Talk:Transhumanist politics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Contributor with close connection

At the top of the article, it says that a "major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." It then requests further discussion on this Talk page, but I see no discussion of it.

Will someone please explain the situation to help identify the problem to be fixed?

--Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Haptic-feedback See this: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Transhumanist_Party and this: Draft talk:Transhumanist Party (mostly summarized here for a different article but is still largely same concerns). Some editors are shoehorning advocacy material back into this article which was previously trimmed down. Instead of content being improved so it is encyclopedic and meets inclusion criteria, puffery and propaganda are inserted by way of attrition; there is no compromise. I don't care to waste time any more so tagged and someone else can deal with it. -- dsprc ^[talk] 15:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

edit: also, the sourcing is kinda weak; need something better than H+, IEET etc which are blogs. Zoltan interviews aren't good enough - they're largely puff pieces and not serious journalism. Sourcing and claims need to be objectively vetted from top to bottom. If encyclopedic content instead of advocacy was the aim, this shouldn't be difficult. -- dsprc ^[talk] 15:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dsprc: To be clear, the "major contributor to this article" who "appears to have a close connection with its subject" is either Deku-shrub or Waters.Justin, right? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe User:dsprc added the COI tag due to my edits. I follow this subject in online forums, but that is it. A more thorough COI check can be read on my talk page. Waters.Justin (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I rm'd some of the content; still requires editing so is more encyclopedic. -- dsprc ^[talk] 16:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dsprc: Great, thanks for all your help! I will take a look into helping the cleanup process soon. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Opposition piece

For whatever it's worth here's an essay by a noted Christian ethicist articulating opposition to Transhumanist political ends. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Transhumanist_Party

Page being rebuilt over at Draft:Transhumanist_Party Deku-shrub (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I support the splitting of the section about the political party Transhumanism Party from the article about the idea of Transhumanism politics. Just add a see also section about the T+ party. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• I Support having an individual article on the party. Here is why. Transhumanist politics is a conceptual realm which can occur in any political party. Though political parties may not use the terminology of transhumanism, whenever they speak of turning priorities towards improving scientific research and development for advancements in quality of life -- organ transplants, prosthetics, permitting stem cell research, curing cancer and diabetes and other disease -- they are engaging in transhumanism politics. The Transhumanist Party is one specific entity having its highest priority as these issues, though not being the sole proponent of them in the political spectrum. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Yeah, should be separated out, and then (probably) whatever's left in the generic sense that's citable to RSes be merged into transhumanism (I suspect there won't be much) - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Better yet lets get this page moved to "Transhumanism in politics" and so have it better represent that this is not a matter of especial beliefs, but of issues. Pandeist (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Sounds like it'd have danger of being a WP:OR magnet, but could work - David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• I Support the move as well. Seeing as the page is about Transhumanist politics, not the American Transhumanist party. The current situation is comparable to if the page for Green Politics included a section on the German Green Party.Brendanww2 (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. There is already a draft: Draft talk:Transhumanist Party; address the concerns raised there and from previous AfD, rewrite from scratch so it meets inclusion criteria, follows policy and guidelines; then you can have the dedicated article. -- dsprc ^[talk] 15:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

How's this going? Is the section in the present article suitable to be just split off as an article, or is more work needed? If the present section doesn't pass notability muster, it should really be removed or moved to Zoltan Istvan until a suitable standalone is ready - David Gerard (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

... though actually, it's not very good. I just went through and removed fluff and really low-quality sources. It's not much good here and it's not good enough to be a separate article. Are the sources in the new draft high-enough quality? The present section just reads like an extended ad for the party - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Just cut the platform too, this isn't an ad - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Platformy stuff doesn't seem to me to be all that different from what is included for other political parties. This seems to me to be a legitly reported on thing which exists, so I don't see why we'd treat it any different from for example the Natural Law Party. Or on an unseriouser note, the Pirate Party -- a self-confessed joke party which yet gets media coverage and has a declared platform (or plank). Pandeist (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Pandeist makes a good point. As long as the content is neutral and sourced, I do not see why it should be removed. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I have removed the section about the supposed Transhumanist Party in the United States. The section was/is nonsense that repeats apparently false claim that there exists a Transhumanist Party. I say it is apparently false because there is no evidence given in previous discussions or since that, by any reasonable interpretation, there exists such a party. Specifically, unlike joke parties in the U.K., this party has not fielded multiple candidates in multiple elections and it has not obtained election success for multiple candidates. In fact I believe it still has not gotten onto a single ballot, i.e. it is far less notable than multiple explicit joke parties. Relatedly, there is no reliable, secondary coverage of it as a party. In previous discussions, it has turned out the wikipedia supporters of the Wikipedia coverage are employees or close associates of Zoltan Istvan. The main supporting "evidence" in the section was the link to a document showing that someone (perhaps just one person perhaps Zoltan himself) filed a statement of intent to achieve party status in California for a June 2015 election. That was previously discussed and dismissed in the AFD and/or the Draft talk:Transhumanist Party discussion.

