Talk:Transhumanist politics/Archive 3

Split out Transhumanist Party content from transhumanist politics
The coverage garnered by the various transhumanist party organisations has now eclipsed that of the policy development as a whole. Specifically Zoltan Istvan's bus tour, and the activites of the UK Party. As as result, rather than trying to cram such political activities into general politics, they would be better serviced back on Transhumanist Party.

COI disclaimer, I am a major contributor to H+Pedia and involved in the UK party. Deku-shrub (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not itself a reliable source for Wikipedia. -- do ncr  am  06:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC) ::::Was this comment really so important that the common practice of placing a reply below older replies to the same comment had to be ignored? Gap9551 (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think there is enough coverage by independent reliable sources now to revive the article on Transhumanist Party (previously deleted per this AfD from November 2014, but still available in the page history). A lot of media coverage has been received in 2015. The Transhumanist Party seems to be the primary topic of e.g., and the secondary topic of many pieces on Istvan. And WP:BASIC states '[...] multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability [...]'. However, a split-off requires that 'Transhumanist politics' already contains a significant amount of content on the topic to be split off, which is not the case. It would be better to first start and expand a section on the Transhumanist Party in this article, preferably with content on the party and its activities itself, as to avoid too much overlap with Zoltan Istvan (regarding political positions, etc). Once that content meets the requirements of a standalone article, we could look for consensus for a split-off. I just noticed there is a recent dispute over a paragraph in 'Transhumanist politics', that has to be resolved first before a section on the Transhumanist Party can be expanded. Gap9551 (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging that splitting the article doesn't make sense.
 * There is no section on a party because it is not established in reliable independent sources that there is a political party, by common understanding of what a political party is.
 * The Telegraph interview of Istvan by Jamie Bartlett, which is the "primary topic" one you mention, has been discussed before. It fails to establish that there is a political party.  Istvan says its a thing but it is not a thing.  The article author is not vouching for the truth of anything that Istvan says.
 * In fact from other cobbled-together stuff we know the "party" has no members and per a blog it seems to have had no meetings and no decisions by its "board".
 * Wikipedia cannot jump the gun on all reliable sources out there and say that there is a party when we know that there is not one. Interviews with Istvan passing on what he says are not evidence about a party.  We've gone through this already. -- do  ncr  am  06:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, we have gone through it already, and we have made clear that the Party is a thing that exists. We can have a reasonable discussion about the party's legal status, or you can continue to obfuscate the party's existence, but the latter is knowingly misleading – the same effect as lying – and we can see such dishonesty clearly, so you will not be doing this encyclopedia any good. –Haptic-feedback (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It is not acceptable for the voice of Wikipedia to be asserting something not true.  While your POV/goal is to promote life extension or something like that (please do clarify what your goal is if I am not summarizing it properly), that is not the goal for Wikipedia. -- do  ncr  am  23:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course we should not assert what is not true, which is why you should stop. For example, please stop making false accusations about me. To clarify, my goal is not to promote life extension or anything like that – it is to help to create a reliable encyclopedia by editing content in which I am interested, which fits Wikipedia's goal wonderfully. Remember to assume good faith! –Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please do not make assumptions about my opinions or intentions by describing my comment as 'acknowledging' something. I was objectively analyzing the situation. Use neutral language next time. Gap9551 (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Message heard. Perhaps it would have been okay/better if I put a smiley after it, more explicitly acknowledging that i was amplifying/characterising something out of what you wrote. Thank you. -- do  ncr  am  23:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciated. Gap9551 (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Gap: we should mine the extensive sources for new content and make a Transhumanist Party section on this page after the Request for Comment is done. –Haptic-feedback (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well Gap9551 suggests "covering content on the party and its activities itself, as to avoid too much overlap with Zoltan Istvan (regarding political positions, etc)". I don't notice any reporting on the party and its activities, separate from Istvan, in H-f's list of sources.
 * To take another one of H-f's sources, the opinion piece in Kansas City Star, I see that it refers to a "party" just once, when it says "Zoltan Istvan, from the Transhumanist Party". IMO that is a tad misleading for many readers of the KCStar, as it may be interpreted by some as suggesting there exists a group of people that selected Istvan to represent them (when there was not any group, and no vote, AFAIK).  The editorial goes on about Istvan and other stuff, and is not focused on any idea of a party.  It is included in your list of sources because the term "Transhumanist Party" is used once in it, I guess?  It has no information about a party existing and having activities.  To the contrary, the absence of any information about a party's activities seems to suggest or confirm that there is not one in meaningful ways. -- do  ncr  am  23:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You quote below that the Party is "mainly just Istvan", so you should expect most sources about the Party to be mostly about him. He and his Party are basically inseparable. If Gap means that we should not cover anything in which Istvan is involved, then I do not agree. However, I suspect that he meant that we should just mainly focus on things attributed to the Party instead of Istvan's beliefs, history, and such, since he already has a page. –Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes to the latter. Any content on the party can and even should mention Istvan, given his (very) important role. But he shouldn't dominate that content. Gap9551 (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The the CNET source in H-f's list states: "The Transhumanist Party is mainly just Istvan himself, and is registered under Istvan's home address in Northern California. Although he says a handful of other candidates are "planning" to entering local races, the party does not yet have registered members." and ""At least for this next election cycle, we don't want to be that party that throws away our vote to some candidate (such as myself) who simply can not win," Istvan said. "So we encourage support of the party by transhumanists, but not formal membership.""

