Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::::Thanks for all the potential refs. I don't have time atm to go through them all. If we put aside for now the interviews, puff-pieces, and human interest stories, what do we have left? --] (]) 20:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for all the potential refs. I don't have time atm to go through them all. If we put aside for now the interviews, puff-pieces, and human interest stories, what do we have left? --] (]) 20:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::* {{reply to|Ronz}} There are articles that include interviews in that list, but they are not ''only'' interviews: they also include reliable background information. I did not notice any exaggerated praise in any of the articles, so I did not see any puff pieces. Also, I did not notice any of them describing Istvan in a way to bring sympathy to him or inspiration from him, so I do not think that any are human interest stories. --] (]) 21:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::'''no'''. the presidential candidacy has '''nothing''' to do with the subject of life extension outside of POV-pushing for a Transhumanist agenda. Stop abusing WP as a ]. It is a bad thing to do. ] (]) 20:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::'''no'''. the presidential candidacy has '''nothing''' to do with the subject of life extension outside of POV-pushing for a Transhumanist agenda. Stop abusing WP as a ]. It is a bad thing to do. ] (]) 20:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::::''(edit conflict)'' Of those left from my question, which of them discuss life extension, the topic of this article, in any degree of detail? If none, then it's probably not worth mention. --] (]) 20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::::''(edit conflict)'' Of those left from my question, which of them discuss life extension, the topic of this article, in any degree of detail? If none, then it's probably not worth mention. --] (]) 20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Life extension' is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Transhumanism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.TranshumanismWikipedia:WikiProject TranshumanismTemplate:WikiProject TranshumanismTranshumanism
Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources.
Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process)
Watch the list of transhumanism related articles and add to accordingly (see transhumanism articles)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
I undid an edit characterizing the opposition to life extension as "deathism". The editor who introduced this also created a redirect for the term. I'm wondering if there should be some discussion about the notability of this concept or movement and its inclusion in the article.
What I have some difficulty with is this. What is considered opposition to life extension? It seems that there are various concerns about the validity of some of the science or technology, this might not be opposition to life extension per se. There are also ethical/philosophical concerns about distribution of hypothetical future life extension services and even about whether life extension is desirable. Do those who espouse any of these viewpoints consider themselves "deathists"? Is the term common and notable?
I'm asking these questions because I simply don't know the answers and would like to see some reliable sources for what appears to be a potentially offensive term. I hope others will weigh in and give some direction. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
For a neutral indicatior, google ngram viewer can show the frequency of use in printed materials by year. There "deathism" does not show up, but "deathist" exists associated to life extension.
Otherwise, I'd say just try googling and looking at publications with recognizable publishers. Example Slate article Aug 2013 "Fear of Immortality"
"Deathism" is a transhumanist snarl word directed at people expressing doubts about their programmes (e.g. people who don't think cryonics can work). It's not seen in any other circles - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Cryonics activist here. David's extensive edits to the Cryonics article on RationalWiki, a group which has policies encouraging deliberate snark may be of some relevance. The term as I've seen it used implies a person is opposed to attempts at radical life extension (for example, citing claims that long life would be boring, death is needed as a population control, or that the wealthy would inevitably hoard it to themselves), rather than skeptical of their outcome/feasibility, and I've seen it related to Terror Management Theory in informal discussions.
It is intended to communicate that the person is seeking to rationalize death-acceptance attitudes they have internalized emotionally prior to encountering life extension, as the usual arguments have been addressed fairly regularly and do not seem to be applied by most people in other contexts. I haven't seen the term used outside life extension circles, and haven't seen anyone who (as far as I know) considered it particularly offensive. Lsparrish (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
record of 10x extension for nematodes; record 1.5x for mouse
content on the subject was added in this set of edits. supported by PMID 17996009. However that ref is a primary source from 2008; it is the editor's WP:OR to make the claim that this is "currently the record". have removed on those grounds. The 1.5x number comes from the same article, but from the background section, so that is at least review-y. The other source provided, PMID 23193293, is more recent (2013) and more review like (since the novelty is in the databases, not their content); Table 2 supports all the content in this sentence (except they identify 93, not "over 100" longevity genes in mice). Am getting rid of the 2008 PMID 17996009 source and addressing the "over 100" content. in a moment... Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The ten-fold extension being the record (at the time, though I think it remains the record) can be sourced to a review here. There's plenty of other information it could be used for also. :-) Sunrise(talk)07:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I added the acronym RLE here, in the first section that mentioned "radical life extension" and at RLE disambiguation page, as I was myself confused reading a text that used the acronym without any explanation, and the acronym seems to be in common use. I'm not an experienced editor here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstard12 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I apologize if the information is off-topic. I honestly thought that it was on topic, since the candidate's main issue seems to be transhumanism with a heavy focus on life extension. Will you help me understand why this is irrelevant?
Also, I did not mean to detract the section from the politics of life extension. Is there a way that I can reword this information so that it does not make the article seem like a "coatrack"?
Seems undue and well into WP:SOAP territory. If something comes of it in the future we should add it as a part of whatever makes it noteworthy. --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ronz: Does just one sentence really count as undue? The information has already received significant media attention, and it is displayed on other parts of Misplaced Pages. At what point will it count as having something come of it for the purposes of this page, and how is that decision made?
Also, it is a just factual statement that does not advocate anything, influence attitudes about something, recruit anyone, display opinion, gossip about scandal, promote myself, try to sell something, or act on behalf of an organization. Given this, I do not see how your linked policy is relevant. Can you explain?
Yes, one sentence can be undue. He's definitely using the topic to promote himself and his interests. Further, politics is often used for cheap pr purposes. Given the nature of the sources, their content, and the history of political campaigning being used solely for promotional purposes, I think it falls well into SOAP.
"it is a just factual statement": Nothing is just a factual statement. Everything we include in our articles falls under NPOV. Some information just isn't noteworthy, some barely so. Some information serves purposes that contradict the goals and interests of this encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ronz: I suspect that everyone campaigning for political office promotes themselves and their interests to some degree. However, I do not think that he is using life extension to promote himself as much as he is using himself to promote life extension. Regardless, "WP:SOAP" does not apply to Istvan's words off of Misplaced Pages. Actually, it does not apply here at all, because the content that I added does not violate this policy, as the content itself is not advocacy, propaganda, recruitment, et cetera. In fact, according to the policy, an article "can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view", which is precisely what my content did.
What I meant by it being a "factual statement" is that it is either true or false and does not express opinion. The real contention here seems to be about whether the content has a neutral point of view. Since it does not express a viewpoint, the only relevant part of Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy that I noticed is the small section on balancing aspects, which says to "strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." Let us then review the body of sources about the presidential campaign:
Is this enough for one sentence? I suspect that there is other information on the life extension page that does not have this much coverage. Of course, some of the authors of the above sources are biased, but they are still reliable for this information, which is not an opinion or contentious claim.
Thanks for all the potential refs. I don't have time atm to go through them all. If we put aside for now the interviews, puff-pieces, and human interest stories, what do we have left? --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ronz: There are articles that include interviews in that list, but they are not only interviews: they also include reliable background information. I did not notice any exaggerated praise in any of the articles, so I did not see any puff pieces. Also, I did not notice any of them describing Istvan in a way to bring sympathy to him or inspiration from him, so I do not think that any are human interest stories. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
no. the presidential candidacy has nothing to do with the subject of life extension outside of POV-pushing for a Transhumanist agenda. Stop abusing WP as a WP:SOAPBOX. It is a bad thing to do. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Of those left from my question, which of them discuss life extension, the topic of this article, in any degree of detail? If none, then it's probably not worth mention. --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