There is no evidence of any membership; no recorded votes in favor of the party's candidates in any election (because it has not gotten onto any ballot); no record of donations (because the supposed organization has not achieved party status and/or has not yet reached a reporting requirement threshold of dollars received). Being sarcastic but serious, I have previously pointed out that the Wikipedia participation of a few Zoltan editors outweighs any apparent activity / campaigning effort anywhere else. There is zip nada documentation of party activity besides the Talk pages and edit history in Wikipedia. Overstating only slightly for effect: the only activity of the "Transhumanist Party" appears to be a Wikipedia-only effort by a few persons to create a myth that such a party exists.

Per my edit summary with the deletion of the section, I am copying the deleted section's text into as discussion section below for further argumentation. It should NOT be restored to mainspace without a consensus of support to do so. Enough non-involved editors' time has been consumed already. --doncram 00:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram: I am sorry to hear that you could not make sense of the Transhumanist Party's section of the article. As someone who could make sense of it, however, I am sorry to say that your analysis seems quite wrong: the Transhumanist Party clearly exists. Please note these numerous secondary sources that assert the existence of the party:

• re:form
• ExtremeTech
• National Review
• Business Insider
• Wired
• The Telegraph
• Heise Online
• Reason
• Roland Benedikter in The Leftist Review
• Humanity+
• Popular Science
• Esquire
• Stanford Political Journal

You say that "there is no reliable, secondary coverage of it as a party", which means that all of these must be unreliable. That is a large claim to make, so please explain your reasoning for each one. Keep in mind that these are not Wikipedia posts by supporters or employees of Zoltan Istvan – not that the background of editors matter if their content is in accordance to Wikipedia policy. For the record, I am in no way affiliated with Istvan or the Transhumanist Party, yet I still think that the party exists. Additionally, we do not need your personal consensus to restore material in absence of evidence to support your claims. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

These are evidence that Istvan has talked up the party, not evidence that the party exists for any reasonable sense of the word "exists" - David Gerard (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@David Gerard: There is voluminous evidence that the party exists. Ajai Raj – not Istvan – says this in re:form (emphasis mine):^[1]

At most, when we speak of redesigning our lives, we only mean it metaphorically. But to transhumanists, the idea of redesigning oneself is a literal — and imminent — proposition. For Zoltan Istvan, founder and 2016 presidential candidate of the Transhumanist Party, it is also a political one.

John Hewitt – not Istvan – says this in ExtremeTech (emphasis mine):

It is for these reasons that Zoltan has founded the Transhumanist Party and is now taking this first major step to grow it.

Preetum Kaushik – not Isvan – says this in Business Insider India (emphasis mine):

Zoltan Istvan (founder of the US Transhumanist Party and candidate for the 2016 US Presidential election on behalf of this party) says, [...]

Von Max Biederbeck – not Isvan – says this in the German Wired (emphasis mine):

Der 41-Jährige hat im Oktober die Transhumanistische Partei USA gegründet. [Translation: "The 41-year-old has established in October the Transhumanist Party USA."]

Jamie Bartlett – not Isvan – says this in The Telegraph (emphasis mine):

The Transhumanist Party advocates spending at least a trillion dollars over ten years directly on life extension research.

Roland Benedikter – not Isvan – says this on Heise Online (emphasis mine):

Im Oktober 2014 hat der amerikanische Philosoph und Futurist Zoltan Istvan die "Transhumanist Party" der USA gegründet. [Translation: "In October 2014, the American philosopher and futurist Zoltan Istvan founded the 'Transhumanist Party' of the United States.]

Benedikter – not Isvan – says further in Leftist Review (emphasis mine):

The founding of the Transhumanist Party of the United States, the intensifying of the U.S. BRAIN-Initiative and the start of Google’s project “Ending death” were important milestones in the year 2014, and potential further steps towards “transhumanist” politics.

reason.com – not Isvan – says (emphasis mine):

Reason TV's Zach Weissmueller interviewed Istvan about real-world life-extension technology ranging from robotic hearts to cryogenic stasis, Istvan's plan to run for president under the banner of the Transhumanist party, the overlap between the LGBT movement and transhumanism, and the role that governments play in both aiding and impeding transhumanist goals.

John G. Messerly – not Isvan – says this in h+ Magazine (emphasis mine):

Istvan is preparing to run for the Presidency of the United States in 2016, as a member of his newly formed Transhumanist Party, a political organization dedicated to using science and technology improve human beings and their society.

Sarah Fecht – not Isvan – says this in Popular Science (emphasis mine):

Beyond being a politician, Istvan is an entrepreneur, a blogger, and the founder of the Transhumanist Party--a group of some 25,000 people who want to enhance the human body and extend the human lifespan using science and technology.

