Talk:TESCREAL/Archive 1

Archive 1

Maybe include some discussion of criticism of the "TESCREAL" concept?

The current article seems too favorable to people who originated this concept, despite the fact that these are very controversial figures. Maybe include a reference like this one about how this may play into conspiracy theory rhetoric?

[1]https://medium.com/institute-for-ethics-and-emerging-technologies/conspiracy-theories-left-futurism-and-the-attack-on-tescreal-456972fe02aa 18.29.69.125 (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

But this is a WP:BLOG. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The author is notable as a subject matter expert on the ethics of technology 18.29.51.28 (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesnt matter, its a principle of Wikipedia - WP:BLOG. You should know it before criticizing something. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

And I quote: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. 18.29.29.92 (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The author James Hughes (sociologist) of this article is executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, and so his self-published sources should at least be considered worthy of inclusion. 18.29.29.92 (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I think its possible to find better sources on this. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Potential violations of NPOV and verifiability

Referencing Kurzweil as "notorious" seems like emotionally charged language that violates NPOV. I considered changing "notorious technology evangelist" to a quotation, but couldn't find Kurzweil quoted as "notorious" in the source that was cited there.

Furthermore, the sources here are overwhelmingly favorable to the ideological stance opposed to the TESCREAL bundle of ideologies, also potentially compromising NPOV, despite the existence of sources criticizing the framing of Gebru and Torres. 18.29.69.125 (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Why 'notorious' would be 'emotionally charged'? Biographies in Wikipedia must comply to a notoriety criteria, if he has one... then he is notorious in a sense. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I've seen, it's called a "notability criterion," and so under that reasoning, I'll be changing the word in question to "notable." 18.29.29.92 (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You really need to explain which part does violate the NPOV, this point about Kurzweil is completely unsustainable to flag the article as a whole... JoaquimCebuano (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I want to say that as a non-native speaker i wasnt aware of the negative meaning behind 'notorious', for me it was the same as 'notable', so its inclusion was actually a confusion of meaning. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The "Rationalism" in the acronym is explicitly a reference to LessWrong/Yudkowsky

I know it's tempting to link to the article on the general philosophical concept of rationalism, but when the coiners of the acronym "TESCREAL" explain who they are referring to, the R for Rationalism is explicitly referencing Yudkowsky, as can be seen in the citation I've provided, and which I'll quote here:

This is funny because Sandberg is a transhumanist who participated in the Extropian movement, anticipates the Singularity, has a long history with cosmists (Goertzel) and Rationalists (Yudkowsky), is very influential among Rationalists and EAs, comments on the LessWrong blog, and [...]

— Emile Torres, https://twitter.com/xriskology/status/1671095545312563201

The LessWrong community does use the word "rationalist" in a nuanced way, and this is the sense that Torres is using the word. It's therefore misleading to link to the broader philosophical concept in this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augur (talk • contribs) 17:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I would also add that while its entirely reasonable to debate whether or not this particular usage on Torres' part is reasonable, this is their usage, and the article is about the acronym that they're promoting, and so an explanation of the acronym necessarily involves an explanation of their intentions with each letter, whether that intention is correct or not. Augur (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Tsiolkovsky attribution is problematic

The article says "Konstantin Tsiolkovsky [...] has been attributed as an influence on Elon Musk", and quotes the Washington Spectator article. The WS article's quote is "Tsiolkovsky also developed the formulae needed for rocketry, and deeply influenced Elon Musk." "deeply influenced" is a text hyperlink to a 51 second clip by the youtube channel "Staying Motivated". In relevant part Musk says, "This guy called Tsiolkovsky, one of the early Russian rocket scientists, had a great saying..." and recites a saying about earth as the cradle of humanity.

I interpret this as the WS article basing their attribution of deep influence on the clip. I think it is quite a stretch to assert deep influence based on which quotes were cited in a prepared speech, particularly if the attribution begins with "This guy called [name]".

I'm not a very experienced editor- is there a WP: for "somebody did in fact make this claim in a newspaper, but a basic fact check says the claim is misleading, and it should not be used unless the source is labeled as low-quality"? I don't know where the line between original research vs reliable sources typically goes in a case like this. TheDefenseProfessor (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Good point/observation here. In James Hughes (sociologist)'s Medium post (currently in the "Responses" section), he says, (referencing the WS article) The datum that Elon Musk once quoted Tsiolkovsky is the pin on the conspiracy board that allegedly reveals Cosmism’s influence in Silicon Valley. ... In other words actual organized Russian Cosmists today despise TESCREAL ideas and their Western proponents.

