Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TESCREAL (2nd nomination)

TESCREAL

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/TESCREAL
• Articles for deletion/TESCREAL (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

TESCREAL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Delete (nomination). 'TESCREAL' refers to a nonsense conspiracy theory that disparages people such as Nick Bostrom without citing any sources that are credible on the question of whether Nick Bostrom is an 'evil eugenicist' or whatever. If the principals hadn't coined 'TESCREAL' the title would be Weird accusations by Torres and Gebru that everyone who talks about AI (but isn't focused on certain political priorities) is part of a worldwide conspiracy to implement an catastrophic version of eugenics and it would be obvious that it shouldn't be the title of an article on Wikipedia. The term 'TESCREAL' is simply an attempt to invoke reification bias – the idea that something with a name necessarily 'carves reality at the joints'. Jruderman (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC) (E: due to new COI, I am disconnecting my name from the nomination reasons and downgrading from bold to italic.) Jruderman (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - There remains significant sourcing on this article that indicates WP:N. there are mostly WP:SPS blogs that describe this as a conspiracy... Folks attempt to invoke WP:FRINGE on this mostly as they see any criticism of their pet philosophy as outrageous. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I still feel like the majority of the "Alleged TESCREALists" section is WP:SYNTH whereby big name people who are well-connected to ONE of these ideologies, or loosely/possibly connected to a few, are lumped into being part of the theorized TESCREAL "movement", by either random commentators, or some journalists seeking readers.
  I think these types of tenuous connections to an overarching ideology are almost WP:GOSSIP, but I guess Wikipedia's policies around famous people MAY make it acceptable: if the news covers "Elon Musk says Trump is anti-TESCREAL" and "Trump says Musk is a TESCREAList" - than we can include those sourced personal attack statements?---Avatar317^(talk) 21:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  WP:SYNTH states that wikipedians can't do original research and use that. Most sourcing in article is pretty clear about directly stating person x is associated with TESCREAL. If multiple sourcing all state that these folks are criticized by person x as being part of TESCREAL, I see no reason to not include.

  "Some have alleged Elon to support some TESCREAL ideals. (source 1, source 2)" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Can you give specific indication of which attribution should be considered wrong? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with Avatar317's concerns, and have removed the various "so-and-so is alleged to support TESCREAL because they support one of the letters" content. The rest of the article seems well-enough sourced to be kept. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding removal of material, see [[1]].

  If necessary, we can open up another talk section about it or WP:BLPN section. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. I've reverted the indiscriminate blanking because this has already been discussed at length. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see the BLPN discussion remotely having a consensus to include what is, roughly, third-party accusations regarding an ideological bundle that the targets either disagree with or have not even deigned to acknowledge. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Does the fact that the content was added back change your position? Alenoach (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  No. There will (probably) be an RFC about some of this content once this AFD closes. (Also some of the later comments here are just weird.) Walsh90210 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Well sourced, and the suggestion that this is a "nonsense conspiracy theory" is Jruderman's own opinion — not one that exists in reliable sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Expanding a bit to address a few of the arguments by other !voters.

  • WP:FRINGE concerns should be handled in the same way we handle other notable fringe topics; that is, if there is quality sourcing available that describes this as a fringe theory, it should be incorporated into the article. But claiming that the topic is fringe based on personal opinion, without any RS to support that stance, and arguing it should be deleted because of that, falls into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory.
  • Concerns about the "Alleged TESCREALists" section should be handled via the normal editorial processes (talk page, WP:BLPN, WP:RFC if needed), not AfD. The section makes up only about a quarter of the entire article, and certainly wouldn't justify WP:TNT even if it was determined that the section should be omitted.
  • I don't think the page should be merged back into Gebru or Torres' pages, primarily because 1) it independently meets the GNG, but also because 2) it will result in two roughly identical sections at each page which then need to be maintained separately. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  My point about Fringe is with the Cold fusion analogy. Would Wikipedia have covered cold fusion immediately from the initial public announcement in the press which stated that this happened, before it was vetted by other scientists and found to be false? Maybe? G & T have "taken their case to the public" here by publishing in the news media BEFORE their academic community had a chance to vet their theory, so of course there isn't sufficient sourcing that TESCREAL an outlier, it has just been created.