Which does not support having a section or article on the party separate from Istvan.

Also, the personal opinion of Deku-shrub (above in the bus tour section): "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." Maybe that is an overstatement? But, D-s, it sure sounds like you do not believe there is a party. How does that reconcile with calling for a section about Transhumanist Party? I'm sorry, but I am stuck on this. And I was called a liar above for stating there is not a real party. I don't see how there can be real communication on this Talk page given this stuff going on. -- do ncr  am  01:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Those sources actually do support an article or section, because they are reliable sources that talk about the Party. Anyway, if you want to genuinely communicate, then you should stop trying to mislead people. There is no contradiction in creating a section about a political organization with content that casts doubt on its legal status, membership process, or support. –Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

✅– Doesn't belong in this article; move it elsewhere. Prime candidate (no pun) is Zoltan Istvan where the content is already present leaving us only to remove from here. -- dsprc   [talk]  18:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No - it failed at AFD, it failed at AFC, the attempt to shoehorn it in here produced no evidence it existed in any reasonable sense of the word "exist" and much evidence (including Istvan's own words) it didn't, and nothing new to this effect has shown up. The statements backing the previous sentence are on this talk page and its archives. It is possible to play Wikipedia pigeon chess indefinitely with people who don't understand the sourcing rules, but we have gone through literally this question in exhaustive detail and there are no new RSes to warrant another round - David Gerard (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, per David, and this old, old discussion of the same problem. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

So is there any further comment on this? A separate article is unlikely to survive this time either (for the same reasons as previously), and the content's already in Zoltan Istvan - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The page was rejected last time only because the subject already appears on this page. Obviously, this time is different, because we are proposing that the content be split from this page. If you are instead referring to the article-for-deletion discussion, then you may notice that it was over a year ago and that the reason for redirecting the page was that there were not enough sources. Since that decision, countless new sources have emerged -- a Google search for the phrase "transhumanist party" in that interval gives me 18 pages of results. Further, Google Trends shows a surge of interest during that time. This seems like a good indicator that we should revisit the issue, and an evaluation of the new sources suggests that it is actually likely that the article will survive this time. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As a previously uninvolved editor, I oppose splitting this article, although it's possible some of the content should be moved to Zoltan Istvan. If the "Transhumanist Party" were a single organization, it would probably be notable, IMO. But it isn't. Instead, it's a labyrinthine mess of different organizations in different countries, which are largely unaffiliated with each other and which are often at each other's throats (see this summary and this discussion by VICE). It's cleaner to keep everything on one page than to try and establish separate notability for everything calling itself "Transhumanist Party".