I searched for sources containing both "Musk" and "Cosmism" and didn't find any other then the WS source linking the two.

And also there's this: Russian Cosmism: a national mythology against transhumanism which adds further critique to the conglomeration/conflation of all these different philosophies into one.

We can wait for others to offer opinions, but I think we should either completely attribute the claim to the reporter at the WS, or remove it entirely. That is what to my knowledge is done with poorly backed up/misleading claims. (Maybe someone has a tweet or writings from Torres or Gebru alleging that Musk is a Cosmist, that would also allow attribution.) See also WP:EXTRAORDINARY. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Devenot source

Not clear on the intended purpose of the Devenot paper. Does the intended use involve citing it as a source of knowledge about the ideologies? Or just as an example of someone using the term?

Asking because the Journal of Psychedelic Studies has some red flags. Three highly diverse articles from 2023 are:

-"Lifetime classic psychedelic use is associated with greater psychological distress in unemployed job seekers". This is a statistical analysis on US survey data, testing whether employment status as of survey time alters the impact of psychedelics on mental health;

-"The DEA report on ayahuasca risks: “Science” in service of prohibition?" This is a list of critiques of a 2020 DEA report titled “Ayahuasca: Risks to Public Health and Safety”, with the overall narrative that the DEA's policy is based on a poor analysis;

-"TESCREAL hallucinations: Psychedelic and AI hype as inequality engines". Per its author, "My argument develops through rhetorical analysis of the ways that industry leaders envision the future of medicalized psychedelics in their public communications" and finds that "Counterfactual efforts to improve mental health by increasing inequality are widespread in the psychedelics industry."

The same journal is publishing articles based on population data, state-of-the-medicine summaries, and critical theory. My understanding is when papers come from such a wide range of academic approaches, this calls into question the journal's ability to do high-quality peer review. TheDefenseProfessor (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I dont understand your point, seems to be a totally speculative and POV discrediting of an established academic journal. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

If necessary, I'd be happy to go through Wikipedia's process for disputing journal quality. I'm convinced the above- even if phrased as POV speculation- reflects the relevant WP.

But before we cross that bridge, I'm asking for others' input. The article says "Neşe Devenot has said that the TESCREAL acronym refers to "global tech elites" who use artificial intelligence and psychedelic drugs as part of a deliberate plan to increase inequality." Is this used as a:

Primary source (there is an academic named Devenot who says this, and therefore the term sees some usage in academia), or a

Secondary source (This conclusion is plausible/credible/noteworthy/...)

In the primary case, disputed journal quality is moot. In the secondary case, whether the single source of evidence for an extraordinary claim comes from a low-quality journal is very important for whether we keep the claim. TheDefenseProfessor (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"TESCREAL is also mentioned by X in this discussion". An extension of the concept, not present in its original meaning. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@TheDefenseProfessor: I agree with your characterizations of the journal. If you read her paper, it is not scientific research, (peer review on this would be meaningless) it is an argumentative essay; and as such is NOT a survey of the term's use in academia or otherwise. It is another person using the term. She is a prof in some psychedelic studies department. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Redirect

Earlier I redirected this article to a section of Gebru's biography, and was reverted. I stand by the redirect; I'm not convinced that this article refers to a real thing with lasting notability. Primarily, there is a lack of evidence that anyone besides these two people have used the term. Secondarily -- and the James Hughes article goes into a little more detail on this -- there's a lack of evidence that this refers to a real thing and not just people Gebru and Torres disagree with on the Internet (For example, it seems that zero actual people have ever or currently identify themselves as "TESCREALists"). jp×g 02:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

there is a lack of evidence that anyone besides these two people have used the term

How can you say that when there are literal sources cited throughout the article? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I also have yet to find a reliable source of anyone identifying as a TESCREAList sincerely. Furthermore, it seems to me like the redirect may make sense, given that Gebru and Torres are virtually the only people discussing "TESCREAL" at length, and Torres does not have their own Wikipedia page. However, we should make sure not to be unduly biased against creating this page at a later date (as the term may be more notable by this point). 18.29.10.240 (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

1) You wont find anyone identifying directly as a TESCREAList since thats is not the point, the point of Gebru and Torres typology is that it is a matrix of ideologies transiting inside this community of technologists that only partially and discreetly makes itself explicit.