  I think that newly created theories or claimed scientific discoveries should NOT be given articles here until they get properly vetted. A policy where we already recognize this concept is WP:MEDRS where we exclude individual studies but use systemic reviews because of the well-understood problems of drawing broad conclusions from single (even well-controlled, double-blind, etc.) studies. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Cold fusion seems different. Doesn't touch on medical issues or personal attacks, and is something that everyone agrees would be cool if it happened someday. Jruderman (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Reliable sources are required for inclusion, but we also try to stick to including only things that are true. There is no rule requiring reliable sources for removal of misinformation or personal attacks. Jruderman (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  If you think an article needs to be deleted because it's a "nonsense conspiracy theory", you need to at least demonstrate that that's more than just your own personal opinion (not to mention demonstrate why that means it ought to be deleted — many nonsense conspiracy theories are well documented on Wikipedia). I could say that we should delete the article on, I don't know, eugenicists because I think the term is a "nonsense conspiracy theory", but such an argument would be rightly ignored at AfD. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  which sourcing is unreliable or untrue? and can you provide the evidence? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Where does it say that Wikipedia tries to stick to things "that are true"?

  I don't think the truth behind a concept is relevant to whether Wikipedia includes it, and it would be weird if it was. There's quite rightly a Wikipedia article on Flat Earth, for example. All Wikipedia cares about is that it is an existing concept could usefully be described by an encyclopedia, and that is notable enough for inclusion.

  Could you explain which policy you're referring to with this truth statement?

  Nottrobin (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Merge into the articles on Timnit Gebru and Émile P. Torres. The sources that use the term TESCREAL often relay directly the views of Timnit Gebru or Émile Torres. The term itself does not correspond to a well-established concept, but rather a contentious grouping of different philosophies, so making it the title of a Wikipedia article is somewhat tendentious. And the term appears mostly in the context of personal attacks, often attributing opinions to people that would deny having them. Dispassionate, fact-based journalism generally avoids ideologically loaded terms like TESCREAL and uses more precise vocabulary to refer to the philosophy they are talking about. Alenoach (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  The term has received widespread use beyond Gebru and Torres, and I mean use, not just reporting. The sources in the article prove this, especially the academic ones. A grouping can be a concept also, these are not mutually exclusive. Can you provide examples of the mentioned 'personal attacks'? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Point by point

  1) "Merge into the articles on Timnit Gebru and Émile P. Torres"

  I don't think it would meet WP:MERGEREASON, which specifically argues against merging if:

  • The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles
  • The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short

  2) "The term itself does not correspond to a well-established concept, but rather a contentious grouping of different philosophies,"

  TESCREAL meets WP:GNG due to reliable sourcing. It probably is a contentious grouping and philosophers can argue about it all they want, but that doesn't mean we get to be arbiters of whether it is valid or not, only if it is notable. And the context of personal attacks, in terms of criticizing WP:PUBLICFIGUREs, seems tenuous.

  3) the term appears mostly in the context of personal attacks,

  This is mostly WP:BLP talk again. See above my reply to Walsh, but we've discussed that criticism of WP:PUBLICFIGURE can and should be documented.

  4) "Dispassionate, fact-based journalism"

  Most contemporary philosophies often do not get massive news coverage. In fact sourcing for wikipedia is only mandated to be WP:SECONDARY, WP:RELIABLE, WP:INDEPENDENT. There is no mandate for entirely unbiased sourcing and it seems onerous to demand that of TESCREAL when other philosophies regularly use sourcing that is biased towards them.

  As an example, when looking at the Effective Altruism article, I count at least 9 sources from MacKaskill, the founder of EA, 3 from centre for effective altruism, at least 4 more from Peter Singer, another leader of EA, and a few opinions and philosophical arguments in journals. Its not wrong to use WP:OPINION to fill in sourcing.