John Hendrickson – not Isvan – says this in Esquire:

Istvan is the founder of the Transhumanist Party.

Truman Chen – not Isvan – says this in the Stanford Political Journal:

In reality, the ideals the Transhumanist Party embodies are anti-political.

Every single one of these quotes by third parties assert the existence of the party. How is this not evidence of the party's existence? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to include a list of sources which back up your claim, it helps if they're not bogus in the first place (nat rev, biz insider, etc). Most of those (and in article body) are about Zoltan, penned by transhumanists, in T+ publications, or simple mentions; Wikipedia doesn't do mentions - only in-depth coverage which directly addresses the subject. While you may not need their personal consensus, a rough general consensus based upon policy or broader community consensus is required. The fundamental issue is source selection being garbage; either from a want of confirmation bias, or from a basic lack of broad coverage in high-quality sources. Generally community consensus has been parties need to be registered, recognized by some entity with a supervisory roll in such matters, and to have gained ballot access in an election at bare minimum. The party has no HQ, no FEC filing, no registration (other than an intent notice), no board, no treasurers, no delegates, nothing. Additionally, there is no indication this "party" has autonomy or independence apart from Zoltan.

Another problem is instead of addressing concerns, editors continue to try and shoehorn content from rejected articles elsewhere as a backdoor method to undermine the editorial process. The solution is to solve it at the source, not in places like this. T+ Party content shouldn't be in this article at all; it should be on Zoltan's page where it belongs right now until someone decides to actually rewrite the draft from scratch. In this article, it deserves a passing blurb w/ MAIN redir to Zoltan at best.

As for other Natural and Pirate Party noted above: WP:OTHERSTUFF (besides, PP is a legit org with seats in parliaments, including EU Parl; IDK about Natural). Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 09:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dsprc: You're right: it does help that my sources are not bogus. Anyone can go to NationalReview.com or BusinessInsider.in and see that they are, indeed, real publications. The fact that most of them are about Istvan does not suggest in any way that they are false.

Now, I am not arguing here about the depth at which to dwell on the topic, the article's source selection, the amount of editor consensus needed to make a change, or where to put Wikipedia content about the Transhumanist Party, nor am I making claims about the location, size, or legal status of the party. Rather, I am simply saying that the party exists. I do not understand how anyone can claim otherwise. Can we at least agree on this one point? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The articles do not discuss the party at any reasonable depth. A mere one-line mention is not sufficient for use as source. -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dsprc: You can believe that the articles do not discuss the party in depth, but please recognize that I am not arguing for them to be used a source in the article. I am simply arguing that the party exists, which requires no great depth of discussion in the sources. Can you please give me some sort of acknowledgement of this? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The sources are repeating what Istvan has told them; this does not mean the sources can reasonably be assumed to have examined the matter in the slightest beyond this. All they verify is that Istvan claims the Transhumanist Party is a thing - David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Notes

1.^ See here for information about the reliability of that source.

Singularity University into politics?

There's a passing paragraph in a new Baffler article [2] on Kurzweil's Singularity University:

There have been signs that the Singularitarians want to up their game. Last year, an SU staffer filed papers with the Federal Election Commission to form three separate fundraising committees, each of the kind known as super-PACs. However, the applications were withdrawn after a Center for Public Integrity reporter started asking questions. SU then claimed its employee had gone rogue and filed the papers without permission, contradicting the employee’s earlier statements that SU leadership was on board with the plan.

I wouldn't consider that enough to add to the article as yet, but is there any other coverage of this? - David Gerard (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

text removed from article

The following text section was removed by me for reasons stated further above (again). Note that since no followup is provided about the March 26 2015 California-filed statement of intent to become a party by filing a petition by June. So it is reasonable to assume the "party" failed to file such a petition. --doncram 00:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Here it is for further discussion:

==Transhumanist Party==

split section|Transhumanist Party|Talk:Transhumanist politics|date=April 2015

The Transhumanist Party is a political party in the United States, founded in 2014 by Zoltan Istvan, who is running in the United States presidential election, 2016 under the party's banner.

The party’s platform is based on the ideas and principles of transhumanist politics: human enhancement, human rights, science, life extension, and technological progress. The Transhumanist Party advocates political consideration of science and technology in order to increase prosperity and security.

The purpose of the party is to promote to Americans the mindset that more funding is needed for research into human life extension research, including diminishing existential risk factors, and to convince the citizenry that science and technological innovations can radically augment the nation and the human species.

The party promotes national and global prosperity by sharing technologies and creating enterprises to lift people and nations out of poverty, war, and injustice. The Transhumanist Party also supports LGBT rights. The party seeks to fully subsidize university-level education while also working to "create a cultural mindset in America that embracing and producing radical technology and science is in the best interest of our nation and species." The party wants to allocate a trillion dollars to life extension research over a ten-year period, and promote radical human life extension within 15–20 years.