FWIW, in my experience, the transhumanist movement has always largely consisted of messy infighting, going back to its origins over a decade ago. See eg. this 2010 blog post about Humanity+, or this 2005 email about disputes between the World Transhumanist Association and the Extropy Institute. This is deja vu all over again. Spectra239 (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Is Istvan's bus tour relevant?
Should the "History" section mention the Transhumanist Party's Immortality Bus campaign? –Haptic-feedback (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No it is more about the individual that the general subject of the article Snowded  TALK 07:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. To reiterate my arguments from elsewhere, it is part of a transhumanist political campaign by a transhumanist politician of a transhumanist party – of course it belongs on a page about transhumanist politics. It even has a host of reliable sources, such as these:
 * * BBC
 * * Vox
 * * The Verge
 * * The Times
 * * The Science Times
 * * Kansas City Star
 * * International Business Times
 * * The Telegraph
 * * CNET
 * More can be found with a simple Web search.
 * –Haptic-feedback (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This brazenly misses the point of previous discussions of some of these exact "sources". -- do  ncr  am  06:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * What "point" is that, exactly? –Haptic-feedback (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This ignores that almost all of these sources are bad sources, and that even given the few good sources, the bus stunt still isn't about transhumanist politics per se, but about Istvan, which is where it presently resides - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The sources are actually pretty good, at least according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and anyone can verify that for themselves. To say that a Transhumanist Party campaign has nothing to do with transhumanist politics is completely absurd. –Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No, we had to remove a pile of terrible sources you added that didn't back the claim at all. You have a history of adding lots and lots of bad sources in an attempt to back up a claim, which suggests you're entirely unclear on what constitutes a good source - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That is just not true. Name a couple of sources that I added to this article that did not back up my content. A quick look at my edit history of this page (especially the early history) will show the exact opposite of your claim: I have been ruthless with matching content to sources and improving citations, even quoting precisely where the content is mentioned so that you can easily verify them. The reason that I add lots of (good) sources is to combat precisely what you are showing us now – a fantastic unwillingness to acknowledge truths that you simply do not like. –Haptic-feedback (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes Zoltan's campaign has had a tremendous impact on contemporary political transhumanism and the tour was one of the cornerstones of it. Deku-shrub (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? I am getting less interested, but what impact are you talking about, and according to whom? -- do  ncr  am  23:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please detail this "tremendous impact" in WP:RSes - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Transhumanist Movement Is Having an Identity Crisis Deku-shrub (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes That campaign received a lot of media coverage, and played an important role of bringing transhumanist politics in general to the attention of the public, not just one person's opinions and positions. Gap9551 (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not supposed to be "bringing transhumanist politics in general to the attention of the public". -- do ncr  am  06:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * NO This is not a vote, but no, discussed already. Additional evidence (e.g. blog by disgruntled past board member, not usable as a reliable source) seems to confirm previous suspicions. -- do  ncr  am  06:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You mean the evidence you just called "garbage"? How can someone be a member of a fake party that does not have membership, according to you, anyway? –Haptic-feedback (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * _You_ called it garbage; I repeated the word.  Istvan has verified that there is not any membership in one of these interviews.  The disgruntled board member's blog points out there had been no decisions put to any board.  "Membership" would mean the person would have some right, typically a right to vote for a candidate, not present here. -- do  ncr  am  23:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a lie – I never called it garbage, but you did, as anyone who scrolls up to the "party note" section can see. Anyway, why do you keep calling this man a member if you continue to argue that there is no membership? –Haptic-feedback (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No - this is not about transhumanist politics, but about Istvan. There is no evidence in WP:RSes that it has been of significant impact on transhumanist politics per se - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Just random self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources too closely associated with the subject
, I noticed that you added a box that says that there may be "sources too closely associated with the subject" in the article. Are you willing to give the numbers of the sources that you think fit this description so that we can discuss them or work to replace them? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Almost all of them. Transhumanists writing about transhumanists writing about transhumanists. Barring significant rewrite, not sure what could be done to address sourcing alone. -- dsprc   [talk]  13:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The subculture also tends to publicity operations which turn out on closer examination not to have substance to them, as extensively documented above. So, mainstream RSes, and critically examine said the claims in mainstream RSes - David Gerard (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, let me ask a better question: which of the sources are not "too closely associated with the subject"? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * EuroParl is about it (if one believes politicians and technocrats, but that is another matter entirely ;-D). Remainder are of same fringe milieu. Easily recognizable to any objective editor. Maybe is just bad article. -- dsprc   [talk]  03:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Allow me to put your objectivity into question. First, let me mention that there are other reliable, third-party sources used, such as New Scientist, The Telegraph, Wired, the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, and the Stanford Political Journal. Secondly, note that the transhumanist sources are not "preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral" in the way that they are used, as your template suggests, as far as I can tell. Finally, please recognize that not all sources need to be entirely independent for an article to be acceptable, as long as there are enough of such sources to warrant an article by themselves. Given this, do you not think that the unsightly block at the top of the page is unnecessary? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I see no objection, so I will get rid of it. –Haptic-feedback (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I reverted that with edit summary that's not how discussions (about tags) are supposed to work. There is not a consensus to remove the tag.  If a tag has really been addressed by edits seriously addressing the issue raised, it is usually okay to remove the tag, although it is still polite to get some approval of others.  But there has been no editing to address it, AFAIK.   H-f, yes you did ask a question that was not answered in several days, but in an argumentative way that doesn't really invite further discussion.  It mainly confirms your disagreement with the tag.
 * I for one don't see how to respond to the question directly.  I don't want to say I think the "unsightly block" is anything, because that would be agreeing with a loaded characterisation of the tag.  The final question is ""Do you not think ...[it]...is unnecessary?" where a Yes answer would mean you want the tag removed?  But it is equivalent to "Do you think it is necessary"?  So Yes. Or No.


 * Anyhow, I thought that Dsprc's explanation above was fine, and the argumentative question didn't require reply. But to reply more specifically, I happen to note that one source is Zoltan Istvan, another is Maria Konovalenko who writes about "we" starting a Longevity Party, and another is Hank Pellissier who is the former board member of Zoltan Istvan's group (the one who explained why he resigned in a blog (see )).  These are some that are highly associated with the subject. -- do  ncr  am  00:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, since you are being argumentative and not inviting further discussion, then you should not mind if I ignore you, too. –Haptic-feedback (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No objection due to not being noticed; is stale conversation and most don't look to the top for new discussion. It is not claims being unverifiable, but the subject being presented largely by those within orbit of it which potentially presents a distorted perspective. (found topic relevant content by R. U. Sirius when this first came on my radar, but I can include as it suffers from same problem outlined above)
 * New Scientist is an with transhumanist (primary, interviews are poor quality sources). Telegraph another interview, with Istvan and conducted by a colleague. Wired DE, interview, Istvan. Bishop is for their one-liner cameo in article; OK . SPJ, Istvan (old pattern); but fair enough . A few tokens don't undo problems of others. For visuals: appearance doesn't matter and vast majority of readers are on mobile where templates are suppressed and never see them. --  dsprc   [talk]  00:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia policy that handles distorted perspective is on the neutral point-of-view page under the "balancing aspects" header, which says this (with my added emphasis):


 * "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject."


 * Since you are not objecting to the reliability of the sources, your only problem with distorted perspective would be if the article focused on things outside of the focus of existing sources. However, if there is such a distortion, then the article is distorted in the direction opposite to what you are proposing. For example, Istvan is getting a lot of media attention, but every mention of him or his Party is suppressed, so the body of sources is not being accurately represented.


 * However, if you think that the body of sources on the topic focuses on aspects that the article does not, then you should justify your use of the tag with such evidence. To quote Hitchens, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." In other words, please find us those sources that show that the article misrepresents the subject; otherwise, the tag is unjustified.


