "eternal return of eugenics"
 * Torres: tescreal + "directly grew out of eugenics"
 * The entire thing is part of an elaborate exercise in applying Bacon's Law to guilt by association. Singularitarianism is linked to effective altruism, effective altruism is linked to maximizing human potential, maximizing human potential is linked to eugenics, and (often implied rather than stated) eugenics is linked to nazi "eugenics". Now anyone who has ever talked about AGI can be smeared as basically a nazi. It isn't a serious way to engage with the world and it isn't encyclopedic. Jruderman (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * use a reliable source to include this in a criticism section. also give a specific reason for why TESCREAL doesnt belong or start a WP:AfD if you think it should be deleted Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I want to make it clear that I don't want this debate to exist in article space. I don't want a reliable source to be quoted stating that they're acting in bad faith. Instead, I want their bad-faith attacks to simply not be on Wikipedia. On their bios, pick one of their coherent criticisms of longtermism to quote instead. Let this controversy die down. Let Gebru and Torres go back to doing the good work they were doing before they were doing this. Jruderman (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wp:notaforum. it mostly sounds like because you disapprove and their politics don’t agree with yours you’d rather delete.
 * if you wanna delete this, cite the wikipedia policy and use the processes we have. we don’t just delete because people claim the article is bad faith Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure Joaquim, I will provide primary sources of a coiner of the term making conspiratorial claims about the referents of the term, if it will improve discussion.
 * In this twitter thread, Dr. Torres alleges that longtermists are "extremely power hungry", "want to control the future direction of humanity", and "are infiltrating institutions like the UN". They demonstrate with a quote from a longtermist who is discussing activism strategies, likely taken from the public EA Forum. Note the loaded language- in particular, "infiltrate" indicates an inappropriate operation to covertly influence an organization, as opposed to eg civic activism in the UN via proper channels. Note also that the allegation is not about a subset of longtermists, but by implication any person who believes in longtermism. This is a claim that a group is acting secretively with aims of inappropriately influencing world events and controlling humanity.
 * In this thread, they claim that TESCREAL people constitute an existential risk- that is, a deadly threat to humanity. They state that "you" the reader should be afraid of adherents of these ideologies. They then imply that claims of benefitting humanity are an intentional lie. This is a claim that a group is dangerous, and ought to be feared and mistrusted.
 * Finally, in this thread they reiterate statements that the cluster of people is dangerous. They indicate that talk of value alignment of an AGI is a falsehood, and that TESCREAL people actually intend for AGI to benefit a small number of people to the detriment of all others. They state that there is "literally zero evidence" that these people mean what they say when they talk about "benefitting all humans", which implies that people in the group had an onus to somehow prove to the public they aren't secretly malevolent, and have failed to do so. Dr. Torres singles out an individual who is under suspicion of malevolent intent, and mentions Indigenous peoples, Muslims, and nonhuman animals as groups that are endangered. This is a claim that a group of people is dangerous, secretly plans to harm others, and is lying when they claim otherwise.
 * In the latter two cases, Dr. Torres is vilifying the whole TESCREAL bundle.
 * I'd say all three of these are patently conspiratorial. Are there objections? TheDefenseProfessor (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles rely on independent, reliable sources — not on individual Wikipedians' interpretations of tweets. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand the idea that it is inappropriate synthesis or original research to discuss the contents of an author's writings, on the talk page for an article about those writings, after being directly asked by another participant to elaborate on a previous claim about what the writings said. jp×g</b>🗯️</b> 14:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The talk page is intended for discussion of changes to the article, not just our own opinions on the article subject, and any changes to the article need to be based in reliable sources. No changes can be made based merely on whether some Wikipedians believe the coiners of the term to be conspiracists. My interpretation of JoaquimCebuano's reply above was that they were asking for sources that would support adding evaluation #2 to the article. If they were just asking for Wikipedians to chime in with their own opinions on Torres and Gebru, that would be better done somewhere that isn't Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On 2nd thought, my reply was unhelpful and I apologize to all. I assume there is a guideline for new articles indicating different treatment if their topic is fringe. But after rereading I do not see any mention of such a guideline, so the fringe-ness was outside the scope of the discussion.
