Talk:Transhumanist politics

content removed "by accident"
Editor H-F has asserted in edit summaries that some content was removed "by accident". Would you please explain, supporting that with diffs. This involves a statement alleged to be by Riccardo Campo that "Transhuman expressions appearing in corrupted startup societies will be grotesque, dangerous, and, indeed, anti-transhuman." I have not created an account and obtained full access to the cited source, but the quote seems plausibly a quote from Campo. Also I have not determined when the quote was introduced into this article. It does not appear to be vandalism or an accident, up front. -- do ncr  am  14:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is the source. Here is the "diff". The quote is the same as citation #32, so it was clearly a mistake. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks, that explains it. I see the startup societies quote is indeed contained within the other source.  And I see that it was an I.P. editor on February 10 making the incorrect edit, attributing it to Campo.  And that H-F has again changed the quote for Campo to the original quote for Campo, which seems correct.  So this is resolved.  Thanks. -- do  ncr  am  07:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC) ✅


 * I'm happy to help. :) --Haptic Feedback (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

New Scientist content
You removed content with a source that you consider to be unreliable, and you suggested that this is so because the source article's title -- which you consider to be clickbait -- and not its body is used. Please note that this content has consensus, shown by its months of uncontested existence on the page, so please do not remove it unless consensus changes. I have created a post on the reliable source noticeboard about the matter here. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. A bad source sticking in an article for months does not make it a good source. 2. I see you have been answered clearly and didn't understand the answer, even though I really can't see what's ambiguous about "One needs to find relevant claims within the article in such cases as a rule." - David Gerard (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Explanation from RS/N was a simple one: don't use headlines. Would be more of such cleanup would some cease attempts to own the article and raise long, drawn-out bureaucratic objections to even the most minor changes. -- dsprc   [talk]  09:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge other articles into this one?
Should Democratic transhumanism, libertarian transhumanism, and technoprogressivism be merged and redirected into this article? It seems unnecessary to split four articles that fall under the same subject. Waters.Justin (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * First two, not the third - technoprogressivism is closely related, but has a history separate to transhumanism. But those first two are basically the substantive content this article should be covering - David Gerard (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Be aware that if democratic transhumanism and libertarian transhumanism are merged this may encourage editorial battleground mentality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.121.49 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Can't be worse than what it's been through already - David Gerard (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed and ✅ Klbrain (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Transhumanist politics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.re-public.gr/en/?p=837

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I want to point out what's going on at Zoltan Istvan's page.
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[edit source] 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessdaysagain (talk • contribs)


 * There we go! Look, the response by the people defending Zoltan Istvan and making the Transhmanist Politics page is already hidden. You all saw it. Is that an objective way to deal with this? I'm telling you, this entire transhumanism situation on wikipedia is being manipulated and truth is being thrown out. They can't stop Zoltan where it matters (on major media--did you see the stuff that came out on the Transhumanist Party today (Daily Mail, Vice, and a few other smaller sites--every day, you can't stop it, but you try here anyway), but they still try here on the site that's supposed to be objective. Here's more info on what's going on from the talk page of Zoltan Istvan. They will minimize it, but it's still here for all to see--the truth!

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessdaysagain (talk • contribs)

More on this:
 * If you want any of that in the article, you need to:
 * Stop worrying about David Gerard
 * 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) 05:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please join https://hpluspedia.org It exists for the development of transhumanists information which a wider range of sources than Wikipedia allows in order to circumvent a number of issues on Wikipedia. Deku-shrub (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)