 * –Haptic-feedback (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Please cease attempting to speak for me. That the ideals and information are presented by transhumanists negates and undermines their reliability and objectivity. The perspective is potentially distorted because it is one of adherents, those in the same milieu or those closely related to individuals and aspects covered, as explained. E.g. an article on fascism largely presented by fascists or those with associations to fascists is inherently problematic and has issues accurately, objectively and completely portraying the subject. This has been a chief issue put forward and explained numerous times but completely ignored by you; it is getting old. That such sources by uninvolved parties are not widely found and used here is quite telling. Content related to Istvan are being suppressed -- at least not by I -- but instead this is a constant wrangling with you and others to present the topics with due weight in the much broader context of the subject matter. Content related to Istvan or any other individual is welcomed and warrants inclusion but it must not dominate the article or subject either in scale or substance. The article can not be heavily slanted toward coverage of one aspect or one individual, particularly when sources backing it are shallow and poor quality in a flavour-of-the-day fashion. I entreat you, to take some time and legitimately consider this position.

If even a tenth of energy wasted on talk page arguments was put into addressing the concerns raised there wouldn't even be a problem -- but I guess that isn't as much "fun" as not improving the article. No one cares about Hitchens. -- dsprc   [talk]  06:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with transhumanists writing articles on transhumanist topics, as long as they are reasonably objective and follow the policies and guidelines. It is no different from Taylor Swift fans writing Taylor Swift articles, or football fans writing football articles. In fact, most of Wikipedia depends on aficionados writing and maintaining its content. Surely some of these 'fans' are clearly biased, and simply want more content regardless of notability. They have to be restrained here and there by more neutral 'fans' as well as general editors not particularly interested in the topic. Gap9551 (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are entirely misunderstanding the point here. The issue is one of sources themselves. That fanatics write articles is also of concern, particularly when combined with problematic sourcing as done in this topic area. -- dsprc   [talk]  18:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that you are the one who misunderstands. Let me spell it out: you said that information from transhumanists is unreliable because they are transhumanists, and Gap successfully refuted that claim. Given this, and given that you have not even tried to argue that Wikipedia's policy on unbalanced aspects has been violated, I see no reason that the tag at the top of the article should be there. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Nah, I'm OK. Besides, was referring to Wikipedia contributors; which is fine and a shared sentiment (not fond of McCarthyism or Thought Police myself). The position put forward is clear so there's no need to repeat it. One may not agree, but here too consensus is clear on tag being warranted. Rather than argue, how about this energy be put to constructive use and improve the article? Seems like that would be the easiest route. --  dsprc   [talk]  16:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, you are right that Gap was talking about contributors -- I was the one who misunderstood. Regardless, the same argument can be made for sources: though independent, third-party sources are required to warrant a Wikipedia article's existence, not all sources need to be independent and third-party, as long as they are reliable and verifiable. Further, the reasons you gave above for those sources being biased do not even stand up to scrutiny, as the interviews in those articles are not being referenced; instead, the research given by the reporters in their own voice are being used. This is very easily verifiable, as I have put a lot of time into quoting exactly where the sources give the information used. You talk to me as if I had the lowest standards of sources and try to make the article worse, but who was it that went through every source, meticulously improving each reference? Who was it that added the section about criticism of transhumanist politics? Who was it that removed, rewrote, or tagged every sentence that did not say what its source did? Your advice seems more fitting for you than it does for me. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Interviews are primary sources, even when someone else is parroting them or "giving voice." As said before a great number of sources (though not all) are too closely associated with the subject. Including verbose quotations in cites and more interviews or opinions from transhumanists is not what is needed; rather, content from those without connections or vested interests in the subject are called for (see above examples about fascists and my hesitance to use content from R.U. Sirius previously). A course of action and possible solution has been presented, it is one's own decision whether to work toward it or continue debating (for which the latter will produce no "winners"). -- dsprc   [talk]  19:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The sourcing tag is appropriate and should remain, even should a substantially single-topic editor wish it removed - the article has to be up to general Wikipedia standards, not transhumanist advocacy standards - David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please find us the standards in Wikipedia policy or guidelines that this article does not meet instead of making vague insinuations. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If by "parroting" you mean a journalist printing the words of an interview, then you are right, which is why such words were not used in these sources. If, however, you mean a reporter stating the same thing in their own voice, based on their research, then that is actually a secondary source that improves on the reliability of the original source. Please stop conflating interview material with journalists' statements. Anyway, I welcome you to follow your own proposed course of action instead of arguing. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Right now: WP:NPV, WP:FRINGE; The answer to your questioning of Gerard is in the tag itself and further up this page... Your personal behaviour would be: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:EW/WP:3RR. "What we've got here is failure to communicate"; Keep it up and you may be topic banned or blocked. Drop the stick -- This isn't what we're here for. -- dsprc   [talk]  21:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I assume that you are responding to my reply to Mr. Gerard and listing policies and guidelines that I or the article have broken. In that case, you are simply lying when you say that I broke the three-revert rule. Further, no consensus has been reached about the tag in question, so your mention of the "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" policy is irrelevant. Regarding the actual article content, I have read the neutral point-of-view policy, and I find no part that this article defies -- the onus is on you to quote that part of the policy and prove that this article breaks it. Also irrelevant is the fringe-theory guideline, because this page has no fringe theories. Finally, let me say that, if you think that we are having an edit war, then let us come to an actual consensus in a new way. Would you like to try a request for comment, the dispute resolution notice board, or some other method? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Three reverts in under 24 hours: At this point, you really need to stop what you're doing - David Gerard (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * To break the three-revert rule, one must revert more than three times in 24 hours. Anyway, given that neither of us want to give up, do you have any suggestions to end our edit war? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Haptic-feedback, you can be blocked for edit-warring behavior that is clearly edit-warring, at less than 3 times per 24 hours. You have edited in Wikipedia long enough to know that.  You are clearly adopting an edit-warring / battleground mentality towards getting your way in face of multiple editors politely enough disagreeing with you. The suggestion is:  drop it. -- do  ncr  am  22:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Your false, disruptive accusation violates Wikipedia policy: "Comment on content, not the contributor." Please try to be friendlier so that we can have an easier time finding consensus. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You are a single-issue contributor; this article and its talk page are almost the entirety of your editing. As such, individual conduct - such as rules-lawyering when people ask you not to edit-war - is highly relevant to discussion of editing - David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Your entire comment is false. Even if your claims about me were true, they would not override Wikipedia policy.--Haptic-feedback (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Per WP:V: "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say." There are only 33 sources, it should not be hard for those that continue restoring this tag to specifically point out the article content that violates verifiabilty and NPOV due to the use of "parroting" interviews as sources. Specific WP:NPV and WP:FRINGE issues have not been identified. Removing tag until it can be demonstrated that the problem exists. Abierma3 (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sources are permitted bias when presenting viewpoints at which point the job is to present and square the differences between them and attribute as opinions and not a matter-of-fact; E.g. Peter Rothman arguing with themself in the 3rd paragraph.