In terms of foreign policy and national defense, the party wants to reduce the amount of money spent on foreign wars and use the money domestically. The party also advocates managing and preparing for existential risks, completely eliminating dangerous diseases, and proactively guarding against abuses of technology, such as nanotechnology and artificial intelligence.

References

Again, the claims in this text have been discussed previously and found NOT to amount to a hill of beans (in terms of documenting that a "Transhumanist Party" exists and is notable by any reasonable interpretation), to put it politely. --doncram 00:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't this hinge on whether The Daily Telegraph is a reliable source? If it is, there's a reliable source for this being a "political party" because that's how the Telegraph profiles it. Pandeist (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Doncram: I am shocked at the claim that the Transhumanist Party does not even exist! I have looked at some of those sources and others, and it would surely be an impressive hoax if so many professional journalists reported on a nonexistent party, unbeknownst to their well-established publishers and editors. Given that there are so many reliable sources that assert the party's existence, I would say that the subject deserves at least a small section in an article, especially if it was such an elaborate hoax. Of course, evidence that the party does not exist in light of reports by such publishers as The Telegraph, Popular Science, Esquire, and Wired would require some quite compelling evidence. However, given that the party's existence has been "discredited-in-several-previous-Wikipedia-discussions", Doncram, you would have no problem quoting the sources that give this evidence. Would you mind giving us such a quote? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• To both Pandeist and Haptic-feedback: Please answer the question: did the Transhumanist Party get onto the ballot of the California primary election in June 2015? Are you yourselves paid-up members of the party? Is there any documentation that there is a single member, besides Zoltan? I see a filing by Zoltan Istvan signed by him, giving a Mill Valley, California address as the location of the Transhumanist Party. There is NO mention anywhere of any single other person being a member or having donated a penny. The only evidence I see is the Wikipedia participation of one or two persons, acting as if they are paid employees. If you are an employee of the party (and not just of Zoltan personally) and you would acknowledge that and document it, that would at least be evidence of something. Your proof of the dollars you have been paid would represent the first documentation of any real activity of this "party".
• Right, the columnist's writing in The Telegraph in late 2014 is not a reliable source about whether there exists a legitimate and Wikipedia-notable political party. The Telegraph columnist got an entertaining article out of reporting on Zoltan's statements, and is in no way a reliable source establishing truth of Zoltan's statements. It is just an amusing column, reflecting a fun interview with Zoltan apparently about his hopes/wishes/whatever: "Zoltan hopes to capitalise on...." [Zoltan states: "But by 2024 we will be a real, legitimate party with likely over half a million members....". "At present Zoltan has a tiny team helping him, but he’ll be launching a Kickstarter campaign in January to raise more funds. In the summer, he’ll be touring California – his home state – on a campaign bus along with what he hopes will be a handful of six-foot-tall robots." Etc. Please answer: how successful was the Kickstarter campaign in January? how successful has the California bus-tour been?
• Also, I don't care for this kind of badgering back-and-forth, neither your sarcasm nor my attempt to reply in somewhat the same spirit; I may or may not reply further to more here. --doncram 02:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• For the record: my inquiry was genuine, not sarcastic. You may be guessing right about the Telegraph writer but it's still your guess on the matter. And no, I am not affiliated with any political party nor any party's candidate or company. In fact I've been contributing to Wikipedia now for five years, and have close to 2000 edits, and I've never had boo to do with any Transhumanism topic until this past month when I happened across this discussion. I hope that answers all your questions. Your commentary here comes across not so much as somebody who doesn't believe the thing exists as somebody who is simply against it existing. Pandeist (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Doncram: I see that you acknowledge the Telegraph article, which is a great first step. Perhaps you read statements such as this one:

The Transhumanist Party advocates spending at least a trillion dollars over ten years directly on life extension research.

Please note that something must exist to advocate something. Also note that these are not the words of Istvan – they are the words of Jamie Bartlett, a journalist. Why do you think that he is asserting something that is false?

In any case, you have not addressed the other sources that make similar assertions or explicit claims that the party exists. Rather, you seem to be unwilling to discuss them. May I ask why?

Now, before I answer your questions, I want to be clear that I am under no obligation to do so, especially about those regarding my offline behaviour, and especially since you have not answered my initial request for you to quote to us published evidence of the supposed hoax. However, as a show of good faith, I will answer your insinuating questions:

• I do not know if the Transhumanist Party got onto any ballot, nor do I know if there is any documentation of more than one member, but I assume that the answer to both questions is "no" from the way you are asking.
• I am not a paid or unpaid member of the party, and I have not given the party any money.
• I do not how successful this Kickstarter campaign or bus tour has been.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that you are arguing on the basis that a political party must be recognized by a government in order to exist. If I am right, then this could help us make some progress in this debate. Am I right to assume this? Surely, since I answered all of your questions, it would be reasonable if you answered just this one.

--Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Save us the feigned "shock" and just address issues w/o logical fallacies (a great deal in arguments here). This dead horse has been beaten ad infinitum; address the concerns raised on: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Transhumanist_Party and here: Draft talk:Transhumanist Party. We have inclusion criteria; all which need be done is meeting those. There is no T+ Party independent of being a promotional vehicle of Zoltan. Won't rehash what has already been written above; it grows tiresome. If unsatisfied with discussion, consider WP:DR. -- dsprc ^[talk] 08:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Doncram's estimation of the sources looks accurate to me: there is lots of evidence Istvan has talked up the Transhumanist Party at length, but there is not evidence that it is a going concern that exists, for any reasonable sense of the word "exists".

@Davidcpearce: you put the material back - what's your estimate of what the sources say? Noting Doncram's and my concerns - David Gerard (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

David, apologies for not saying more. I would hope that Wikipedia readers can learn the policies - and political opponents' critique of the policies! - of the TP, not just its financing arrangements. It's no secret that Zoltan is no Ross Perot, and his campaign team are unpaid volunteers. But are the ill-financed inherently less notable than the well-financed? --Davidcpearce (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"inherently" is possibly not a useful concept here. Because in all practical terms ... well, yeah, they are less notable, because the well-financed vanity presidential campaigns are vastly more verifiable - David Gerard (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Per Doncram's notes above, and going through the sources myself, they're all blog posts by Istvan, interviews with Istvan or writeups of his blogging on the subject. The only evidence of a party is the filed proposal to form a party. As such, I've phrased it all as proposals by Istvan, because that's what the state of the proposed "Transhumanist Party" is at present. There's sufficient third-party coverage that arguably the proposal is noteworthy. But also, it arguably belongs in Zoltan Istvan, not here - David Gerard (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The State of California recognizes both qualified and non-qualified parties as political parties. Qualified parties get their name on the ballot. Non-qualified parties do not get their name on the ballot but are still tracked by the Division of Elections, candidates can run under the party name, and California residents can still register with the party. The Transhumanist Party is currently a non-qualified party based on this memo from the State of California Elections Division. http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ccrov/pdf/2015/march/15031da.pdf The Transhumanist Party in the UK has also been formally recognized according their blog, but I have not found any official government records on their party yet. Waters.Justin (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said in the paragraph you're answering, "The only evidence of a party is the filed proposal to form a party." And that cite's in the article: it indicates that someone has registered intent to run under the name. However, as Doncram notes, there is no evidence of any other existence apart from Istvan talking about it (which is also all that Haptic-feedback's list of links verifies) - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The Transhumanist Party website says it is a non-profit but operated and managed by the "Transhumanist National Committee LLC."[3] A Limited liability company typically operates for a for-profit motive. A search of that company shows it is registered in Oregon. It's not normal for a for-profit company to manage a non-profit political party, but it is normal for a for-profit company to manage a political action committee or other type of election or candidate committee. Stripping away all the puffery, it looks like the Transhumanist Party is a for-profit election committee lobbying to develop a qualified political party. A non-profit, as opposed to a LLC, would appear closer to what is expected of a functioning political party, so I understand the criticism that the TP is just a for-profit publicity stunt for Zoltan. However, there a writers who are taking the TP serious, and expect that it is at its infancy stage, so informality is expected. This can be included in the article, so readers know the Transhumanist Party is not a party in the traditional sense, but rather a LLC promoting the existence of a party. Waters.Justin (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dsprc: Believe me: I was truly shocked. I would love to see any logical fallacies that you notice in my posts, by the way, so please point them out to me. Anyway, the only concern that I intended to address was the existence of the party, which I have done. I don't understand why I would have to address concerns about creating a separate page for the party. Regardless of suspicions that Istvan is using the party for pure self-promotion, the party still exists (unless there was a catastrophic failure of editorial oversight on the part of the sources I listed or a well-organized conspiracy to push misinformation). --Haptic-feedback (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you were. Confirmation Bias, Red Herring, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Ridicule, Burden of Proof, Genetic Fallacy, etc. But please, do try to concentrate on content.