2) 'Identifying sincerely' isnt a good criteria for the existence of something, given that you also wont find anyone identifying as a terrorist, a chauvinist or anything like that. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not mean to be rude, but I literally do not understand the meaning of the phrase "matrix of ideologies transiting inside", or "discretely determining the discourses and choices", or any of the other strange constructions used here; they seem to be ambiguous and lack clear definition. I think that in writing a Wikipedia article we should strive to make clear, meaningful statements that can be evaluated as true or false. jp×g 19:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, thats what the washington post title says... if something is 'behind' then its 'discreet', at the same time determining - the "rightward turn of sillicon valley". I cant see how it could be more clear than that. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no Washington Post article referenced anywhere on this page. Are you referring to the Washington Spectator citation? jp×g 20:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

yeah JoaquimCebuano (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

1) I agree that this topic may not have any LASTING notability, and does seem primarily as Gebru and Torres making allegations. That said, I support discussion about whether or not this article's content should be MERGED into the Gebru article as a TESRCEAL section, and the redirect point to that. This way, the content could be easily broken out as its own article again later without losing content and sources. I think we should have a merge discussion, but I've never started one of those so I don't know the procedure.

2) JoaquimCebuano stated above that they are not a native English speaker, (concerning the word "notorious"), so some of the wording discussion could be the result of subtle shades of meaning in American English vs. international English.

3) See Vast right-wing conspiracy to see how some of these topics evolve. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

About 1, I said almost the same in JPxG talking page, encouraging them to open a deletion process that gives more opportunity for discussion, a merge discussion would have the same value. I waited for several months before creating this article, observing the uses of the term and their reception in journalism and academic literature. I think that Devenot article, along with Financial Times and Washington Spectator, treats the term as really capable of (and valuable to) describing some trend or ideology, and not merely as Gebru and Torres utterances/accusations. But, of course, that is my point of view, and I encourage more contributions around that discussion. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

As an anarchotranshumanist who is somewhat critical of the existence of the term at all, I think there is nevertheless value in keeping this article on the grounds many people have heard the term without knowing who Gebru or Torres are. Even if they're the coiners and currently the predominant users of the term, it *has* nevertheless become more widely known because of media related to them. As a result, I've encountered lots of people who have heard the term but don't know who either Gebru or Torres are, and this article is valuable in providing more information. If nothing else, Wikipedia's mission is to help people understand the world around them, and that seems to be in line with the mission. Augur (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I nearly proposed this article for deletion before checking the Talk page.

there's a lack of evidence that this refers to a real thing and not just people Gebru and Torres disagree with on the Internet

I think this is spot on. I'm really struggling to see how this meets WP:N when the "sources" are:

- a tweet from a PhD student

- the Washington Spectator (which, as one editor notes, "is more of an argumentative essay than particularly good reporting")

- truthdig (an "alternative news website"...I assume this is not as bad as reporting on "alternative facts" but this is not exactly a reputable source)

- Financial Times (fair enough, although I can't access the article so I don't know how prominently the acronym is featured)

- Business Insider (in yellow on WP:RSP)

- Journal of Psychedelic Studies

- a blog post on Medium

The acronym is spelled out in the Gebru article followed directly by three sources readers can click through to find out more, which seems more than sufficient to "help people understand the world around them". I do appreciate the effort @JoaquimCebuano went to in creating this article, but with a redirect, the content will still be available in the revision history should this conspiracy "evolve" into something notable.

I'm planning to redirect this to Timnit Gebru in a week's time, unless anyone either provides examples of media coverage that demonstrate notability or merges the articles before then. If the redirect is reverted without any significant additional arguments/evidence being shared, I'll probably propose the article for deletion at that point and we can continue the discussion that way (as per WP:BLAR). Tumnal (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You can easily access the Financial Times by widely known means, thats not relevant. The tweet and the blog post were added by other people, following the charge of bias. 'Journal of Psychedelic Studies', yeah, thats the name of the journal.