 * Address this issue instead of ignoring when convenient: Is it not problematic to have an article on fascism where the point of view presented largely belongs to fascists or those with associations to fascists and fascism? That is the crux of the issue. This being a fringe topic doesn't help either.


 * The problematic sources have been pointed out; an entire class of them even: Every single IEET entry (the most used source) as they're self-pub transhumanist blogs w/  editorial oversight. Humanity Plus, transhumanist publication, COI. Interviews with and works by Istvan; self explanatory. Ray Kurzweil. Cartlidge in New Scientist, interview/talking points from transhumanist politician. Medium.com, blog. Volpicelli, UK transhumanist writing about a near-nonexistent UK transhumanist group, Istvan's former colleague. Existenz, republication of philosophical opinion piece by transhumanist. Dale Carrico, Blogspot... Elkerton is a student paper and opinion piece with zero citations (at least Bishop has citations). Of the 33, about 1/3 remain if exclude the above. Burden of proof isn't on tag here.


 * A lot of this is covered in WP:OR footnote #3. WP:NPV & WP:V aren't met because they're not of the topic, with inherent conflicts of interest (see fascism).


 * The tag calls for --  dsprc   [talk]  18:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, sources can have bias when giving opposing viewpoints, but they are also allowed bias when supporting viewpoints. There is no problem here.


 * Let me directly address your point about fascism. Given that there is a well-documented, mainstream anti-fascist opinion and a wealth of literature about fascism by non-fascists, it would indeed be problematic if a page on fascism was skewed towards fascist sources. However, if there are such (reliable) sources of the same proportion regarding transhumanist politics, and if the scholars associated with IEET are to be considered politically transhumanist, then I was unable to find those sources in my research. (If you come across some, please add them to the page!) According to policy, neutrality is dictated by the body of sources, and a quick Google search for "transhumanist politics" suggests that the body of reliable sources is represented fairly well by the sources used by this page. If you come to a different conclusion, then please show us the evidence to the contrary – namely, the proportionate number of reliable sources that disagree with those used here. Remember that the onus is on you.


 * Your claim about "WP:NPV" and "WP:V" is obviously false, because those policies explicitly allow what you say violate them. As Abierma quoted, "WP:V" says, "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view." Similarly, "WP:NPV" says, "Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone".


 * Anyway, thank you for pointing out the sources that you think are problematic. This will help us to address the actual issues on a case-by-case basis. However, before we do that, let us be clear: is your specific problem that you think that these sources are unreliable?


 * --Haptic-feedback (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The article relies so heavily upon those sources with conflicts of interest to the point where the view presented is entirely skewed to that held by this fringe. The point on fascism was the view being distorted, but yes, there is a wealth of material on fascism, not the case here however; which is why it was presented early in discussion this may very well be a bad article since it lacks broad coverage from non-affiliated sources. When challenged, the burden and onus is upon those who've included the questionable material in the first place. It may be the article should be trimmed of this material and remainder possibly included elsewhere - mayhaps subsection of transhumanism for example.


 * IEET present themselves as "...a think tank which promotes ideas about ... 'human enhancement technologies'" from a self-styled "technoprogressive orientation".(IEET About page) Should the About page of this advocacy organization be investigated further one will find the following, which reads in part:


 * "In the next fifty years, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, and cognitive science will allow human beings to transcend the limitations of the human body ... Our senses and cognition will be enhanced ... Our bodies and brains will be surrounded by and merged with computer power. We will use these technologies to redesign ourselves and our children in ways that push the boundaries of 'humanness'."


 * The About page also links to a Bio of their Executive Director, James Hughes; Reviewing this reveals they're "a member of Humanity+," their Skype username is "citizencyborg," and the most recent works by this individual are in the promotion and advancement of transhumanist ideology.


 * So you're either bad at research, which calls into question many other claims, or being intellectually dishonest with us.