Actually, while you'er spilling ink, doncram included an FEC filing; now all that is needed is for Zoltan to cement T+ next to their name on a California ballot; then Team Transhumanism is legit. This how to address issues and should have been done in the first place, not all the pointless arguing here. -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dsprc: Fair enough, if you want to "concentrate on content", then show me where in my content I committed some of those fallacies. I would like to point out, also, that Doncram's given reason for removing the Transhumanist Party section was that it did not exist, so I am not just arguing for no reason. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Dsprc for your directions to Haptic-feedback. I recognized that lots of sophistry was going on, but I would not have been able to name those logical fallacies myself. Argument from authority definitely applies, in H-f's rush to believe in columnists (and their publishers') authority, when to me it is pretty obvious that no one of them is putting any of their authority on the line...they are all just saying what Istvan said to them, and, if pressed, would easily deny any responsibility. They would correctly say that they did not examine or attest to the truth status of Istvan's claims, and that a reasonable reader would not think that they had. Straw man is another fallacy that was not mentioned, but I saw being used. It is reasonable to leave as exercises for H-f to figure out, as to how each of the others apply. Also do browse in Category:Logical fallacies and maybe also in Category:Relevance fallacies. --doncram 03:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup, Bob Doledoncram does still believe that there is not significant evidence that there exists a Transhumanist Party in the traditional sense of a political party. To be clear: it does not exist: there is no known membership at all much less any significant quantity of members, there is no primary election or other public process of candidate selection, no debate as to a platform, no funding, etc. I gather from all this that there seems to be a legal entity, perhaps an Oregon-registered LLC, named "Transhumanist Party". (By the way, if I recall correctly to register an LLC in California costs one $900 per year, or it used to cost that, flat with no adjustment for its level of activity, so if it would be possible to register in Oregon instead then avoiding that cost might be good reason to do so.) Readers should not be misled that there is a party, and if an entity merely named as a party is mentioned then the readers (using Waters.Justin's wording above in this section, thanks for that) deserve to "know the Transhumanist Party is not a party in the traditional sense, but rather a LLC promoting the existence of a party." --doncram 03:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram: If it is a logical fallacy to favour a multitude of third-party sources by professional journalists in successful publications with editorial staff over assertions without evidence, then Wikipedia policy is based on such a fallacy, and I am okay with it. I could try to find a name for your fallacious presumption of what the columnists would do in certain circumstances, but I will take your approach and leave that as an exercise for you. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Let us begin with the recognition that all political parties are self-promoting organisms. As are all candidates in politics. Now, here is a more recent interview of Istvan in Esquire Magazine which is on the Transhumanist Party amongst other things, and which mentions a mayoral candidate under the party's name in another state, so there you go. Pandeist (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It mentions Istvan saying there is one; that's sufficient to note he's said someone wants to run under the banner, but it's not enough to say someone actually is. Who is it? What state? What city? You'd need more sources to say pretty much anything at all more than that - David Gerard (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

2nd text passage removed from article

I removed what had become a separate section titled "Tranhumanist Party" from the article, after merging what is usable into the Zoltan Istvan article. The California filing of intent and the FEC filing are primary sourced only and it's better not to state them along with critical comments (that the CA June election participation apparently didn't happen; that there are 458 or more others who have FEC-filed including a cat and a fictional pirate). I cut that out. Also I noted the sequence of sources was not chronological and put it into roughly chrono order (though maybe i garbled order myself at first). I also dropped a reference or two that add nothing reliable, e.g. one that, after quoting from Istvan's Huffington blog post, only speaks about what Wikipedia says.

Anyhow, here is the removed text passage:

Transhumanist Party

The Transhumanist Party is a proposed political party in the United States, advocated by Zoltan Istvan, who has stated he will be running in the United States presidential election, 2016 under the party's banner. Istvan filed a statement of intent for his organization to qualify as a political party for the June 2015 California primary elections. As of March 2015, Istvan reported that he himself funded nearly all of his campaign's expenses but that could not continue. In June 2015, Istvan filed an FEC form designating "Transhumanist Party" to be the principal campaign committee for his election candidacy.

References

Again some of the above was merged into Istvan article. I suggest treating this text as a reference, and discussing it in the RfC section, not here, so saying everything twice can be avoided. The RfC is the open, active discussion where larger community is invited.. --doncram 00:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

third-time removed text

In four edits I just removed utter hogwash that had been fabricated and [a new section titled "Transhumanist Party" that had been] put into the article. Here it is to be referenced (and ridiculed, especially the mind-boggling re-definition of what a political party member is (anything a would-be politician wants to say it is), which at least one editor wants Wikipedia to lead the charge on!):

Transhumanist Party

Groups called the "Transhumanist Party" have emerged in countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. In the United States, the Transhumanist Party is a political party founded in October 2014 by Zoltan Istvan. Istvan has stated that he will be running in the 2016 United States presidential election under the party's banner. Istvan filed a statement of intent for his organization to qualify as a political party for the June 2015 California primary elections. As of March 2015, Istvan reported that he himself funded nearly all of his campaign's expenses. In June 2015, Istvan filed an FEC form designating "Transhumanist Party" to be the principal campaign committee for his candidacy. The party has about 25,000 supporters.