  In terms of reliable sourcing in the current article that discusses the term (and arguable aren't opinion pieces), see the following: [2] [3] [4] [5] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep The article is well sourced and has received widespread use in the media and also a considerable use in academic literature. The language of the nomination is highly POV and personal. The editor has not provided a credible argument for his accusation that this is a 'nonsense conspiracy theory', and the statement that the sources (which one?) does not cite 'any sources that are credible' is factually wrong. The justification of the nomination has more bias than the whole article. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well said. Aurodea108 (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. There is no conspiracy or anything fringe here. There is legitimate and significant criticism against the unifying and overlapping narratives promoted by those in the transhumanism, extropianism, singularitarianism, cosmism, rationalism, effective altruism, and longtermism communities. Gebru and Torres have quite remarkably presented a cohesive critical theory of technological utopianism in the form of a simple to remember neologism to describe the last 25 years of a campaign of distraction and misdirection that has infected entire parts of our society and prevented social change from occurring, all because a small group of tech bros believe that humanity should stop addressing our current social problems and simply resign ourselves to becoming cyborgs. This is, actually, what people like Kurzweil, Musk, and many others believe. It's a legitimate topic. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  It is probably worth noting here the presence of a keep vote made on the explicit basis of the article's usefulness as a political smear. jp×g🗯️ 01:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  It’s not worth it, as there’s no political smear implied in anything I’ve said here. This discourse is part of the longstanding criticism of technological utopianism. It has nothing to do with politics at all. It has to do with the irrational basis for utopian ideas promoted by people in the tech industry which often has the result of delaying mitigation of social issues. One contemporary example that is being widely discussed by philosophers in this regard, and is part of the same body of work, is the notion of promoting space exploration, such as the kind we find in the language of Elon Musk. This language is entirely irrational, as there is no rational basis for supporting space exploration (and I consider myself a strong supporter of it). This example is directly relevant. Musk appeals to the threat of human extinction to promote colonizing Mars. He speaks of becoming a multiplanetary civilization, which is the language of mitigating the existential risk of extinction, in other words, don’t put all your eggs in one basket. By so doing, he gets lucrative military contracts and government subsidies, and never has to actually deliver on his utopian promise. Meanwhile, many other social issues go unaddressed without funding. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  And how does this have anything whatsoever to do with Wikipedia POLICY? I understand that you like this concept as a criticism of TU, but that is NOT a policy based argument. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  What a weird comment. I just directly answered and refuted the allegation that I was supporting an article based on a political smear. I was not. In my reply, I gave an example of the criticism and how it directly pertains to the subject of the article in question. This article does not meet the criteria for deletion as stated by the nominator. Since you evidently missed it, to reiterate: it’s not a conspiracy like the nom claimed, and it’s not a political smear of any kind. It’s a relevant and timely criticism of technological utopianism based on relevant, scholarly opinions. The criteria for deletion has not been met by the nom or anyone else. Time to close. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment, the risk of getting dragged on Mastodon for this aside, I think this is a WP:TNT case. The prior three comments to keep were from the article's primary authors. Two of those (Joaquim and Blue) have been WP:OWNing the talk page for the last few months, and pretty much any thread started there is guaranteed to get a very prompt hostile response from one of them. Neutrality concerns are vaguely insinuated to be part of the conspiracy. I am concerned, as I have been for basically the article's entire existence, that it is a WP:COATRACK. There was a BLPN discussion about this before -- while there was only one person in the discussion who wasn't active at the article's talk page, their response was that it shouldn't have a list of people alleged as being it. Citing this discussion as some sort of definitive proof that this section needs to be in the article is very bizarre to me. But it is one of many bizarre claims that are made on a regular basis with respect to this article.

Essentially: two people claim there is some group that does XYZ, ABC, DEF and PQR. Cool. A few people have reported that these two people claimed there was some group that did XYZ, ABC, DEF and PQR. That's also cool. But what we don't have is any reliable source saying this -- they're quoting someone else saying this. It is a very fundamental distinction. For example: a certain politician (incorrectly) said another politician was born in Kenya; there are all kinds of sources that reflect this; but that source does not say the guy was born in Kenya! It says that the guy said he was. We would not use this source to say that the guy was born in Kenya: it's just common sense.