 * It matters not if the authors of these IEET blogs are "Bob" himself, the complete absence of editorial oversight and controls or independence makes them unsuitable for inclusion. (This allows for "scholarly" works such as this penned by one Richard Stallman: "Made for You") -- dsprc   [talk]  20:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am glad to see you admit that the body of available sources on the subject do not disagree with those used in this article. Given this, according to Wikipedia policy, we cannot conclude that the subject of the page is unbalanced in the way you previously claimed.


 * Now, you are shifting back to your argument that the article may not satisfy notability. Please do not conflate notability with neutrality -- notability requires that some (not all) sources be independent, whereas neutrality requires that the content reflects the tone of an encyclopedia and the body of sources. If you want to talk about notability, let us do it elsewhere, but it is not on topic with this issue.


 * I also want to draw attention to your mix of ad hominem attack and bad-faith claim: "So you're either bad at research, which calls into question many other claims, or being intellectually dishonest with us." Please stop this! It is poisonous to constructive conversation in addition to being a punishable violation of policy.


 * If you really want to move forward in this conversation, then please clarify why you want the template to stay on the page: tell us how the sources are "preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral", as the template suggests. Your claim of unbalanced aspects has been debunked, and your claim that "WP:NPV & WP:V aren't met because they're not of the topic" has been refuted with direct quotes from those policies, so what is your precise problem now? You ignored this question last time, so let me ask it again: is your problem that you think that the sources that you named are unreliable -- yes or no?


 * --Haptic-feedback (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 0: Stop playing Got'cha. 1: Stop speaking for me. 2: If you make BS claims you might get called out on them; but I'm a glutton for punishment so have at me: WP:PNB. 3: Disagreement =/= debunked or refuted (especially given demand for specifics but complete lack of presenting them yourselves). 4: WP:DR. -- dsprc   [talk]  23:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, you avoid a direct question that would help us to move forward. I, on the other hand, did give you specifics that did debunk you: I gave exact quotes from the policy pages that you said were violated, and those quotes directly contradicted your claim. Now, if you refuse to cooperate, I am at a loss. You vaguely link to the dispute resolution page -- would you like to try the dispute resolution notice board? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Because you are lawyering. Yes, seek resolution. -- dsprc   [talk]  15:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that you added a template that doubts the reliability of the page's sources. Are these the same sources that you mentioned in this section, and are the reasons the same, or should we have a separate discussion about them? --Haptic Feedback (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * H-F opened a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case ("Sources too closely associated with the subject") on 24 January where this discussion topic was continued. The DRN item is still open as of February 11, with last statement currently being from February 8. -- do  ncr  am  16:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I like how after oddball fiction Stallman wrote over 4 years ago was brought up here IEET staffers push it onto their front page shortly thereafter --  dsprc   [talk]  19:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is funny! I don't like how the IEET site took that piece (mentioned above on January 23 by dsprc) and presented it as a January 30, 2016 posting in their blog by Richard Stallman.  In fact Stallman did not post there and Stallman wrote the piece in 2012 or 2009.  IEET copied it to here labeled "Posted Jan 30, 2016", while the piece is suggested to have been written in 2012 at Stallman's personal webpage (to which the IEET site does link from its copy) or it was perhaps written in 2009 (when Stallman copyrighted it per bottom of IEET copy).  The IEET site seems irresponsible and/or deliberately misleading in its postings.  These IEET staff are the same or different than the editors of IEET journal(s)? -- do  ncr  am  16:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Transhumanist vs. Quality-of-life politics
Thanks David Gerard for linking to the online 1957 Julian Huxley essay, very interesting. I wonder what would be the difference between "transhumanist politics" (if that exists in any meaningful way, which isn't clear to me) vs. "quality of life politics". By the latter I mean governments/politicians having focus on quality of life, perhaps in contrast to consumerism. An example topic area is economists' suggestions and calls for adjusted measurements of GDP that take into account quality of life factors...hmm I guess in Wikipedia this is covered at Happiness economics. Googling on "quality of life politics" brings up numerous hits, including scholarly ones: There certainly are some governments and politicians and maybe some political parties that focus on quality of life issues. Maybe Scandinavian politics especially? And anti-consumerism movements. If "Transhumanism" is narrowly technocratic, i.e. about harnessing medical technology and other technologies to extend length of life and help in quality of life (say as opposed to teaching spiritual happiness to all, which Huxley mentions), then transhumanist politics would be a sub-type of quality of life politics? Quality of life politics and Quality-of-life politics are redlinks currently. Offhand, would this be a bigger / closer-to-mainstream / more important area for Wikipedia to cover? -- do ncr  am  21:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Political Realignment in Advanced Industrial Society: From Class-Based Politics to Quality-of-Life Politics", by Ronald Inglehart andJacques-René Rabier (Government and Opposition, Volume 21, Issue 4, pages 456–479, October 1986 (Article first published online: 27 APR 2007))
 * City of Disorder: How the Quality of Life Campaign Transformed New York Politics", by Alex S. Vitale
 * "If "Transhumanism" is narrowly technocratic", this is a popular view, but is not means universally accepted. Deku-shrub (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of asserted history passage
I am inclined to remove the passage that has opened the history section, because it is bogus to assert that Transhumanist politics began 300 years ago. We cannot retroactively co-opt all previous history as leading up to this topic any more than we can say 300 years or 2000 years have all been leading up to Democratic-socialist politics, or Green Party politics, or Tea party politics, so therefore the Tea Party's history began with Socrates or whatever. It undermines the meaning of language. One persons claim that they see roots of the far-future term do not establish it as having started. Note: I myself argued in support of categorizing various historic films as Transhumanist, in this discussion 2 years ago, but the consensus decision correctly went against me. The History section should begin with the coining of the term "Transhumanism" whenever that was and quickly get to any use of the term in a political context. Maybe the earliest such use was in 2012? But the usage has to be substantial; it can't be just the equivalent of saying "nudist politics" began whenever someone was elected partly because, or in spite of, the fact the person was known to be a nudist. Is it realistic to say there is any history at all? Anyhow, the passage I am inclined to remove is the entire paragraph from "James Hughes" to "remains optimistic about a technocratic future." -- do ncr  am  06:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, the cited blog entry offers no specific example to back claim, only a broad and generalized assertion and "suggestions" of Man's want to avoid death or gain omniscience (which is the human condition). Further to Socratic examples above, an argument could be made for Man first utilizing tools external to themselves as "transhumanism" or the foundations of organized society itself. There is other content in the blog entry of substance but given the unreliable narrator and some wild claims those may be undue or otherwise not be fit for inclusion as well. -- dsprc   [talk]  10:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not a "blog entry" but a journal article. I think it's reasonable to attribute it as is done here. OTOH I'm not in love with it and your point is a valid one - it's a bit of an ambit claim. Per transhumanism, the term "transhumanism" was coined in 1940, but pushed big time by Julian Huxley in 1957 . So we'd want earliest actual politics 1957 on. Fortunately, Hughes' article (which is well worth a read anyway) provides, if someone wants to try digesting it into a sentence - David Gerard (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, it is under the /IEET/ directory where the J.E.T. lives. Is difficult to differentiate when it's all published to a social networking/blogging platform. Saw 1940's stuff too; we incorporate that? I'd rather cite a third-party that has already done the condensing... being terse isn't Hughes' strong point is it? --  dsprc   [talk]  19:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It is confusing to have it on the blog platform, yes ... The trouble is that technocratic proposals go way back, and transhumanism advocates try to coopt those too (though often it's the same people). Tricky one - David Gerard (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Sort of per this discussion, I just removed the "300 years" claim, which IMO is not seriously what Hughes means as the beginning of any discernible transhumanist politics. Instead I revise the section to cite the Julian Huxley essay and to cite Hughes about the mid- and late-1990s developments of first transhumanist organizations.

