Talk:Émile P. Torres

Notability

I'll add some more sources, of which there are plenty, but it seems to me that Torres pretty solidly meets the WP:GNG even as the article stands right now. I was waiting for you to elaborate on why you dropped this tag, Avatar317, but it seems you either got distracted or weren't planning to. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Based on how it looks now I would have put it up for deletion, but I know that you are an experienced editor and I see the article is brand new, so I figured that you should have more time to build it. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317: I've added a handful of other sources. Hopefully that's enough to convince you the tag is not necessary. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

James Hughes (sociologist) source

Just wanted to state that WP:BLP sources refers to criticisms of INDIVIDUALS or their actions, not what is happening in this case, where Torres's THEORY is what is being criticized. ---Avatar317^(talk) 17:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That is plainly not true, with the post denigrating Torres as one of a group of "new left conspiracists" and comparing them to the QAnon originators. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, if you read the post, he is not comparing them to QAnon ORIGINATORS. If you read the beginning few paragraphs up to that quote you will see that.

The "conspiracists" point is a difficult one: Is someone who "propagates a conspiracy theory" a "conspiracist"? Or just someone who has behaved badly, as opposed to being a bad person. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with GorillaWarfare that the post is not usable in a BLP. In addition, WP:BLPREMOVE suggests that you should not restore contentious material without obtaining consensus on the usability of the source first. --2003:E7:574B:9CAE:4C3F:463E:D60B:131E (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

TESCREAL background

Someone created the TESCREAL article 2023-10-02: History here: [1]

There was quite a bit of discussion about the existent sourcing for that article on its Talk page. [2]

It was deleted after this deletion discussion: [3] ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I was directed here after I attempted to make the TESCREAL subheading on Timnit Gebru. As the edit I wish to make is on her article, I am going to link to a discussion on her talk page. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

went through undeletion process and pinged appropriate admin from original afd. page is back up Bluethricecreamman (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

"Pro-extinction" characterization needs to be discussed.

So far, the only source I've seen is the Guardian source, in which Torres says that if humanity ceased to exist that would be ok. I would characterize that more as INDIFFERENT to humanity's survival rather than PRO-extinction. I'll re-read the Guardian source again; does anyone have quotes from other sources which better characterize Torres' views or advocacy? If sources characterize Torres as PRO-extinction, than we can say that. Otherwise, we can't. Or we can use short quotes from Torres. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that this seems to be unsourced and should be removed if there isn't some other source supporting the claim. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagree -- the quote is a Guardian source.

I also note that user @GorillaWarfare is making edits on specifically this issue here without seeking consensus. Secarctangent (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I also note that it would be inappropriate to use primary source quotes from Torres; we must use reliable sources wherever possible. Secarctangent (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I removed the statement because, per WP:BLP, Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. As Avatar has pointed out, The Guardian does not describe Torres as "pro-extinction", nor does Torres self-describe as such in that piece. They are describing what the "pro-extinctionist" view is, but does not say anywhere that they are such a person. This needs a stronger source, or should be removed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Accounts of harassment sources

A quote was inserted in the Career section that seems out of place: "The Guardian reported in 2023 that there were "accounts of Torres harassing the philosopher Peter Boghossian and the British cultural theorist Helen Pluckrose."

Appended to that is a longer cited excerpt (for some reason not viewable on the frontend in my browser): q=“Since I’ve started to critique them publicly, I’ve been deluged by tweets that are harassing,” they say. “I’ve gotten threats of physical violence. I got an email last week that referenced a film about suicide and murder. It said: ‘I hope that what happens in the film isn’t necessary for you to change your ways.’” Yet online there are accounts of Torres harassing the philosopher Peter Boghossian and the British cultural theorist Helen Pluckrose."

The short quote misses the initial context of the longer excerpt, which is that Torres claims to have been harassed after critiquing Boghossian and Pluckrose. This is of course unreliable as a source, since the claim is made by Torres themselves. To complicate matters, the Guardian article also does not describe what the "accounts" were of Torres harassing Boghossian and Pluckrose, nor what the primary sources are of those accounts.