The term is, at its root, explicitly a political insult, which exists for the sole purpose of denigrating people that its creators disagree with. Someone might respond to this by saying "no, you've got it all wrong, they're just describing a tendency". Yeah: they are describing a tendency... of people who they hate and think are evil, and regularly go on extended diatribes about how they are ruining everything, and created the term to be able to say negative things about them more easily. They post on social media about this Wikipedia article.

Nobody else uses this term. It is not used by the people who it allegedly describes. There is no group of people who call themselves this. The term is not ever used for neutral commentary on a "tendency" -- it's used as an insult for when people are stupid. We would not, with a straight face, write a Wikipedia article called DemonRat Party and then say, wow look, all of the sources say that they're awful people who love taxes and crime, we'd better just write about these claims at great length, because look they're notable. Imagine for a minute that a WSJ editorial and National Review columnist called the Democrats the "DemonRats", so we had RS SIGCOV: we would still not turn DemonRat Party blue because the resulting article would be bad. We would definitely not want to keep it if it were being written entirely by people who had spent several months arguing that we needed to include diverse perspectives by writing said article to be as long as possible and say as many negative things about the DemonRats as we could possibly fit in it. It would also be bad to write an article called Child molestors and/or Donald Trump supporters, WP:SYNTH together a bunch of sources criticizing each of these groups individually, and then say "this is clearly notable because we have 800 studies about child molestation, 800 studies about Trump voters, and then 2 thinkpieces saying one was the other".

Political insults can be notable, but this isn't an article about a political insult. It is a WP:COATRACK where the notability of the term is being used to justify extremely detailed coverage (and uncritical repetition) of the factual claims about politics being made by its originators. While it's possible to come up with a bunch of passing mentions where someone used this term, and a few pieces of coverage of the people who invented it saying it -- and while it may indeed manage to barely scrape past WP:DICTDEF -- it's not possible to come up with solid citations that it is a real thing. What we have is a big wall of WP:SYNTH bordering on WP:FRANKENSTEIN, and I think that since the term (and indeed this specific Wikipedia article) is being actively used as a cudgel to own the libs, we should either make this into a stub or a redirect or an article that is very closely focused to be about the term as a term and not a dumping ground for random political commentary that happens to mention the term. jp×g🗯️ 01:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

A point by point rebuttal of this wall of text.

• "Two of those (Joaquim and Blue) have been WP:OWNing the talk page for the last few months"

That we can argue against bad-faith arguments and demand you point out specific places where the article is failing is not owning the article. If you cannot point to specific arguments, and keep changing why you think this article is bad indicates flawed WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning.

• "I am concerned, as I have been for basically the article's entire existence, that it is a WP:COATRACK."

Every section on that article is concerned with TESCREAL. Looking over most sourcing, most sourcing talks for long lengths about TESCREAL.

• "There was a BLPN discussion about this before"

You never answered questions about WP:PUBLICFIGURE or why it would not apply. Also, I have always found the reasoning that TESCREAL=Political Attack to be a bit flawed. By that logic, the section about Transhumanism#New_eugenics would indicate every transhumanist is a eugenicist.

• "Essentially: two people claim"

The Kenya Birther conspiracy can be attributed to Donald Trump, then we can use overwhelming sourcing to state its false. Do you have overwhelming sourcing to state that TESCREAL is a conspiracy that balances out the dozens of sourcing that explains it? In the past folks have attempted to completely delete large portions of this article on the basis of a single blog page.

• "The term is, at its root, explicitly a political insult"

Unless you find a source that suggests this, beyond the blog post of the philosophers that are criticized by Gebru and Torres, this argument is unsubstantiated. Even if it was a political insult, we have plenty of those documented, along with alleged people who have epitomised the political insult.

• " Nobody else uses this term."

There are close to 25 sources in the article that all use the term. The original AfD was deleted for notability, but since then the term has come into resurgence with significant sourcing.

• "it's used as an insult for when people are stupid"

Sourcing and the article says nothing about intelligence of the people who are alleged to be TESCREALISTS.

• "It is a WP:COATRACK where the notability of the term is being used to justify extremely detailed coverage (and uncritical repetition) "

Find the critical information to criticize the term or to justify a policy such as WP:FALSEBALANCE. So far, most sourcing indicates that people take this criticism from Gebru and Torres as actual philosophical arguments, not just some petty insult.

