Content deleted Content added
Added link |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
:::: Yes, that it is pseudoscience isn't grounds for deletion. However, claiming that it is science (when it isn't) isn't grounds for inclusion. Provide sources for inclusion. [[User:Arbustoo|Arbusto]] 23:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
:::: Yes, that it is pseudoscience isn't grounds for deletion. However, claiming that it is science (when it isn't) isn't grounds for inclusion. Provide sources for inclusion. [[User:Arbustoo|Arbusto]] 23:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::::Please read what a [[meatpuppet]] is, the policy you quoted refers to meatpuppets not users invited to post. Wikipedia policy is ''"A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view on their talk pages in order to influence a vote."''. The policy goes on: ''"The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning]Therefore posting to a project and two users seems to be well within policy. Please stop asking for sources they are not required to keep the page and I do not have time now to source them, if the debate is not clear in the next day or so I will see what I can find. - [[User:Solar|Solar]] 23:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:55, 22 October 2006
Institute of Noetic Sciences
Unaccredited institute of unknown importance. Has various pseudoscientific claims that make it questionable. Arbusto 20:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - The Institute of Noetic Sciences is an important organisation that has been in existence for many years. The article does need work but that is no reason for deletion. - Solar 20:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- How it is "important"? To who? Why? Arbusto 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- It is important within the field of parapsychology as a major source of information on and research into psi phenomena. Best selling author Dean Radin who is also notable for his contributions to the understanding of psi is the Laboratory Director. If you take a look at the What links here log you will see there are around 26 relevant links to this page, underlining its notability. Your POV that the institute makes "pseudoscientific claims" would still not be grounds for deletion within Wikipedia policy even if it were in fact true. There are many eminent and respected scientists that support research into psi, including for example Noble prize winning physicist Brian Josephson. The claim that all psi research is pseudoscience is simply unfounded and usually comes from pathological skeptics from disciplines that are not members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific organisation in the world. Parapsychology on the other hand is fully recognised by the AAAS, which demonstrates it is not in fact a pseudoscience. - Solar 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Parapsychology is considered a pseudoscience and is basically a dead field, I mean only one person has ever been given a PhD in the subject. It is very telling that the the most important member of this "institute" lost his job from a real university.
- However, this discussion is about the institute. What sources do you have that prove notablity? Arbusto 21:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your POV about parapsychology, I have already mentioned that the field is affiliated with the AAAS, which proves it is not a pseudoscience. I would like to see proof to back up your 'opinion'. We all know that the word 'pseudoscience' is used by pathological skeptics, but this does not make it a fact. Most scientists with an interest in psi gain their PhD's in the wider field of psychology, which can include parapsychology. Ad hominem arguments like mentioning Dean Radin lost his job demeans this whole debate. I think I have already shown enough to demonstrate the article is notable, I will now leave it for others to decide (I think I can predict the outcome, no 'psi required). - Solar 22:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, that will be my final comment, thanks - Solar 22:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please post academic/media sources that mention Institute of Noetic Sciences. Arbusto 22:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, and improve. It needs some balancing critical viewpoints in the article as it currently exists, but "this organization espouses pseudoscience" isn't a valid reason to delete the article. The organization exists, it apparently puts out information purporting to be research that at least some people find credible -- I see no reason it can't have an article when we have articles on Pokemon characters. — ripley\talk 22:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- This vote was solicited as proven here. Arbusto 22:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Solar did post a message letting folks at Wikiproject:Paranormal know this vote was occurring. That doesn't invalidate my opinion, however, and I might note that page you're citing is only a guideline, and the portions dealing with canvassing rather controversial. — ripley\talk 23:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Meat puppetry: [1]. I'm curious. If this article is about "science" then why did Solar post to solicit votes at a "paranormal" discussion. More:[2][3]Arbusto 22:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware meatpuppets and sockpuppets are quite different to making other members aware of an article for deletion. If I have broken any policies it was unintentional. As far as I am aware a meatpuppet is a user account created by a member of the public (a non-user) for the purposes of voting, informing other users the article is up for deletion is not meatpuppetry. As far as links, I do not feel I need to spend any more time on this debate as it is clear from the 26 or so wikilinks to the page and the connection to Dean Radin that the article fulfils inclusion standards. As user ripley mentioned pseudoscience is not grounds for deletion, so your initial reasons for nominating it are in fact dubious. I will not be commenting further as I have other areas to deal with, and I am confident that whatever other users decide will be the right decision. - Solar 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Your reply makes little sense as I quoted the policy, and provided a link on your talk.[4] Also see Wikipedia: discussion for what a meat puppet is.
- Yes, that it is pseudoscience isn't grounds for deletion. However, claiming that it is science (when it isn't) isn't grounds for inclusion. Provide sources for inclusion. Arbusto 23:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please read what a meatpuppet is, the policy you quoted refers to meatpuppets not users invited to post. Wikipedia policy is "A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view on their talk pages in order to influence a vote.". The policy goes on: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice." [5]Therefore posting to a project and two users seems to be well within policy. Please stop asking for sources they are not required to keep the page and I do not have time now to source them, if the debate is not clear in the next day or so I will see what I can find. - Solar 23:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)