I removed the following quotes from the references, which in context of a section on History of actual politics of Transhumanism, I think are misleading/inappropriate. Hughes sees roots in the Enlightenment, but the Enlightenment is equally the root of many alternatives, and he is not seriously saying Transhumanism was coined as a term or was recognizable then. The quotes I removed from footnotes are: I think this improves the article. -- do ncr  am  21:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * quote="The story of transhumanist politics is part of the broader story of the three hundred year-old fight for the Enlightenment. Transhumanism has pre-Enlightenment roots of course, since our earliest ancestors sought to transcend the limitations of the human body, to delay death, and to achieve wisdom. But those aspirations became transhumanism when people began to use science and technology to achieve them instead of magic and spirituality. [...] The Enlightenment argued for democracy and individual rights" and
 * quote="Transhumanism is a modern expression of ancient and transcultural aspirations to radically transform human existence, socially and bodily. Before the Enlightenment these aspirations were only expressed in religious millennialism, magical medicine and spiritual practices. The Enlightenment channeled these desires into projects to use science and technology to improve health, longevity and human abilities, and to use reason to revolutionize society.")


 * Just because a person or group does not use a word does not mean that they cannot be described accurately by that word. If there was a tribe 3000 years ago that voted for their leaders, it would still be a form of democracy, even if they did not have the word "democracy".


 * Retroactive labeling occurs regularly both in academia and on Wikipedia. For example, the feminism page says, "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) by Mary Wollstonecraft, is one of the earliest works of feminist philosophy", even though "the Oxford English Dictionary lists 1852 as the year of the first appearance of 'feminist'". The existentialism page is more explicit about this: "The term ['existentialism'] is often seen as a historical convenience as it was first applied to many philosophers in hindsight, long after they had died. In fact, while existentialism is generally considered to have originated with Kierkegaard, the first prominent existentialist philosopher to adopt the term as a self-description was Jean-Paul Sartre."


 * In short, your reason is illogical, and there is precedence for keeping the content.


 * --Haptic Feedback (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You provide zero support that my edit was "illogical". -- do ncr  am  03:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Just because a person or group does not use a word does not mean that they cannot be described accurately by that word. If there was a tribe 3000 years ago that voted for their leaders, it would still be a form of democracy, even if they did not have the word 'democracy'." What do you call that? --Haptic Feedback (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And there's a big difference vs. feminism and existentialism: those concepts actually became defined and real and well-understood, while "Transhumanist politics" is not defined amongst the bickering few interested in it, much less understood generally well enough for grandiose claims [claims about a 300 year history not to be grandiose(15:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC))]. Lots of academics agree about Wollstonecraft; no one agrees with your interpretation of Hughes, perhaps not even Hughes.-- do  ncr  am  03:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Here is the direct quote from Hughes: "The story of transhumanist politics is part of the broader story of the three hundred year-old fight for the Enlightenment. Transhumanism has pre-Enlightenment roots of course, since our earliest ancestors sought to transcend the limitations of the human body, to delay death, and to achieve wisdom. But those aspirations became transhumanism when people began to use science and technology to achieve them instead of magic and spirituality. [...] The Enlightenment argued for democracy and individual rights." Here is the article content: "James Hughes describes transhumanist politics as a part of a three-hundred-year-long history that began in the Age of Enlightenment, when people began to advocate for democracy and individual rights and use science and technology instead of magic and superstition." How could Hughes disagree, and how could you disagree with the interpretation of his words?