• "it's not possible to come up with solid citations that it is a real thing."

Again, provide a list of why all the sourcing is bad?

• "What we have is a big wall of WP:SYNTH "

Every sentence is cited and attributed. We do no original research. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

More info. JPxG has:

• continued to assert that I insult everyone I disagree with on the talk page (I was confused tbh?) [6]
• that Joaquim has falsely accused editors of COIs on the talk page [7]
• and now has suggested I and Joaquim have been WP:OWNING the page by continuing to edit, discuss controversial changes

He has thrown out constant walls of inconsequential texts and vague WP:WIKILAWYERING that take time to debunk. I'm happy to work point by point, but much of this remains frustrating waste of time. I'm a firm believer that all editors are biased, myself included, but much of this has become less of dealing with the article, and more WP:FORUM behavior that may be worth ignoring in the future. For any closer, this latest comment by JPxG could well be considered WP:FORUM instead of actually based on real wiki policy and discarded.

I want actual sourcing that proves me wrong, so we can include it in this article with the criticism it needs, like all philosophical arguments. (see my edits where I add criticism here [8][[9] [10] [11]) I am willing to engage in good-faith discussion, instead of blindly thrown out wikiterms that dont apply. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize I needed permission to type three paragraphs of text at an AfD. As for your "points" -- you were given specific objections to specific pieces of content, some different times, by some different people -- why don't you go read through the old threads? I'm not going to just arbitrarily type out eight paragraphs in their entirety over and over again every time you feel like it -- especially when your response to a several-long-paragraph post is to insult it for being a wall of text.

I agree completely that trying to engage on the talk page with you and Joachim (its top two editors by a wide margin) is a frustrating waste of time. This is why I don't think the article is salvageable. jp×g🗯️ 02:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

> I'm not going to just arbitrarily type out eight paragraphs in their entirety over and over again every time you feel like it

From where I'm sitting, it looks like you're solidly losing the argument right now. Refusing to actually make your arguments properly doesn't seem like it's going to do you many favours. But hey, it's a free world.

Nottrobin (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Merge - from WP:PROFRINGE: "Proponents of fringe theories have used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Policies discourage this: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play." - I haven't seen any sources that talk about TESCREAL as something OTHER than Gebru & Torres' theory/creation.

If this was not fringe, than it should be easy to find mainstream philosophical discourse in which MANY philosophers have agreed that this theory is valid, but we don't have any such sourcing.---Avatar317^(talk) 06:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Clarification: I see this as similar to the Cold fusion case, where the authors went DIRECTLY to the press to publicize their results, rather than wait for others in their field to vet their findings.---Avatar317^(talk) 16:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• I mean, that there are already folks already citing Gebru's and Torres' works, which are published in First Monday, which is a peer reviewed internet focused journal.
• Cold fusion gets debunked by reliable sourcing. I don't see reliable sourcing that "debunks" the idea of TESCREAL, at best like philosophical back and forths that discuss and sometimes criticize it.
• Gebru in particular is a highly regarded scholar in the field of computer ethics. Torres is still a postdoc, but working with Gebru on this seems like the normal academic process.
• What would the debunking of a counterargument against a philosophy look like exactly?

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources that talk about TESCREAL as something OTHER than Gebru & Torres' theory/creation.

How do you even establish that? Every mention of TESCREAL must trace its origin, this alone doesnt make it simply 'Gebru & Torres theory/creation'. Many of the sources do use TESCREAL beyond simply stating its origin.

If this was not fringe, than it should be easy to find mainstream philosophical discourse in which MANY philosophers have agreed that this theory is valid, but we don't have any such sourcing.

Thats not how philosophy works, there is no agreement of validity, people simply use concepts for their analytical value, and the article does present academic literature confirming this use. By this definition you could go as well to delete extropianism and many related articles, because there definitely isnt 'MANY' philosophers agreeing that the 'theory is valid'. The thing that matters most in this different is that TESCREAL is recent, but that doesnt annul the 30-something sources confirming its notability. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

But that is how religious studies work. If someone claims: 1) that a new religion or cult (TESCREAL) exists, meaning it has followers who follow specific tenets; 2) that this new religion has many adherents in a certain industry; and 3) that specific powerful people are believers; and maybe also 4) that it CAUSALLY motivates them to do nefarious/bad-for-humankind things; than for mainstream scholars to accept this theory the person(s) claiming this needs proof to convince mainstream scholars. That has not happened here. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

But who is talking about a 'cult' exactly? I dont think that Torres and Gebru, neither the sources used in this article, seriously insists in attributing a cultist behavior, that is not essential at all. Secular religion is concept of substantially different meaning when compared to simple religion.

