Talk:Zizians#Requested move 18 February 2025

I added an external link to a web page that is as close as possible to a Zizian official website (the blog of Ziz). It was deleted because blogs aren't allowed as a source, even though it wasn't a reference, but an external link.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zizians&oldid=1278207659 My revision]

47.157.95.50 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:At first glance, such an external link seems allowable per WP:ELYES and perhaps WP:ABOUTSELF. External links are not always required to be reliable sources. I also notice that several independent reliable sources refer to the blog, confirming that it is notable. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::Having said that, WP:ELYES does not mean we should provide external links to all random sites where any random person wants to comment about a subject. See also WP:ELNO. Linking to files on Google docs and Google drive seems especially dubious – Wikipedia is not a forum through which to publish original work. What is the justification for adding external links to blogs by "Apollo Mojave", "Ken Jones" and Aella? Are those people "Zizians" or recognized experts on Zizians? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::: It seems as if the edit war over external links excludes anyone who participated in this discussion. A blog by Ziz should be the limit, otherwise there is no context. 47.157.95.50 (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|Polygnotus}} should participate in the talk page discussion instead of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zizians&diff=prev&oldid=1279041164 edit-warring]. Apart from him, we seem to agree that linking Sinceriously is probably allowable per WP:ELYES/WP:ABOUTSELF, and whether the other sources fall under the third bullet point of WP:ELYES or the third and fourth bullet points of WP:ELMAYBE shall be evaluated later on, so we're leaving those commented so far. (The idea that "they don't provide information about the topic of the article" is in any case obviously not true.) 2A01:E0A:285:4F0:14B2:D99A:3290:FD60 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::You should not participate in the talk page discussion, because you have been blocked.

:::::Have you read the blogs? One is the personal blog "plum of discord" and its about gender affirming care, the political situation in the USA, pregnancy prevention/abortion. It also contains a "bookshelf" page (I guess books they've read?).

:::::The other one is about hacking/AI/brains/trans people and their experiences/CFAR/and some other stuff.

:::::The topic of the article is the Zizians. Offtopic musings of people who may have been members should not be linked. The rules are very clear: WP:NOBLOGS {{tq|Blogs, personal web pages, and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)}} Polygnotus (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::@BarrelProof See above. Polygnotus (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::As far as I can tell, the FD60 IP has not been blocked. Someone put some cautionary comments on their user talk page, but I don't think they were blocked from editing or even told not to edit or comment. In fact, I think the comments on their user talk page could be interpreted as encouragement to participate in talk page discussions. Maybe the comment about having been blocked refers to some other action than an IP edit block, but I just want to say I don't see evidence of an IP edit block. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Did you read your own link? The section starts with a bolded disclaimer: {{tq|{{strong|Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject}}}} 195.220.223.121 (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::A personal blog of one of the alleged members is obviously not an official page of the Zizians as a group. Polygnotus (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Someone should readd the Zizian blog glossary that I mentioned in my opening post of this section. I would do it myself but the page will be semi-protected for some time. The glossary seems to be succinctly relevant to Zizianism under the standards mentions by BarrelProof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.157.95.50 (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:The page has been semi-protected to stop you from editwarring. Soliciting others to continue an editwar on your behalf is frowned upon. A personal blog of one of the alleged members is obviously not an official site of the Zizians as a group. Polygnotus (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::There is no edit-warring except on your hand, {{u|⁠BarrelProof}} agreed that at the very least Sinceriously is allowed per WP:ELYES/WP:ELOFFICIAL. It is controlled by the subject of the article and the linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject is notable. And please stop WP:ASPERSIONS. 2A01:CB18:BC4:8E00:F5A9:BF63:C65A:7B7 (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Nonsense. BarrelProof didn't express a clear opinion one way or the other, and if they did it does not overrule the guideline WP:EXLINK so that would be irrelevant.