 * Transhumanism is obviously defined and real and well-understood, and putting the word "politics" after it does not change that. Even if you do not understand it, there is no reason why those who do cannot apply it to things that fit the description.


 * --Haptic Feedback (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The 300 years claim misleads the reader that what we now think of as "transhumanism" was an identifiable thread going back that far; this is simply incorrect. It can't be meaningfully placed before Huxley's 1957 essay; and even then, there's attempts from transhumanism advocates to retrospectively claim any attempt to improve human circumstances (particularly technocratic advocacy, which is related but is not the same thing). The present wording is an improvement because it does not mislead the reader into thinking transhumanist politics precedes what we now think of as "transhumanism" by 300 years - David Gerard (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, David Gerard.
 * More about the content: The Feminism article's statement "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) by Mary Wollstonecraft, is one of the earliest works of feminist philosophy" is specific and verifiable (by consensus of academics and reasonable persons) and is not controversial.  If you wish to dispute it, go ahead!  The statement which I removed and which H-F has twice put into this article is the controversial claim (and arguably ridiculous claim in context) that "...transhumanist politics as a part of a three-hundred-year-long history that began in the Age of Enlightenment, when people began to advocate for democracy and individual rights and use science and technology instead of magic and superstition," i.e. in context of a section titled "History" it asserts transhumanist politics began in the Enlightenment.  The claim is preceded by "James Hughes describes...".  If JH described that, then it would be true that he described that, yes, but then it would be undue reliance upon one essay to put that into the Wikipedia article, especially as the first sentence in a section titled "History".  In fact what Hughes said was that "The story of transhumanist politics is part of the broader story of the three hundred year-old fight for the Enlightenment" which is subtly different, and the essay itself identifies the 1990s as when transhumanists began to organize.  Moreover the Hughes statement is in an essay, not in an encyclopedia article, and does not lead a section titled "History", which in the Wikipedia article implies that what is contained in the section is history of "Transhumanist politics".  The implication in H-F's version of the Wikipedia article, that the Enlightment was about developing Transhumanist politics (which according to the Wikipedia article is "the belief in technology's potential to perfect the individual") is absurd.  I am pretty sure that most or all Enlightenment writers would find the idea of perfecting individuals to be blasphemous and would reject it (while Wollstonecraft would approve of later Feminist development).  And Hughes statement is vague, does not point to any specific works of the Enlightenment, and is not verified as a reasonable view by any academics or others.  It is not Wikipedia's role to promote a fringe view as if it is fact in a "History" section.
 * The material has been removed twice by me and once by David Gerard, after some apparent consensus here. What I put in (that Hughes identified 1990s as first organization of transhumanists) was not controversial, has not been disputed.  H-F, your restoration of disputed material twice, after only your own assertion without support here, is edit-warring, IMO.  You don't get a free pass to change the article willy-nilly, by your making a comment here.  Do you think that is how Wikipedia works, that any editor can write anything into an article, as long as they make a statement at the Talk page?  Wouldn't that put every article about controversial topics into radical fluctuation?  The encyclopedia needs to be a bit more conservative, and to change only according to reasonable consensus.  It is not acceptable for one editor to repeatedly impose their views when they know their view is disputed by multiple others.  This behavior has continued far enough.  At this point I would support a ban on H-F's editing in this topic area. -- do  ncr  am  13:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * We agree that, "If JH described that, then it would be true that he described that," which is all that the sentence said, so it is uncontroversial, and you refute your own first point. Hughes's two articles -- "Transhumanist politics, 1700 to the near future" and "The Politics of Transhumanism and the Techno-Millennial Imagination, 1626-2030" -- are clearly about history, so I do not understand your problem with the content being in the history section. In order for it to be undue, there needs to be a body of reliable sources that contradict it, and the burden of proof is on you to find them. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not see how that content is misleading. Even if the view is not widespread, the wording makes it clear that it is only one scholar's opinion. I think that you are still conflating the term "transhumanism" with transhumanism itself -- one does not require the other. Besides, if we keep the note about the first use of the term right after, then all supposed confusion to the reader will be lost. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As noted already by Doncram replying to you: it claims transhumanism as we know it stretches back 300 years, and it also misrepresents what Hughes actually says in the referenced essay, i.e. it fails verification. Its inclusion is defective in every manner - David Gerard (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It does not claim that -- it says that Hughes claims that. How would you reword the sentence to make it accurate? --Haptic Feedback (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't. It's best left out, as per the present state of the article. There is no reasonable justification to state or imply that transhumanist politics could be traced back three hundred years before "transhumanism" started - David Gerard (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Where does your starting point come from -- multiple published academic journal sources such as these, or just when the word "transhumanism" was coined? --Haptic Feedback (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)