If you want transhumanism-religion implications, you sure can find an incredible wealth of research. Neither of this is important for this article anyway. The article is not based on this at all. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"By this definition you could go as well to delete extropianism"

This approaches WP:POINT but let's have a separate AfD after this one, ok? Jruderman (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thats not WP:POINT because this is not a rule after all, just a particular interpretation of what it means to have academic notability. It doesnt apply here and wont apply there. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, Technology, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Merge, in agreement with Avatar317 explanation. Historyexpert2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Pause discussion? I want to see what Torres says here and on Twitter over the next few days. Jruderman (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  why would twitter matter? wait did torres spread awareness about this afd? is torres a wikipedia editor? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Lowkey, rereading these questions, they sound rhetorical and sarcastic. I did not mean that, actually was curious.

  I've been in a situation where the subject of an article has posted about their AfD, I dont think i saw torres or gebru post about AfD, but if they did, we can use {{Not a ballot}} template to inform voters about the policy and to help inform closer that AfD was unnecessarily publicized. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Their Twitter might matter as an appropriate primary source and as a hint of what the future may bring for the term "TESCREAL". It doesn't have to be Twitter, or only Twitter 🙂 — Jruderman (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  WP:CLOSEAFD has info about withdrawing an afd tho apparently it only works if all voters are keep? i think merge votes prevents that? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Not looking to withdraw the AfD at this time. More like recuse myself. Thanks, though: you're helping me clarify my stance. Jruderman (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's a pretty slippery slope. Also, bringing in Twitter here should be grounds for withdrawal alone here. Viriditas (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  i dont think coi means editors dont have access to the processes including afd, as long as they disclose coi should be fine?

  withdrawal apparently only works if everyone voted keep so far.?

  i have no clue about twitter, but im of understanding it cant help determine notability or content of article Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I was getting at elements of Wikipedia:Canvassing, not at COI. Viriditas (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Jruderman: Can you elaborate on what you mean here, and also perhaps about the "new COI" that led you to modify your nomination? It gives the impression that something is happening off-wiki. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's right, GW. I am trying to negotiate a compromise with Torres that might include their support for deletion of the TESCREAL article.

  Please treat my new stance in this AfD as "procedurally neutral". Please take into account my initial opening arguments only to the extent that the arguments speak to you.

  — Jruderman (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Jruderman: An attempt to "negotiate a compromise" with Torres regarding this article is baffling to me, given that Torres did not write this article (nor do they edit Wikipedia at all, as far as I'm aware). While some weight is given to the opinion of an article subject in deletion discussions regarding BLPs about them (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE), I don't see how their opinion on this article would be relevant at all, or why anyone should be attempting to "negotiate a compromise". What would Torres even be compromising on? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm avoiding sharing details at this time. Sorry. Continue the deletion discussion if you want. Jruderman (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  That has to be a joke. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Not just a joke, but it falls afoul of the proscription against "secret" canvassing. This entire Afd should be closed as keep at this point due to the enormity of evidence pointing to a bad faith nomination. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  … i mean it’ll close in 4 days anyways.