References

What garbage. Sorry, I can't keep taking this seriously. --doncram 08:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Content isn't "hogwash," "garbage," "pathetic," or "pie-in-the-sky" just because you say it is. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, and multiple reliable sources call the Transhumanist Party a political party founded by Istvan. Abierma3 (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram: Do you have any constructive criticism, or are you just venting? Also, may I ask why you post your changes here, when they are already accessible through the article history? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry for my choice of words, and I have stricken my words in several places above. As with previous removed passages, I copied this third one here for easier referencing by discussants below. Currently the main discussion section about the "Transhumanist Party" is the RFC section below. See my last posting there. And if I am asked questions there I will try to answer them. --doncram 05:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram: Fair enough. Thanks for toning it down a bit -- your apology is admirable. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

ballot access fun facts

I believe it would be pretty big news if "Team Transhumanism" (Dsprc, i like that!) got onto the ballot in California. There would be so much coverage that we would have no issues to discuss! It takes big dollars to get a proposition or a candidate onto the ballot in CA, because it costs money to hire petition-collectors at something like $2 per valid signature (and I think all contenders do hire, do not rely upon volunteers). If I am understanding it correctly per this ballot-access.org source that is linked from the 2016 elections page (scan more than halfway down to "2016 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT" section, Istvan needs to file a petition with 178,039 valid signatures (costing $356k if the $2/voter estimate is correct) by August 12 (2015 or 2016?) to get onto the ballot in CA as an independent. It is pretty difficult to get a party's name onto the ballot in California: to me it looks like the requirement is you need to have 61,000 registered voters registered under the party's name (by July 11 2015 or July 11 2016?)!

On the other hand, perhaps you can get onto the ballot in Colorado and in Louisiana by paying just $500 with no petition required. For Iowa (an important one if you want any prominence) you need just 1,500 signatures but it's probably pretty difficult to get them, as most Iowans are politically aware and committed already and jaded from all the attention they get. For TN you need just 275 signatures; for NJ maybe just 800; for several states just 1,000 signatures are needed. For many states there are other requirements which already have precluded the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and/or the Constitutional Party from being able to get onto the ballot. New York sets some other requirement which I think is perhaps the most difficult to achieve (something very onerous like requiring you to open a campaign office in each of NY's counties by some early date, if I recall correctly). The Green and Constitution teams won't be on the NY ballot, though they both have already met California's requirement (which is by far the highest number of signatures required).

It looks to me like you or me or anyone can file form 1 and form 2 with the FEC for no fee, so FEC filing is not a serious hurdle at all. I am not sure if you need to have a legal entity set up or not. And then I think you are just obligated to file quarterly paperwork about donations received, until the election, which is no burden if you get few donations. And 451 455 459 persons have filed with the FEC already, including Jack Sparrow, as you can see on an FEC webpage. (I think most but not All of those are running for President). --doncram 19:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 15:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

And where in Wikipedia is it written that a political party must get on the ballot in California to be notable for its own page? Or even that one must field a presidential candidate? Pandeist (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Right. You're talking about the inverse (logic) of what I said. --doncram 15:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram: Thanks for your research! This is a good argument in favour of the party's existence, as all of these hurdles would explain why an existing party in California would not appear on a ballot. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You're arguing a lack of reliable sources as itself a reliable source? No, that's really not how it works - David Gerard (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@David Gerard: You misunderstand, but I take the blame for not being clear. I meant that it is a good counter-argument to Doncram's assertion that the lack of a ballot with the party's name is good evidence of the party's nonexistence. But you're right: such an assertion is folly to begin with, and that is the better counter-argument. Doncram, please note Mr. Gerard's point that a lack of a source (such as a ballot) is indeed not a source. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Your logic on this page is not convincing. What this actually means is that not even the FEC form serves as evidence of the party's existence - all we have so far is press assertions from Istvan - David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@David Gerard: You say, "all we have so far is press assertions from Istvan". This is demonstrably false. I proved this in the "Transhumanist_Party" section of this page with quotes from several people who are not Istvan asserting the party's existence. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Haptic-feedback: Even when others not previously party to discussion, such as JayJasper, step into the fray to weigh in on matters, you choose not to hear or accept conclusions. Such behaviour is detrimental to your position - and ultimately, editorship. As I've stated before: 'there is no compromise'; which raises concerns. At some point, it is time to drop the stick. -- dsprc ^[talk] 11:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dsprc: Actually, in my reply to Mr. Jasper, I almost entirely agreed with him. I only disagreed about one word, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect agreement on everything. Anyway, your argument could essentially be made against any editor who is not convinced by the other side in a debate, but let's try to focus on content, not contributors. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually wikipedia's ballot access article gives some better (but incomplete and maybe not entirely accurate) info on what it takes to get a party name or a candidate onto the ballot in various U.S. States. doncram 14:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, cost per signature is found to be $3.92 on average for four petition drives in California, and about $3.00 per signature on average across all petition drives studied in 2014 Ballotopedia study of petition campaigns. So if Istvan needs 178,039 signatures by August 2016 to get onto the 2016 ballot in California, and cost is $3 per, then that's about $535,000. Kimball Petition Management or another firm will be glad to take your money. :) --doncram 06:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that Istvan is purchasing petition signatures? The talk page is not a forum or soap box, please stick to discussions that are relevant to improving the article. Abierma3 (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Excessive quotes in reference footnotes