:::It is not controlled by the subject of the article Zizians, a personal blog by one of its alleged members is not the same as a website for the group. WP:NOBLOGS is completely clear. Polygnotus (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::::WP:NOBLOGS is obviously meant to be about third-party blogs. The subject of the article is a personality cult, so for all intents and purposes the leader's website (especially with group members commenting) is the group's website. What are you expecting "controlled by the subject of the article" to mean in this context other than that, a website democratically controlled by the personality cult? In any case, Ziz LaSota redirect to Zizians, so this is her article as well. 86.233.209.96 (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Nonsense. An official website about a group is not the same as an unofficial personal blog of one of its alleged members about topics other than the topic of the wikipedia article. And didn't they deny that Ziz was the leader? I don't want to keep repeating myself. The fact that you keep repeating yourself does not make your argument more valid. Polygnotus (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::wtf is an "unofficial personal blog"? 2A01:CB18:BC4:8E00:44AF:DA47:A83C:DB32 (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::A clunky way to write things. But you understand what I mean. Polygnotus (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tq|about topics other than the topic of the wikipedia article}} Are you serious right now? The blog is nearly entirely about the history and beliefs of the group, and is quoted as a primary source by plenty of the secondary sources of the article for it. 2A01:CB18:BC4:8E00:F5A9:BF63:C65A:7B7 (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Do you not read and only write? Why do you keep evading your block? Other websites don't have to follow our PaGs, so the fact that they do stuff that is against the rules here is irrelevant. And we weren't talking about quoting it or using it as a source, but about including it as an external link. I already described what the two blogs are about, elsewhere on this page. They are not about the Zizians. Polygnotus (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I kept my comments about the blog somewhat inconclusive and vague since I haven't reviewed its content. I removed (commented out) some other external links that looked clearly inappropriate to me, but I believe my edits have neither added nor removed any links to that blog (or mirrors of it). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this discussion when I removed the link again yesterday but I'm definitely not seeing a consensus here to include it. In any case, it clearly doesn't meet any definition of an "official site" for this group. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:There was a consensus of 7 against 1, with the one dissenting being WP:NOTHERE and indeed actively lying about the content of the links. It clearly does qualify as an official site, for the reasons explained by {{u|86.233.209.96}} above and by {{u|2002:57cf:f80a:1:149a:6b18:97ed:fa88}} in their edit summary. Actually read WP:ELOFFICIAL in full to get the spirit of the rules. This is effectively also the article for Ziz LaSota. It is entirely expected for her website, effectively the website of her group and primary source for their belief system where her followers also regularly commented, to be "provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself". It is not the case that "the subject of the article cannot control the information being presented". 2A01:E0A:285:4F0:14B2:D99A:3290:FD60 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::You are misrepresenting this discussion. Please stop this before you get blocked. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::...again... Polygnotus (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'll say 6 to 1, with {{u|BarrelProof}} more neutral than anything, but it remain a strong consensus. 79.95.127.23 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. SPA IPs with bad arguments do not a consensus make. Please stop. Eigenbra (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Even if they did it wouldn't be 6 to 1 cause 1 person can only vote one time. Polygnotus (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think it's disingenuous to describe Ziz as "just one member" of the group. After all, it is named after Ziz and most outsiders seem to think of Ziz as the leader of the group...

::::::Whether that means Ziz's blog should be linked is a different question. But certainly for anybody interested in getting a first hand (if biased) account of the beliefs of the group, said blog is of course an important primary source. 2001:A62:1599:402:30FE:6C04:E07B:9864 (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

If Karl Marx existed in the present day and had a blog with a list of terms to understand, it would be an external link. In the same context, the glossary of Ziz is a good starter for their peculiar belief system. Despite some people's misrepresentations, I have not participated in any edit war. It does not seem like a very neutral point of view, I must say, the style of portrayal makes the Zizians into some sort of object. Though I must say if no one edits the page, there only seems to be a consensus to argue.

47.156.146.129 (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:Who has misrepresented you as participating in an edit war? Who are you? Your IP has literally a single contribution listed. Are you {{u|MatriceJacobine}}? Eigenbra (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|47.156.146.129}} and {{u|47.157.95.50}} are presumably the same person with a dynamic IP in that range. 79.95.86.129 (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|If Karl Marx existed in the present day and had a blog with a list of terms to understand, it would be an external link.}} Nope. {{tq|the glossary of Ziz is a good starter for their peculiar belief system}} Nope. {{tq|Despite some people's misrepresentations, I have not participated in any edit war.}} It may have been someone else on the same IP range using the same ISP that geolocates to the same location who behaves the same. Polygnotus (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::Why not? 2001:A62:1542:9302:B5C4:3810:53ED:162B (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Asking about this hypothetical is kinda pointless. Marx is dead and he does not have a blog. If someone revives him and he sets up a blog then please WP:PING me. Polygnotus (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