  Whoever closes this, it’ll be a hornet’s nest to watch whatever the heck happens? TBH tho, it’ll be a hornet’s nest the next time someone tries to do AfD on this again too. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Let this run 7 days. There are editors arguing Keep but a not insignificant number who think the article should be Merged and the closer has to take their arguments into account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  This makes no sense whatsoever. We do not message people on Twitter to "reach a compromise". I have no idea what you are attempting to do here. I am trying to assume good faith, but nominating an article at AfD and then hitting up the subject on Twitter to "reach a compromise" where you offer them a bargain where you withdraw the AfD looks unbelievably sleazy to me. What on God's green earth are you doing? jp×g🗯️ 06:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Is this not WP:CANVASSING? Discussing an AfD privately on Twitter then refusing to share the details surely goes against policy. Jruderman has requested page mover ability recently and I sincerely think these actions ought to be taken into account when considering his request. 91.223.100.49 (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Jruderman edits under his REAL NAME. What if Torres approached him? (That would be the good faith guess.) Though if that happened to me I'd simply ignore Torres or whomever, so strange nonetheless, but I think this deletion discussion is still worthwhile. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I just spent a few minutes reading his tweets and can't figure the guy out. He asked Elon Musk for $50 million to invest in his "New American Synthesis Party", a fake political party based on radical centrism. Regardless of the parody, this would present him at odds with the Afd, whose topic is deeply critical of Musk. Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  So 1) if he gets money from Musk and 2) if Musk comes out of the closet as an openly TESCREAL man, than Ruderman would have a new COI. ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Musk is a well known tech utopian who falls under the TESCREAL philosophy. This is not even debatable, there are dozens of sources on this subject and he's spoken about his vision of an AI utopia for many years. Not sure what kind of game you are playing, but he doesn't have to come out of the closet about anything here, this is well known. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Discussion with Torres was mostly at https://x.com/jruderman/status/1822413496996581507, plus a little extra in DM where I suggested that we collaborate on "real" articles such as algorithmic bias while backing off on the worst "tescreal" discourse.

  I see your point that this has some of the elements of AfD canvassing. I probably shouldn't have done this during the AfD period.

  I see your point that trying to negotiate a compromise that includes Wikipedia things is weird. But I think it's consistent with Wikipedia policy to semi-adversarially collaborate on improving articles. Jruderman (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - This is the academic and common press term for these guys and it's extensively cited. Querulous nomination with curiously many drivebys and what looks very like a literal confession of brigading?? What on earth? - David Gerard (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  many drivebys is false. ALL of these commenters other than two were already involved at the article, and one would hope that an AfD would bring some fresh editors from other spaces. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

On the basis of your objection, when can we expect the article on the term "reification bias" to drop? 86.163.109.56 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete -- It is nonsensical that we have given a whole page to an extremely fringe, ad hominem belief of two philosophers where most of the articles about it are articles written only by those philosophers, with little to no notabilitySecarctangent (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  It should be noted that Gebru and Torres author only 5 of the 30 or so sources we have. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's astonishing that the critics of this article are making sweeping accusations about how Gebru and Torres have created this out of thin air, which are so trivially disproven by simply reading the article or skimming the sources list. Nottrobin (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, why do they keep repeating that it's only these two? It's very strange. Aurodea108 (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep -- The supporting citations are up to WP standards, and the social phenomenon discussed in this article is also discussed widely across the net; it crosses my radar often enough to have sent me here to read up on it. This comment is somewhat WP:OR flavored because my personal experience suggests the TESCREAL phenomenon is real, and obviously notable. Tim Bray (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep You may not agree with the thesis of the paper, but the acronym exists and refers to a matter of interest. Whether it is a conspiracy or not, Wikipedia has a page devoted to conspiracy theories. As such if the person objecting to this page is convinced that this is a conspiracy theory maybe he should addd to the conspiracy_theories page. But as the article is in the peer reviewed literature to exclude the idea is arbitrary and unfair. SellaTheChemist (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep None of the arguments for deletion address any of the criteria in WP:DEL-REASON. "We think this idea is bullshit" just isn't in the list. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep -- The article's content is both notable and well-referenced, per previous comments here. The initial nomination is apparently based on disagreement with the validity of TESCREAL as a concept; but if it is valid or not is not a reason to not have the article. It could be a reason to expand on the criticism section, with appropriate references. Michaelbusch alternate (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep This TESCREAL concept is being used to identify a set on ideology that are linked together by a group of people that evolved around the recent rise of Artificial Intelligence as a society matter. This page is a useful educational resource on a concept that will continue to evolve over time, but is already discussed in a wide variety of platforms as a way to explain that it's invidivual components are not independent ideologies when applied to Silicon Valley proponents. It's not a case for merge either because the expression is not tied to the original authors anymore. Francoispelletier (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep with Changes -- The subject is obviously relevant, in the sense that I have seen it multiple times, especially in AI ethics discussions, and especially around the Fediverse, where a couple people start threads about it every week. I even read this article the first time I heard it and later linked it to someone who was new to the discussion. The biggest issue that I see, which also seems to be the issue being cited as a reason for deletion, is that the criticisms of it are not being clearly stated up front: obviously, this is lumping a broad set of groups together for a set of beliefs that most people within the individual groups do not share, which muddles the issues that the initial paper was trying to get at. This is an issue with the article's portrayal of the topic, not the relevance of the term, and I think the article needs to be refined to show that. Raccoon from TechHub.social^Talk 21:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  > the criticisms of it are not being clearly stated up front