The article has accumulated excessive quotes in reference footnotes. A large factor in this growth IMO has been the wish of some editors to establish an idea (or equivalently to reflect their being convinced by the sources) that there exists a valid political party named Transhumanist Party in the United States. In essence this is another wp:BATTLEGROUND area for the dispute covered in ongoing RFC, in past AFD, and multiple Talk page discussions, where the consensus is that there is not a political party, and Wikipedia should not endorse/assert that there is one. However this battleground is in mainspace. The quotes naming "Transhumanist Party" are mostly or all from blogs by Istvan Zoltan and from interviews of him, which have been much discussed on this Talk page and the consensus is that they are puffery (which is appropriate for a wannabe group to engage in, but is not appropriate for Wikipedia to publish). Again they establish that Istvan says there is a thing; they do not establish there is a thing. The appearance is that the quotes provide a backdoor assertion/endorsement by Wikipedia that there is such a thing. I will pause for discussion but am inclined to delete ALL quotes in references. AFAIK, quotes in references are non-standard. I am not aware when/how/whether quotes like this are valid in Wikipedia; they look like verging on copyright violation I wonder. Perhaps there could be valid reasoning for keeping one or two, where the exact wording of the quote is necessary to make a point about the exact wording of what someone said, and where editorially it is better not to provide that clarification in the main text. However then I think the other kind of footnote--notes as opposed to references--should be used instead. Unless convincing argument for such an exception is made, IMO they all should be deleted. --doncram 14:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Quotes in references are standard, which is why they're part of the reference templates. Wikipedia:Citing sources#Additional_annotation suggests that "A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference" which is clearly how they're being used here. Wikipedia:Quotations discusses the matter in stultifying detail. I concur they're being misused here, as part of the puffery, but in general the use of suitable quotes in references is generally regarded as a good thing, particularly in contentious matters.

I would say that rather than purging the quotes, it would be appropriate to check they are not out of context, quote-mined, etc., and that the reference itself is a good one (e.g. when something is attributed to a journalist but is really obviously an Istvan assertion, particularly when it contradicts something he's said directly himself) - David Gerard (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram: I think that I am responsible for most of the quotes. I try to provide quotes for my citations in all articles so that they are more easily verifiable for editors who want to check them. Far too often, citations are used for sources that do not say what the article does, so I like to be transparent in showing how my cited sources actually do. I do not think that they are excessive, because they are at the bottom of the page, where users can easily ignore them.

If, however, I was using every opportunity to post large blocks of text on a Talk page to try to convince others of a conspiracy theory -- perhaps that a political party reported by many reliable, third-party sources is not real, and that there is a campaign by a few supporters to spread lies about it on Wikipedia -- then that would be excessive. Such disruption is not so easily ignored.

Anyway, there is no consensus that the party does not exist. There seems to be a general uncertainty about the party's legal status, but there seem to be only one or two users here who say that the party does not exist at all. Indeed, multiple users responding the Request For Comments agree that the party does exist. By my count, the people who say that it exists on this Talk page outnumber the people who say that it does not.

Of course, Wikipedia should not be used for endorsement, but let us be clear that asserting that something exists is not endorsement. If it was, then literally every Wikipedia article would be endorsement, so they would all be unfit for Wikipedia, which is absurd. Please do not conflate assertions of existence with endorsements, and please do not mislead others by grouping the two together, such as by putting a slash between them as if they were related (e.g. "endorse/assert", "assertion/endorsement").

If anyone reading this is actually considering Doncram's claim that the sources are simply repeating Istvan, then please look at the sources for yourself, and see the Transhumanist_Party section, where I quote many more sources who are not Istvan.

--Haptic-feedback (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: Here is some more journalism about the supposedly nonexistent party from the past month:

• International Business Times #1, #2
• Business Insider
• IEET (notice the bottom photo of supporters of the allegedly fake party)
• Yahoo! News

--Haptic-feedback (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

More of the same. I could get 5 or 6 persons at a park to put on new t-shirts that i just printed up, too. And, the length of text in footnotes now is more than the text in the article. This is ridiculous. I know of no other article in Wikipedia that is skewed this way, with explicitly quoted promotional text outweighing any meagre content. --doncram 16:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram: If you see parts of quotes that do not serve to source the article material, provide necessary context, or improve the understandability of the quote, then please do remove those parts, especially if you think that they are promotion. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A lot of contentious articles on Wikipedia have more text, including quoted text, in the references. This one's nowhere near the top - David Gerard (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)