 * I agree that tweets and interpretation of them are not good for inclusion in articles. TheDefenseProfessor (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Something I'm having trouble figuring out, please nobody interpret this as sniping: I see several editing guidelines, such as on what constitutes primary vs secondary sources, indicating judgement is often needed. I see a bunch of claims made here that aren't grounded in article sources. I assumed that these were for explaining judgement calls, and that lower standards of evidence for judgement calls are usually okay. But in some cases I see replies that there's not strong citation for the claim, and everyone moves on.
 * It seems like I'm missing something. Is there an intro for proper ways to discuss judgement calls on the talk page? Or do they belong somewhere else?
 * For example, on the previous version of this page I thought a secondary source was low-quality because the journal had a likely POV, and since the source was a critical theory article in a primarily medical journal, the peer review was questionable. I would not have been able to come up with a high quality secondary source to support that claim. Would it have been kosher to just remove the cite and give a reason? TheDefenseProfessor (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * wp:brd if you have an idea for a change then do it already and if someone doesnt like it, we revert. then we discuss the specific change and come to consensus based on policy. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You said: "Would it have been kosher to just remove the cite and give a reason?" - Yes. And remove whatever statement is sourced to that cite, unless the statement is also sourced to other cites. Discussions on the reliability of sources can be discussed here, but you can always delete the statement and cite with a good articulated reason, and see if anyone objects, and then discuss if need be. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason the policies seem vague and contradictory and hard to understand is twofold:
 * First of all, because your very first Wikipedia argument is taking place on your 26th edit, on a politics article, against three people at the same time, two of whom are badgering every comment, and the other of whom is a rather distinguished and competent administrator in nearly her twentieth year on the project. Most people play Space Invaders the first time they go to an arcade, whereas you are playing, I dunno, 『東方花映塚 〜 Phantasmagoria of Flower View』【Lunatic】 or something.
 * Second of all, because they are. What you're looking for might be WP:FRINGE (or the subsection WP:PROFRINGE), which is nominally about all types of unfalsifiable or non-rigorous claims that depart from the mainstream, but in practice is applied exclusively to the specific topic areas of alternative medicine, pseudoscience, perpetual motion, creation science, and crackpot magnets like "neuro-linguistic programming", mostly because it was written specifically to target bullshit papers on those subjects in the mid-2000s when these were the relevant culture war issues. You could also be looking for WP:RSOPINION, or maybe WP:DUE, or maybe MOS:W2W, or maybe WP:BLP.
 * <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 01:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fringe: Per Wikipedia sourcing guidelines, we can't describe BRAND NEW topics/theories as fringe in Wikipedia when no mainstream or well-known scholars have authored any papers describing the new theory as an outlier or as way-out-there (fringe). We must (per policy) state all of this as CONJECTURE and not fact.
 * Antivax conspiracies during COVID spread so quickly on social media (gained sufficient publicity/notoriety) that newspapers picked up the conspiracy stories and interviewed multiple doctors and scientists who pointed out their falsehoods. This TESCREAL idea seems to currently be a niche subject for which that has not happened yet.  Maybe if Biden mentioned this in a speech we'd have a storm of news articles investigating it. --- Avatar317 (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM... discussing writings in terms of reliable sources we can use to improve the article should be fine.
 * Discussing tweets and dunking them because we disagree with the politics is silly, and then using our dunks on the tweets to try to destroy the other sourcing seems especially silly.