It has been added to the lead that the Zizians were "post-rationalists". However, I can find no other source for this claim outside the Vox article, and that article appear to use "post-rationalist" to refer to all LessWrong-style "rationalism" as opposed to traditional rational skepticism, as mentioned by {{u|Assambrew}} # (e.g. by saying post-rationalists are defined by believing in existential risk from artificial intelligence). This appear to give WP:UNDUE weight to this one article's own terminology, and it would probably be better to describe it as "an offshoot of the rationalist community" if one want to avoid confusion between the LessWrong community and scientific skepticism. 195.220.223.121 (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:I tend to agree. In any case, this change should not have been made in the lede per MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Eigenbra (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::OK. I self-reverted the addition. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Fwiw, I don't think IP is right that vox uses "post-rationalist" to mean something like "LessWrong-style rationalist". I interpret it more as "ex-rationalist" or "disaffected rationalist". This usage does seem to have some currency. I think this is covered already by describing them as an "offshoot" and descriptions of disillusionment with rationalism by Ziz and the Lind murder suspect. Eigenbra (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:So this is internal LessWrong Rationalist subculture jargon for people who are in the subculture but might not be Yudkowsky fans. The academic term is "TESCREAL", which the Zizians would quite definitely be under the umbrella of. But "post-rationalist" is ambiguous outside the TESCREAL context - David Gerard (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::The Zizians appear to be Yudkowsky fans, if somewhat dillusioned ones, judging by the alleged Curtis Lind killer's letter to him. 79.95.86.152 (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::So would it be fair to refer to them as "Yudkowskyites"? Or a group that branched off from Yudkowskyism? 2001:A62:1542:9302:B5C4:3810:53ED:162B (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::See WP:OR. Polygnotus (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

If the Zizians have a logo, then maybe someone can upload it and put it here? Wikifixer559 (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:As previously discussed here, the Zizians aren't really a formal organization with official logos and such. Jpatokal (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::Oh.

::Well, if they have a logo, then someone can upload it. Wikifixer559 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Johnuniq Hi, can we have a very longterm protection please? They keep socking.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MatriceJacobine

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2025/03#Zizians

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2025/02#Zizians

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1181#MatriceJacobine

Special:Contributions/2002:57CF:F80A:1:149A:6B18:97ED:FA88

Special:Contributions/2A01:E0A:285:4F0:14B2:D99A:3290:FD60

Special:Contributions/195.220.223.121

Special:Contributions/47.157.95.50

Special:Contributions/79.95.87.37

And more but I got tired of finding all the links. Polygnotus (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:Semi-protected for six months; thanks for the report which is convenient to link to. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you, and sorry for bothering you on your break (I only saw that after I had posted). Polygnotus (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zizians&diff=1285035399&oldid=1284962012 this]. Speculation about possible motives in BLPs of people who are not convicted is tricky. Not that people who haven't been convicted are innocent but we can't treat them as guilty either. If and when they get convicted then we may get information about motive that is more than media speculation. Polygnotus (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Thiagovscoelho}} pinging you here. Polygnotus (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:I can see your point regarding the sentence about their anti-surrender views, but I think the idea that TDT influenced the 2019 CFAR protests is not speculating about anything that's up in the air as of now, especially since, although they got arrested at the protests, protesting in itself wasn't a crime. Sources seem to support some mention of decision theory about as much as they support the mention of anarchism. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Thiagovscoelho Is there a statement from them about why they were protesting? There must be, right? I would feel more comfortable with that. Polygnotus (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Heya,

Ziz is referred to by "Ziz LaSota" in the article; that is potentially confusing, as it mixes up their legal/government name and their pseudonym. (I don't know what the WP policy on dead-naming/de-pseudonymizing is, but sources for this are not hard to come by, e.g. https://apnews.com/article/zizians-border-patrol-shooting-jack-lasota-e268f640d94e11936c79832bc9d94bc0. I remember editing the page to make this clearer, but seems to have been reverted. I think the current state is confusing though. Niplav (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:Looked through the edit history of the talk page, apparently there was some discussion on this. In any case I'd prefer it if it was either just "Ziz", just "LaSota", or "Ziz/LaSota" (no deadnaming required, but also no mix-up of legal & chosen name). Niplav (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia's policy on deadnaming can be found at MOS:DEADNAME. Nowhere on the page does it say that "Ziz" is LaSota's legal first name. – MW_(t•c) 17:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)