I cant see how someone that start with the assumption that this is a 'conspiracy' has the credibility to give the final word on the article.

As I said already, if you dont consider the article fit, you should start a deletion process that opens the possibility for more people to weight in. Redirection is too much of a 'soft deletion' that goes unnoticed. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with "if you don't consider the article fit, you should start a deletion process that opens the possibility for more people to weigh in. Redirection is too much of a 'soft deletion' that goes unnoticed." - because my vote would be for MERGE over DELETE or REDIRECT, as I said above. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

wp:blp applies to poorly sourced material

please use discretion and do not delete large portions of an article without cause Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317 stop editwarring on a newly recreated article and discuss on talk page or on the WP:BLPN

Most of the sourcing on this article comes from well publicized news sources, and most of these figures are WP:PUBLICFIGURE

Some are self-confessed TESCREALists and happily declare themselves to be. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

There were some sentences that were sourced only to Torres, which I agree need secondary sourcing. However I do agree that the sourcing is acceptable for the others. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Just seeing this is at BLPN now. Dropping the link for anyone else who may have missed it: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#TESCREAL#Alleged TESCREALists GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No evidence for claims made in this article

There is no evidence that these ideas are connected to eugenics, scientific racism, or anything similar. The authors of the article that coined the term have a history of generating a lot of media noise by yelling "racist!" and "sexist!" at anything they don't like, and therefore this seems to by somewhat of a manufactured controversy. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

put it in a criticism section with reliable sourcing Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is filled with sources, this kind of blatant statement lack any value in a constructive discussion. You must criticize the specifics if you are interested in making any point. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Misleading claim about political orientation

Even the lead contains a statement from Gebru and Torres that is not just false, but at the opposite of reality: that the movements are "right-wing". I just checked a 2022 EA community survey that shows that 76.6% of left-leaning respondents vs 2.9% right-leaning.[2] Similar result with a poll of rationalists.[3] Alenoach (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The claim is properly attributed as their opinion, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. If there are reliable secondary sources that challenge Gebru and Torres' description of the movements in the "TESCREAL bundle" it could be added, but using community polls like this would be WP:SYNTH. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

agreed. Its attributed. Undid the dubious tag. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Even if it is an attributed opinion and not a claim of fact, placing an allegation of political extremism in the lead strongly implies to readers that it is true, or at least that it's plausible enough to be worth mentioning.

If there is not a solid basis to believe that this claim is true, I don't think we should be featuring it so prominently there, as it seems like a rather nasty and unsubstantiated accusation against a bunch of living persons. jp×g🗯️ 02:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It's still a lot more substantiated than a couple of polls of self-described rationalists on an internet forum. However this is handled, it really doesn't seem like an extraordinary claim. The body cites a defense of TESCREAL from the American Enterprise Institute, which isn't even that surprising. Per the body, this does appear to be a defining trait that should be in the lead. As for BLP, WP:BLPGROUP applies. This group is not so tiny that it must be treated similarly to a single person. Grayfell (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:DUBIOUS states that we use the template if the statement is incorrect. That Gebru and Torres allege this to be a right-wing movement is not in question, and putting the DUBIOUS template back was a mistake.

If you suggest it was undue in the lede, we can remove the "right-wing" portion from the statement. That's a differing concern.

The lede currently does not suggest political extremism and only says that Gebru and Torres allege that TESCREALists use human extinction to justify projects.

If you are bringing "a rather nasty and unsubstantiated accusation against a bunch of living persons" as an argument, you need to separate that and handle this in WP:BLPN, or start a new section. We have litigated this already here [4] and above. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

As the person who added it to the lead, I agree that FACTUALLY it is extremely dubious because likely most subscribers to one or more of those philosophies would self-identify as left-wing. It is not at all dubious to say that "G & T ALLEGE that", which is what they do.

Perhaps it could be better worded; I tried to squeeze it in without much modification to the other text; but as it was "Gebru and Torres allege this is a right-wing movement" maybe sounds like a huge chunk of right-wing people support it or initiated it, when likely less than 1% of right wing people even know about it.