 * If you disagree with the politics of the discussion of TESCREAL, then fine. Adding opinions as they become available, from reliable-ish sources, makes the article better, as long as we use WP:ATTRIBUTION. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Still, not one reliable third source making the case for 'conspiracy theory'. None of these 'conspiratorial claims' seem conspiratorial at all, mostly are trivial assertions given the circumstances. Regulatory capture is a pretty established phenomenon. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * these are not good faith discussions anyways. best not to take them at face value except as partisan bickering Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop responding to every comment on this page with insults. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 18:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

No evidence for claims made in this article
There is no evidence that these ideas are connected to eugenics, scientific racism, or anything similar. The authors of the article that coined the term have a history of generating a lot of media noise by yelling "racist!" and "sexist!" at anything they don't like, and therefore this seems to by somewhat of a manufactured controversy. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * put it in a criticism section with reliable sourcing Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is filled with sources, this kind of blatant statement lack any value in a constructive discussion. You must criticize the specifics if you are interested in making any point. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Misleading claim about political orientation
Even the lead contains a statement from Gebru and Torres that is not just false, but at the opposite of reality: that the movements are "right-wing". I just checked a 2022 EA community survey that shows that 76.6% of left-leaning respondents vs 2.9% right-leaning. Similar result with a poll of rationalists. Alenoach (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The claim is properly attributed as their opinion, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. If there are reliable secondary sources that challenge Gebru and Torres' description of the movements in the "TESCREAL bundle" it could be added, but using community polls like this would be WP:SYNTH. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * agreed. Its attributed. Undid the dubious tag. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if it is an attributed opinion and not a claim of fact, placing an allegation of political extremism in the lead strongly implies to readers that it is true, or at least that it's plausible enough to be worth mentioning.
 * If there is not a solid basis to believe that this claim is true, I don't think we should be featuring it so prominently there, as it seems like a rather nasty and unsubstantiated accusation against a bunch of living persons. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 02:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's still a lot more substantiated than a couple of polls of self-described rationalists on an internet forum. However this is handled, it really doesn't seem like an extraordinary claim. The body cites a defense of TESCREAL from the American Enterprise Institute, which isn't even that surprising. Per the body, this does appear to be a defining trait that should be in the lead. As for BLP, WP:BLPGROUP applies. This group is not so tiny that it must be treated similarly to a single person. Grayfell (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:DUBIOUS states that we use the template if the statement is incorrect. That Gebru and Torres allege this to be a right-wing movement is not in question, and putting the DUBIOUS template back was a mistake.
 * If you suggest it was undue in the lede, we can remove the "right-wing" portion from the statement. That's a differing concern.
 * The lede currently does not suggest political extremism and only says that Gebru and Torres allege that TESCREALists use human extinction to justify projects.
 * If you are bringing "a rather nasty and unsubstantiated accusation against a bunch of living persons" as an argument, you need to separate that and handle this in WP:BLPN, or start a new section. We have litigated this already here and above. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

As the person who added it to the lead, I agree that FACTUALLY it is extremely dubious because likely most subscribers to one or more of those philosophies would self-identify as left-wing. It is not at all dubious to say that "G & T ALLEGE that", which is what they do.

Perhaps it could be better worded; I tried to squeeze it in without much modification to the other text; but as it was "Gebru and Torres allege this is a right-wing movement" maybe sounds like a huge chunk of right-wing people support it or initiated it, when likely less than 1% of right wing people even know about it.

Maybe "Gebru and Torres allege this movement allows its proponents to use the threat of human extinction to justify societally expensive or detrimental projects, and they allege it is politically right wing." ? --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * could we just go back to the original version before the kerfluffle? reads more concisely, and didn't really have an actual issue.
 * left-wing/right-wing is a relative term. tbf, most things are right wing from gebru and torres' pov, and i think attributing it to them should be enough. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the details Avatar317. My concern was primarily towards unfamiliar readers that would see it and would have the reasonable prior that there must be some truth behind the allegations. Many readers have strong political opinions, and might mistakenly make their mind by the time they read "right-wing". So I'm a bit reluctant towards having this statement in the lead. Alenoach (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)