  Are criticisms of a concept usually stated up front? I assume Wikipedia must have some guidelines somewhere for when something can legitimately be described as "controversial" or similar. I don't know if the criticisms mentioned in the "Criticism and debate" section are enough to suggest it's a controversial term.

  However, it does seem to me like all the subheadings under "Analysis", including the "Criticism" one, should be moved up to be top-level headings. This would make each of those topics easier to find, and "Criticism" would appear prominently in the page navigation.

  > this is lumping a broad set of groups together for a set of beliefs that most people within the individual groups do not share

  > which muddles the issues that the initial paper was trying to get at

  This sounds interesting, and I'm not sure I understand. Is it not the contention of the paper that many notable thinkers from one group *do* share a lot of these beliefs? And if not, what is the central contention? Basically, this point sounds valuable for improving the article and should probably be more thoroughly explored. Nottrobin (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep -- but the Alleged section could be trimmed down. WilliamDenton (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep -- Web search results for the term are heavily weighted toward polemics. This page is valuable for its relative neutrality and its good sourcing. ShenandoahJoe (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to 'TESCREAL Bundle'. A Google search strongly suggests to me that a page is deserved, but I'm not convinced that the acronym alone is the best title. Ben Aveling 21:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as the extensive list of RSS clearly indicates WP:GNG. A quick peruse of them finds many of them to be independent secondary discussion of the idea by fairly mainstream voices, which to me puts it beyond WP:FRINGE. From the tone of the nomination it appears there is some controversy on the subject. If there are other available RSS criticising the theory then the neutrality could be improved by expanding that section. This article however should not be deleted. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep -- as someone whose work is tangential to machine learning etc (digital humanities), this is a term that has come up regularly in discussions I've had even without reference to Gebru/Torres. Whether or not one agrees with it, it rather incontrovertibly exists. The references section here is reasonably robust and would seem to satisfy notability. It would seem sensible to change the 'alleged' section significantly: at present it feels like an odd little who's who without really giving much on how any of the information ties together. Separating out (and better integrating into the rest of the article) paragraphs of a) who self-identifies with this movement, b) who the TESCREAL theorists see as the intellectual progenitors of the movement, and c) a discussion of who it has been suggested is influenced by these ideas could be a more useful way to frame that information. JamesMatthewBaillie (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2024 (CET)

I agree with/support: "Separating out (and better integrating into the rest of the article) paragraphs of a) b) c)" ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep with Changes -- The subject is topical and broadly discussed and so belongs here. I am disappointed that no references are more than 2 years old when some of the ideas are a century old. It could be more inclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketpipe (talk • contribs) 22:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep More than adequately sourced to qualify as wiki-notable. Merging would make no sense. Because the initialism is an umbrella term for multiple related ideologies, there's no uniquely good redirect target among them; because it was coined by a pair of coauthors, there is no uniquely good redirect target in that direction either. XOR'easter (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Others have claimed that ALL the TESCREAL philosophies are contained within Technological utopianism; so that could be a merge target. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would oppose that even more strongly than merging it to the Gebru and/or Torres article. They are related terms, but don't overlap to the extent that that should be considered as a merge target if merging is the outcome. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment Opinions on how the article should be changed belong on the talk page. Or you can even go ahead and edit the article. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. do wp:bold change, you dont need permission to change article. and if someone disagrees, we do wp:brd Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)