Talk:Biopunk

message: Please do not add further examples of biopunk science fiction unless they are noted as being biopunk by a reliable source (author stated, review, article - no blogs). They will just be removed, wikipedia cannot designate something as biopunk if reliable sources haven't already done so. --Loremaster (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributing to the ''Science fiction genre'' section 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "Newitz 2002" :
** Newitz 2002
** 
DumZiBoT (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: Steven Archer from Ego Likeness considers himself to be the inventor of this Genre (from Interview with Ego Likeness, Issue Number 2 of Steam Punk Magazine steampunkmagazine.com )
:Hmmm. I'll verify the source. --Loremaster (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems unlikely, as he's never written any and is not a scientist (not that i disbelieve he said it). Maybe he used the same word to mean something else? A type of music?Yobmod (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm skeptical too. Can you verify the source? --Loremaster (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is a link to the magazine full text - the interview is on page 26 http://www.steampunkmagazine.com/pdfs/spm4-letter.pdf  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.98.180 (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oki. I've nothing against it being mentioned here - it will at least indicate notability. But from the tone, it sounds almost like a joke? Maybe "Steven Archer from Ego Likeness jokingly claimed to have invented Biopunk in an interview discussing cybperpunk inspired genres" ?Yobmod (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creator of Biopunk 

message: Paul Di Fillipo has said in multiple interviews that the "ribo" part of ribopunk comes from "ribosome", not "ribonucleic acid". That's true in the existing citation to the 1996 Wired interview with Di Fillipo, and also in a recent interview in The Fix: 
http://www.thefix-online.com/interviews/paul-di-filippo/
It seems to me that the words of the person that coined the term should be taken as more reliable than a dictionary entry (http://www.worldwidewords.org/turnsofphrase/tp-bio3.htm), so I've changed it. 
--PeggyK (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. --Loremaster (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of the Term Ribofunk 

message: We need to have a discussion about the films with which this cat. has been populated, as I believe many of them are not appropriate.  Experienced editors are encouraged to take a look and contribute to this discussion. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. So, regardless of our personal opinions about whether or not a film is a good example of biopunk science fiction, the only thing that matters is whether or not we have a reliable source which explicitly states that the film in question is biopunk. That being said, we should be having this debate on the Category talk:Biopunk films page rather than here. --Loremaster (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Biopunk films]] 

message: I thought the biopunk movement stem from open-source science, while the biopunk SF genre stem from cyberpunk. The two just happened to bear the same name.Yel D'ohan (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, there does seem to be some confusion about how to separate these topics. There's a mix of do-it-yourself biology, biohacking, amateur science, citizen science, biopunking and other topics that are getting mixed up. Most of the news articles refer to the movement as biohacking or do-it-yourself biology, and "biopunk" is an indistinguishable term for the same people but less often used. At the same time, "biopunk" has been used to refer to the science fiction genre for many years. As a biohacker/biopunk/amsci/whatchamacallit, I have definitely read a bunch of biohacking-biopunk-whatever science fiction, which further muddles the waters.. -- kanzure (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason for this confusion both in here (as evident by Yel D'ohan's post) and by the media is this very article. It needs to be separated into 2 different ones -> see the section Split above. [&] --Fixuture (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I support reorganizing these articles; Biopunk, Biohacking, and Do-it-yourself biology all have conflicting descriptions about the relationship between these terms.  Perhaps the "Biopunk" article should cover the genre of fiction, with a note that it's sometimes used in relation to the real life movement.  I think that the movement part of this article could possibly be merged into at least one of the other two.  To what extent do biohacking and do-it-yourself biology refer to different things?  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: From the comments above, it seems that there's clear consensus (at least since 2012) that this article should be refocused on the fictional genre, so I'm going to go ahead and move the non-fictional content elsewhere. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the movement related to the genre? 

message: It is an old name but Yandex and others still censor results related to it. You can find high tech clinics in Russia, China and maybe elsewhere. Cutesolar (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black clinics should be a separate article.. 

message: In the "See Also" section, "Cyberpunk" is listed under "Cyberpunk derivatives." Is this intentional? Some sort of comment on cyberpunk? Or should this be fixed? Mr Underhill (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I just have fixed this issue, for you. Just to make less confusing for you and probably other for this site. Chad The Goatman (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oddity in the "See Also" section