Maybe "Gebru and Torres allege this movement allows its proponents to use the threat of human extinction to justify societally expensive or detrimental projects, and they allege it is politically right wing." ? ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

could we just go back to the original version before the kerfluffle? reads more concisely, and didn't really have an actual issue.

left-wing/right-wing is a relative term. tbf, most things are right wing from gebru and torres' pov, and i think attributing it to them should be enough. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the details Avatar317. My concern was primarily towards unfamiliar readers that would see it and would have the reasonable prior that there must be some truth behind the allegations. Many readers have strong political opinions, and might mistakenly make their mind by the time they read "right-wing". So I'm a bit reluctant towards having this statement in the lead. Alenoach (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Weasel word section

"Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source."

@Avatar317 please self-revert. Every claim has multiple sources. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple incredibly low-quality sources. See the previous Talk discussions, The Washington Spectator is a very low quality source, and a lot is sourced to it. ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm only seeing one mention of the Washington Spectator at RSN: a 2015 discussion where an editor referred to it as "obviously reliable".

I addressed several instances of vague {{who?}} wording earlier ([5], [6]), but when summarizing opinions presented in multiple sources you tend to end up with a laundry list of names that a reader can go to the references section to find. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:OPINION applies according to WP:RSP. It can be used with attribution and without stating it as a fact, which we do.

Also, it is only used for Ray Kurzweiller and Musk. Idk if we need Kurzweiller if only a single source suggests he is TESCREALIST, as per what Avatar says.

But Musk has 5 others sources in addition to Washington Spectator. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've removed Kurzweil, as he's mentioned frequently and uncontroversially in the context of "TES", but not so much in the context of "CREAL". One could probably WP:SYNTH together various sources describing him as someone who has been influential to the CREAL world, but I think we should wait for secondary sources to focus on him in the TESCREAL context before listing him here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be healthier for the article to let other people engage with it. I made the first version and struggled for it, and you made several intervention then. Now other people took an interested, which i think is the best way to produce a less one-sided article. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I see Bdnor has placed the weasel word template back on, as well as a neutrality template.

As we've stated on this talk section already, we use WP:ATTRIBUTION and WP:OPINION where necessary when discussing TESCREAL. All claims are well attributed and most claims often have multiple references. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Argument for article deletion

I believe this article on TESCREAL should be considered for deletion.

The concept lacks notability, being a term coined by only two individuals with minimal coverage in reliable, independent sources. It doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline.

Much of the article's content appears to be original research, synthesizing claims from primary sources rather than reporting on secondary analysis. By dedicating an entire article to this concept, we may be giving undue weight to a fringe idea that hasn't gained widespread acceptance in academic or professional circles. Many claims in the article lack adequate support from independent, reliable sources.

There are also potential BLP issues, with claims about living persons being "alleged TESCREALists" that could be seen as contentious or poorly sourced. Any noteworthy aspects of this concept could likely be more appropriately mentioned in broader articles about technology ethics or Silicon Valley culture. I've attempted to improve the article by adding more context, balance, and criticism, but I believe these fundamental issues remain. Given all this, I think deletion should be considered. I am aware that the article was previously nominated for deletion. Bdnor (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

A) I undid your changes. Bentham's is unreliable as its WP:SPS

B) If you want to go through WP:AfD, do it. I'm happy to go through process and debate for this article.

C) Scientific american, the guardian, radio new zealand, and other sources are definitely WP:SECONDARY

D) Someone already raised WP:BLP concerns, and we've debated it to death. We came to consensus that WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Saw someone put up a WP:N template.

To continue my argument that TESCREAL is notable, I must point out the list of references of which most are reliable, independent, and secondary sources.

Only the first two refs are not independent, but are the sources that originate the term. Most of the claims that cite refs 1 and 2 are also supported by other claims about it as well. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The currently cited sources appear to me to sufficiently show notability. Grayfell (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

There is literally 29 sources in the article, why dont you elaborate which ones you consider bad? Which sentences lack support? If you dont engage with the content, then its just claims, not arguments.

Also, if you think it should be deleted, just open the deletion process. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Improvement banners such as template:notability are not intended to be indefinite badges of shame, they are intended to prompt improvement to the project. Since this talk page is reasonably active and there has been no other policy-based reasons discussed here, I have removed the template. Grayfell (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Listed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TESCREAL (2nd nomination) Jruderman (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)