For now, I've tried to add more context based on the Guardian article itself and based on a longer essay that Torres wrote tracing back the original sources of some accounts (the essay includes archive links and screenshots, so this is verifiable). I still think the sourcing of the claims of harrassment (on either side) is flimsy, so the alternative is to cut out the paragraph altogether. What do you think makes sense?

(Sorry btw for not posting here before - I'm just realising that the norm here is to discuss first on the Talk page) Learningtolearnbytrial (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The career section seems a mess to me, and someone needs to clean it out a bit. Feel free to use WP:BRD, don't feel bad if folks revert, and we can discuss.

I think some of the career section comes from a deleted TESCREAL article, which breaks up much of the flow. I think TESCREAL happens to be a fair bit contentious to multiple folks, which is reflected in this career section. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Just want to point out that @Learningtolearnbytrial made a really creepy message on my Talk page about this. I'd ask them to stay off my Talk page in the future and keep all discussions here. Secarctangent (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's "really creepy" about their message, so this seems a little WP:SOMTP, but that's neither here nor there. I do think they have a point about NPOV — you seem pretty determined to introduce controversial claims to this page without adequate sourcing, and to pepper the article prose with MOS:DOUBT wording even when it's clear that the article is describing an opinion of Torres'. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

lowkey, saw the talk page edit. Learningtolearn, Please do not "warn" anyone on their talkpage, unless if you are following an actual protocol that says you should User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. Will avoid this in the future. Learningtolearnbytrial (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Learningtolearnbytrial: Quoting statements by Torres that have been published in independent sources like The Guardian are generally not problematic from a reliability standpoint, though of course if such statements are added it needs to be clear that they're coming from Torres and not the author of the profile about them. However, statements from Torres' own blog ([4]) should probably be avoided per WP:SELFSOURCE #2. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, this makes sense. Will defer to your judgement here. 42.3.89.78 (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

(noob mistake of not logging in - that was supposed to be me) Learningtolearnbytrial (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Asterisk Magazine reference

I think this edit should be reverted. I don't know who Ozy Brennan is, nor is Asterisk Magazine particularly well known as a journal.

It would be better to discuss it in context as a journal affiliated with effective altruism group, as it explicitly is made by the Effective Altruism Forum. If not that, I would also prefer putting the sentence at the end, as to not break up the logical flow. We should group criticisms at the end. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I share your concerns about Asterisk magazine, though I see my tag marking it as a questionable source was unilaterally reverted... It's EA affiliated, and seems at the very least a WP:BIASEDSOURCE, though I also wonder about reliability more broadly. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

In general, if its a magazine, its probably goes under WP:OPINION policy, right? especially as it has an editor.

I'm not necessarily against it, but think it should be attributed, and AsteriskMag by itself seems like it does not give context to what kinda magazine it is.

Anyways, in fairness to WP:BRD, as bold edit to talk about asterisk as a journal primarily discussion EA was reverted, thought to open up discussion with this section. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If we end up discussing and making some consensus, we can probably do that. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I've gone and added Asterisk magazine as an anchor to Centre for Effective Altruism, and linked accordingly to here. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer something be mentioned in-text as well, given WP:EASTEREGG. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CRITICISM; "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints." - as this person is a philosopher who is espousing multiple theories, I would think that critiques specific to each theory would best be located with the theory. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That applies to making actual section headings. Making a paragraph to create more concise flow in the article is not the same.User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

American transhumanists?

I see they are still categorized as a transhumanist. Is this correct? They were a transhumanist in the past, they’ve admitted that, but are they still one? I thought they said they were no longer subscribed to that POV, but I might have misheard them speak. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Probably not, he seems rather critical of it now. You can remove this category. Alenoach (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

They use they/them pronouns btw. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, apologies. I will correct it. Viriditas (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)